If Side Effects played in Pakistani cinemas it would only have the effect of reinforcing our popular dread of anti-depressants. Emily Taylor’s (Rooney Mara) husband (Channing Tatum) is about to be released from jail after serving a sentence for insider trading. A day or so after his release she attempts suicide by ramming her car into a wall. In the ER she is introduced to Dr Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) and agrees to go into treatment for depression.

She asks to be put on a new drug whose side effect is sleepwalking. As expected, and we are on the edge of our seats even though we know what is coming: the medication has disastrous consequences. Dr Banks is blamed and Emily ends up in jail.

This was the preamble to a film that is divided into two distinct parts. Up until the medication leads to disaster we cannot help but feel nerve-wracking suspense at every camera pan. But in the second half of the movie, the treatment of the film feels disjointed. The suspense disappears and we just see Dr Banks fumble through a series of discoveries about the drug as he seeks to clear his name. Still, the kicker in the end is satisfying.

The star of this work, however, is Rooney Mara’s performance as a vacant-faced patient who we can’t quite trust. The triumph of her acting is the ability to imperceptibly alter her expressions as the ‘depression’ progresses. Don’t bother registering Channing Tatum as he does little more than fill in for the supporting actor. A smaller and perhaps undervalued appearance is made by the eerie Catherine Zeta-Jones as Dr Victoria Siebert, Emily’s former psychiatrist. But as Dr Banks must discover, that spate of treatment entailed more than prescription writing. We’ve seen Jude Law in stronger roles but he manages to do justice to the prominent psychiatrist who falls from grace.

Side Effects was in the top 10 on the US box office for a few weeks. It is a shame that its director, Steven Soderbergh, who brought us We Need to Talk About Kevin, is giving up film to move into TV. But it seems that his fascination with the human physiology and psychology continues with his new series The Knick about a hospital during 1900 when antibiotics were being discovered amid high death rates.

Three films that made us understand the madness

1. One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Milos Forman

The director who brought us Amadeus created this classic from the novel in 1975. Jack Nicholson is sent to a mental asylum where he wreaks havoc and challenges the system. Bittersweet and terribly funny. One of the best films on psychiatry.

2. Leaving Las Vegas by Mike Figgis

This 1995 film won an Oscar for its treatment of alcoholism and won accolades for Elisabeth Shue and Nicholas Cage, a prostitute and a washed up Hollywood screenwriter who fall in love even as he insists on drinking himself to death. Haunting soundtrack includes work from Sting.

3.  Interiors by Woody Allen

If you’ve been depressed or known anyone with depression don’t watch this incisive non-funny Allen work. After her husband divorces her, a woman finds she cannot function. Her children are in their 30s and struggle to help her. A brilliant and painful portrait of the debilitating condition.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, June 2^nd, 2013.

Like Express Tribune Magazine on Facebook to stay informed and join the conversation.

“But some point you have to choose between life and fiction. The two are very close, but they never actually touch. They are two very, very different things.”

This protagonist’s dialogue pretty much sums up the premise of this well-crafted film, The Words. Weaved into the narrative are several plots and characters that though are distinct, yet they are inevitably tied together for being the creation of this single protagonist.

The opening scene shows Dennis Quaid, starring as writer Clay Hammond, reading aloud from his book The Words to a full auditorium. We are introduced to his character Rory Jansen, played by Bradley Cooper, who is an aspiring writer looking to write America’s next great novel. And in the film you are introduced to his novel’s character, known simply as the old man, and played by the very talented Jeremy Irons.

Within the world of fiction, a contradiction takes place and affects the characters and those around them. The repercussions do not just extend to Jansen or the old man, but affects Hammond in the real world as well, where he is shown shying away from his messy marital situation, and not to mention, being pursued by a young girl at his book launch.

The directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal, who also wrote the script, have skilfully showcased their storytelling prowess: every dialogue carries the story forward, while moments of silence and expressions are used to emphasise the inner turmoil within the characters. The conflict within Jansen, in particular, is perfectly captured by just silence on his part. Bradley Cooper’s real life beau, Zoe Saldana, plays his wife in this film. As their marriage goes through a rough patch, it is juxtaposed with Hammond’s own tribulations that we see a few frames earlier.

