Movie Review: Side Effects

Side Effects
Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Written by: Scott Z. Burns.
Starring: Rooney Mara (Emily Taylor), Jude Law (Dr. Jonathan Banks), Catherine Zeta-Jones (Dr. Victoria Siebert), Channing Tatum (Martin Taylor), Vinessa Shaw (Dierdre Banks), Ann Dowd (Martin’s Mother), Polly Draper (Emily's Boss), Michael Nathanson (Assistant District Attorney), Sheila Tapia (Emily's Attorney).

Steven Soderbergh’s is a tight, nifty little thriller. It is well acted by the entire cast, well written by longtime Soderbergh collaborator Scott Z. Burn, contains a marvelous score by Thomas Newman – the type of score that elevates the entire movie, but will never be nominated for an Oscar, and is well directed by Soderbergh himself – who of course, also served as editor and cinematographer. And yet, as good as the movie is – and it is quite good – I could not help but be slightly underwhelmed by the film. Walking into the theater, I was pretty sure I knew how the movie was going to end (thanks trailers!) and sure enough, everything played out pretty much exactly as I expected it would. Considering this is apparently the last feature film by Soderbergh (he will release his apparently final film, Behind the Candelabra on HBO later this year), I was a little let down. Soderbergh had entered a very good segment of his career – making great little genre films like Haywire, Contagion and Magic Mike, and while Side Effects is good, it doesn’t quite measure up.

The movie stars Rooney Mara as Emily Taylor. She is married to Martin (Channing Tatum) who is just getting out of jail after four years for insider trading (perhaps the most preposterous of the movie’s plot points is that anyone on Wall Street would go to jail for anything they do). But while she loves her husband, she is also depressed – trying her best to put on a happy face, but inwardly she’s hurting. After a “cry for help” suicide attempt, where she drives her car into a wall, a psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) is called in for a consult – and while he agrees to let her go, he also insists that she start going to therapy – and start taking anti-depressants. They try a few drugs, and nothing works, but then Emily suggests one of the new drugs – you know the ones on TV with happy people running through a meadow, while a voiceover lists off dozens of possible side effects. Banks doesn’t see the harm in trying her on them – and after consulting with her old doctor Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones), he writes a prescription. And he keeps her on them even after she starts sleepwalking, and preparing meals in her sleep. You probably see where this is going, but if you don’t, I won’t spoil it for you. But, of course, it leads to movie’s psychological thriller roots – where one of Emily or Jonathan, is going to have to pay for what Emily does. And all is not precisely what it appears to be.

The performances in the movie are quite good. I was a little disappointed that after her great performance in last year’s Compliance (the best performance NOT nominated for an Oscar in 2012), that Ann Dowd is given nothing to do as Martin’s mother – but she’s a character actress, and she plays her role well. Tatum is good as the Wall Street guy, who made a mistake, has paid for it, and really does seem to want to turn his life around. Catherine Zeta-Jones is very good as Dr. Siebert – but Ebert’s law of economy of characters applies with her. Essentially, because Zeta-Jones is a movie star (not to mention an Oscar winner), you know immediately that her role will turn out to be far more complicated than it at first appears. Still, she plays it well. It’s really the two main performances that are excellent. Law plays Banks as cocksure and confident, until his life starts to completely unravel, and seems powerless to stop it – and than starts to seem paranoid. Is he right, or just so convinced that he could not be wrong that he’s grasping at straws? And Rooney Mara is even better as Emily, as she spirals down into depression, and tries to keep herself under control.

Side Effects certainly takes us into Hitchcock territory – with a modern pharmaceutical twist.  We have the “innocent man wrongly accused” and lying women, and as I mentioned before, an excellent score by Thomas Newman, who may just be the best composer working right now at twisting classic movie score elements for modern use (just look at his score for Soderbergh’s The Good German, the only good thing about the film, or how he twists Bond music in Skyfall). The screenplay is well written, and Soderbergh could do this type of thriller in his sleep, but doesn’t. He pulls out some interesting things from his seemingly bottomless bag of tricks.

