Side Effects

SPOILERS AHEAD. With the opening Psycho shot, Soderbergh tips his hat to Hitchcock, the father of grown-up thrillers, for whom playing with the viewer was also more important than the convincingness of the games that the characters play with each other. The camera angles are improbable, yet effective and full of meaning. They point out the deviant nature of reality as Emily perceives it (or rather how we are supposed to think she perceives it), often situated outside the centre of the shot (of course, if she is speaking for herself, i.e. not in her role, the centre belongs to her). The off-kilter shot compositions give rise to the disturbing feeling that something is missing and that, like Jon, we do not know everything. Whenever a close-up is used, it has a “higher” justification, which is revealed in the second half of the film. Furthermore, the close-ups, some of the dialogue and the music lead us in the wrong direction, creating the false impression that this is a pharmaceutical thriller with dangerous drugs as the main culprit (Ablixa ultimately turns out to be only a MacGuffin), or perhaps a mysterious film-noir (the Haitian who saw a ghost, the eerie “ringing” musical motif recalling the sleigh bells in Belle De Jour). But then comes the first twist, bringing about changes in the narrative perspective and the existing allocation of roles. Only the second viewing makes it possible to appreciate the casualness with which we are made aware of the fact that Emily is faking her mental disorder. Her first scene begins with a close-up of her lips, to which she applies lipstick before her performance. She is subsequently surrounded by mirrors throughout the first half of the film. Doubts about who is actually the culprit and who is the victim – doubts that give rise to a significant part of the film’s dramatic tension – persist even after the final shot, which serves as a symbolic closing of the circle. Instead of a linearly constructed thriller with clearly defined characters, we watch a disturbingly cyclical detective story (like a boomerang, the crime that Martin committed comes back to haunt him) with a capricious perpetrator. In addition to flawless craftsmanship, Side Effects offers warnings about the misuse of medical authority (and confidential information in general) and allusions to the financial crisis. Mainly, however, the film refers to the time of its making through the lens of a cynical society in which money and prestige have greater value than human life. Soderbergh has dealt with the business-like aspect of interpersonal relationships before, but thanks to a genre allowing more consistent (or more ruthless, if you prefer) manipulation of the characters, in Side Effects he succeeded in getting down to the marrow. 90% (20.12.2013)

An outstanding and rather (very) subversive genre piece which stands and falls with its conclusion. And it‘s with that final explanatory and point making last ten minutes that there is a problem, and not just one. Not that it’s borderline stupid or that it doesn’t make any sense, but.. There simply are few absolutely crucial buts. Which makes you doubly sorry, especially with a movie that’s coherent as this one. (26.04.2013)

SPOILER ALERT! – I don't really trust Steven Soderbergh in the long run, but a film with a reputation for a masterpiece, especially with such a packed cast, I was happy to roll with. And I got burned, even though it didn't seem like it at first. The deception (although at that moment unknown to the viewer) was intricate, thorough, and ultimately suspenseful, because it's not clear for a long time which piece of information is important. But once the topics started to overlap too much and the actions of pharmaceutical companies helped the main hero uncover the plot, I knew something was wrong. Moreover, as someone who works in the field of psychiatry, I can't escape the impression that Side Effects does a disservice to mentally ill people. And I'm also bothered by the final outcome of the Scott Z. Burns screenplay, in which women are unjustifiably punished. Combined with Catherine Zeta-Jones' paper-thin lines, clumsy paranoid twists, and a desperately lacking catharsis, I am officially giving up on Steven. (12.07.2016)

Soderbergh rocks. The brilliant genre change in the middle of the picture is just the type of hacking I approve of. The untraditional development of the plot and the characters that really work - awesome Law and Rooney Mara confirms his status as one of the best young actors in the branch. And then there’s Newman’s chillingly captivating music. A delicacy that shouldn’t be overlooked and that is better not to know too much about in advance. (23.04.2013)

Steven Soderbergh's surgically precise direction dominates this cold, seemingly pharmaceutical fraud. A standard set-up, a brilliantly tangled in the middle and a worthy finale. A film with a plethora of perfectly cast roles, tight reins and an unpredictable plot. I wouldn't be afraid to call it one of the best thrillers of the year. It's not as atmospheric and emotionally charged like Prisoners, but here everyone is evil, which is a very interesting cinematic twist. Usually when Soderbergh makes movies, it's not about good and evil characters, it's about who knows how to walk the walk. (03.06.2016)

Soderbergh, Newman, Law, Zeta-Jones, Tatum... These are names that together on one poster are as appealing to a film fan as a postman is to a watchdog, and although it’s far from being a rule, this time we have to admit that the stars knew well where to shine. A masterfully filmed, well-acted and excellently written story that may be reminiscent of the golden era of the 90s, but thanks to the careful and creative direction manages to be original and interesting in every sense. Mara and Law stand out from the cast, their characters clearly have the most psychological dimension, but it's also nice to see that Catherine still has it in her and looks fantastic despite her advanced age. Proper craftsmanship that returns Soderbergh to the first league of directors. 80% (25.07.2013)

Steven Soderbergh delivers an excellent commentary on contemporary society, on how we are unable to cope with crises and how we collapse, but he wraps it all up in such a package that it's not so easy to overlook the film as a social critique. The film is thrilling, it holds your attention, it entertains, but at the same time, you will be able to reflect on it. No other Soderbergh film has affected me as much as this one, and for that reason, I think it is his best so far. He had his camera at hand, but also a great screenplay, which wasn't always the case in his films, and then there were great actors, which is usually true for most of his films. People want to work with Soderbergh and it's for the best, because he allows them to shine. This time, the film stands out as a whole and it functions excellently as a whole. 90% well-deserved. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2013/04/vedlejsi-ucinky-2013-90.html (30.04.2013)

It's almost as if this Soderbergh guy has something against the pharmaceutical industry. He follows Contagion with the more intimate Side Effects, whose tone once again casts the very principle of pharmacy in a less than favorable light. The problem isn't just with the pharmaceutical industry, of course (which makes it all the worse); indeed, where there's opportunity, there's a human being. I loved the initially slow, almost unnerving pace, which builds up brutally, and perhaps a little forcefully, in the last act, only to have the great Steven eventually convince you that some things really may not be as they first appear. Brilliant camerawork that perfectly underscores the main character's feelings *SPOILER ALERT* (it does gets a bit ridiculous with those feelings, and anyone who's seen it knows what I mean:)) *END SPOILER*, Soderbergh's focused and once again very evocative direction combined with the unsettling soundtrack for me made this one of Soderbergh's best films in recent years. (20.12.2013)