Side Effects (I) (2005)
1/10
Awful just doesn't seem strong enough.
6 January 2007
Okay, the point of the movie was made, but poorly played. Basically the movie is attempting to expose the pharmaceutical industry and all these new drugs that are constantly forced on us through celebrity endorsements and TV commercials. It's true, we spend way too much money on drugs and the industries force stuff on us. The movie gets to that point, but I think they used Katherine Heigl as a selling point and clearly the director wanted to know what she looked like without any clothes on. There are several scenes of her in her underwear, or furiously taking off her clothes. We as the viewers get screwed out of what could be the only redeeming quality of this film because we never get to see Heigl topless. Truthfully, that would have made the movie worth a rental. The movie looked like it was filmed on a home video camera, and sometimes the sound is so awful you have to wonder if it was. I get what they were trying to do, and to some point I can respect that but it could have been done better. I think the acting in my high school play was better, and that is saying a lot considering the talent pool we had. If you're curious, watch it. It's not like it's as bad as Miami Vice. Well, it's close but it's definitely not one you want to own.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed