New Year’s Eve

D: Gary Marshall. DP: Charles Minsky. W: Katherine Fugate. Starring: Michelle Pfieffer/Sarah Jessica Parker/Zac Efron/Ashton Kutcher/Lea Michelle/Josh Duhamel/Hilary Swank/Robert De Niro/Halle Berry/Jessica Biel/Seth Meyers/Sarah Paulson/Carla Gugino/Cary Ewes/Katherine Heigel/Sofia Vergara/Jon Bon Jovi/Abigail Breslin/Hector Elizando.

Continuing the theme of 2010′s Valentine’s Day, Gary Marshall provides a holiday film of anthology stories meant to warm the heart and theater seats. And one would think with a cast list this long that something interesting would come of the project. Rather, one would hope.

New Year’s Eve is all it claims to be. Sparkly, naive, and thankfully over before things get too mushy. Having been dragged to see this rather reluctantly, I was a tad surprised at the moments I did laugh and the ones that did make me verbally say “aw.” Than I quickly sunk lower in my chair hoping that no one else I knew would witness my travesty. That being said, no one will be blind enough not to notice the swarmy gloss of Hollywood all over New Year’s Eve. Every character appears like an archetype, playing into some one dimensional character merely meant to conveniently link together as part of the whole film. The characters act out like basic casting descriptions, rebellious teenager, over worked, out of sync, and negelectant of herself mother, jilted fiance, older man dying alone, wanna-be singer and the list could go on.

Clearly this mash-up romantic holiday comedy serves a purpose in the greater scheme of cinematic reach. But is it a good purpose? It has and will continue to bring in money, but I must ask why people go see it? Although the film verbally recognizes the pressure of the new years eve night and how it never lives up to its hype, it does nothing to persuade its characters to do anything but buy into the celebration. Is that why people see the film? To buy into the Hollywood concept? Into the unrealistic romantic comedy world? Or for the simple joy of seeing something easy and friendly? Sadly the box office numbers don’t every reveal reasoning.

Sadly nothing of worth can be said of any of the performances, the script or the films style. Gary Marshall merely cuts another film from his drapes and teaches it to sing the same song. It may have some sweet moments, but the homogenized cast and story lines are so overdone that they are soon forgotten. Now all that is left is a countdown until the next anthology movie of Marshall’s is released. Let’s all just hope it’s not something like “Presidents Day” or “Arbor Day.”

The Descendants

D: Alexander Payne. DP: Phedon Papamichael. W: Payne/Nat Faxon/Jim Rash (based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings). Starring: George Clooney/Shailene Woodley/Amara Miller/Nick Krause/Beau Bridges/Matthew Lillard/Judy Greer/Mary Birdsong/Rob Huebel/Robert Forster.

Hot from the festival circuit, Alexander Payne’s new film, The Descendants, has found nice footing at movie theaters across the country. The only true test will be how it fairs through award season.

Since 2004′s Sideways, this is the first project that Payne has both written and directed and he does the story credit here. The Descendants is a multi-layered story that thankfully doesn’t try to be too complex in its delivery. Following George Clooney’s Matt King as he grapples with the pending decision of whether or not to sell his family’s virgin Hawaiian land, the story also finds Clooney’s character dealing with his wife’s accident that leaves her in a serious coma. Top it all off Clooney finds out said wife has been cheating on him and decides to bring home his teenage daughter to be with him, help him, and be at her mother’s bedside.

Clooney does well here, not only is the actor aging gracefully, but his lovable, yet defunct dad role offers Clooney some moments of tenderness and quiet restraint audiences haven’t seen in awhile. However, no one has to do too much. Payne uses the Hawaiian locations well, doesn’t over indulge in his use of voice-over, and thankfully allows both of Clooney’s daughters in the film to be fully realized characters rather than shallow archetypes. Specifically, Shailene Woodley as Clooney’s teenage daughter Alexandra shines. She feels fresh, with just enough rebellion in her. Woodley, although statuesque and gorgeous by any comparison, is not dolled up or overdone, giving her character a realistic feel matched by her younger sister Scottie (Amara Miller).

