Movie Review: "Side Effects"

Some might say that Steven Soderbergh's Side Effects is a commentary on our nation's dependance on prescription medication masquerading as a thriller. Now, while I don't think these people are necessarily incorrect in their analysis, I can't say I agree with them. Side Effects is, for better or worse, a thriller that may have a few lines of dialogue that imply a greater message but doesn't really say anything all that profound. And that's what makes Soderbergh's final theatrical film (his HBO movie, Behind the Candelabra, airs this Sunday) so odd. Side Effects plays like a more realistic version of those convoluted but fascinating thrillers from the 1980s. In fact, Soderbergh names Adrian Lynne, director of Fatal Attraction, as one of his influences for the film. And as a straightforward thriller it is quite effective. I expected something more profound from Soderbergh's last big film. But, I still can't find much to complain about because Side Effects is still a solid thriller, even if it can't stand up to Soderbergh's better films.

Many claimed back in February that the trailer for Side Effects spoiled key plot details. While I wouldn't say that's true, I do think that this is a film in which the audience will benefit from not knowing what's going to happen. On the surface, yes, Side Effects is a murder mystery in which pills may (or may not) be involved but the film quickly evolves into something more when audiences realize that everybody has something to hide and that it's hard to believe what you are seeing on screen. For it's first hour or so, Side Effects is a fascinating mystery with a number of surprising twists. But, once audiences start getting answers, the film becomes a bit too obvious and the twists may not be as surprising as they once seemed. Even more upsetting is the way the film ties up its loose ends with a long monologue that quickly answers all the audiences's questions. The film also takes a bit too long to wrap up, with quite a few scenes that would serve as a suitable ending. But while the quality of the screenplay certainly lessens, it never truly dips and is ultimately worthy of some praise, even if it isn't something to go raving about. 

Someone who is worth raving about, however, is Rooney Mara, who's performance as the heavily medicated Emily makes the film. Similar to her Oscar nominated performance in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Mara brings an intensity to the screen like few actresses working today. She can be terrifying and mysterious without ever going to over the top. Mara is the center of the film and she gives it her all. In fact, I'd say it'd be a lesser film without her. But the deck is stacked when it comes to the cast of Side Effects, as Mara finds herself sharing the screen with Jude Law for much of the film and he more than holds his own. Law has the rare quality of being a recognizable face around Hollywood but never allowing his celebrity status to interfere with his ability to disappear into a role. Yet again, Law is completely convincing. Then you have Catherine Zeta-Jones, an actress who (more often than not) camps it up on the big screen but holds back here, making her small but significant role memorable. And Soderbergh proves yet again that Channing Tatum is capable of much more than just being a sex symbol as the superstar gives a reserved, completely natural performance.

Side Effects is also a well made movie, which is exactly what I've come to expect from a talent like Soderbergh. From top notch cinematography to a stellar score by Thomas Newman, the film is a technical marvel. Soderbergh (under his cinematographer pseudonym Peter Andrews) has some wonderful shots in the film that evoke classic Hitchcock, as well as some visually stunning moments involving mirrors and reflections that tie in with the film's theme. The score also fits the tone of the film perfectly- its deeply ominous but always subtle enough to not overpower the movie.

But Soderbergh's career is filled with well made films that are still much better than this. From Traffic to sex,lies, and videotape to my personal favorite, Out of Sight, the best films in his fimography only prove that Side Effects will, in the long run, not hold up as well as his others. And it's sad to think that one of the best directors of this generation will go out on a note that, while still quite high, is low for him. And much of these problems that drag the film down can account for a script that can't keep its momentum through the whole thing. Yet, I'm still giving the film a strong recommendation because Soderbergh and his cast (specifically Mara) elevate the film high above the level that any other director or star would. And, if this truly is Soderbergh's farewell to filmmaking, it's somewhat of a relief that the movie proves how talented he is, even if he's working with lesser material.

OVERALL GRADE: B+

"Side Effects" is currently available on DVD and Blu-Ray.

Movie Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

Amidst the action, special effects, and broadly appealing comedy there was something about the previous Star Trek film that just worked. It was an almost magical quality that brought life to the film and helped make everything that's cheesy and manufactured in a majority of summer blockbusters become genuine and emotional. Four years later, Star Trek Into Darkness has finally hit the big screen with hopes to continue the long running series series. And it has all the action you'd expect, state of the art special effects, and dozens of one liners. Essentially, it has everything you'd expect to see in a summer movie. Everything except that magical quality.