But perhaps it’s harder now to make a Hitchcockian thriller than it was in Hitchcock’s day. Modern audiences sit there waiting for the other shoe to drop – the twist ending they aren’t supposed to see coming. But, unfortunately for Side Effects, I did see the twist coming, before I even sat down in the theater. So essentially, I spent much of the movie waiting for the characters to catch up to me.

Side Effects is a good movie. It is rare to see a thriller like this as well acted and directed as Side Effects is. Undoubtedly, unless you still need to catch up on some Oscar films, Side Effects is the best film to see in theaters right now. But considering its early February, which typically (along with January) is when studios dump a lot of crap into theaters, that’s not saying very much. Perhaps my disappointment in Side Effects has more to do with the fact that unless Soderbergh is lying or changes his mind, I will never walk into a theater to see a new Soderbergh film again. He has been a pretty consistent director since the late 1990s – producing at least one decent to great film seemingly every year. And Side Effects is decent. But from the director who has produced such films as Out of Sight, The Limey, Traffic, Contagion, Haywire and Magic Mike (and that’s just the tip of the iceberg), Side Effects is certainly going out with a bit of a whimper instead of a bang.

[5.25/10] The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia (2013)

The Haunting in Connecticut 2:

Ghosts of Georgia (2013)

Brief review: Claiming it's based on a true story, which somewhat hard to believe, "The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" is some sort of sequel to "The Haunting in Connecticut" from 2009, or more like a sister film, to be exact, as it has nothing to do with the original story-wise or otherwise. Let's face it, the first movie was cheesy, yet entertaining, and the case with this one is pretty much the same. Unlike the original though, this one doesn't spend any time in building suspense properly, as it starts off straight away with the cheap scares, and the stupid ghost visions. The whole "I see things" premise is so familiar, it hurts, and the plot is basically 'been there, done that', at least the first half of it - there's nothing particularly exciting about it, let alone scary. Thankfully though, this sequel proves to have some tricks up its sleeve, as the second half is stronger, much more thrilling, and at times even frightening, mainly due to the appearance of The Station Master, who looks pretty creepy, indeed. Visually, "Ghosts of Georgia" looks much more polished than your average straight-to-DVD/VOD affair. The cinematography is rich in color and tone, and the camera work is decently diverse. The movie also delivers acting-wise, thanks to some very credible performances. Abigail Spencer and Morgana Shaw both do a solid job as the two sisters, the adorable Emily Alyn Lind is mostly fantastic as the little ghost whisperer, Heidi, and the hunky Chad Michael Murray is the only weak link.

Overall summary: It doesn't look bad at all, and the performances are adequate to say the least, but "The Haunting in Connecticut 2:Ghosts of Georgia" is every bit as generic and unoriginal as its silly title suggests, plus, in spite of a thrilling final act, it fails to avoid the cliches.

Movie Review: Warm Bodies

Warm Bodies
Directed by: Jonathan Levine.
Written by: Jonathan Levine based on the novel by Isaac Marion.
Starring: Nicholas Hoult (R), Teresa Palmer (Julie), Analeigh Tipton (Nora), Rob Corddry (M), Dave Franco (Perry), John Malkovich (Grigio), Cory Hardrict (Kevin).

The biggest problem I always had with the Twilight books and movies is that I always thought it was silly for a vampire and a human to fall in love. After all, vampires are predators, and human are their prey, so it’s kind of like a lion falling in love with an antelope. And vampires, of course, are not alive, but “undead” – so they are essentially walking, talking, killing corpses. How could someone fall in love with a corpse? And why is it that people fall in love with vampires so easy, but never fall in love with a zombie?

As if in answer to my query comes Warm Bodies – a funny teen romance where a zombie and a human really do fall in love. Yes, the premise is as ridiculous as Twilight, but one of the many charms of Warm Bodies is that it knows full well that the premise is ridiculous – and has some fun with it. The movie plays with the conventions not only of the zombie genre, but also romantic comedies. It isn’t trying to be a “generation defining love story” as some have ridiculously claimed Twilight is – but rather just a fun zombie comedy. And while it is no Shaun of the Dead or Zombieland, I had a hell of a lot of fun watching it.

