Steven Soderbergh has always been a hit or miss filmmaker in my book. He has an impressive resume but the two movies of his that I truly love are more recent efforts, “The Informant” from 2009 and “Contagion” from 2011. His new film “Side Effects” looked like the new “Contagion”, that is if you went by the trailers and TV spots. But other than the small medical connection, these two films couldn’t be more different. At its core “Side Effects” is a straight up modern day thriller. It’s the first of two Soderbergh movies in 2013 which will lead into what the director is calling his filmmaking “sabbatical”.
“Side Effects” is really broken into two halves. The first half of the movie focuses on a young woman named Emily (Rooney Mara). Her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) is released from prison after serving a 4-year sentence for insider trading. It seems like it would be a good time for the couple but Emily begins showing signs of depression. Martin tries to help her but things only seem to get worse leading to her attempting suicide by driving her speeding car into a wall. At the hospital she is examined by a psychiatrist named Jonathan Banks (Jude Law). She convinces him to let her go home as long as she agrees to regular counseling sessions with him.
The movie moves along like a clinical procedural throughout the first half. We watch Emily’s struggles with depression and we sit in on her meetings with Jonathan. We watch as he prescribes numerous medications, none of which work for her. We find out she has a history with depression and once saw another doctor named Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Jonathan meets with Victoria who recommends a drug called Ablixa. Jonathan finally agrees to give it a try and prescribes it for Emily. Things seem to get better for her except for the one side effect – sleepwalking. It’s during one of her sleepwalking episodes that she takes a knife and commits a shocking murder.
The second half of the film focuses more on Jonathan and the fallout from the murder and the court case that followed. It takes a heavy toll on Jonathan’s career and home life so he sets out to clear his name. It’s here where the movie finally starts to feel like a thriller. Soderbergh starts leading us in several different directions and causes us to question and reflect back on things we’ve already seen. At some point you’ll have suspicions of every character and their motivations. These are all things that you want and expect from a good thriller.
So considering all of these things, why didn’t I have a stronger response to “Side Effects”? It’s certainly not the acting. Everyone gives strong performances even the usually stone-faced Channing Tatum. Rooney Mara certainly answered my question of whether she could handle the lead role. But I thought it was Jude Law who was the real standout. He’s really, really good here. It’s also not the visual presentation that’s the problem. Soderbergh knows how to shoot a picture and his particular visual style of camera cuts and closeups works nicely here.
I think my problems lie in the way the story itself is structured. As I hinted at, this never feels like a thriller until well over halfway through the film. It’s only then that different threads of plot begin to branch out. But by that time the movie has but a little time to put all the pieces together. Soderbergh certainly manages to do this competently. I don’t remember there being any gaping plot holes or oversights. But I also don’t feel his ending is all that satisfying and the catalyst behind the big twist feels a little out-of-the-blue. For me the best thrillers are able to put the truth out there while causing the audience to look at it in a different and wrong way. At the end of “Side Effects” I didn’t feel it accomplished that at all.
I don’t want to be too hard on the movie because it’s a good watchable film that’s easy to digest. The performances are strong and Soderbergh has a visual style that perfectly fits this type of film. But underneath the veneer of clinical depression, pharmaceutical lingo, and legal proceedings lies a movie that never reaches its full potential. Its buildup is slow, its surprises feel arbitrary, and overall it’s underwhelming. It’s unfortunate and I still feel that somewhere offscreen lies an ending with more power and punch than the one we’re given – an ending that would give me the satisfaction I hoped for from “Side Effects”.
keithandthemovies.com 
Good review with interesting points; especially about the structure and your take.
Sodenbergh is a hit and miss director for me as well.
Thanks! You know when Soderbergh gets it right its usually really good. Here he gets several things right but not enough to blow me away!
I know I’ll be watching this with the wife at some point, at least it’s watchable.
It’s very watchable. In fact I’ll probably give it another shot on DVD. It just wasn’t quite what I hoped for. Still a pretty good film.
Solid review Keith. You never know exactly where it’s going to end-up and just watching it and guessing it’s story, is the fun of it all. Great performances across the board, especially Jude Law, who hasn’t been this good in a long time.
Thanks man. I think the movie does a lot of things right. I really liked Law as well. He has needed a good part for a while and this was right up his alley.
Good review. A bit spoilery when it comes to *********** (I read a ton of reviews but never read that anywhere). But, even then, it makes me even more curious about the movie. Too many good reviews are coming out for me not to see this in theaters.
Sorry about the spoiler. It happens early in the film and I actually read it in some other reviews. Its more of a setup piece and it’s hinted at in the very first scene of the film. My Apologies.
I appreciate the thoughts and have adjusted my review. I’m a big anti-spoiler guy so I would rather fix it here. Thanks man!
Haha. It’s all good. I just like knowing as little possible about a plot before diving in. Thank you!
I’m with you. Little I know the better.
I saw it Saturday and after writing the review in the food court started reading blog reviews. Three days later and o continue to do so. I have it 4stars and nay see it again tonight. Good review.
I appreciate you checking out my review. Hope you’ll stop by again soon. I can see people really responding to it. I wonder if my less than enthusiastic reception may be due to higher expectations. But again this isn’t a bad movie it just didn’t work for me the way I had hoped. But I can say I am anxious to see it again and give it another try.
Totally agree with your review Keith, I gave the same rating. It’s all right, but overall it’s rather underwhelming. Funny that the critics seems almost ‘predisposed’ to loving it for some reason.
You bring up a great point Ruth. It seemed as though the critics were automatically attracted to this film. I know I sound like a broken record, but this isn’t a bad movie. But underwhelming certainly describes it for me. Perhaps a second viewing will change that a bit.
I don’t even care to see this again the second time around Keith 🙂
i am finishing my review, but find that we see a lot the same about this film!
Good. Look forward to reading it!
Couldn’t agree more with you on this one. Soderbergh is a genius with his artistic style, shots and angles, but there was something dissatisfying about it when the credits rolled. The acting was great, like you said, but the buildup and surprises didn’t give me the thrills I anticipated. Not to mention the last line in the film was -completely- lame.
But, on a positive note, I had no idea that Allison from Hocus Pocus was Jude Law’s wife in the movie! I knew she looked familiar!
I know the critics don’t agree with us on this one. For some reason they gravitated towards this film from the start. Again its not a terrible film by any means. I just don’t see it as praiseworthy as others do.
Pingback: Top 5 Performances of 2013 – Lead Actor |