First thing's first- do not read any spoilers about the film prior to seeing it. Paramount has done a remarkable job at keeping much of the film's plot under wraps and while the story never really breaks new ground it was oddly refreshing to watch a film and not have every single plot development spoiled for me by a trailer or review. And while this story isn't as emotionally charged as its predecessor, it's still quite compelling and interesting, if not a bit too convuluted. The film changes focus a few times too many, with character's true motivations being a bit clouded and inconsistent. Meanwhile, different subplots are used to introduce plot devices where a quick exchange of dialogue between two characters would accomplish the same tasks in considerably less time. And any evil plans introduced are not really explained all that well- like many summer films before it, viewers are expected to believe a character is evil 'just because'. But, like the last film, Into Darkness introduces a main theme in it's opening scene and uses it throughout in a way that doesn't feel nearly as cheesy or manipulative as it could have. And it really is remarkable that the script manages to give every major character a moment to shine, even with three news characters climbing aboard.

The cast is also phenomenal and rivals The Avengers in terms of chemistry between stars. Every actor feels perfectly suited for their individual roles but can also play off the others well. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are a fascinating onscreen pair as they find a common emotional ground between their very different characters. Meanwhile Zoe Saldana deserves quite a bit of credit for bringing a sense of attitude and emotion to Uhura. While she doesn't have as much to do as her male counterparts, she's completely believable and charismatic. But much of the attention is built around Benedict Cumberbatch, who's role as the primary antagonist has been kept shrouded in secrecy. The actor brings a very theatrical flair to the whole production that could have gone a bit too over the top had he been given more screen time, but the film always cuts away at just the right time, leaving his character sinister and not cartoon like. The remainder of the cast- specifically the always funny Simon Pegg- do a solid job as well.

But let's face it: this is a summer movie, and audiences are going for the thrills. And there are certainly thrills to be had. The film opens with an intense chase on a strange planet while another character is lowered into a volcano that's about to explode. It only gets bigger from there. Into Darkness is epic in terms of size and scope, and each new action scene manages to feel unique. Much like the previous movie, the highlight of the film involves the characters flying through space at an incredibly fast speed, but every sequence brings something new to the table and the sequences never fall flat. What's strange, however, is that the film moves at an almost too quick pace once the characters voyage into space, with an action sequence that essentially starts at the 30 minute mark and doesn't end until the credits begin, only taking short breaks that are only slightly less intense. On one hand, audiences will never be bored. On the other, it really ruins the films central structure. If the film is set up only to end in one long, 90 minute scene, doesn't that mean it's a bit of a mess?

And then there's the fact that, despite these solid action scenes, none of them ever really get all that exciting. They all feel like less entertaining versions of some of the best moments from the original. They aren't technically worse than those in the original, and in fact have many similar qualities. But by failing to improve or even match the original moments in terms of entertainment, they inadvertently become worse. As a whole, Star Trek Into Darkness is very similar in tone and structure to Star Trek. Unlike many other movie sequels, the film doesn't really take on a darker, more mature tone (despite what the title may suggest) and it doesn't strive to be any more or less epic than it's predecessor. And that's all fine, but if a sequel wants to evoke the film that came before it, then everyone involved must work pretty damn hard to improve upon it. So, on one hand, Star Trek Into Darkness is quality entertainment. Audiences will go home happy. But audiences will also be pleased with 2009's Star Trek. So, why go with the newer model when the last one does all the same things better?

Now I will admit: 2009's Star Trek is one of my favorite action films of all time. It was, and still is, an incredibly exciting film with so much life and energy that it's impossible to not have a good time. So, any sequel would have gigantic shoes to fill and those without my sky high expectations will probably like it much more. But the truth is, sequels are supposed to bring something new to a franchise. Otherwise, audiences would get bored and eventually stop caring, especially when they can pay less money and watch a more entertaining version of the same film at home. So, like the last Trek, J.J. Abrams fills almost every minute of this movie with spectacle and suspense, while the uniformly lovable cast trade witty one liners. But where the first film felt fresh, Into Darkness feels a bit stale. Yes, it's still entertaining and audiences will certainly get their money's worth. But Star Trek is a film I've found myself wanting to revisit time and time again. And if I ever feel the desire to return to the franchise, I promise you it will never lead me to this movie.

OVERALL GRADE: B-

Brief, Three Day Hiatus

Due to an overload of work over the next three days, I won't be blogging until Wednesday night. Sorry!

Movie Review: "The Great Gatsby"

This isn't your grandfather's Gatsby.

Colorful costumes. Extravagant sets. Music video editing. A soundtrack featuring the best of the rap and rock genres working today. This is not a faithful adaptation of Fitzgerald's classic in terms of tone. But Baz Luhrmann has brought his signature style to one of the most beloved novels of all time, making for a film that will no doubt anger purists but will certainly entertain more open minded audience members. And while Luhrmann emphasizes the melodramatic side of the novel, there are subtle moments (well, subtle for a Baz Luhrmann film) that show he really does understand the meaning behind the novel.