The betrayal aspect of the plot is handled with the right amount of anger, fear, and curiosity that makes the film engaging and heart wrenching at the same time. One of my few complaints is at times the pace really slows down and the whole film could have been a bit tighter. Also, the other couple met in act three feels a bit archetypal next to such a well rounded family (and friend in Nick Krause’s Sid). Regardless though, The Descendants ends up feeling cathartic in a way. A lot of pain and decisions rest on one man who is quickly learning how fast one’s life can be re-focused and the repercussions those decisions have in and outside of his life. Hopefully, we all figure this out before its too late.

Filed under: Feature Film Reviews ]]> http://asophisticatednoise.com/2011/12/23/fortunes-misfortunes/feed/ 0 mzjones MPW-61863 http://asophisticatednoise.com/2011/12/14/the-listening-game/ http://asophisticatednoise.com/2011/12/14/the-listening-game/#comments Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:37:30 +0000 mzjones http://asophisticatednoise.wordpress.com/?p=2251 ]]> A Dangerous Method (2011).

D: David Cronenberg. DP: Peter Suschitzky. W: Christopher Hampton (Based on his play “The Talking Cure,” which was inspired by John Kerr’s book “A Most Dangerous Method.”) Starring: Kiera Knightley/Michael Fassbender/Viggo Mortensen/Vincent Cassel/Sarah Gadon.

As the race to the Oscars commences film buffs everywhere are grinning ear to ear for their favorite season that is ripe with quality films. It is the season of drama everywhere and first on my list was A Dangerous Method.

Following the relationship between Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortenson) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) during the development of psychoanalysis, A Dangerous Method is ultimately about Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley). Spielrein was a patient of Jung’s, the first patient for him to use psychoanalysis with and to garner a good result. It is safe to say that right from the opening Knightley steals the film. Her part is not only the most challenging physically and has her sport a very convincing Russian accent, but the major story arc and character development lies with her. This is her best performance yet and is one of the major reasons to try and see this film.

It is hard to conceive of the film without Mortensen. The original Freud was to be played by Christoph Waltz who is an amazing actor, but quite different in his physicality. Having dropped out to film Water for Elephants, Waltz’s departure allowed Mortensen to step in. Mortensen’s Freud, with his consistent puffs on his cigars and deep voice provide an excellent foil to the excitability and fever of Fassbender’s Jung. Their professional clashes and tensions are chronicled very well, though much of it remains very subtle. Fassbender does well here, but who would expect him not to.

Christopher Hampton, also responsible for writing the 2007 adaptation of Ian McEwan’s Atonement and won an Oscar for 1988′s Dangerous Liaisons, has impressive credits that without having written the original play material would have made a fine screenwriter choice for this project. What Hampton achieves here is a depth of understanding in his material and a devotion to character that thankfully survives in the cinematic form of his work. One of the few problems is the lack of climax of conflict in the film. Since the screenplay is so dense with speech, and it has to be as it is a film about psychoanalysis, sometimes the cinema form is not used to the fullest extent. So although it is beautifully shot by Peter Suschitzky, as an audience member one feels like you are constantly waiting for a larger clash that never comes. What is so dangerous about the psychoanalytical method? For modern audiences that should have been put in a larger social and political context in my opinion.

That being said, director David Cronenberg’s seems to be tackling the diligence in psychiatry and the silence that psychoanalysis attempted to break. The smaller scope of the film allows it to feel more realistic and hopefully with encourage its audience to focus and listen to the film. However, the performances will probably end up being more memorable than the film as a whole. Ultimately my advice for A Dangerous Method is to listen. And listen closely because you just might be reminded how we all could use a little psychoanalysis in our lives.

The Muppets

D: James Bobin. DP: Don Burgess. W: Jason Segel & Nicholas Stoller. Starring: Jason Segel/Amy Adams/Chris Cooper/Rashida Jones/Jack Black/ with the voice talents of: Steve Whitmore/Eric Jacobson/Dave Goelz/Bill Baretta/David Rudman/Matt Vogel/Peter Linz. (Includes numerous cameos, but I wouldn’t want to spoil them here!)

This holiday season started off with a big bang (go see the movie you’ll know what I mean). The Muppets not only gave The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 a run for their money, but proved to be worth the cost and the wait.

