This film is one of most rare late-winter gems in recent memory. A thriller involving pharmaceutical drugs is a risky investment that, on paper, should not work. Yet it somehow does in the provocative and intriguing thriller “Side Effects.”
Steven Soderbergh may be one of Hollywood’s most unheralded directors. After all, Soderbergh was the man behind the modern “Ocean’s” trilogy, “Traffic” and “Contagion.” Soderbergh is a versatile director with a knack for crafting intelligent thrillers. With his latest venture into the medical world, Soderbergh decided to go the unconventional route with “Side Effects.”
This features an all-star cast headlined by Rooney Mara who plays Emily Taylor – the loving wife of Martin Taylor (Channing Tatum). After four years in prison for insider trading, Martin is released. Just as the couple begins to plot how they will rebuild their lives, Emily’s history with depression surfaces again.
Following a failed suicide attempt, Emily begins seeing a psychiatrist named Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law). Banks tries to help Emily by prescribing her a new drug that is supposed to be very effective with depression. This highly touted drug begins to affect the lives Emily, Martin and Dr. Banks.
On the surface, the premise of “Side Effects” sounds like the silly plot of a direct-to-television film. However, the creative team involved makes the premise work in a very provocative way. The opening shots of the film help establish a very tense tone. Thomas Newman’s intelligent and slightly unnerving score reinforces this tone.
Soderbergh gets the best out of a seemingly mismatched cast. All of the main players involved deliver very believable performances. Catherine Zeta-Jones plays Dr. Victoria Siebert, a psychiatrist who previously treated Emily. Although she does not get a huge amount of screen time, Zeta-Jones makes the most of it.
Even Tatum proves he may have real dramatic acting chops. Critics have never really taken Tatum serious being in films such as “The Vow” and “Dear John.” Here, Tatum proves he can be believable in a serious dramatic thriller.
These performances add a level of believability to a story that seems very cut-and-dry at first. Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns crafted a fairly twisted pharmaceutical thriller. The twist and turns of Burns’ screenplay makes “Side Effects” a fun ride for fans of thrillers. The script is smartly written to not given away too much too soon.
In addition, the editing and assured direction of Soderbergh is enough to keep an audience guessing until the final frames. Just when the film is heading in one direction, it stops on a dime and goes in a new and unexpected direction. It is classic misdirection, but Soderbergh and company handle it with class. However, the cleverness of the trappings is nearly undone by a conclusion that some may find unsatisfying. The story ends in a rather ambiguous manner that parallels the odd opening shot of the film. However, when given more thought, the ending is potent and rather thought provoking. This is the kind of thriller that will keep an audience thinking even after they have left the theater.
It is even more odd to find a thriller of this magnitude in February. Typically, the early months of the year are reserved for Hollywood’s waste. Every now and then, a studio will release something worthwhile in January or February.
It could be that Open Road Films did not want to risk a high-profile release. As mentioned above, a thriller centered on a pharmaceutical drug is not the most engaging premise in the realm of thrillers. However, Soderbergh proves yet again that he can make seemingly off-the-wall premises work.
This film is right up the ally for those who enjoyed Soderbergh’s “Contagion.” Although the two films are completely different in story, the styles are very similar. This is the kind of thriller that most moviegoers will want to see in theaters. It is the rare late-winter treat that reminds people why films can be a worthwhile investment.
Rating: 8.5/10
