Side Effects

Steven Soderbergh recently turned fifty (coincidentally, on the same day as my twenty first) and announced that he was to fold away his director's chair one last time in favour of pursuing his love of painting. Aside from anything else, then, film-making seems to have been kind to his bank balance. Soderbergh's sex, lies and videotape won the Palme d'Or at Cannes in 1989 and since then he has proved to be one of the most diverse directors in the industry, bouncing from genre to genre like they were going out of fashion. Last year's Magic Mike was a prime example and Side Effects, his latest – and supposedly last – film is a tense and engaging thriller with plenty of surprises along the way.

Starring Rooney Mara, Jude Law, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Channing Tatum, Side Effects is striking for its eclectic cast list and it was somewhat surprising what a good ensemble they made. Emily Taylor (played by Mara) is reunited with her husband (Tatum) after he has spent four years in prison for insider trading. A few days after his release, however, she attempts to commit suicide and is treated for depression under the care of a psychiatrist (Law) who prescribes her a new antidepressant drug, with devastating consequences. The film's central question concerns whether the drug made her do what she did or if her psychiatrist and the drug company are to blame. Look at the Wikipedia article for the film, and you'll note that the film is described as a 'psychological thriller-neo-noir' and the hybrid nature of the film has drawn criticism from some. One critic lamented the mix of 'court room drama, forensic thriller and romantic murder mystery' which created a confused and unconvincing narrative. I, on the other hand, felt that Soderbergh had rather brilliantly combined elements which perfectly reflected the film's themes of confusion and deception.

There are some beautifully-composed shots throughout the film and the claustrophobic, selective focus employed helped to draw the audience into the world of Taylor: a world which was intense and which lacked clarity. The camera moved with a lyricism which is often hard to come by, whether it was tracking the movement of a folder across a desk or simply an establishing shot of an apartment block. Dealing with a subject matter of drugs and the pharmaceutical industry, many of the scenes were, aesthetically, very clinical and I was struck by sequences which oozed blue and black tones, as if they had been captured by x-ray film. Obviously, that is somewhat of a hyperbole, but Soderbergh's ability to subtly highlight such themes was a joy to watch.

In narrative terms, Side Effects was perpetually enthralling and its plot twists and turns were genuinely surprising and, even though I'd worked out the main plot revelation some fifteen minutes before it was revealed, the film's skill in keeping me engaged was something to applaud. Jude Law's performance was intriguing to watch and he hasn't been on better form for a long time. Catherine Zeta-Jones was, um, rather menacing as his fellow psychiatrist and almost did enough to redeem herself for her sins in the abysmal Rock of Ages. Mara, too, was an enchanting screen prescence and I have a feeling we shall be seeing much more from her in the future. To return to Soderbergh's habit of jumping around with genres, the film did slip from one type of film into another and then another, and never really held a through-line which was strong enough to support its grand statements on morality. But this never detracts from its enjoyability or its successes.

Side Effects is a tense, intelligent and intoxicating thriller which successfully leaves the audience guessing and, in the end, satisfied with its conclusion. Mara, Law, Tatum and Zeta-Jones made for interesting performances and the aesthetic beauty of the camera work was a highlight of a generally successful piece of entertainment. If it is Steven Soderbergh's last film, then he's gone out on a high.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *

The Paperboy

For my French A Level speaking exam, I talked for fifteen minutes about the Cannes Film Festival. I researched its history, knew my Official Selections from my Parallel Selections and could have easily told you who won the Palme d'Or in 1976 (it was Taxi Driver). Ever since then, I've always wanted to go to the festival and rub shoulders with the industry's great and good. Many established critics, however, turn their nose up at Cannes as if it were a corporate, shallow and self-aggrandising media circus and, actually, it is. But the thrill of attending would be fantastic. Anyway, to the point: Cannes critics are renowned for their vocal approval/disapproval of a film and The Paperboy, the new film from Precious director Lee Daniels, received a very negative reaction last year. Strange, then, that it isn't all that bad...

Loosely-based on the novel of the same name by Pete Dexter, The Paperboy is a very odd affair and fluctuates between the bizarre and the downright strange. Set in the sweltering summer of 1969, the film sees newspaper reporter Ward Jansen (Matthew McConaughey) and his younger brother Jack (Zac Efron) investigate a murder case which has resulted in an innocent man being sentenced to death row. Throw in an over-sexed bottle blonde (played by Nicole Kidman) and you've got a trashy thriller with a heavyweight cast list and plenty of atmosphere. Indeed, The Paperboy does rather well in the atmosphere department, somewhat at the expense of a forceful and driving narrative. Daniels' direction was rather limp in propelling the film along and allowed for too many seemingly irrelevant moments to really grip the audience.