The first feature Muppets film in twelve years, The Muppets picks up in a small town where a Muppet (though he doesn’t know it yet) named Walter grows up with his brother Gary (Jason Segel). Introduced to The Muppet Show at an early age, Walter (voiced by Peter Linz) becomes transfixed with them. When Segel decides to take his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to Los Angeles for their anniversary, Walter is included and promised a visit to the Muppet Studios. This premise is not only an excellent venue for song, “we live in a small, cutesy town” musical numbers, but it immediately recognizes, embraces, and encourages the view of the Muppets through Walter’s eyes.

This introduction of a new Muppet in this film is pivotal. Not only is it fresh, but the choice and the character completely embodies what the Muppets stand for. Full of energy, innocence, unabashed fun, and that glimmer of genuine good-heartedness, Walter is the center of the film. As his trip with Segel and Adams hits its highs and lows, you are with him and rooting for him all the way. Even better is the image of the Muppets as washed up performers, living out their life once the success has passed. These stories offer great cameos, and also place the Muppets with modern Hollywood landscape.

Segel, also an executive producer and writer on the project, has enough charm and where with all to reign in his comedy and his performance for his Muppet project. It is clear with both Segel and Adams (though she has far less to do) that their supportive roles were just as enjoyable for them to perform as it will be for audiences to experience. Not to mention they both get the two best songs out of the film. Helping them along is Chris Cooper as the villain of the story, Tex Richman, who wants to buy the Muppet studios and drill for oil underneath it. Topical and at times, trendy, Cooper is clearly having fun here, and why not? (maniacal laugh)

Not enough can be said about the music either. With original music by Christophe Beck (who got his big break on the WB show Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and original songs mostly written by music supervisor Bret McKenzie, The Muppets‘ music is a perfect blend of old and new. McKenzie, mostly known for his work on the short-lived show Flight of the Concords, harnesses enough creativity here so that each number, each song, feels fresh. Even an oldie remains a goodie, evoking the memory of Muppets creator Jim Henson and hopefully reminding everyone how memorable just a little green frog can be, when you give it a whole lot of heart.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1

D: Bill Condon. DP: Guillermo Navarro. W: Melissa Rosenberg. Starring: Kristen Stewart/Robert Pattinson/Taylor Lautner/Ashley Greene/Nikki Reed/Kellan Lutz/Elizabeth Reaser/Peter Facinelli/Billy Burke/Jackson Rathbone/Sarah Clarke/Anna Kendrick/Booboo Stewart/Julia Jones/Maggie Grace/Chaske Spencer. (NOTE: Based on Stephanie Meyer’s young adult fiction book of the same name).

Once again, twi-hards from near and far gathered and camped out for this this year’s release of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1. This is the fourth film, but first part of the conclusion of the star-crossed romance of the human Bella and vampire Edward. And for those of you who have no idea what Twilight is about, I envy you for missing out on this one.

This latest installment jumps right into the wedding day for Kristen Stewart’s Bella and Robert Pattinson’s Edward. This wedding is symbolic as it not only will act as a catalyst to allow the couple’s relationship to evolve out of its chaste state, but represents Stewart’s Bella’s commitment to eventually becoming a vampire like Pattinson’s Edward. But let’s be honest, this symbolism is pretty overt. Almost as absurdly obvious is the shot of author Stephanie Meyer as Stewart walks down the aisle, look for it twi-maniacs. Regardless, unfortunately, the wedding scene (though a beautiful venue) falls rather flat. The chemistry between the other actors seems dishearteningly unapparent with the only memorable moment being when the camera sweeps around the room during the couples wedding ceremony kiss. Revealing that no one is there, and the kiss must make them feel like they are in a world of their own. That remains the only sparkle of true romance for awhile in the film.

Once the couple goes off on their honeymoon, director Bill Condon (2006′s Dreamgirls, 2004′s Kinsey, 1998′s Gods and Monsters) shows his true faults in attempting this project. Almost immediately, every scene is filled with soundtrack fodder. As if the story isn’t simple enough to follow, we now much have a song for every scene to gauge the characters emotions. So much so that by the time the much anticipated sex scene happens you’re over it and the rest of the montages are just laughable. There is also no hope for acting chops to be created for the leads, we’re too deep now. And it is glaringly clear in the first hour of the film that Condon did not know how to tackle such a piece of slow moving story with not much depth or levels besides romance. But can we fault him? Hold on, it gets worse.