The Words pays tribute to life and the differing manner in which the three male characters make choices that affect those around them. Particularly noteworthy is Jeremy Irons, who leaves a lasting impression on the viewer’s mind despite his short on screen appearance, and the plot he takes forward. Watch this film for its enigmatic storytelling and the captivating performances of its highly talented cast.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, January 6^th, 2013.

Like Express Tribune Magazine on Facebook to stay informed and join the conversation.

An obscure director by the name of Mabrouk El Mechri decides to put a major and a minor star together in an action thriller set in gorgeous Spain.

Before we see whether this gamble worked or not, let’s take a look at the storyline: An exasperated Will (Henry Cavill, best known for his role as Henry the VIII’s best friend in “The Tudors”) comes down from San Francisco to meet his family for a sailing holiday.

He has had a difficult relationship with his father Martin (Bruce Willis), which is painfully emphasised in the first five minutes of the film. The son has work issues, and the father has issues with everything the son does. And it annoys him to no end that his son keeps taking phone calls on the way to the holiday boat.

His only advice on hearing that Will’s company is bankrupt is, “Tomorrow the wind is going to change,” a piece of advice that that is perhaps taken by his son only as a sailing reference.

When Martin can no longer take Will’s incessantly ringing phone, and tosses it into the deep sea, the son decides to swim back to town to calm himself down, instead of giving us a juicy confrontation — leaving me mildly annoyed at being cheated out of a serious man-to-man talk between father and son.

But here is the twist: when Will returns, the boat is gone. And so is his mum and brother — abducted by rival intelligence agents looking to recover a mysterious briefcase in possession of “CIA Agent” Martin by hook or by crook.

So far so good, I think, now the action must start. I mean, how could a Bruce Willis film disappoint in this regard?

But I am wrong. In the next 10 minutes, Martin meets his death. Before he dies, he tells his son “You are a great son.”

This is not some bleeding-to-death-on-sidewalk confession, but rather a just-before-getting-out-of-car-to-meet-CIA-agent confession.

Hence I expect the star to eventually return from the dead to save the day. It just isn’t possible that they would kill their major star in the first 20 minutes of the film. Could they?

What follows is a series of rather typical action scenes, with Will chasing a rogue CIA agent played by Sigourney Weaver and throwing his half-sister Lucia, played by Verónica Echegui, off roofs with merely a television cable tied to her waist.

Apparently the writers Scott Wiper and John Petro do not believe in spicing things up with romance, as even after an obvious chemistry between the two develops, and Lucia tells Will about his father’s intimate relationship with her own mother while standing at a subway station, the swoosh of the incoming train kills the moment.

The super talented Sigourney is wasted as the rogue agent Carrak. She is wooden, and looks weird in the absurd black pinstripe suit that she never changes out of (I guess they spent their entire budget on Willis) and is ineffective in her scare tactics.

As the story progresses, you start to wonder why it all seems familiar. And then a series of images from the previous Bourne films run through your head and you realise that they all have exotic European locations, car chases, CIA involved plot and roofs. Lots and lots of roofs.

This ‘hit action thriller’ formula is present in Bourne Legacy too, but in the absence of a solid, consistent storyline, it is ineffective.

Talented British actor Henry Cavill is completely wasted, despite convincingly playing his role as an American and an action hero. You don’t miss Willis terribly after he dies, though you do wonder if he will return and whether you should even continue watching to see if he does.

The rest of the cast, with the exception of Echegui, are also completely unconvincing. But then the cast can do only so much when the script disappoints.

My two cents: save your money and go catch one of the older Bourne films or simply watch Die Hard 4 for a Bruce Willis-induced adrenaline rush. At least, it will make you want to salute a hero, of which there are none in Cold Light of Day.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, September 16^th, 2012.

Like Express Tribune Magazine on Facebook and follow at @ETribuneMag

Jason Segal writes a good co-script. This was the first thought that ran through my mind after watching this particular flick. Fans of the popular show “How I Met Your Mother” know him better as Marshall, Aylson Hannigan’s fun loving and insanely devoted TV husband.

In his role as Tom, Segal is equally devoted to his big-screen wife, Violet.

Appropriately played by comic actress Emily Blunt (who often brings her own brand of British humour into her roles), Violet is a very British, and very intellectual, psychologist in pursuit of a doctorate.

You may recall her from The Devil Wears Prada, where she played evil fashion Miranda Priestly’s ‘jilted’ assistant Emily.

The dice start to roll when these seemingly perfect lovers get engaged. Unexpectedly, Emily’s sister Suzie (Alison Brie) meets her husband-to-be at the reception and her wedding bells start ringing while Tom and Violet are still in the “we shall soon get hitched” phase.

Then the delays start to pile up, as Violet gets the chance to pursue a doctorate at Michigan State University, forcing to move away from Los Angeles, giving up his dreams of being a chef in the process. Naturally, the planned wedding also has to take a back seat.

The film’s pivotal moment comes at a work dinner, when a large dog starts licking Tom’s face as he is answering the ‘how did you two meet?’ question.  Despite the jokes and the banter, it’s now clear that she has now gained the upper hand in society — she has a job she cares about and he has sacrificed his dreams of owning his own restaurant.

Instead of confessing his unhappiness, Tom goes for a passive aggressive approach by starting to plan the wedding on his own and also starts developing some fairly humorous quirks. This includes hunting like a ‘real man’ and making wine using fermented honey (I kid you not). It’s a physical transformation as well, and he also starts growing long mutton chop sideburns, in true ‘Southern Man’ style.

A certain “accident” involving a crossbow and a 5-year child leads to their first disagreement, and a case of stale donuts later, Violet finally sees that she has effectively destroyed her man. All these “delays” only provoke the inevitable — the big break up happens and they both head off in different directions.

What follow are new relationships and new realisations. Unlike the planned marriage itself, the humour never takes a back seat and in particular, a talk between the two sisters — an Elmo-voiced Suzie and a Cookie-monster voiced Violet — will have you in stitches. It’s saying something that, despite the couples’ obvious unhappiness, the laughs keep coming. Naturally the ensemble of British accents also help accentuate the humour as well — a very wise move by director and co-writer Nicholar Stoller. Thankfully, this movie also does not stoop to resorting to vulgarity for laughs, an issue that plagues far too many American comedies of late.

So will Tom and Violet finally tie the knot after the five-year wait? You’ll just have to watch and see. All in all, it’s a sweet trip right up until the end.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, September 9^th, 2012.

Wanderlust is a funny sort of movie. By ‘funny’ I don’t mean the kind of film that would have you laughing out loud and sharing jokes with friends for weeks to come. Its humour, if that’s what we can call it, lies mostly in poking fun at the anachronisms of 1960s-style hippies and the situations that arise when a ‘modern’ couple find themselves in their midst.

It’s not really a new formula, nor does Wanderlust add any new twists to what is pretty much a ‘been there, done that’ genre. Starring Jennifer Aniston as Linda Gergenblatt and Paul Rudd as her husband George, the film begins with this somewhat dysfunctional couple investing in a studio apartment in the West Village. But then the economy turns around and bites them right in the bank account and the newly unemployed couple have to relocate. It’s on this ‘journey’ that they come across a commune of vegan, free-love practicing, latter-day flower children. Down on their luck, Linda and George decide to give living on the commune a shot, with entirely predictable results.

Alan Alda, in his role as Carvin, the somewhat disillusioned founder of this community, is the real treat to watch. Well known for his role in the classic TV series M.A.S.H, Alda seems to have aged considerably and makes you wonder if he will be acting for much longer. Then there’s the commune’s de facto leader Seth (Justin Thearoux), and Eva (Malin Ackerman) — here becoming the proverbial Eve tempting Paul to surrender to the siren song of commune life. While the cast members have defined roles that should have given them the opportunity to deliver great performances, all of them seriously disappoint. The jokes are sporadic, stale, strange and at times completely disgusting.

Even though this movie is labelled a comedy, the comedic timing is completely off, and the jokes seem so obscure as to be incomprehensible. It’s as if director David Wain was enjoying his own co-written script so much that he failed to yell cut.

In the role of George, Rudd is loud and obnoxious and changes his mind so often and without any real justification that it is very hard to feel any sympathy for either his character or his situation. Aniston, as Linda, is another mystery — the biggest being why such an experienced comic actress would pick such a weak role. Linda is shown to be a person who changes careers every other month, which explains her temporary fascination for the hippie lifestyle but it does not explain exchanges like this one:

Seth: “You know you can really get trapped in that web of beepers and Zenith televisions and Walkmens and discmens and floppy discs and zip drives, laser discs, answering machines and Nintendo Power Glove…”

Linda: “Wow, you know so much about technology.”

