Side Effects

Now covered by Obamacare. 

From the very first shot, there’s something eerily off about “Side Effects.” With a music-box feel to the score as the camera swoops slowly toward an apartment window, you’re set on edge by how normal it all seems — until the film moves inside the apartment, where there’s blood on the floor and footsteps leading away.

Cut to three months before: Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) happily greets her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) on the day he’s released from prison, where he served four years for insider trading. But soon Emily begins showing signs of depression and anxiety, and attempts to commit suicide by driving her car into a wall. 

At the hospital, she’s treated in the emergency room by Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), a distinguished young psychiatrist making a name for himself in New York City. He agrees not to admit her if she schedules regular appointments with him and starts taking medication. But soon the side effects of the pills cause everyone’s lives to spiral out of control. 

Thrillers like “Side Effects” are tricky to get right. Twists and turns are standard practice in the genre, but a thriller is only as good as its final (metaphorical) punch — anything less than just the right balance, and the whole film feels like a huge letdown. 

Well, this movie doesn’t quite get it right. After the movie has returned to the bloody attack in the apartment, “Side Effects” loses a bit of its momentum and never gets it back. And once the final act has untangled itself, it’s disappointing to see how the dust settles. 

But while the ending may not drive this film home, the strong technical execution lets “Side Effects” land on its feet. Cinematography is essential to the plot-convolution and character-building, commanding both the anxiety of the actors and the escalating drama. The creative use of focus and depth of field only heightens the ever-building tension of the movie. 

“Side Effects” wouldn’t be half as convincing if it weren’t for great performances from the cast, notably from Rooney, whose mesmerizing style intensifies Emily’s depression and drug-induced haze, giving the role some dimensional credibility. Her depth is offset by Law’s superficiality as Dr. Banks; his well-meaning but pill-pushing approach to medicine is a key element to both the plot and the subtext. 

Director Steven Soderbergh’s cinematic skill turns an otherwise uninspired script into something quite intriguing. Even in the moments when it drags, the film has an element of unpredictability to hold the audience’s attention. It’s only once the credits roll that it becomes clear it didn’t deliver everything it promised. 

The verdict: Though nothing to go crazy over, “Side Effects” is still a sleek and stylish thriller. 

            So much anticipation.  So much publicity. So much controversy. So much time to write this article.  We are of course talking about David Fincher’s American remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Let’s just get this out of the way: it was completely unnecessary to make a remake. It feels like getting the same Christmas present two years in a row; nonetheless, we were excited to see Fincher’s latest film.

            After seeing the amazing trailer, (Immigrant Song, fuck yeah) our expectations were set pretty high. We set out to familiarize ourselves with the story, by watching the Swedish version (reading is for squares). We enjoyed it; Noomi Rapace rocked it. Smoldering with sexuality without being sexualized, whilst dominating every scene she was in.

            Which brings us to Rooney Mara. Let me just say (just Zosha) that Mara is breaking my balls almost any time she talks about the movie. The poster fiasco was bad (Daniel Craig: “I think Rooney looks great” NOT THE POINT), but when Mara came out saying that she didn’t think the character of Lisbeth was a feminist? Yeah. No. We began to have our doubts about how she was going to portray this symbol of female independence, strength, but most importantly, a victim of violence.

            BUT we went to see it. And we liked it. It wasn’t fantastic, it wasn’t horrible; it was decent. Cards on the table: comparing these two movies is comparing Coke to Pepsi; yeah sure they’re different, but in the end does it really matter? From a cinematic stand point, the movies are very similar. It’s an 8.7 to 8.5, Swedish favor. As with most Fincher films, he had a very gritty and austere tone, crafted together with immaculate editing skills. There were pieces that were reminiscent of his works Zodiac, (precise editing and meticulous pacing), and Se7en (painfully disturbing images).  I thought it found a balance between these two extremes of the thriller genre to create a potent blend. And, another win for Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross on the electronic and chilling score.

That aside, the character dynamic was troubling. In the Swedish version, Lisbeth commands the room she’s in, and the respect of everyone in it. The Swedish version represents Larsson’s wild-child, surviving oppressive and sadistic attitudes towards women. She controls the relationship between herself and Mikael; the relationship between the two is an unspoken understanding of mutual respect, and begrudging affection. However, in the American version it falls into many conventional Hollywood tropes. While the movie begins with Lisbeth being unbelievably strong and independent, she quickly becomes a love-struck ingénue. Lisbeth is supposed to distance herself from the rest of us; she’s a pariah. But that’s what makes her strong. In Fincher’s adaptation, her character is made to be more relatable and less powerful.   Our thought is that Fincher’s Lisbeth does not fully represent Larsson’s Lisbeth.

Once more, on my own note (Just Zosha, again); I found Fincher to be too detached and over the top. I felt that his handling of characterization, relationships, and basically—most notably—violence was kind of reckless. From a cinematic standpoint, the movies were of equal quality. But what did it for us, was the American version’s sloppy handling of such delicate subject matter. So yes, go see The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; but note that Stieg Larsson might be rolling over in his grave.

Wanna read more controversy? Still don’t wanna pick up the book? Check out this really good article: http://www.movies.com/movie-news/sexualizing-lisbeth-salander/5948