After failing to find anyone to go with me at the
weekend, I went to Reading Showcase solo on Saturday afternoon and made
use of the last of my Vue cinema vouchers (cheers Mum!) to see Side
Effects. The Vue in Reading is stuck on top of a lot of generic high
street eateries, but is very nice inside. It has some very large seats
with huge cup-holders, large enough even to hold my M&S smoothie -
and they come in wide bottles. I always enjoy myself a little more in
the cinema when I eat / drink something that I didn't buy in the
cinema. £2 for half a litre of M&S own brand vanilla and maple
syrup smoothie or the same price for watered down generic cola? You
decide.
Side Effects is an intriguing film starring Jude Law as
mental health practitioner Jonathan Banks. He treats a young woman named Emily (Rooney Mara -
aka the English-speaking Girl with a Dragon Tattoo) who's husband Martin (Channing Tatum) has recently been released from prison after being
convicted for some sort of white collar crime. After she attempts
suicide she is placed on a series of different medicines that are
designed to help her fight her depression. These seem to be making a
positive impact on her life, but they have the side effect of making her
sleepwalk. Then something bad happens.
A quick aside before we continue. Why
is it that many people in cinemas are unable to spot when something weird is about to
happening despite having countless visual and audio clues presented to them? You
would think people these days would be so well-attuned to the visual
tricks that cinema and TV play on us that everyone would be able to spot
what's happening from a mile off, but I guess some people don't
pay attention. The moment when something bad happened was
greeted in the auditorium by sharp intakes of breath from the amassed Readingites. So despite the sudden change to shaky-cam, the close-up of a knife and the change in music telegraphing it, many people were still shocked by something bad happening.
Is this evidence that when watching films (and any moving
images for that matter) people aren't really watching, rather they're just
allowing the images to happen in front of them? I guess people really
do turn their brains off when they go into the cinema. Or maybe I think
too much.
Anyway, back to the film. Before the bad thing happens Side Effects
looks like it's going to be a deep psychological drama about mental
illness. For example there are a few weird camera angles which I think
are designed to try to convey what's going on inside Emily's head and make
the film look like it's reaching for some sort of artistic angle.
There's a lot of soul-searching going on from all involved as Dr Banks tries to
work out what it is about Emily's life that's making her depressed. After
the bad thing happens the film becomes a procedural crime
drama as the police and courts get involved and we get dragged into a story about the evils of big-pharma. Then it becomes something
else entirely; which is where things got a little weird, the film stopped taking itself seriously and the flaws crept in.
After an opening act that makes the film appear to be about one thing, then a second act that turns the film into a legal drama, the final act
comes along and starts twisting things up. I'm not going to drop
any spoilers here, but it drifts into Chinatown territory where
everything you thought up till now isn't the whole truth, and something
else is really going on. This is fine, but at the same time the film
slides into cheesy cliché and has a bizarre test-screen feel to its
ending. Imagine if at the end of Usual Suspects instead of Keyser Söze
vanishing into the aether "And like that... he's gone"; the police all run
out of the interrogation room, spot him slowly getting away, arrest
him, and the final scene is of a grinning Chazz Palminteri telling the incarcerated Keyser Söze "I told you I was cleverer then you didn't it?". Wouldn't
the film instantly lose its cult status? You probably wouldn't even remember it now nearly 20 years after release. That's sort of
how I feel about Side Effects. The film had the potential to drag Jude
Law's character kicking and screaming through a Hitchcockian mystery a
la North by Northwest, then at the end throw a twist in the faces of him
and the audiences that would leave us all gagging in bewilderment.
Instead for some reason the writers decided it would be better if we had some out of character titillation and then the bad guys all got their comeuppance.
None
of this would be an issue if the film wasn't any good to start with,
but because there are so many good things about Side Effects I feel like
it's a good script wasted. Was the ending adjusted after a screen test
maybe? Was it darker / more mysterious in the original screenplay?
This isn't information I've been unable to find in a brief internet
search. Perhaps more will come to light in months to come. More likely
though this film will be forgotten about quicker than anyone can be
bothered to find out what went wrong - it ain't no Usual Suspects.
Despite
me sounding like a slightly disappointed reviewer, I would still recommend
that people go and see Side Effects. Rooney Mara has to channel a lot
of different mental states at various points in the film and is very
good at doing so with more than a little realism. It also has the rare
honour of being an American mainstream film starring a British actor who
retains his accent and isn't evil! Plus the story itself is an absorbing mystery. So in conclusion, go and watch Side
Effects, but don't be surprised if the finale has you thinking "Seriously? That's the ending?".
Thursday, 28 March 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment