I had to read the synopsis while I was watching it because it was so complex, but nonetheless, it was great. The whole double jeopardy concept is the real killer.
The only thing I didn't enjoy about the movie was how fake the lesbian kissing scene was. Not that it affected how I felt about the movie really, although it seemed like neither of them had been sexually attracted to each other at all.
Isn't it? So well written. The lesbian plot was a bit contrived at first but on a second viewing it didn't bother me at all.
shareAnd only one writer responsible. Superb job IMO!🐭
shareIf you think this movie is well-written, you should have your head examined. So much needless dialog, such poor pacing, this movie is terrible.
sharePut me in the clever category I really liked it. Particularly the short selling aspect.
I dreamt of a roaring river and a woman that was a fish. Dead she drifted, with red tears...
It's a really well-written script by Scott Z. Burns. I had to check him up and he also wrote the screenplay for "The Informant!". Also as smart and complex as this, and another film that I really enjoyed by Soderbergh.
But I have to agree about the lesbian kissing scene, I couldn't feel any attraction between the two at all. But I do like Rooney Mara, she's fantastic with her often subtle acting. I saw her in "A Texas Love Story". The film was okay, but she was really good.
Ugh, 'The Informant', another bloated mess of a movie. That guy needs to keep his day job.
shareI think I'll go with what lola told you in this thread. I'm not saying that The Informant! nor Side Effects are any of Soderbergh's best, but saying that it's a bloated mess of a movie, is just nuts.
Both are well written, and I get that some people just didn't like the tone in the film. But I don't think I've seen Matt Damon as brilliant since Will Hunting. And I absolutely loved his voice-over narration.
PS. His day job among other things is as a liquor importer, his Bolivian brandy, Singani 63. He's not only great at making movies, he's equally good at making an ad; http://i.imgur.com/BnM7Ixd.jpg
I like some of Soderbergh's stuff. But I'm not going to ignore a clunky movie based on names alone.
Great acting can't save a boring script, or bad directing. I've said this over and over again ("Babel" is the worst movie I've ever seen, and it's not due to a lack of great actors).
Who woke you from your hibernation? Okay, clunky or not - you don't like Side Effects, fine.
I haven't seen Babel, but I doubt it's the worst film you've seen. It's hardly like Tatum and Mara (at least not in 2013) was such drawing cards (I personally don't like Tatum that much).
But if you didn't like Babel, I'll put it on my list. And if it's anywhere near as good as Birdman, I'm certain I will like it. Thanks for the tip.
Babel was so bad it had me shouting at the TV for a good hour. I had to keep watching it because I couldn't believe it could be so consistently bad throughout (spoiler: it was).
Why was Babel so bad? For one thing, it's the most pretentious movie ever. How it was ever nominated for any award is beyond me, but I suspect it has something to do with big names in the credits. Scene after scene drags longer than it should (like the director forgot to yell "Cut!" and the camera keeps rolling focused on nothing, because the actors have already left the shot), with character development that is non-existent, and a plot device which consists of any reason possible to tie the stories together. The story is supposed to be about cultural differences and how seemingly small decisions can drastically affect other lives, even ones far removed, but it doesn't work because those connections are so forced and contrived. You feel like the movie is force-feeding you it's meaningless message.
The biggest problem is that all of the things that happen in the movie are the direct result of every character making the dumbest decision possible in any given situation. Hence, it's impossible to relate to any of the characters because they are total morons, and it doesn't help that none of the characters develop in any sort of meaningful way. So you have a terrible script with a bunch of stupid characters that are making terrible decisions that are impacting other characters through ridiculously contrived ways, all pulled together by a director that has no sense of pacing or cinematography. All while oozing with undeserved pretension. It's easily the most frustratingly pointless and nauseatingly pretentious movie I've ever seen.
By all means, please watch the movie and see how bad it is for yourself. I'm not sure what Birdman has to do with this, but Birdman was a great movie. Definitely nothing like Babel.
You do like to express yourself, in a veeery lengthy way. And since I still haven't seen the film, I can hardly agree with you, nor can I respond to you with any counter-arguments, which is the essence when it comes to a discussion, and especially on these boards.
So seriously, do you know what I think? I think you like to show off your film knowledge, your self-imposed apprehension when it comes to cinematography, and to read your own words.
I like Iñárritu, but I've only seen a handful of what he's done. So this discussion is quite unnecessary, and in all honesty, I had hoped that you would've got into hibernation again. But you're welcome to come back when I've seen the film, only then will we be able to discuss what was good and what was not.
Agreed. I did not see the twists coming
shareI think it was a bit too clever. Also, the ending was pretty much the opposite of what it should be.
Given how much effort she had put into planning the perfect murder, why would the Mara character panic so quickly when it came to the minor act of using a phone? She already knew how to act like a well-behaved patient. Why screw it up? Especially after her doctor had become completely discredited. A better movie would have had the Law character figuring out the plot but being unable to do anything about it.
Just watched it. And I like your theory of a more acceptable ending.
I slept with you and you're in love with my husband. What the hell am I supposed to do with that?
I did not watch this stupid waste...........but I do know,first hand,over 45 years of taping doctors without their knowledge{200 of them}that they are lowlife scumbags........the young ones,I mean.
shareDisgusting,amoral filth......do not watch.
shareFrom my experience it really wasn't.Let me elaborate.
1)So,Dr Jonathan gives Emily a "truth serum" which is actually a placebo to find out if she is telling the truth.Emily then fakes being affected by the "truth serum" and she eventually passes out.I never understood why???She was given a placebo so she didn't really feel anything.Why would she fake being affected by the drug if she didn't feel "lightheaded,a sense of well being,calm,drowsy and sleepy"???The moment she didn't feel anything she would have realised that the drug that she was given was not real,a placebo so faking a reaction would not make any sense whatsoever except make her seem suspicious for no reason.
Even if she is stupid(clearly she is not,by what we see in the film) and cannot sense her own body signals(or in this case the lack of thereof) and she somehow believed that he really gave her the real drug,again why would she fake her symptoms?Why not just answer the questions the way she wanted?The drug would have done the work anyway.Why would she want to "amplify" the effects of the drug with her performance if it's a real drug?There isn't any need for her faking sumptoms.That's why this scene is written poorly and doesn't make any sense.
2)Victoria (a woman who plotted a convoluted scheme with her lover) when confronted with the suspicions of the doctor about Emily sends photographs to his wife to make it look that they had an affair.Again, why?? She just made the whole situation more fishy,confirming the doctor's suspicions and by alienating him from his family she practically forced him to take an action and to further investigate what really happened because he had nothing to lose anymore(and everything to gain).His reputation was already destroyed so all she had to do was act cool and try to convince him that there is no way Emily faked all of it and even if she did,the best thing for him is to move on and try to save what's left of his life.Not in any way associate herself with Emily's doings.
Thanks, this is probably the best comment I've read. I also was ambivalent about this movie, more good than bad but some bad definitely. Your message made me realize there is a bit more bad than I thought.
--
Ĝis la.
Thanks.I think the movie was a little messy.And the thing is that because the movie is trying to appear convoluted it forces you to think about it so you cannot ignore it and suspend your disbelief.The soundtrack of this movie was haunting though.
shareExactly, I was mesmerized to see people believing it was well written.
Also, all the shrink stuff didn't make much sense. As soon as Emily would have understood her shrink knew Something was wrong she would have get rid of him and replace him by another one. Not to say Jude Law did so much unethical stuff he would have lost his title in a minute.
Fake lesbian kissing? Well, every Hollywood movie has to have some aspect of porn, or a topless woman, or a nude person, or fornication, or masturbation, or homosexuals, it's just the way Hollywood is, porn movies. And right up the street from Hollywood is where all the hardcore porno movies are made.
share