Side Effects

Steven Soderbergh's final theatrical film (for now, at least...), is a taut and surprising thriller. Side Effects stars Rooney Mara as Emily, a young woman who's mental health is in a fragile balance, after her husband, Martin (Channing Tatum), is sent to prison for Wall Street indiscretions. After Martin is released, she begins seeing a psychologist, Dr. Banks (Jude Law), who begins prescribing her medication. An event happens, which I won't spoil for you, that launches everyone into a downward spiral.

I can't really say too much else, because, as I said, I don't want to spoil it.

What can I say about the film from a technical standpoint? It's pretty awesome. It's Soderbergh. Would you expect any less. That he is retiring is, literally, humanity's loss. He's one of our best, and still has, at least, twenty more years of making amazing films in him. It's his choice, though, and while Side Effects isn't a Traffic or Ocean's movie, he's still going out on top.

Contagion

Steven Soderbergh recently announced that he will be leaving filmmaking (at least temporarily) to concentrate on painting. After seeing Contagion, and taking into consideration some of his recent work, it might be good for Soderbergh to take a little break, before he ends up becoming the Neil Young of the film world, releasing everything he can, even if it's mediocre.

Contagion is an ensemble piece that focuses around one specific thing - a new disease that pops up, which, over time, claims millions of lives, and the fight to stop it. To try and explain how each of the leads (people like Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne, and more) is connected would take longer than I care to give it. Much like Traffic (another of Soderbergh's ensemble pieces), the interconnectivity of the characters can be inconsequential at times, but there's so many of them, trying to explain it would be tedious and confusing.

What's my gripe about Contagion? Well, put simply, a lot happens with nothing really happening. Bad things happen to all of the main players, but they're handled with such distance that it's hard to not just feel like your simply observing something unfolding in front of you, devoid of any emotional connection to the characters. Like The Girlfriend Experience, Contagion comes off almost like a documentary, but it's still a docu directors job to find some way for an audience member to have some sort of emotional connection to the people it's showing, whether positive or negative. In Contagion, I didn't feel either way. It was just a bunch of stuff that happened. I didn't feel fear. There wasn't any "thriller" aspect to the film, as some reviewers have alluded to. As I said before, it just came off as a bunch of stuff that happened.

You're going to kill me for saying this - It's not that it's a bad film, it just never seems to climax at any point. Honestly, I would still give it a B-. I don't know if that's because I look at Soderbergh's work through rose colored glasses, or whether their really is just enough there to have something redeeming happening. I'd like to see it again, see if a second viewing (now that all of the hype has been drained out of me) would fair better, but, it won't be in the theater.

One more quick note - I feel like Soderbergh is getting really lazy with his cinematography, as well. Half of the film looked like it was shot on a 5D. Not to bash 5D's (I shot PHX on one), but when you have a Red Epic at your disposal, and a real budget, don't just jack up your ISO. Light the scene. Shooting in "natural" light above 800 or so starts to really make the image look like crap. I know he's really been into available light shooting, ever since he fell in love with the Red One, but, seriously, you have the resources. Light it.

Sherlock Holmes

There's two classic stories that I've been in love with since I was a kid - Harry Houdini and Sherlock Holmes. I think both of them appeal to young kids, especially boys, because of the sense of adventure and magic. Looking back on it, I can't think of any adaptations of Sherlock Holmes (at least live action, non-parody ones), nor movies about Harry Houdini. So, when I first saw a trailer for a hip new Sherlock Holmes film, I was intrigued. Guy Ritchie has had his moments, so I figured it has to be, at least, halfway decent, right? I mean, Robert Downey Jr., Rachel McAdams, and the wide variety of story to pull from had to have given them a lot to work with.

Sherlock Holmes concerns the relationship of Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law), as Watson is moving on in his life and getting ready to marry a young woman and move into full time medical practice. Holmes is left feeling abandoned, but doesn't have long to think about it because Lord Blackwood, a once dead nemesis, appears to have resurrected himself from the grave and be causing havoc in London. Holmes teams up with a reluctant Watson, and an old flame, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) in order to fight the dark powers of Blackwood.

Sherlock Holmes is one of those movies that you can see all the ways that it could have been better. Too long, with characters that are not always explored well enough, and one too many needless speed ramping shots, Holmes can come off as bloated and boring. While all of the actors do a good job, it's impossible to really enjoy a movie experience that feels like your having to tread through mud. that being said, the ending sets up an obvious sequel, and I will say that maybe, just maybe, the film suffers from Ritchie having not directed anything for a while, and problems in his personal life. Should there be a sequel, I would consider seeing it, to see if they could pull together all of the things that feel so loose in this one.