The movie stars Nicholas Hoult as R, who also narrates his adventure. He doesn’t remember his real name – but thinks it started with a R – and doesn’t remember what he did for a living (although, as he states, judging on his hoodie, he was unemployed). He doesn’t even remember how he became a zombie, just that he is, and although he feels guilty about eating people, he does so anyway. The “new hunger” is too strong for him to ignore. Like many other zombies, he lives at an airport. He has made his home in an old passenger plane that he has filled with whatever he comes across and likes. He loves vinyl records for example, but has a lot of other stuff. One day he and a group of zombies come across a group of survivors, and one thing leads to another, and R is soon eating someone’s brains. This is when we learn that when a zombie eats the brain of somehow, he gets to see their memories. I’m sure some purists of the genre will argue this goes against well-established genre rules, but considering I haven’t really seen another movie from the point of view of a zombie, I cannot say it really does. Anyway, what he learns is that the guy whose brain he is eating is in love with Julie (Teresa Palmer), also at that raid. When R sees her, he is instantly flooded with love – and rather than eat her, he saves her life and brings her back to his plane. Obviously, this is not the way to start a healthy relationship, but R doesn’t really have another option. And once Julie realizes that R means her no harm, she starts to relax around him, and open up. And gradually, R starts becoming more and more human.

Warm Bodies owes much of its charm to its two stars. Hoult, who first came to audience’s attention 10 years ago in About a Boy, has grown up a lot, and turned into quite a good actor. The role requires him to be funny under a lot of zombie makeup for much of its running time, and for the most part, he succeeds wonderfully. Perhaps even better is Teresa Palmer who really did remind me of a sunnier, less mopey, Kristen Stewart, and who is quite charming. They get good support for Annaleigh Tipton as Julie’s best friend (who picks a perfect song for a makeover montage), John Malkovich, who is clearly doing this for a paycheck, but it is still fine, and especially Rob Corddry, who steals his scenes as R’s best friend M.

The film was written and directed by Jonathan Levine, and even though it is quite different from his last film – the cancer dramedy 50/50 – he shows once again a gift for comic timing behind the camera. Warm Bodies may not be a great movie, but it is great fun to watch.

[5.00/10] The ABCs of Death (2013)

The ABCs of Death (2013)

Brief review: Shown at a numerous festivals last year, but officially set to be released in 2013, "The ABCs of Death" is a horror anthology, that consists of 26 shorts, each helmed by a different director, each of whom assigned a letter of the alphabet. "Apocalypse" is over-the-top gory fun. "Bigfoot" ain't about Bigfoot, and doesn't work. "Cycle" is confusing, but cool and well-conceived. Stylishly-shot in slow-mo, "Dogfight" is a man vs. dog fight, you have never seen before. "Exterminate" is badly-acted, and plain dumb. "Fart" stinks... literally. "Gravity" is overly short, and way too simple. "Hyrdo-Electric Diffusion" is Nazi torture fun, it's as simple as that. "Ingrown" is well-shot, intense, and one of the best segments, along with "Dogfight". "Jidai-geki" is a joke. "Klutz" is animation about crap, but it ain't crap at all. "Libido" is nasty and sick, yet genius. "Miscarriage" is uninteresting and simply unnecessary. "Nuptials" is hilarious, while the following "Orgasm" is artistically-shot, yet ultimately boring. "Pressure" is well-made and lives up to its title. "Quack" tries hard to be original, but falls short instead. "Removed" is gore-fueled, and nicely-executed. The best thing about "Speed" is that it ends quickly. The animated "Toilet" is superbly-crafted, gory, and somewhat shocking. "Unearthed" is pointless piece of sh*t. "Vagitus" is refreshing, but looks cheap. "WTF" is WTF, indeed. "XXL" is sheer brilliance. "Youngbuck" is sick, bloody, and stupid, and the closing "Zetsumetsu" is just a crazy Asian softcore porn.

Overall summary: Conceptually-genius, yet overambitious, "The ABCs of Death" has some strong and memorable segments, as well as some terrible ones, hence the end result is a mixed bag of utter lunacy, twisted imagination, ludicrousness, lots of gore and very few scares.

