Side Effects (2013)

5/5

Steven Soderbergh's Side Effects is an utterly absorbing film of the highest caliber. It is so phenomenal that I will simply urge everyone to see it immediately. This review will still be here when you come back, and you can read it then. The movie is pristine, with a story that is compelling from start to finish. The writing is finely-tuned to the daily grind of medical professionals, with an impeccable ear for realistic dialogue, and an authentic sense of paranoia regarding malpractice. A movie focusing on each individual element with the level of skill seen here would be commendable, but Side Effects weaves them all together and throws in hints of sinister subterfuge to underpin the movie.

The film begins by entrenching us in the banalities of depression, and the movie is about as far from exciting as you can get. It fills each frame with Instagram-style mood shots that are surprisingly evocative and effective. The story unfolds from there, evolving into a shocking murder mystery and its innumerable unexpected consequences. We are thrust into a legal battle that should frighten any practicing physician--one of the movie's greatest triumphs is how eerily accurate this situation feels--but it is not over yet. Soderbergh continues to mesmerize us with a twist ending that upends not only the framework of the film, but of the characters therein.

Every aspect of this movie fascinated me. I was absorbed and engaged, watching it with a delighted smile the entire time--up until the gasp of horror at the finale, that is. Soderbergh has perfected his techniques and he can retire from film knowing he made a masterpiece. On top of the thematically-rich script, he gives us crisply-filmed cinematography, tightly-cut editing, and expertly-cast acting. Honestly, I cannot stop thinking about this chilling film. It unnerves patients and doctors in all the right ways, forces us to contemplate the failings of our current health care system, and does it all with unerring style. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2053463/

Arbitrage (2012)

2/5

Arbitrage is a film that mystifies me in innumerable ways. Part of that is its plot, which whirlwinds past business concepts and legal mumbo jumbo with a little too much freedom. The story follows successful magnate Robert Miller (Gere) about to close the deal of a century: the sale of his hedge fund empire and with it the $400 million hole he's been hiding from his CFO and daughter (Marling). This sale will cure all his woes without any consequences (including being charged with fraud apparently, which seemed a little fishy to me). Miller is also hiding an affair from his wife (Sarandon), and things go from bad to worse when his mistress (Casta) dies in a car accident while he's driving.

The plot could have been salvaged by great directing, but it wasn't. Everything from cinematography to editing was simply mediocre. However, despite the middling technical aspects, the movie has two very interesting thematic threads. The first tackles the concept of image vs. depth, glossy sheen vs. true value. Gere plays a powerful man--does it matter that his company is worth nothing? The second describes the balancing act between work life and home life. It unravels this age-old battle down to the very core in two amazing scenes. The first is when Gere erupts and tells his own daughter that she's nothing more than his employee. The second is when Sarandon uses divorce as a bargaining chip for a business transaction. Still, these two flares of brilliance are not enough to light up the whole film. I would avoid it unless you know exactly what you're getting into--and if you knew that then you wouldn't need to see the film.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764183/

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

4/5

Katheryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty is an intense, visceral experience. It details the decade-long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden following September 11, 2001. The movie is thrilling, but under a premise I find somewhat unsettling. The whole motivation for the film is essentially for us to cheer on the murder of a real human being--this seems disturbing no matter how guilty and deserving that person might be. I felt like a spectator watching gladiators fight to the death--haven't we evolved past that point? If you're able to take that (admittedly large) component out of the equation, then you're left with an exceptional piece of filmmaking.

Kathryn Bigelow takes what she learned from The Hurt Locker and hones her already expert craft to fill Zero Dark Thirty with scenes of tension and dread. Each one is an episodic burst in which you know something bad is going to happen but you don't always know what. Bigelow is able to take that uncertainty and that fear and combine it with efficient editing and sharp cinematography to keep us on the edge of our seat for the entire 2.5 hour runtime. This is in spite of knowing "how it ends" for one simple reason: we were never witness to the inner workings and behind-the-scenes political intrigue that made it happen. We were never witness to the true cost and true sacrifice to get to where we are now.

It is not the most inviting story, or the easiest to discuss, but it is an important one. Bigelow is a filmmaker at the top of her game, who makes it absorbing from beginning to end even while addressing difficult topics like the role of American-led torture and government-sanctioned murder. She has made a uniquely American movie that takes place almost entirely outside of America. But one of her greatest accomplishments is in directing Jessica Chastain.