In an odd way, The Great Gatsby feels like the film that Luhrmann has been working towards for his whole career. With Nick narrating the story from his typewriter, a la Christian in Moulin Rouge!, and a frantic opening that thrusts you right into the action, much like Romeo + Juliet, many elements from Luhrmann's previous films are plainly visible. That shouldn't be a surprise- Luhrmann is one of the most distinct directors working today. Love him or hate him, there is no denying he has a style that is unique, and his presence surges through the film. This far from a subtle movie, with the quieter scenes in the novel being brought to new dramatic heights and party scenes that are wildly over the top yet oddly symbolic of the devil may care attitude of the 1920s. The film is more interested in providing audiences eye candy to accompany their popcorn and soda rather than a four course meal of food for thoughts, which I'm sure will upset many but I have to ask- is that a bad thing?

The Great Gatsby has been adapted numerous times, and none of those films were ever met with a necessarily positive response. Even this film, while on track to be a box office success, has been saddled with mixed to negative reviews. And anybody who has read the novel can tell you that it's a tough book to adapt. It is rich with symbolism and thoughtful prose that is riveting to read but is more likely to bore audiences when filmed on the big screen. Many will claim that Luhrmann is slaughtering the American classic- that he is taking Fitzgerald's masterpiece and making it a film for the ADD/MTV generation to digest easily and without much analysis. But that is a lazy criticism. Yes, this version of The Great Gatsby is more over the top then I'm sure Fitzgerald ever intended it to be. But Luhrmann shows a deep understanding of the novel throughout the film.

While the film may not go as in depth as a high school English teacher would like, Luhrmann manages to show an understanding of the characters and uses some very theatrical devices to emphasize their crucial traits. Take, for example, the unique tone of voice many of the characters speak in. All of the actors have adopted a style of speaking reminiscent of those in classic films- something that only adds to the staged nature of the movie. But notice the way the characters speak. For Carey Mulligan (Daisy) and Joel Edgerton (Tom), actors that are playing "old money" characters, the voices feel natural. But Leonardo DiCaprio's voice feels odd, almost fake, and while I initially thought this was just a mistake he made as an actor, I quickly realized that this was a conscious decision made by the filmmakers. It makes sense that Gatsby's voice would sound fake, as Gatsby's status as a rich man is fake. And, whenever Gatsby's facade as a rich man begins to crumble away, DiCaprio's natural voice slips out. It's a brilliant decision for both the actors and filmmaker.

Then you have the characterization of Daisy. Luhrmann refuses to put the character into a box or make her a simple romantic lead, as a lesser director probably would. He doesn't shy away from Daisy's negative qualities- she's still shallow and manipulative. Her materialism is perfectly captured during a scene in which Gatsby showers her with the beautiful shirts he has acquired with his new money. It is the first time in the film where her affection for Gatsby really shines through. But Luhrmann also asks audiences to consider if Daisy is this way simply because of the times she lives in and the situation she finds herself in. A wonderful moment in the film finds Tom making a collar of sorts around Daisy's neck with a beautiful pearl necklace he gave her as a gift. It'd be too easy for a director to abandon the complexities in her character and make the film a by-the-numbers love story. Somebody who was going for a merely entertaining movie would probably take that route. Luhrmann did not, and I respect him for that.

The cast is also (almost) perfect. Leonardo DiCaprio was born to play the role of Gatsby. For one thing, Leo is the definition of a movie star, both in terms of social status and in terms of physical appearance. Yet, there is an oddly mysterious and tortured quality visible in many of his character's and performances, making him perfect for the role of this haunted millionaire. But, to my surprise, he is not the best actor in the film. That title belongs to Miss Carey Mulligan, who I was vehemently against upon hearing the announcement of her casting. I now feel obligated to apologize to her. She is absolutely brilliant in the movie, perfectly embodying Daisy and stealing every scene she's in. There is a certain elegance to her performance that would make her feel right at home with the biggest actresses of the golden age of film history, while the always present sadness in her eyes brings a dark reality to her seemingly perfect existence. For the longest time I was convinced that Mulligan would be the wrong choice for the part. But now I can't imagine anybody else in the role. Joel Edgerton, Isla Fischer and newcomer Elizabeth Debicki also do a wonderful job in their roles and are worthy of praise.