[6.75/10] Mama (2013)

Mama (2013)

Brief review: Produced by the visionary director Guillermo del Toro, "Mama" is Andrés Muschietti's debut full-length feature, based on his own '08 short of the same name. The good news is, "Mama" is arguably the best January horror release since 2010's "Daybreakers", but the not so good news is, it doesn't break any new ground in terms of originality. Even though the plot can't really escape the ghost story cliches, the movie still succeeds in capturing the viewer's attention, due to the finely-written script, and the intriguing story that not only makes you constantly wonder who is Mama, and why is she so overprotective and evil, but also provides you with all the answers towards the end, leaving you satisfied and without any question marks in your head. Also, the half happy, half sad ending of the film is pretty emotional, and the perfect bittersweet conclusion to the story. "Mama" is frightening as well, and not in a cheap way. The solid scares are only a couple, but the suspense is consistent, the movie's eerie atmosphere is utterly effective, and Mama herself is creepy as hell. Sure, the editing is questionable, and that affects the overall pacing of the film, but Muschietti's accomplished direction, slick cinematography, and stylish color palette make up for that. Jessica "The Chameleon" Chastain does a phenomenal job in an untypical role that proves her versatility, but it's Megan Charpentier and Isabelle Nélisse that steal the show, with the latter being absolutely sensational.

Overall summary: Sinister, atmospheric, solidly-acted and technically-polished, yet slightly incoherent and not particularly original, "Mama" is an above average ghost story, that manages to deliver thrills, chills, high entertainment value as well as touching and effective climax.

Movie Review: Gangster Squad

Gangster Squad
Directed by: Ruben Fleischer.
Written by: Will Beall based on the book by Paul Lieberman.
Starring: Josh Brolin (Sgt. John O'Mara), Ryan Gosling (Sgt. Jerry Wooters), Emma Stone (Grace Faraday), Sean Penn (Mickey Cohen), Nick Nolte (Chief Parker), Anthony Mackie (Officer Coleman Harris), Robert Patrick (Officer Max Kennard), Michael Peña (Officer Navidad Ramirez), Giovanni Ribisi (Officer Conway Keeler), Sullivan Stapleton (Jack Whalen), Mireille Enos (Connie O'Mara), Troy Garity (Wrevock), James Carpinello (Johnny Stomp), John Aylward (Judge Carter), Jon Polito (Dragna).

Sometimes when I get bored watching a movie, I start to wonder about the actors in the film. Did they know they were making a bad movie? Are they doing things to amuse themselves? I bring this up because as I watched Gangster Squad, I couldn’t help but think that perhaps Ryan Gosling knew what a bad movie this was going to turn out to be, and the ridiculous clipped, nasal voice  he uses throughout the film was his way of keeping things interesting for himself. I’m probably completely wrong about that – but no matter what the reason is behind Gosling’s strange vocal tics in the movie, I’m glad he employed them. Because there really is very little in Gangster Squad that held my interest in the least.

The film takes place in 1949 Los Angeles. This is the world that James Ellroy has so vividly captured throughout his career as a novelist – especially in his masterpiece L.A. Confidential (turned into a great movie by Curtis Hanson in 1997). Ellroy’s book crackle with violence and sex, and have perfect, hard boiled dialogue in them. The screenplay for Gangster Squad by Will Beall tries very hard to ape this dialogue, but pretty much gets it all wrong. No one in the movie says anything remotely interesting.

Anyway, it’s L.A. in 1949. Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) a boxer turned mobster has come to L.A. and pretty much runs the town’s criminal enterprise. He even has the gangsters back home in Chicago scared of him. He does what he wants because he has money enough to buy everyone he needs to stay out of his way, and is ruthless enough to kill those who don’t. John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) is a veteran back from WWII, who fought for “freedom” over there, and hates what he sees becoming of his beloved town. He is seemingly the only honest cop in town. After he roughes up some of Cohen’s men, he is called into the office of the Chief of Police (Nick Nolte) and told to assemble a squad. The Chief wants O’Mara to go to war with Cohen – not to kill him – but drive him out of town with his tail between his legs to serve as a message to everyone else – L.A. is not a mob town.