Unfortunately for this industry and audience members who had not read the books, the actual twist in the film was revealed during the huge marketing campaign for Breaking Dawn – Part 1. Stewart’s pregnancy revelation on her honeymoon not only changes the course of the story, but of her character. However, with everyone and their grandmothers having known this was coming from the trailers (thus the element of visual surprise is gone) it completely falls flat. The second half of the film has a much different tone to it, but all sense of suspense is still lost. Kudos must be given to the make-up and special effects departments for destroying Stewart’s body so well on screen during the pregnancy. The birthing scenes are logically a mess, but they have their moments of glittering intensity and Pattinson is able to lose his shell for a few scenes. But the rest of the film is agonizingly slow, builds up to the silliest of battles (because the real battle has been saved for the next film) and even sports a power rangers type pow wow of the wolf-clan. Try not to laugh at that one, I dare you.

Without a doubt, this is the most disappointing film (so far) in the franchise. Not only was the audience laughing at it (myself included), but the film felt so disjointed and overdone that it seemed to be taking the mickey out of itself. A director like Bill Condon might have actually hurt the project. His ambition to stylize the film is admirable, but is lost amidst such a slow story. Stephanie Meyer’s final book should not have have been split into two as there is simply not enough substance to warrant it. I actually went home craving Twilight, New Moon, and Eclipse. And that is saying something.

My Week with Marilyn

D: Simon Curtis. DP: Ben Smithard. W: Adrian Hodges (Based on Colin Clark’s memoirs, “My Week with Marilyn” and “The Prince, the Showgirl and Me.“) Starring: Michelle Williams/Eddie Redmayne/Kenneth Branagh/Julia Ormond/Judi Dench/Dougray Scott/Philip Jackson/Emma Watson/Dominic Cooper/Zoe Wanamaker/Derek Jacobi/Jim Carter.

As awards season begins we all start to pay attention to the movies once again. And if you are not, then you should. Go grab some Starbucks and get warm in the dark.

First up for me is Simon Curtis’ new film, My Week with Marilyn. Chronicling the film production of Sir Laurence Olivier’s The Prince and the Showgirl, the film focuses on Marilyn Monroe’s specific time in England shooting the movie and the young third assistant director, Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) who works with her on and off set. Right from the first frame the movie is Michelle Williams’ Monroe, although she does not show up in the story for a beat or two. Rather her freshly pressed image is immediately consumed through the lens of the film and the show within the show Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) watches. The film is right on point in signifying how much Monroe was consumed, revered, and judged through the lens and her image. But it works as the audience is given time to fall for delicate darling Redmayne whose precociousness and genuine innocence never allows the story to seem trite. He is helped along through his journey by Branagh’s superb Olivier. Very suitable that the modern Shakespeare icon of our time should play the legend of the previous generation. He’s marvelous and every now and then lets Dame Judi Dench give glowing memory to another Dame, Sybil Thorndike.

Many (including myself) may have had a few trepidations about Michelle Williams tackling such a screen icon. Not even trepidations about her talents as an actress, but more worry in the vein of “how could anyone play her?” Popular culture is over saturated with her image, its like attempting to play Audrey Hepburn, Judy Garland, or Grace Kelly. Their star text (their meaning both visually and emotionally outside of their work) means more and has outlived some of their performances. That being said, Williams conquers the role. She wraps herself in Monroe’s vulnerability, sensuality, and unease in her own life and work. The role is so her own and audiences will feel, like I did, a moving memory of Monroe, yet a performance that has not a moment of mimicry in it.

Ultimately, what is even more memorable and fresh about My Week with Marilyn as a biopic is that it only tackles a specific moment of time in Monroe’s career. Rather than attempting to slog through the scope of her life, much of which is filled with vagueness and speculation, the film gives a specific structure to the Monroe experience. Clearly this structure is stolen from its original material, but nevertheless, stacked against so many other recent biopics it reads fresh. Some recent biopics have attempted to highlight specific chapters of icons lives, 2009′s Coco Before Chanel, 2009′s The Young Victoria, 2008′s Milk, and 2008′s Frost/Nixon are a few examples. However, none have felt as clean and compact as Curtis’ film. Even Ben Smithard’s camera work lends itself to the voyeurism of Monroe’s life at the time. Curtis and Smithard give certain scenes a wonderful sense of watchfulness as the camera mirrors character’s eyes or the feeling of an ever present entity stalking Monroe.

