So, I loved the shit out of this. A lot of people will probably complain about there being too many twists and turns, but I thought it was perfectly calibrated with just enough winks at the audience. And damn, what a cynical film this was.
So, I loved the shit out of this. A lot of people will probably complain about there being too many twists and turns, but I thought it was perfectly calibrated with just enough winks at the audience. And damn, what a cynical film this was.
Sounds like just like what I wanted and expected !!!
How was Legend Mara, bryan?
Cate Blanchett
The Beautiful and Talented Godgend Seņor El Diablo Blanchitto
Returning to Hollywood with a Vengeance in 2013
Who fu***n' cares about Mara when there is the big return of CZJ in a GREAT role?
Go away, please.Originally Posted by FYC: the italian one
To answer your question, dear Vincent, Legend Mara was majestic as usual. I don't want to go into specifics, because I feel I would ruin the movie for you. Let's just say that Legend has the most challenging part in the movie and she excels as she does at anything in life.
I thought the movie overall was okay. It's really one of those movies people should see with little knowledge of the plot to enjoy it the fullest. The twists and constant toying with the audience's perceptions are a lot of fun but they also put in evidence the plot's contrivances when the movie's finished.
Leaving a screening of The Paperboy.
as I said on the news board, maybe the story was told at too much of a distance. I might go out and see it again next weekend, I think I need to give it a second look.
I thought she was appropriately sleepy in the first half of the film, and pretty great in the second half when all of the twists start to unfold. It's probably my favorite performance of hers. But Jude Law is easily best in cast.How was Legend Mara, bryan?
I see what you mean. I feel Jude Law was not right for the part. Someone with a more amiable presence to fill the Jimmy Stewart role.
Leaving a screening of The Paperboy.
I mean, that was kind of the point? I thought Soderbergh rather brilliantly created this sort of hazy, dream-like atmosphere.
no, I understand that is totally what he was going for...I just can't help but feel like maybe it wasn't the best choice. I liked the movie but once the twists started to mount I felt pretty discounted from all of it...I found it kind of hard to care.I mean, that was kind of the point? I thought Soderbergh rather brilliantly created this sort of hazy, dream-like atmosphere.
Right. I get that it didn't work for you, but it fits perfectly with what he's trying to accomplish. And I don't really get what style he should have gone with if this wasn't the best choice. I mean, considering he's basically ...
I'm saying what he was trying to accomplish wasn't the correct choice for the material.
Lol, I get that. To me his stylistic choices fit perfectly with the material itself. I'm asking how he should have done this differently?
the twists in the film are a little too intricate, and frankly silly, for this detached way of telling the story. I think if you are going to do something this silly you really need to go for it, not back off and pretend it isn't ridiculous.
I liked this a lot (***1/2 of ****).
I hadn't read this thread or paid much attention to the reviews, so the plot twists took me completely by surprise. Based on the trailers, I thought this would be a film about evil drug companies.
I thought Mara was very good; IMHO, nobody plays depressed better than her, and she was very convincing in the first part of the film--almost painful to watch. (By the way, when is this girl going to play a semi-normal, happy person?) Law and Zeta-Jones were also very fine in tricky roles.
In terms of Soderbergh's stylistic choices, during the first part of the film he's trying to convince you that it's a tale of prescription drugs gone wrong, and to me at least the almost clinical atmosphere made the twist even more surprising. His style changes once the twist happens--the film becomes much more intimate.
The plot is implausible, and there were some wholes, but not enough to take me out of the film, and the movie is so well constructed that it just carries you along. Overall, a fine effort from Soderberg in what he says will be his last theatrically released movie.
Yes.
And yes.
But no.
He's amiable enough, but the fallen star nature of his public persona makes him perfect for this role, where you're not quite sure who's meant to be the antagonist of the film. What Sodebergh does with shifting audience identification and sympathy is the work of a true master. I also appreciated how long Soderbergh and Burns
Granted, the script starts off a lot more interesting thematically than where it ends up, but it made its points about the pharmaceutical industry early and effectively, and what happens in the second half certainly doesn't invalidate those observations. And what the writing sacrifices in depth as it unfolds, it makes up for with some really delicious character work.
Most of the cast was fantastic. Mara's character is again not a chatty one, but still pretty far removed from what she played in Dragon Tattoo. I'm still impressed. Conversely, I want to like Channing Tatum, but still find him a bit lifeless. He just doesn't have the spark of some of our best. Look at the similarly stocky/jocky Matt Damon, who showed a lot more promise in his earlier years with a variety of roles. Does Tatum have a Talented Mr. Ripley metamorphosis in him? I'm not optimistic about that.
T E A M R I V E T T E
Nice, the buzz/review/word getting better and better. I hope I can catch it tomorrow. Damn Nemo
Last edited by haqyunus; 02-09-2013 at 05:21 PM.
Tatum's still a hunk, but I have to agree with you. He tries very hard and seems to be getting better, and in the right role (like Magic Mike) he can be reasonably effective. But I don't believe he'll ever be the actor Damon is.
This is juicy as hell and damn good!
Side Effects is proof that strong performances and brilliant direction can overcome an increasingly implausible screenplay. A few years ago, I thought Rooney Mara gave the best performance in The Social Network. She also was compelling in the otherwise flat Tanner Hall. However her work as Liz Salander left me utterly disappointed. It never felt real but instead of an actress trying desperately to convey a steeliness and then a vulnerability that never seemed convincing. But I was hesitant to place blame on Mara. I felt she was given a losing hand going in as the problematic source material was, if anything, made even more problematic by the screenplay when it came to the character of Liz.
What makes Side Effects exciting is Mara nails every facet of the character. Her portrayal of depression feels slightly off from the get go. As if it is could be an act. It is not explicit to the viewer. It is just enough that there is the slightest of doubts. I particularly like Mara's facial language during the subway sequence as one can sense Emily's hesitation in getting too close while she also seems focused on being seen. As the film begins to switch focus and we become privy to her Emily's deceit, Mara conveys a different sense of desperation as control really begins to fall away. The two moments, when Emily loses her temper, are honest expressions of anger that act as a catharsis for the audience. It is exciting to see the game fall apart and the murderer's certainty fall apart with it. Yet, Mara still inspires some empathy. It may be misplaced but there is something sad about Emily. She is an entitled brat but one wonders how she got to this place. This is Mara's first truly great work.
I think the casting of Tatum is inspired. He is not a good actor. He is a bland, handsome man with little if any charisma. His performances have no depth to them. It works well for the role. It keeps the audience from relating to his character. If anything, we wonder why Emily is staying with him. There is a lack of concern for Martin which I think is the purpose. Our main concern is not meant to be about getting justice for Martin but about absolving Dr. Banks of blame. Jude Law is superb. Law started out like Tatum. He was the handsome young actor who made hearts flutter in the late 90's. But Law was and still is supremely talented. He was never meant to play the bland guy whose sole offering is good looks. He recently turned in an astonishing performance in Anna Karenina (if only the film was as remotely strong as he was) and he is even better here. He adds just enough smarminess to keep him from being a saint. It is enough, along with the complexity that Mara provides to Emily, that we can find him at times offputting in the same way we can feel for her.
Zeta-Jones rounds out the cast but her character didn't really work for me. The character is a woman probably because audience expectations, if the character was a man, would immediately be that Emily's former doctor must be in on it and sleeping with Emily. I would guess that the hope is that, being a woman, a great deal of the audience would not catch on she was sleeping with Emily. That said, Dr. Siebert comes across as such a rigid, buttoned up, repressed character that she seems like some decades old lesbian cliche and therefore that Emily and her were sleeping together seems given away after her first scene. Zeta-Jones does just fine but I think this character (and subplot for that matter) is the least effective in the film. I am thinking this is on the screenplay.
As for the direction, I hope this is not Soderbergh's final film. He is still one of our most talented filmmakers and there are several compositions in Side Effects that are brilliantly done. I don't know if he will ever top his supreme achievement (the back to back of Out of Sight and his masterpiece The Limey). But I sure would like to see him try.
Last edited by ldw; 02-11-2013 at 06:32 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