Chastain gives a phenomenal performance as Maya, the CIA agent who doggedly pursued her lead to the very end and who fought tooth and nail against government doubt. She is fierce, girded by righteous indignation over 9/11, and vulnerable, suffering alone as she loses the people she loved. Make no mistake: this is Chastain's ballgame, and she knocks it out of the park. This is a movie worth watching for her performance alone. You will not be disappointed that you did.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1790885/

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

3/5

Michael Connelly's The Lincoln Lawyer is an unexpectedly thrilling crime/courtroom drama. Mick Haller (McConaughey) is the titular lawyer who takes on the case of Louis Roulet (Phillippe), a wealthy playboy accused of assaulting a prostitute. Roulet is unwilling to take any deals or plead anything besides not guilty, so Haller considers it a challenge worthy of his skills. However, Haller discovers some information that makes him doubt Roulet's honesty and innocence, which ends up putting him in quite the pickle as he debates breaking attorney-client privilege.

The opening credits were well-done, evoking an authentic 70's feel that unfortunately was never carried through to the rest of the film. Likewise, the story started with enormous potential, but it quickly whittled its way down to the predictable and expected. Connelly's writing is exciting, but not particularly original or mind-blowing. The pacing unfortunately turned out to be one of the movie's weaker suits. The characters' motivations were revealed too early, which just left you waiting for events to unfold instead of having you sit on the edge of your seat wondering who was telling the truth and who was not.

All in all, the movie has its ups and downs, which balances it out to about 3 stars. McConaughey does a fine job as the lead, but there's something about him I just don't like in this film. I think it's his gaunt eyes and cachectic face that ooze a sense of unease and distrust. His character might be a little sleazy, but I don't think I'm supposed to find him so eerily unsettling. Some of the supporting actors are spectacular (viz. William H. Macy) while others are not (viz. Ryan Phillippe). For a mindless piece of entertainment, The Lincoln Lawyer is decent, but that's about all I'll give it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1189340/

Pitch Perfect (2012)

2/5

Pitch Perfect is a movie firmly rooted in one point in time: now. I realized while watching it that there will never be a repeat viewing that I enjoy as much as this initial one. The problem is that much of the film's excitement stems from their covers and mash-ups of the current top 40 hit songs. In a few years, people won't even remember some of these songs--the whole movie will lose what little edge and relevance it can claim as its own. It's already a film version of the fad known as Glee, so what hope does it have of standing on its own in the future?

Granted, it's not a bad movie. There's plenty of humor to go around. Rebel Wilson, whose character first horrified me in Bridesmaids, is growing on me as the (incredibly bright) future of comedy. Anna Kendrick does a great job with what she's given. But what she was given was a mediocre script and unimaginative dialogue. A lot of the humor is awkward or misguided and the jokes fall flat, which is probably the most embarrassing thing that can be said of any form of comedy. The songs are catchy and performed well, but most will have no staying power. All in all, this is a forgettable film that fails to impress on any but the most basic qualities of entertainment.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981677/

Premium Rush (2012)

1/5

Premium Rush is one of the most ridiculous movies I've seen recently. The story is not only ludicrous on its own merits, it is also told in an unnecessarily convoluted fashion. It goes backwards and forwards and every which way, with its only purpose seemingly to keep certain plot points hidden from the audience so that they can reveal it as a big surprise at the end. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling so long as it adds some sort of value instead of just existing for the sake of being different. The plot, as in all action movies, is pretty underwhelming: a guy rides a bike around NYC while being chased by cops in cars and on bikes. That's about it. There were way too many 1) chase scenes in which cyclists get terribly injured, 2) irrelevant side characters, and 3) not-so-subtle racial stereotypes. All in all, it's a pretty middling action flick with nary a redeeming factor and lots to dislike.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1547234/

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

2/5

Moonrise Kingdom is probably my least favorite Wes Anderson movie. I don't know what it is, but I just don't find it compelling at all. The story is about two strange kids who have a mutual attraction to each other (for no discernible reason whatsoever) and take it to unhealthy boundaries in a disturbing island environment. With a gnome-like narrator. Maybe it's me and my distaste of child acting or children's tales, but I couldn't get into it. And if you're not into the story, then you're just watching unusual events unfold in an unusual way on screen. That's Anderson's modus operandi I guess.

Honestly, I have nothing very positive to say about this movie. It's fine. It exists. It's a movie. It's not offensive. It's got its quirks and funny moments, it's got great actors impressing me with their talent, but all of these elements cannot bring the movie to life for me. It's a futile attempt to create fire out of sparks--the problem is there's no tinder, no content underneath it all.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1748122/