And thankfully what is able to be explored in this structure is Monroe’s star text itself. A film that tackles the life of a performer faces far different risks and trials than of other public figures. Monroe’s life, filled with ups and downs, was so public that attempting to address it all would surely never stand up to the memory of her or the meaning given to her image. Even tackling the basics of Monroe: the sexualization of her image (on and off camera), her clear and destructive need for love and approval, her very knowledge (and wink) of that image, and its voice within female work on screen, fills up one movie. But all that is allowed to be unpacked because Adrian Hodges’ script is so tenaciously precise, yet allows all its characters to breathe and take their own life within such famous faces. And that is its greatest success. Williams may put on a famous face, but not just because she can, but because there is a story to be told and it is human. Even through the lens of a camera.

Like Crazy

D: Drake Doremus. DP: John Guleserian. W: Drake Doremus & Ben York Jones. Starring: Anton Yelchin/Felicity Jones/Jennifer Lawrence/Charlie Bewley/Alex Kingston/Oliver Muirhead.

Another Sundance Film Festival darling has gathered some steam and is hitting theaters right before award season. This year it is Drake Doremus’ Like Crazy. A film about young love, long distance turmoil, and the power of the British government.

I will say right off the bat that these modern anti-romantic comedy relationship films are oftentimes only as good as what you bring into the movie with you. Meaning that they can cause most audience members to become self-reflective about their own relationships and experiences. Every now and then a film can be more than that and actually deliver quality performances, unique story telling, and sometimes gut wrenching after effects (I’m looking at you Blue Valentine). Sadly, Like Crazy is not one of those films. However this does not mean it isn’t good or doesn’t work, it just isn’t as memorable.

The film mostly deals with the sparkle of young, new love, and how space and time can do so much damage to something so great. Even more specifically, the film reminds its audience of how hard it is to put something back together once it is been damaged or tested. Both Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones are adequate as the young lovers here. Jones’ Anna is given a bit more depth and character development than Yelchin’s ‘Jacob.’ However, throughout watching the film you begin to not care who they are, but rather yearn for them to be happy and together (damn those pesky student visas).

With each frame you almost want to close your eyes and remember. Whatever stake you had in someone, whatever hope lit up your chest, made you feel light and drunk with the knowledge that you weren’t alone. At times it was difficult to remember to watch the movie. I kept getting caught in my own head, in my own heart, wondering where all the pieces had ended up falling. The journey of the film is important here. The ups and downs. The questions. How do we untangle ourselves from something so raw? A feeling that unhinges us? What do we do when we find it? What if we don’t? What if we think we found it and remain high off those memories for years? When does the destruction start to overtake the good?

So, although not as heavy as last year’s Blue Valentine (which honestly left me reeling for days, so much so that I didn’t even write about it), Like Crazy still made me reflect. Will it make you? I can talk about the hand held camera work, the nice presence of Jones’ parents, the love of montages Doremus seems to have or I could simply say, you will get out of this one what you bring into it. It’s a crap shoot like most relationships are. But at least after this one you will be able to eat your dinner.

What’s Your Number?

D: Mark Mylod. DP: J. Michael Muro. W: Gabrielle Allan & Jennifer Crittenden. Starring: Anna Faris/Chris Evans/Ari Graynor/Blythe Danner/Ed Begley Jr./Heather Burns/Eliza Coupe/Kate Simses/Chris Pratt/Joel McHale/Zachary Quinto/Jake Annable/Martin Freeman.  (Note: Based on Karyn Bosnak novel “20 Times a Lady.”)

In the world of romantic comedies what really works anymore? Delusional romance and unrealistic premises turn some audiences off. While realistic relationship struggles and stories sometimes are unpopular or never dealt with in a mainstream way. What do women, who are the target audience, really want to see? Is the date movie even relevant anymore?

The premise of What’s Your Number works in a way. Any mid to late 20s young woman is dealing with the endless amounts of engagement announcements and ticking time bombs that other people suggest to them. Although this is all socially and geographically dependent, it is safe to say most woman have at least thought about it. So when Ally Darling (Anna Faris) reads an article in a Marie Claire magazine that claims most women have 10.5 lovers in their lifetime, she literally freaks out. Why? Well obviously it is because her “number” is higher than that. But one would almost wish she would throw the magazine out and yell at it for lumping ALL womens’ experiences into one. Who says what number is right for one person? IT IS JUST A MAGAZINE. And so my frustration begins.

