Review: Soderbergh's Side Effects Will Make You Question Your Sanity — In a Good Way (Probably)

Much like commercials for actual drugs, the ads for director Steven Soderberghs Side Effects show you something less than the whole picture, leaving out the more nefarious details about exactly whats going to happen when you consume it.

Thats because sharing too much information aboutSide Effects, opening in theaters today, can spoil the entire tale so this review should be fun. But without revealing too much: The film is a psychological thriller that thrills by making audiences question the sanity of nearly every character, even the psychologists, and ultimately themselves.

A non-spoilery synopsis of Side Effects goes something like this: Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) is a young woman whose husband Martin (Channing Tatum) was recently released from prison after completing a four-year sentence for insider trading. Shes happy to have him back, but she struggles with depression and anxiety about her future.

Enter Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law): A compassionate perhaps too compassionate psychiatrist who treats Emilys condition with a new (fictional) drug called Ablixa that brings her back to life, but has potentially dangerous side effects (dun-dun-DUN!) that could affect her marriage. But the full implication of the drugs effects dont become apparent until almost the second act, and the true motivations (and mental states) of everyone involved dont really come to light until the closing credits.

Thank writer Scott Z. Burns for this bit of trickery, hes crafted a script where every character on the screen reveals something new with every beat, but yet never quite enough. And credit Soderbergh for coaxing very nuanced performances out of his cast, particularly Mara, who can turn from sweet ingnue to shades of something much darker on a dime.

(Spoiler alert: Minor plot points to follow.)

At its core,Side Effects is a movie about how mental health is treated in the U.S., both by doctors and how its dealt with in society. Burns wrote Side Effects with the medical advice of forensic psychologist Sasha Bardey and it shows: The doctors and patients on screen address real issues of boundaries, ethics, and quandaries of treatment, including what happens when doctors make mistakes and things go wrong.

Theres a moment when Dr. Banks partners fret about the negative attention brought to their practice after an incident relating to Emilys medication psychiatry is, after all, a profession and the appearance of malpractice is bad for business and he responds that he cant be responsible for an unforeseen effect of a new drug.That may be how rational people see it, his partner retorts. But we dont see a great many rational people here.

If Side Effects falters anywhere, its by focusing more deeply on psychology and psychiatry than the story requires. For all of the smart observations and thefascinating questions the film poses about the ethical minefield involved with treatingmental health and prescribing happy pills, and ethics, many of those issues are left hanging, oranswered in ways that are entertaining but not necessarily intellectually satisfying.

However, these gripes are cerebral, not cinematic, and as a movie Side Effects delivers. Weaving marital problems and insider trading into a crime thriller about mental health and the pharmaceutical industry isnt exactly easy, but nothing in the film feels forced into place. Driven by some smart performances Bardey, who also co-produced the film, advised the actors as well as the script the actions of every player feel believable, even if they seem completely, well, crazy.

See original here:
Review: Soderbergh's Side Effects Will Make You Question Your Sanity — In a Good Way (Probably)