Side Effects: "One pill can change your life!"

I Just went to see Side Effects. It’s a psychological thriller, lets face it: it was going to happen. So it’s Directed by Steven Soderbergh who also directed Ocean’s Eleven and Twelve. So you know that you’re getting something that’s fast-paced and gripping. Jude Law’s in it and so is Catherine Zeta-Jones and the less famous Rooney Mara who played quite a convincing depressed person.

So without giving too much away, Emily, the main character, suffers from depression after her husband, Martin was sent to prison for some unknown crime. She waits for him (sweet), only her depression takes a toll on their relationship. She is treated by a new doctor, Jude Law’s character, who prescribes her a newly released antidepressant called ABLIXA. And this is when, surprise, surprise…things start going wrong. Like, really wrong.

Let me start off by saying that whatever expectations you have about this film are going to be shattered pretty much the moment the film begins. We are told after the beginning scene that this is going to be a circular narrative and so are naturally eager to find out about the events which led up to the bloody scene which we are presented with at the beginning.

Halfway through the film you think you’ve figured out the plot. Well let me just tell you that no. no, you haven’t. The full extent of the narrative will slowly dawn upon you within the last 15-20 minutes. In fact, I feel as though I need to re-watch this film in order for me to piece together all the information correctly, because (as my mind works at a glacial speed) I missed a great deal. But what I did get MADE SENSE.

Let’s just talk about the underlying message of this film. We take a hell of a lot of pills. Especially Americans. Oh, that reminds me; there was one quote which summed up the difference between pill taking tendencies of the UK and the USA: “In the UK, if you’re taking pills, that means you’re sick. In the US, taking pills means you’re getting better.” That quote has crazy connotations! But so has the film! There were people popping pills to get ready for job interviews. This is the kind of world we live in, people! At one point they even mentioned that a lot of the pills were actually placebos. What has that got to say about the people who take them and actually get better as a result? That they weren't really ill in the first place, that’s what.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

About the dialogue. I usually notice when dialogue is bad because when dialogue is bad, it is very, very bad, and when dialogue good…well, I’m less likely to notice. Sounds pretty lame, I know, but I’m far more likely to notice bad dialogue because, for example, someone answering the phone and saying “Hello, brother. Thank you for calling me to remind me that you are coming over to visit me later” well, its just crap and it negates all the effort that the director and actors have put into creating a believable world. So anyway, I didn’t notice anything bad about the dialogue, and I think the script overall must have been very good because just when you think you're secure in your own smug knowledge about what's going to go down, the writer (Scott Z. Burns) is like “PSYCH!” And then throws you off guard again.

The music was pretty good in creating suspense, and there were some interesting camera angles going on. Angles that almost had me tilting my head to the side and then I realised that, as an audience member, I shouldn’t have to do a damn thing but sit in my damn seat and be fed information.

So overall, I am experiencing some pretty good side effects from watching this film. (Sorry, it had to be done)

Good day!

P.S. If you enjoyed this film, you'll probably also enjoy Limitless. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219289/?ref_=sr_1

8/10

Ghostly encounters

It's the 2012 remake of the1989 film which is an adaptation of the book by Susan Hill and starring Daniel Radcliffe. And breathe. Yes, it's The Woman in Black. Can I please have a show of hands of people who are wary of seeing Daniel Radcliffe in any non-Harry Potter related role? I thought so. I felt the same way when the trailer for this film came out last year. But let me just say that I was spellbound non the less.  

So he plays a mourning widower and father - bleak, yes, and if that's anything to go by, which it is, I think it's safe to say that this film does have a *spoiler alert* bleak outcome. Despite this, his son provides a bit of comic relief or us in the beginning with a drawing of his dad with an unhappy expression on his face. Accompanied by "that's what your face looks like daddy". Well I thought that was pretty hilar.

The first scene hits the spot. It's dramatic, tense, and leaves us wanting to know more. You know what you're getting with this film: creepy 19th century gothic thrills, and thrills there are a-plenty. 

Establishing character scenes are good. There is a substantial amount of information given to the audience without a lengthy voiceover or too many flashbacks. And I don't know how you feel about flashbacks but I love them. I just find them a bit confusing in a film which is already set in the past. Because the film itself acts as a flashback, therefore we essentially get flashbacks within a flashback and now we're just losing all sense of time.  That being said, the flashbacks used in this film were not confusing and were placed at very relevant points making the scene transitions very fluid and graceful.

So the basic plot is that Radcliffe's character is a lawyer and Is sent to this village to sort out the papers of a dead widow who lived, or shall we say still lives, in the house. Cue the creepy incidents which are to follow. That's not really a spoiler guys, we all saw that coming. But what we didn't see coming is anything else. I'm not going to lie to you all, this film will make you jump. 

So with that in mind, emotion of the scenes is good, the character building is great. Acting - I mean the spellbound comment really says is all. I was captivated, not just by Radcliffe's performance, but by those actors playing more minor roles. The pain reflected in their eyes was tangible. As I said, the emotion was spot on. What was important was the ability to portray the misery of the whole village, and James Watkins did this faultlessly. From the dodgy unapproachable villagers, to the dark clothing worn by all the characters, to the misty weather and the crows cawing in the background, a real sense of foreboding and isolation is created. This is what helps the film to attain its thriller status: the sense that Radcliffe's character is trapped from the moment he steps into the village.

Another important element of the thriller genre is the protagonist's inability to follow the signs or to see reason. The film is filled with warnings - from the villagers, the environment, even from the ghost, for God's sake. And like all protagonists, he fails to heed these warnings. But you know, where would we be without the irrational thinking of the Hollywood protagonist? Well I certainly wouldn't be here writing this blog, that's fo' dayum sho'.

The other thing I was impressed with was the music. I felt that it fitted in with the theme perfectly and the sounds used throughout really made the film that extra bit creepy. Flapping, creaking doors, howling winds, blood curdling screams- and there were a lot of those- we're all perfectly placed, in my opinion. 

So all in all, a great film: flawless in its creation of suspense and tension right until the very last scene. This film was great in the cinema and still great at home with the lights off and a solitary candle burning on the mantelpiece, creating ambivalent shadows on the walls.

A solid 7/10