A lot can be argued about this premise and I won’t exhaust you with it, but I will say that at bare bones it is entertaining. Faris remains likable and loud in an endearing way, though she isn’t ever given a change to be funny in a non shtick or one liner way. Her Ally is a fun, crazed party girl, but pales in comparison to other females roles this year. And in true rom-com fashion her across the hall neighbor is a gorgeous struggling musician who has tremendous luck getting himself laid. Chris Evans, clearly deep into his Captain America fitness regime, is goofy and doe eyed and will probably make most women wish he was their boy next door and then roll their eyes because NO boy next door ever looks like that. The kids have good chemistry, but unfortunately What’s Your Number feels unbalanced and bumpy.

Faris and Evan’s relationship is by far the more seamless part of the film, but it is forced to be sandwiched between clunky scenes where Faris meets her ex boyfriends as she pursues them in hope she finds the right guy in them so she won’t sleep with more than 20 men. These scenes must also compete with wedding planning moments with Faris and her sister Daisy (Ari Graynor) so in the end the script feels agonizingly stop and go. Daisy’s group of friends are given random one-liners and never appear to be Faris’ friends. And Faris who loses her job at the beginning of the film appears to be completely unfazed about finding a new one.

However,  it is hard to hate a movie that at least tackles a realistic dilemma in a young woman’s life. Not the idea that marriage is the next step, but rather that women are or could be worried about their sexual reputation when it comes to dating. I mean seriously whose business is that? Sorry, I digress. Obviously, there is not a right answer here. But at least What’s Your Number gives us a gal whose not a complete mess or a frustrated near virgin. Thanks Anna, now go out and get a better movie for yourself.

50/50

D: Jonathan Levine. DP: Terry Stacey. W: Will Reiser. Starring: Joseph Gordan-Levitt/Seth Rogen/Anna Kendrick/Bryce Dallas Howard/Angelica Houston/Serge Houde/Matt Fewer/Philip Baker Hall.

Having seen this film in an early screening over a month ago now, I have given myself some time to ruminate on it. Not only to critique its cinematic value, but also its wider message and challenge of tackling the role of cancer in young peoples lives.

Overall, 50/50 is a success. Based on screenwriter Will Reiser’s own battle with cancer, the film follows Adam (Joseph Gordan-Levitt) diagnosis and treatment with the disease and the evolution of his self and relationships. Reiser gives us a young man whose so cautious he won’t cross the street without the correct light and almost pathologically naive about the state of the fire between him and his girlfriend. Luckily, Gordan-Levitt is the right amount of charming, disarming, and real here to never allow the script to feel overly sentimental or silly. Gordan-Levitt (I’ve been a fan for years) gives the film all the right colors, stages and tantrums involved with growing up and in his case, facing his own mortality.

Gordan-Levitt is nicely supported by Seth Rogen who plays his best friend Kyle. Although I would love to see Rogen out of these dopey roles for good, he does his part to bring an honesty to his role of someone trying to deal with the possibility of a loss in their life and still being a friend when that person is sick. Reiser’s script helps him here and their relationship, Gordan-Levit’s parents involvement is very small, takes forefront, and rightly so as they have excellent chemistry. Bryce Dallas Howard opens up 50/50 as Gordan-Levitt’s “devoted” girlfriend. Sexy and quirky she is fine here, though ultimately the female role of the film is in Anna Kendrick.

Kendrick, who I have not been sold on yet, plays Gordan-Levitt’s therapist who, of course, ends up being a graduate student working on her thesis. Their scenes together work well on so many levels as not only an entertaining portrayal of someone new to therapy, but the dynamics of any relationship when agism and sexual tension are evident. Kendrick is very likable here and allows the audience to simaltanouesly root for Gordan-Levitt’s Adam, while also coming to grips with the dire possiblity that he may lose his battle with this disease.

I can only hope that Summit Entertainment does well enough to get people into the seats to see this film. I think its high time for the average movie goer to support smaller well made stories and realize that seeking out these movies will hopefully help then eventually to be the norm for all. And it will be hard for anyone sitting through 50/50 not to laugh, cry and feel the overwhelming duty we have to cancer patients to help them fight this disease any way we can.