This is when O’Mara finds out he isn’t the only honest cop in town – there’s at least five others. Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling) is a player who watches out only for himself, but has twin reasons to want to fight Cohen – one being Grace (Emma Stone), Cohen’s “etiquette” coach who he seduces. Harris (Anthony Mackie) is tired of seeing the blacks in L.A. hooked on heroin – and given the chance to help take down the main supplier, he jumps at it. Keeler (Giovanni Ribisi) was in army intelligence and is a tech wizard, and wants to tell his kids he fought against the bad men. Kennard (Robert Patrick) seems to have wandered in from a John Ford movie with his six shooter and dialogue. He is trailed around by Navidad Ramirez (Adam Beach), who is a Mexican, and that’s about all you learn about him. Together, these men wage war on Cohen – taking down his business, costing him money, and making him fume the whole time.

The film was directed by Ruben Flesicher, who made the excellent zombie comedy Zombieland a few years ago, and the less than excellent comedy 30 Minutes of Less after that. The style of Gangster Squad is pretty good – this isn’t supposed to be a realistic 1949 LA, but a stylized one. Many critics have compared to the movie (unfavorably) to The Untouchables, and that’s a decent comparison. But I thought more of Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy (1990), a formative movie for me (I was nine when it came out, and completely blown away). Both movies value style over substance, but at least Beatty’s film was immensely entertaining, with great comic book dialogue, and a cast who knew not to take the whole thing seriously. Gosling gets that to a certain extent here, and his performance is by far the most interesting. It isn’t exactly a good performance, but it’s far from boring. The rest of the cast though is dull. Normally, I like the no-nonsense approach of Josh Brolin. But as O’Mara, he is simply dull. Sean Penn goes wildly over the top as Mickey Cohen – not always a bad thing (see Al Pacino in Dick Tracy), but he’s also a killjoy. When you go that far over the top, you damn well better be fun to watch – and Penn isn’t. I did enjoy Nick Nolte’s performance - mainly because I’m enjoying all the recent Nolte performances, where he spits out one word at a time as if at any moment, he may just keep over and die. Unfortunately, he isn’t in the film very much.

Gangster Squad isn’t a horrible film. Fleischer tries to make it look good, and there are several good shootouts throughout the film. But it does feel like a film that is simply going through the motions. It is devoid of passion – or really any reason to exist. If you’ve seen a lot of gangster movies – and I have – you’ve seen this type of film countless times before, done a whole hell of a lot better.

[4.00/10] Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)

Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013)

Brief review: Almost 40 years after the release of the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and half a dozen remakes, sequels and prequels, director John Luessenhop brings yet another entry in the already tired franchise, that is more of a late sequel, rather than a proper reboot. Do we really need one? Not really. Since this film is not a reimagining of the original, and it tries to add new elements to the story in order to stand out from the other installments, thankfully "Texas Chainsaw 3D" does not necessarily feel like a 'cinematic deja vu', but on the other hand, that doesn't mean it succeeds in its attempts. The story still feels forced and often nonsensical, and the unsurprisingly hackneyed script is filled with overused slasher cliches. Also, the little twist in the end is ridiculously impausible, and doesn't help the movie either. In this one, one of the biggest horror icons, Leatherface, is not the grimly intimidating masked killer we remember, but a big, clumsy and dull guy, running around with his chainsaw turned on. "Texas Chainsaw" fails to keep you on your toes as well, for the fact that it is lacking in any sort of tension and suspense. Sure, the gore is there and very in-your-face, but the death scenes are crafted with zero imagination, or creativity. Alexandra Daddario saves it from being an utter disaster, by playing a likable protagonist, that exudes decency. However, the other characters are very stereotypical,  and act illogically most of the time, and that makes you want them dead.

Overall summary: Neither as scary as the original, nor as entertaining as the 2003 remake, "Texas Chainsaw 3D" attempts to freshen up the franchise with very little effort, hence, it ends up being a generic sequel, relying mostly on the gore, that has no actual reason to exist.