I am sure there is a joke somewhere in there but I just can’t seem to find it. And yes, the rest of the humour, when it’s not rolling around in the toilet, is in much the same vein. Wanderlust takes a good cast and forces them to crack jokes that can barely be described as juvenile, making what could have been a hilarious farce into terrible, hopeless parody.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, August 19^th, 2012.

-clad women covered in black overalls is teased by a monkey, a goat and a dog, all belonging to a gypsy performer on the boat. Equally irritated by the unwanted animal advances are Hindu women in multi-coloured saris and over-sized crimson bindis, returning from a visit to the temple. Children from a large family giggle at the predicament of both sets of women, while our amused smiles are returned by sheepish glances from the troubled ladies.

Like the gypsy’s signature patchwork bag, Manora’s diversity is reminiscent of Karachi’s multicultural past — and all that is sadly in stark contrast with its increasingly monochromatic present.

This piece was originally submitted for the British Council’s creative writing competition.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, August 19^th, 2012.

There is something different about The Vow. It’s not your typical run-of-the-mill love story but it also poses challenging questions about the inevitability of love.

In the first few minutes of the movie, an accident leaves Paige (Rachel McAdams), unable to recall the greatest love of her life: her husband Leo (Channing Tatum).

Based on a true story, The Vow follows Paige and Leo as they struggle to get to know each other again, despite her uptight parents (Jessica Lange, Sam Neill), and Paige’s slick ex-fiancé Jeremy (Scott Speedman), whom she does recall with no memory of why they split.

Paige tries to piece together her life with her spouse, at one instance laying down all the photos of what she remembers and even visiting the art studio where she worked. She moves back with her parents, who reintroduce her to the life she left behind and she is pushed back into the same society and life choices that she abandoned. This becomes circumstantial in making her realise exactly why she made those decisions in the first place.

Tatum, best remembered for his role as John Tyree in the box office hit Dear John, is unusually expressive and brings a certain intensity into his role but McAdams is the real draw. She exudes her usual uncanny warmth on screen and is a delight to watch. As a couple, McAdams and Tatum have the ability to switch their chemistry on and off when needed. At times, Tatum’s fervour is unneeded but he continues to make you empathise with his character and the tragedy of slowly losing the one you love.

As the couple rediscover their relationship, they begin to rediscover each other. The question remains will it all work out in the end or will Paige choose to live the life she remembers. If once again they ‘agree to disagree on red velvet cake’.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, May 20^th, 2012.

Anonymous is a film based on the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship — the idea proposes that Edward de Vere, the 17^th Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare.

The film begins interestingly enough in a theatrical setting with the narrator Derek Jacobi questioning our beliefs on the authenticity of Shakespeare. This ‘what if’ questioning continues from the stage to the period setting of 15^th century England, where a very troubled Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto) is running away from the King’s men. He holds in his hands, the script for a seditious performance mocking Richard III. As he hurriedly buries the pages in the now scorched Globe Theatre, he is caught.

What begins next is a tortuous and absolutely ridiculous elucidation of the Oxfordian theory. Brought up as a noble by William Cecil (David Thewlis) and given the privileges of a patrician education, the young Edward de Vere (Jamie Campbell Bower) first comes to the attention of the young Queen Elizabeth I (Joely Richardson) through his production of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” in court.

Forty years later, the Queen (now played by Vanessa Redgrave) is nearing the end of her life, and the question on everyone’s minds is who would succeed her, especially Lord Cecil who has his own designs on the crown. The Earl (now played by Rhys Ifans) has his own strong feelings about the matter and expresses himself by writing dozens of plays, exposing the backstage intrigue of the royal household.

Since theatre and plays are taboo and to admit authorship of a play would demean the Earl’s standing in life, the Earl begins to pass his plays along to Ben Johnson, who promotes them as his own. But when a drunken oaf named William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) claims authorship of the plays, everything goes haywire.

This film lacks a true depiction of life in the colourful and politically charged 15^th century. It allocates most of its time looking at backstage intrigue in the royal court rather than probing the question of the authorship of the Shakespearian plays, which is far more interesting. The movie constantly switches back and forth between the two main periods, making it extremely difficult to keep track of the story and characters.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, May 20^th, 2012.