50/50 Movie Review

I was in a terrible mood yesterday.  I had just finished watching the Bengals comeback against my Bills.  It was a comeback that never should have happened; a comeback that never would have happened if the officials were just doing their job.  So to take my mind off this disgusting taste in my mouth, to try and instill a bit of uplift to my spirit I decided to go see a movie about a twenty-something who was just diagnosed with a rare form of cancer.  The funny thing is that it worked.

50/50, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, is a refreshing film, which, in my opinion, will or at least should, garner some serious Oscar consideration.

If you’ve read about this film or have seen the trailers, you have a good idea what the film is about.  If not, it’s about a man who finds out he has a rare form of Cancer and deals with all the changes that take place in his life as a result of it.

The film is a rare breed, as it possesses a mix: of comedy, dark comedy, friendship and relationships in general, romance, change, sacrifice, sadness, acceptance and awareness.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, as Adam, delivered his best performance to date and should get some serious consideration for Best Actor.  His demeanor, personality, and subtlety in humor are perfect for this character.  The role demanded quite a bit out of him.  He had to give the impression that he was in fact, not simply acting, but also experiencing the wide and seemingly ever-alternating emotions, that change in Adam’s life, from one scene to the next.  His acting is incredibly believable, as he depicts his characters journey, both physically and emotionally, with each of the stages patients often experience.  The audience feels with him and feels for him.  I can’t say enough about how impressed I was with the performance he turned in.

Seth Rogen also did a great job in the film.  His character, although comedic by nature, must come to terms with a side of life that he just wasn’t prepared to experience yet.  He genuinely cares for his friend’s well being, although, whereas one’s natural tendency might be to feel pity for their friend, he uses jokes, lightheartedness, all in a “nothing’s wrong” sort of way.  At first one might think his character is trying to benefit off his friend’s condition, and he does do this a little bit, yet personal benefit is never his intention, as everything he tries to do for his friend is intended to make his friend feel better, to provide support, which he does in the only way he knows how to give it.

Throughout the film, Adam learns how opinions change once people hear he has cancer.  There are numerous incidents of this throughout the film, from girls at bars that wouldn’t give him the time of day before, are now sleeping with him to his mother and her overcompensating mechanisms kicking into overdrive.  Good intent seems to be the motivation much of the time.  However, we see his then girlfriend, Rachael, played by Bryce Dallas Howard (Lady In The Water, Spider-Man3, The Help, Eclipse), act selfishly.  She picks him up from the hospital much later than she was supposed to, virtually forcing Adam to wait outside in the cold.  She cheats on him and blames it on her not knowing how to deal with the situation.  She did buy him the dog Skeletor, which in itself was a foreshadowing device, essentially saying, “ Well look, I know I won’t be there for you, so here’s a dog, I hear those with what you have like dogs, he should be good for you.”

As Adam goes through his journey we not only get to see his personal experience and his reactions to his circumstances, but also get a greater understanding of illness as a whole, much more than I would have expected beforehand.

Adam realizes, as does anyone who experiences a major change to their life, that you find who your true friends and family are.  His mother, albeit, pestering, is and always will be there for him.  His best friend (Rogen), it’s shown, is reading up on how to be there for his friend.  But not only is he learning how to care for his buddy, he’s also doing what he’s being taught. 

As I mentioned earlier, the film weaves many concepts and plays with various emotions.  What worked best for me though, was how humor and sadness seem to offset one another.  Scenes that invoke sadness, even depression are followed by either Adam’s own style of humor or with Rogen’s louder jokes.  Without watching again I can’t say for sure, but it did seem like the alternating between Sad and funny was intentionally plotted. It seemed as if the scenes that were bearably sad were followed by those featuring Levitt and his subtler humor while those scenes that were much sadder were followed up with Rogen’s style of funny.

I wasn’t expecting a romantic angle to the film, but romance actually played a large role for Adam.  His therapist, played by Anna Kendrick, also from the Twilight films, was so refreshing.  Her personality and inexperience, as we’re told she’s still writing her dissertation, clash and mesh perfectly with Adam and his personality and inexperience.  Their scenes were definitely some of the best ones in 50/50.

All in all it’s a great film.  It has pretty much everything you could want in a drama/comedy.  There’s enough of each, and as mentioned earlier even more, for any type of moviegoer.  However, the best thing I can say about 50/50 is how you get to experience the low points and the high points along with the characters, Adam in particular, eventually leaving the theater very much so uplifted. 

And for me, well until I got back into my car and listened to the radio, I completely forget all about the injustice that took place just a few hours earlier on the football field.

Drive

For a film with very little commercial hype, I was instantly drawn to Drive, starring Ryan Gosling.  The short preview I saw for the first time a few days ago showed enough to entice me from skipping out on seeing Straw Dogs, which was what I had planned on seeing this weekend for a few weeks now.  I’ll probably still wind up seeing it, but Drive definitely forced my hand into seeing it, which is exactly what I did this afternoon. 

The plot in Drive is a basic story of a man who tows the line of legality and finds that he’s been double crossed in the process.  This film then becomes a tale of setting things right, with a dash of vengeance stirred into the mix.

The story, if it was just for plot alone, would not be a winner on the story’s own merits.  What makes this film a rather unique and very intriguing tale is the mystery that is ominously looming with everything that surrounds the main character.  This is one of the best cerebral films I’ve seen in some time. 

Ryan Gosling’s character is a Driver.  He’s the getaway driver that operates in a fashion very similar to that of Jason Statham’s character in the Transporter films.  He’s extremely quiet, yet through facial expression and body language some of his character is revealed.  I say only some for a reason though.  It’s the not fully detailed, almost shadow-like nature of the character that is the draw.  The audience can see there’s more to him than we are, and then after the credits roll, had been shown.  I got the impression that he moved to the area 6 years earlier to get away from a past life, and that he was keeping as low a profile as he could, avoiding questions and the like.  But all this changes for him when he gets involved with Irene, his next-door neighbor and her son.  Genuine emotions are formed, not just for the girl, but also for the son.  His entire method of operating gets thrown for a loop from this point forward, where his stable calculations and under the radar way of doing business is tragically altered.

The ending is as open ended as the ideas are surrounding the past of the main character. It’s definitely a movie where more than one interpretation is possible, it’s only after resolving the matters of his past that I feel we, as the audience, are able to gather a solid opinion as to what happens once we get to fade out.

If you don’t like slower paced, cerebral films I would advise that you avoid this film.  While there are a handful of action centered scenes, that’s not the point of this film, and you can easily get your action fix on just about any drama on television.  If you’re going to see this movie you’ll have to accept that it’s chock full of one word statements by the main character, there’s a good deal to observe and the angles provided give you plenty of opportunity to do just that.  This is what I liked about the film more than anything, in that you get to play detective, psychologist and observer as you’re thrust into a world where answers may be what they seem, but the motivations of the characters are the real mysteries you’re there to uncover and decipher.  There’s a ton of layering and a very good use of sound. 

If you like this type of film I would recommend you run out to your local Cineplex and then glue your eyes to the screen, pulling as many clues as you can as you attempt to unlock the mysteries of this character’s past and then attempt to provide your mind an ending suitable to the ideas you’ve unearthed.

Warrior

I’m a bit pressed for time this week. So for my review of Warrior, I won’t pull any punches, which is exactly what this film, starring Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton, Nick Nolte, Frank Grillo and Jennifer Morrison, does so well.

Warrior is one word that conjures a wide range of reflection within each of us.  This is the point I would normally tangent into a semi-long discussion on viewpoint and historical context.  Instead, I’ll bob and weave, avoiding the flurry of rights and left, and jump right into those that land squarely upon jaw or chest.

This story has numerous intriguing elements to it.  You have the main story, Brandon fighting, literally, to do everything in his power to keep his family together.  His daughter has a heart defect; his home is going into foreclosure, yet the three jobs he and his wife struggle through are not enough to prevent the inevitability of a structural divide.  A radical decision must be made, to which Brendan reverts to his roots for answers.      

The secondary story revolves around the looming character of Tommy. He’s an ex-marine, deserter actually, who carries an extreme amount of baggage with him.  He acts like a lost puppy at times, moving about without a clear-cut plan in place.  Yet, as we find out, everything he does is calculated, including a few gambles.  He is lost, he is seeking answers, I guess in a way he’s looking for a combination of confession and salvation.  Sole survivor of a wartime raid, Tommy decides to desert his role as a soldier.  The loss of his best friend, brother as he calls him, was too much for him to bear.  He made a promise to his friend, to take care of his wife, which at the time he had no idea how he would see it through.  Despite the trauma he is able to save another unit from certain doom, as he pulls off a Herculean feat of strength and will.  His character is seen as a wandering sort when first appearing on screen.  He knows not what direction to travel, so despite his better judgment, perhaps because of it, he reverts to his roots, returning home.

The third storyline deals with the father, a one-time drunk and abusive man.  Paddy Conlan lost his family and perhaps a part of his soul.  He found faith and became sober.  The reappearance of his son Tommy was his second chance and although a bitter resistance, fueled by hurt, he’s able to endure the mental onslaught of a past reminded and a seemingly impossible chance for redemption.

At its deepest level, Warrior is about the fight for family, a fight that culminates with a bloodied battle between two brothers.

Before seeing the film I was a bit skeptical as the promos hyped up the biggest shock, that two brothers would be fighting against each other in the main event.  Even as I was watching the film build up the character of Koba, played by real life wrestler Kurt Angle, I couldn’t help think what a waste of time.  Why did the writers build up a superhuman-like villain, when everyone knows he won’t be the one who the hero(s) must slay at the end? 

Yet everything came together very nicely.  As the two brothers were fighting, as tears mixed with blood, the audience could see the years of bitter resentment and pent up hatred come to a boil.  The viewer could see how with each crushing blow and sweeping kick a little bit of that edge then became all the more unstable.  Finally we leave with the sense that at least one part of the family unit has become repaired.

And for the father, played by Nick Nolte, you can tell that, in his last appearance, with tear trailing down his cheek, that while still on the outskirts of where he wanted to be, he was elated by the scene of brother defending brother, as the cameras all attempted to gain close-up shots of the battered two.

This is a film in the mold of those underdog seeking redemption movies, where overcoming physical tests parallel those that are at war inside.  If you enjoy MMA you’ll love some of the contests detailed.  But this film is much more than a simple Boxing film, it’s everything I mentioned above and perhaps a bit more I’ll leave for you to discover on your own.  

One last point to make, I really like the fact that outside of Nolte, who really is a secondary character, all the leads in this film are relative unknowns in their own right, which fits in perfectly with the overall story that’s been told, especially Tommy’s.  It’s an interesting film to watch to say the least.  One that definitely has a clear-cut main storyline, yet the underlying stories are built up enough to make us forget exactly as to which story is the one in where the main plot lays.

Overall I’m sure you’ll find many movies to choose over Warrior.  But in what I consider a relatively slow period of the year, which should be ending rather soon, that Warrior could easily be something you’d want to see.  Perhaps even being one, that after seeing, you’ll be very happy that you allotted the time to see.  I know, as someone who was on the fence, as to whether to see this or not, I’m glad I gave this film a chance.     

  

Crazy, Stupid Love

Crazy, Stupid Love is a dramatic comedy that focuses in on the relationships of 3 men and 3 women.  The film is not something I would or could recommend.  The film has a few positives and a few weaknesses, many times overlapping with one another:

        1.            The premise of fighting for the one you love is still a powerful idea.  The characters moved towards this idea, working uphill the entire time, yet end with a resolve that if something is worth fighting for, you never stop.  Although it’s a powerful, even admirable premise, it’s also overly used and cliché in film and literature, but for the purpose here I’m going to include this fight as one of the films positives.

2.            Steve Carell, does a great job playing Cal Weaver, a man who has just found out his wife wants a divorce.  But not only does she drop that bomb on him, she tells him she’s been unfaithful as well.  Steve is a great comedic actor.  He plays this sullen, underappreciated, innocent character extremely well.  The problem though has nothing to do with his performance, which very good, it has to do with the script.  There are obvious moments our mind is telling us, “this is a joke, pretty funny too,” yet it just doesn’t seem mood appropriate to the scene, to actually be a joke.  Perhaps this was something they were shooting for, if that’s the case then they succeeded, but for the most part it led to an awkward, uncomfortable feel for the audience.

