Side Effects details
|Formats:||15 DVD, Blu-ray|
|Starring:||Channing Tatum, Vinessa Shaw, Rooney Mara, Jude Law, Catherine Zeta-Jones, David Costabile, Greg Paul, Kerry O'Malley, Vince Hickman, Polly Draper|
|Collections:||July - Thriller|
|Run time:||1 hour 46 minutes|
|Rental release:||29 Jul 2013|
By Tom Charity from LOVEFiLM
Steven Soderbergh's latest is a twisty thriller starring Channing Tatum, Rooney Mara, Jude Law and Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Most helpful review
Surprisingly Brilliant.By jimjamjimmyball (1 review) , 22 Mar 2013
[Highly rated reviewer]I thoroughly recommend this film if you enjoy great acting and twists that keep you thinking throughout. It is probably the best film I have seen this year, which surprised me as I wasn't particularly expecting much considering the lack of noise surrounding the film. Jude Law and Rooney Mara were both exceptional, and kept me totally gripped throughout. Mara is certainly one to look out for after her performance in this and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. So definitely either go to the cinema and watch it or click that reserve button now!
- Was this review helpful to you?
- (60) Yes |
- No (11)
Waste of timeBy CharlieLew (19 reviews) from London , 12 Dec 2013
THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS Show review anywayHideSide Effects Be aware: SPOILERS! The plot of this noir semi-thriller, though it kept you guessing and was certainly not predictable (at least, not until fairly late in the story), was, quite simply, unbelievable. In addition, the details of the script were full of holes. The plot required us to believe that a young woman, who had enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle with her young husband for, seemingly, quite a while, developed such a hatred for him when they were reduced to near penury as a result of his jail sentence for insider trading, that she decided to kill him when he was freed. That is hard to swallow for a start. But the lethal conspiracy she hatched with her shrink, a lady with whom she was having a sexual relationship, was preposterous. They decided that she would act insane, go sleepwalking for instance, then get a doctor to prescribe her a new drug, then stab her husband to death, then act insane stating that she must have been asleep because she had no memory or awareness of what she had done, and then go to trial in the hope that she would not be given a life sentence but would get off with some easy option. To pile absurdity on nonsense, the two women planned great financial benefit from this escapade, because they reckoned that the share price of the new drug would drop to zero once it was implicated in an unconscious murder while that of similar but older drugs would hit the roof, and in that way she would be doing her own bit of insider trading. I think I understood what they were trying to tell me, but I suppose in this farrago I could have got something wrong. As for the holes in the plot, or I should say the further holes in the plot, consider this: the doctor who prescribed the drug began to smell a rat and so he told her, when she was in a detention centre for the medically unstable, that he was injecting her with a truth drug, which would make her feel drowsy and under the influence of which she would tell him the truth. She duly went drowsy falling to the side, and told him that she had never meant to hurt her husband and she could not remember how it had happened. However the doctor had injected merely a saline solution, in no way a drug. If that was the case, she would not have felt drowsy, and would obviously have told the doctor that, because it would in no way have prejudiced her. There is absolutely no reason why, not feeling drowsy, she should have pretended to be drowsy, because she would surely have known that the doctor had not given her the right drug (she was very far from being a fool). And the ending, where the doctor persuaded her to implicate her lesbian friend in the conspiracy to murder the husband, it being understood that she herself could not be prosecuted again, but then, in total breach of medical ethics, lied right left and centre to get her locked up in the mental institution for life, was pure hokum. This script might have passed muster in the 40s for a B picture of a noirish type, but in this day and age one can only call it rubbish.
From laudable to laughableBy mattecky (52 reviews) from durham , 11 Dec 2013This film comes highly recommended by everyone....except me. It starts promisingly enough before unravelling with a series of improbable and idiotic twists. I could go further with explanations about them but I do not wish to litter this review with spoilers. If this truly is Soderbergh's last film then perhaps it is for the best.
Must watch twice to get itBy a customer , 08 Dec 2013I liked this film the second time around. After watching it the first time i didn't get it at all it was really confusing! But when i watched it again it was good with a big twist.
side effectsBy a customer , 05 Dec 2013this film was one of the most boring film i have ever watched it was so boring i only watched 30 minutes my daughter watched it and she liked it
Good film but lame endingBy Liftman1970 (5 reviews) , 02 Dec 2013A decent thriller that plays on the idea that faking an illness could make you rich. Sounds like a whiplash injury. I thought it had a strong cast and decent pace, and also enough twists to keep watching. The ending was a bit disappointing as Emily going back into the hospital seemed odd as im sure she would have done a deal with the feds to save her, as she was really the clever one...