Review: Side Effects

Before I launch into this interview, let me put this on the table.  I think Steven Soderbergh is incredibly overrated in both his own mind and in the minds of those kids getting their expensive film degrees.  To me he has produced more misses (Ocean’s Twelve, Solaris, The Informant, et al) than hits (Ocean’s Eleven, Traffic, Out of Sight).  Where I think he particularly gets into trouble is when he tries to prove through his films that he is the smartest person in the room.  The results tend to be films that feel didactic, overly self-important, and not particularly entertaining.  With his most recent cinematic endeavor Side Effects, he is clearly wading into those waters – trying to send a message to the movie viewing massing, though by film’s end it’s hard to figure out what exactly that message is.  But I digress.

The plot of Side Effects focuses on the life of Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara), a woman struggling with depression.  When she is reunited with her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) who is recently released from prison, she struggles to adjust to those changes and is forced to seek the counsel of Dr. Banks (Jude Law).  After trying repeatedly to find the right medication, she settles on one specific prescription that has side effects (hence, the title of the movie) that prove damaging to her life and the lives of those around her.

If ever there was a list of movie premises that screams soapbox, a film about pharmaceuticals would have to be near the top.  It’s a subject matter not too far from one of Soderbergh’s more recent films (Contagion), but it’s far from the only hot button issue he tackles in this film.  While I can’t divulge any more without ruining the not-so-clever twist in the plot, I will say that many of the machinations that take place feel like a stretch and some of the plot surprises are telegraphed.  Thus, the film essentially amounts to watching a bunch of average characters try to outsmart each other; not exactly a riveting way to spend two hours. 

Despite the fact movie’s banality, the work of the cast is not a complete miss.  Jude Law (as Dr. Banks) manages to make himself both sympathetic and likable in this film, which is no easy task for an actor saddled with loads of baggage and a recent string of mediocre performances.  Both Catherine Zeta-Jones (Dr. Victoria Siebert) and Channing Tatum are surprisingly adequate in their respective roles though much of this has to be attributed to how they are utilized as opposed to improved acting acumen.  Surprisingly, Rooney Mara turns in the most disappointing performance in the film.  She has shown herself to be a chameleon in the past, disappearing into some truly challenging roles.  Sadly, her Emily Taylor is bland and uninteresting – and thus makes watching the film an exercise in tedium.

Maybe it’s for the best then that Soderbergh has allegedly retired from filmmaking because this film is void of his signature snappy pacing and unique visual style.  At times it’s hard to fathom that Side Effects is the work of the same person who directed Ocean’s Eleven and Traffic.  And while a muted visual motif may have been born from intent, it still leaves the impression that everyone and everything in this film represents the epitome of going through the paces.  My guess is that (like everyone else in Hollywood) for the right dollar amount we will see Soderbergh behind the camera again, but if this feature film is his cinematic swan song, then he will have gone out with a whimper.  Side Effects is a cable television movie at best saved for a very slow midweek evening unless you are one who prefer a snappier cinematic style, in which case you should probably take a pass.

Standout Performance:  Jude Law.  I wouldn’t put it up there with his better work, but he is a bit more than satisfactory.

Read More

Review: Hugo

If you take Academy Award nominations as an absolute barometer of whether a movie is good or not (which I do not), then clearly without seeing the movie Hugo, you would have to believe that there is something of merit in it – especially since it garnered 11 nominations.  I don’t know why I passed this film over during this past Oscar season, but I think that the marketing drove that decision.  To me it skewed young and had an almost animated feel to it.  Now having watched the movie on the heels of a series of terrible rentals, I can’t believe I waited so long to see it and have been reminded how refreshing it is to watch a cinematic master direct a film.

The plot of the Hugo follows the life of an orphan who lives in a Paris train station set in the 1930’s.  As Hugo works to completely restore an automaton, his life is forever altered by a set of individuals whose own lives revolve around the comings and goings at that station.

What’s best about the movie is the story and how well it is told through the vision and direction of Martin Scorsese.  The look and feel of the film is stunning and the city framed and brought to life with an artistic flair.  As the movie unfolds, one cannot help but be wrapped up in the motion and the sound that punctuate the action.  It takes very little effort to become engaged and for your attention to be held.  This was most surprising for me as I went into the film questioning whether I would be entertained.

The cast of course is top notch.  Names such as Ben Kingsley, Emily Mortimer, and Christopher Lee have a certain cache in acting circles and each lives up to their respective reputations.  Kingsley especially stands out of this foursome as he expertly delivers each line and punctuates it with just the right brand of emotion.  Jude Law – in limited screen time – is surprisingly good in this film as is Sacha Baron Cohen in a rare dramatic turn.  As for our protagonist Hugo, Asa Butterfield is good in the lead role but at times his relative inexperience shows.  However the experience of the cast surrounding him manages to cover up those minor flaws. 

Scorsese uses this cast, the sets, and the visual detail to create a perpetual sense of motion to the film – the motion of time, of intertwining mechanical pieces, of individuals traveling from place to place, and born from this orchestrated chaos he delivers a sub plot revolving around the concept of capturing motion pictures on film and its newfound place as a form of timeless art.  This part of the story is most elegantly told by Scorsese through Kingsley’s acting and as one who loves movies, I found this arc to be the most compelling in the film.

As you may have guessed by now, I believe this is a movie worth seeing.  It will not take but five minutes to realize that you are watching an expertly crafted product that is warrants both the time and effort it will take to rent/buy and watch it.  The one drawback to the film is that as fantastic a story as it is, I don’t feel overly compelled to watch it a second time.  However, one of the strength’s of the movie is that it is a smooth straight-line narrative sans any plot twists or gimmicks and this type of film lends itself to one good viewing.  Regardless, I recommend you watch it - with a loved one, a friend, or member of the family.  It matters not as it is suitable for all.  As for those who are fans of Ben Kingsley fans, be sure to keep an eye out for him starring opposite Robert Downey Jr. next year in the much-anticipated Marvel film, Iron Man 3.

Standout Performance: Chloe Grace Moretz gets the nod here not only for Hugo but also for her work in Kick-Ass, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, and (500) Days of Summer.  At the age of 15, she has already turned in a number of stellar performances.

Read More

Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes - released back in 2009 - is a fun take on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famed sleuth. Holmes is portrayed brilliantly by Robert Downey Jr. as an enigmatic savant who shares an antagonistic brotherly camaraderie with Jude Law’s Watson.  The film does a nice job of teasing the emergence of Moriarty by slowly revealing him as a shadowy figure tacitly pulling the proverbial marionette strings from behind a curtain of anonymity.  In doing so, it lays the groundwork for the inevitable sequel (because of a $522M worldwide gross).  It’s like setting up the bowling pins, and then knocking them down.

Only in the second installment – Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, Guy Ritchie and crew roll a gutter ball.  Okay, so maybe the movie is not that bad.  Maybe it is something more along the lines of a seven-ten split, but then I think that would be taking the bowling analogy too far.   So you may be wondering how things could have gone so awry when Downey Jr. and Law fall right back into step with their rapid witty banter without missing a beat and just in time to take on the evil genius who is bent on profiting from the destruction of Europe?

To me the problem boils down to the script.  Specifically, writer Michelle Mulroney attempts to get too clever with the plot.  A battle of wit and mental acumen between two brilliant people like Holmes and Moriarty lends itself to the written word, but not so much to motion pictures.  It can be challenging enough to take viewers on a journey through the mind of one genius who is mentally superior to the common person.  When you try and do that times two amidst a barrage of plots turns and twists, one is most assuredly going to fall victim to the trap of “aspiring for so much and achieving so little. “

Further exasperating the problem is that the esteemed cast does little to mitigate the shortcomings of the script.  Rachel McAdams is the weak link in the first movie as Holmes’ love interest Irene Adler, and she still feels out of place in limited screen time during the second outing.  Noomi Rapace is pedestrian as the gypsy Madam Heron whose significance in the film continually diminishes until she is rendered completely insignificant.  Jared Harris lacks the polish to portray the professor-by-day-evil-genius-at-night antagonist that Moriarty represents and he serves as a reminder that it takes more than a British accent to make one seem sophisticated.  And sadly, nothing about Stephen Fry’s Mycroft Holmes works for me in the film.  His presence is a case of subtraction by addition.

However, the action sequences are impressive and that is where the entertainment value lies.  If you’re looking for a film with gunfire, loud explosions, and hand-to-hand combat; and you can overlook cerebral shortcomings, you will definitely enjoy the movie.  Even if you’re not, I suspect that watching Robert Downey Jr. work will be worth the price of either the purchase or rental.  You won’t feel cheated if you invest time and/or money into this film.  You just may not feel fully satisfied.

Standout Performance:  Downey Jr. and Law have collectively mastered the art of witty repartee.

Read More

Review: Contagion

I usually don’t like those films that feature a huge ensemble cast – a la Valentine’s Day and New Years Eve (the latter of which seemingly features half of Hollywood).  In Contagion, we have a film driven by a large ensemble cast, but is entirely different from the two aforementioned movies.  I need to start by saying I am fairly neutral in the world of Man vs. Germ.  I take one shower a day and wash my hands at all the key moments (such as before meals and after restroom stops).  For the most part, I rely on @JennieBFit to tell me when I need some Purell hand sanitizer.

I do however have two friends – Coach and Chew – who are disciples of the David Puddy School of Germ Phobia complete with germ pendant dangling from the neck.  If you fall into this segment of the population, Contagion is a film you must avoid.  Like Paranormal Activity is to teenage kids (and my buddy Jeff), and Sex and the City 2 is to most men, Contagion will scare the heck out of those who fear a simple handshake or a game of Beer Pong.

A film that features a pandemic disease as its lead, is probably not the easiest sell - although Outbreak was fairly entertaining.  But the film does a nice job of showing the global interconnectivity that exists and how easily a virus can travel across boarders.  It also pokes a bit of fun at conspiracy theorists that constantly clamor against government agencies and their suspected top-secret machinations (including yours truly who still has some reservations about the first lunar landing).

I can’t say that I enjoyed the movie (I don’t know that one is supposed to enjoy it), but I was very interested in following it to its conclusion.  The film does not always visually capture the magnitude of what is occurring in the context of the plot, but there are some great performances that ground all the gravitas in reality.  Kate Winslet, Matt Damon, and Jennifer Ehle blended perfectly into their roles, while Bryan Cranston, Marion Cotillard, Elliot Gould, and Lawrence Fishburne deliver solid performances.  Ultimately, it is the cast that differentiates this film from other ensemble vehicles, because in such films actors often are left to play caricatures – most likely the result of limited screen time.  The only person of significance in Contagion who falls into this trap is the highly overrated Jude Law.

The movie is worth renting, just not on a date night, when you’re under the weather, or if you are in a good mood.  When you do watch it, be sure to keep the hand sanitizer nearby and reserves of soap on hand.  I guarantee you that by the end of the film you will start counting the number of times you touch your face in an hour.  Germophobes, you have been warned.

Standout Performance: Matt Damon and Kate Winslet are particularly good.

Read More