But their is a weak link in this cast of A-listers, and this link really damages the film as a whole. Tobey Maguire is just the wrong choice for the crucial role of Nick, a character who is responsible for sharing the story with audiences. Maguire is not the strongest actor to begin with, but he just feels sorely miscast in this part. He lacks chemistry with any of the actors, and his performance feels flat and passionless. But worst of all, his narration- much of which is taken directly from the pages of the novel- feels tacked on, mainly due to the lack of certainty Maguire brings to his character. Does Nick have feelings for Jordan? How does he feel about Tom? Is he depicting the story in a truthful manner? Does he admire Gatsby, or maybe even have romantic feelings for him (as many overzealous literary critics would like to believe)? I'm not sure, and I don't think Maguire does either. In any other part, Maguire's performance would be simply disappointing. But he's playing a crucial character in the story, and he drags the film down with his incompetent acting.

Luhrmann's fast paced style also comes to a screehing halt before reaching the final third of the story, with the film largely dragging before returning to a fast paced style as the story wraps itself up. But for the most part, Luhrmann's style really works in the film's favor. The party scenes, specifically towards the beginning of the movie, are wonderfully staged. The use of music complements the scenes perfectly, whether it be a rap by Jay-Z, a ballad by Lana Del Ray, or a jazz version of "Crazy in Love."The cinematography and art direction will, no doubt,  be remembered come Oscar season. And the best scene in the film, a confrontation between Gatsby and Tom in a hotel room on a hot day, is worth the price of admission alone for being an entertaining example of melodrama while also capturing the subtext behind the scene and exhibiting perfect acting from all involved. It's just a shame that the film really loses that sense of pacing for about ten to twenty minutes.

When The Great Gatsby vacated its Christmas release date, many felt the film would prove to be a disaster. But the move now makes perfect sense. The Great Gatsby is not Oscar fare- it's a summer movie, replacing action scenes with wild parties and superheroes with a mysterious rich man. Luhrmann's interpretation of the classic is melodramatic, but in the most entertaining way possible, and while the meaning behind the text is downplayed, it is hardly forgotten. The movie is not perfect and I doubt I'll be remembering it as I construct my Top 10 list at the end of the year, but I wouldn't be surprised if this movie proves to be the most fun I'll have at the theater this summer.

OVERALL GRADE: B+

Betting on the Box Office: Stark vs. Fitzgerald vs. Perry

After an incredible opening weekend, the summer movie season marches on with The Great Gatsby and Peeples both trying to get some attention from audiences that have already seen Iron Man 3 or don't plan on seeing it. But how much can an adaptation of a beloved literary classic make at the superhero dominated box office? Or a romantic comedy from a niché producer? Let's see-

The Great Gatsby (dir. Baz Luhrmann)

When Warner Bros. first moved The Great Gatsby from it's Christmas release to the second week of May I was ready to call it a flop. But, a few months later, I've changed my tune considerably. In fact, I can really see the film being a success at the box office. Or, at the very least, I predict a solid opening weekend.

Anticipation for The Great Gatsby seems to be quite high thanks to a very impressive and effective marketing campaign that emphasizes the film as a fun, exciting and visually stunning film with a romance that will appeal to the ladies and a male lead that can be counted as one of the few box office draws left. Granted, it won't have a major opening, but an opening north of $30 million and nearing $40 is very likely. The film is both effective counter marketing but has enough spectacle to it to draw some of the crowd that has already seen Iron Man but is looking for more visual thrills. Leo is also bound to get a bunch of people in the seats, from a variety of demographics. And their is the 3D ticket prices to figure in. I'm going to pinpoint it at $38 million. Meanwhile, I think word of mouth will have a lot to do with how high the film flies, but I can definitely see it grossing over $100 million, settling around $115 million.

I will be seeing Gatsby on Saturday and you can expect my review on Sunday morning.

Peeples (dir. Tina Gordon Chism)

I actually forgot that Peeples was being released this Friday. Now, I had no intention of seeing it anyway, but I do consider that somewhat of a bad omen for its box office prospects. Which is a shame since I really like the leads. But the film isn't bringing anything new to the table, and it can't really count as counter programming since Gatsby is already falling into that category. Still, Peeples can't cost too much so it's bound to make a pretty penny. But, I don't think it'll make much noise during its theatrical run.

Many people are using previous Tyler Perry films as comparables but I see the film performing more along the lines of 2011's Jumping the Broom. Both films were being aimed at the same demographic, both attempted to serve as counter programming, and both revolved around weddings. But, there are bigger films out this year compared to May 2011, so I'm going to bet for an opening weekend a bit lower- $13 million to be exact. As for total gross, I'm going to bet something around $35 million. That may be a bit low, but I don't think it'll get much higher than that. There are just too many big movies out right now, and it's too easy for a film with limited box office potential to get lost in the shuffle.

Finally, I see Iron Man 3 having a drop somewhere between Iron Man 2 and The Avengers. So, I'm predicting it to be number one with around $73 million.

Have a good weekend, everybody! And you can expect my review of The Great Gatsby Sunday morning.