Every frame of the film oozed cinematic heritage and looked as though it were photographed through a 1954 Leica camera, whilst some nice editing techniques were used to great effect. The film's aesthetic certainly contributed to its successes in terms of its trashy, pot-boiler feel and I was impressed by Daniels' cinematographic choices, even if his uneven narrative could have been strengthened. The whole cast put in good performances, especially from Efron, who has a face and a sensibility on screen which was perfectly suited to the film's era. The highest compliment I can pay Efron is that, if he were to pop up alongside Hoffman in The Graduate, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.

The road from the High School Musical franchise has been a fairly uneventful one for Efron although it has taken time for him to settle into his right type of role. The Paperboy is the first film in which I've been really impressed by him. The character of Jack is both troubled and conflicted. Lounging around in his underpants and yearning for a female prescence in his life, Jack is enigmatic, temperamental and sensitive and Efron's performance was exceptionally well-judged. The sexual tension with Kidman may raise a few eyebrows, and the less said about that jellyfish scene, the better. In more general terms, I felt that the dynamics between McConaughey and Efron were very believable and the quiet dreaming of Jack was a surreal but competently executed extra layer to a very unusual film.

Tonally confused but often startling, The Paperboy is a strange and perplexing film of sexual desire, truth and family. In many ways, I didn't like it. But there was something rather intoxicating about the sweat, soft cinematography and dynamic performances. It's not fantastic but it's far from uninteresting. What do those Cannes critics know...?

Clapperboard Rating: * * *

Safe Haven

Films, as with many things in life, are often predictable. Walk into a cinema showing Justin Bieber; Never Say Never and you'd expect the foyer to be heaving with throngs of teenage girls (and the occasional dutiful boyfriend). Even before watching the opening credits of a Michael Bay film, you'll know that the nutritional information on the back of a pot noodle offers a better narrative and is more prosaic than the impending 154 minutes of robots hitting each other over the head. And no one sits down to watch Mulholland Drive expecting to understand it.

Then again, predictability is not necessarily a bad thing. A film based upon the books of Nicholas Sparks should tell you three things. One, there'll be a romance which starts in the most unlikely of situations. Two, a female character with a troubled past will need a man who is similarly displaced to achieve redemption. Three, both of these characters will live impossibly comfortable lives and will be ridiculously good looking. Safe Haven, the latest Sparks adaptation is no different...

I have to admit that things didn't get off to a brilliant start. Safe Haven opens with Katie (Julianne Hough) frantically boarding a coach to Atlanta, apparently being chased by the police. The last time I saw Julianne Hough boarding a coach and pensively staring out of the window was in Rock of Ages – one of my worst films of last year. Things weren't looking good. Katie eventually reaches the small fishing town of Southport, North Carolina and strikes up a friendship with Alex, the local store keeper (Josh Duhamel). Katie soon becomes close to Alex, who is a widower with two young children, but in doing so, is forced to confront her dark past. You know the score.

The film plays itself out as you'd expect, with the exception of a rather ridiculous plot twist at the end which left me rather confused and feeling slightly cheated. Without wanting to give plot spoilers, lets just say I would have respected the film more if it had played its narrative straight down-the-line. There are some amusing and – at times – touching moments, especially in the scenes with Alex's two children. Suspend disbelief and all will be well. Performance wise, Hough and Duhamel do make for a good couple, if only for their compatible looks (as my friend remarked during a rather steamy scene, “their children would be so good looking!”). Even so, Hough seems too far-removed from reality to be a credible character but, nevertheless, I was mostly won over by the end of the film (I promise it was nothing to do with how attractive she is...well, only a bit).

The issue of reality, however, wasn't confined to Hough's performance. The location used in most of the film only exists on a postcard and the characters' immaculate houses, with exposed sanded-down wood only served to make the whole film rather unbelievable. If there's an actual town where policemen's highest priority is organising a firework display, then I'll be more than happy to praise the film for its realism. The cinematography was the inoffensive and easy-on-the-eye sort which shot the town of Southport as if it were an advert for the North Carolina tourist board. Watch Katy Perry's Teenage Dream music video and you'll be close to the delicately washed-out aesthetic which ran through much of the film. But maybe this is missing the point. No-one goes to see a Nicholas Sparks film expecting realism and actuality. These films (Dear John, The Lucky One and The Notebook are all Sparks adaptations) exist to be sanguine and done well, that's no bad thing.

Safe Haven is nothing remarkable, nothing innovative and exists in its own idealistic world. It does have an emotional heart and is pure escapism, plain and simple. But it is inoffensive, well-made escapism and for that, I can't criticise. 

Clapperboard Rating: * *