3.            Ryan Gosling, who played Jacob, nailed his role down pat.  He plays a womanizer who’s exceptional in the art of picking up women.  He feels sorry for Cal and decides he’s going to make Cal’s renovation a personal project for himself.  The project goes remarkably better than could have been expected; in fact it almost looked like a complete and utter waste of time at one point.  Gosling, I never thought of as an actor that could play a wide range of characters, and perhaps this isn’t a film to point out his acting skills, but while watching Crazy, Stupid Love, his performance stood out as a top-notch effort to me.

4.            The major weakness for me is not the clichés, or the awkwardness of mood but in fact was the story itself.  What I mean is the length of story.  The film has a decent storyline that even includes a couple of twists and surprises.  The story had this looming Shakespearean feel to it, where triangles and miscommunication and unforeseen circumstances appear throughout.  But the film was too long.  The entire story could have been completed in, I’d guesstimate, around 45 minutes to an hour, instead of the 118-minute running time that it has.  It’s not even so much the padding that bothered me though, as this occurrence doesn’t typically bother me much.   It’s the repetitive “woe is me” moments early and the drawn out reconciliation at the end.  Sure by cutting the sections back you may exclude a nice or funny moment, but you’d also be streamlining the finished product and eliminating much of the boredom that weighs the film down, thus increasing the entertainment value for the viewer.  Sometimes less can be more.

5.            This last point is a positive, a negative as well as an observation/commentary.  Emma Stone lights the screen up, she’s, in my opinion, the up and coming actress many have been waiting for, combining a charm and a wit along with her look and of course her voice.  The film underused her tremendously. The scenes where she was bantering with her friend about relationships and sex were great.  The scenes, albeit only a few, with Gosling were some of the more touching.  Anyhow it just appeared they could have noticed as such, and perhaps done a little more with it, with her.  This isn’t always possible and I completely understand that, yet I hope at least they attempted to do as such. 

My commentary has to do with Stone yet again.  I wonder if she has incorporated a Nathaniel Hawthorne or more specifically a Scarlet Letter clause in her contract, as her last two major roles here and in Easy A, have both included major references to the Hawthorne classic.  I realize this must have been a coincidence, but she must have had a laugh or two at the unlikelihood of proximal repetition and thought it a good point to mention and conclude this overview.

In summation I can’t say it was the worst film, not anywhere close to the best film.  It wasn’t horrible, so if your significant other really wants to see this film, you could certainly do worse.  But if you have a choice in the matter I’d hold off until the film hits DVD, unless of course you’re a huge Stone or Gosling fan, in which case you probably already saw the film.  If you’re the biggest Carell fan though, I’d certainly hold off, despite his putting in a good performance, this was not his fault, but it’s not the type of film you’d expect him to be in either, especially not one that also stars Julianne Moore, Kevin Bacon, Gosling, Stone and Marisa Tomei.

Larry Crowne

Larry Crowne

Larry Crowne is the newest project for mega-stars Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.  Hanks starred, directed and co-wrote the film (with Nia Vardalos). 

In addition to Hanks (Larry Crowne) and Roberts (Mercedes Tainot), it also features Sarah Mahoney (Samantha), Cedric The Entertainer (Lamar), Wilmer Valderrama (Dell Gordo), Pam Grier (Frances) and Rita Wilson (Wilma Q. Gammelgaard)

Larry Crowne, while being a love story at face value, is really a story of loss and recovery, as experienced by Larry and Mercy.  Larry’s losses involve love and economy, while Mercy’s include love and purpose.

The film opens and we can instantly see Larry’s strong work ethic and dedication.  We are told he’s been employee of the month eight times while working for Umart. However, due to corporate downsizing, Larry is betrayed by his superiors and is let go from the job he loves. 

The management use Larry’s lack of education as their basis for his termination.  They claim there’s no point having an employee that will never advance the corporate chain. The burden of economy repeats throughout the film.  Some examples:

1.            Larry’s discourse with the loan manager at his bank

2.            The yard sales and price haggling neighbor Lamar

3.            As a direct result of gasoline cost, Larry starts using a moped over his Tahoe.

4.            Larry’s enrollment in an Economics class

5.            The move from his home, which he can’t afford, to a smaller apartment.

6.            Early in the film Larry mentions his days as a line cook are over with, yet this is the exact position he winds up accepting later in the film

Larry’s losses involving love include:

1.            Before the film begins we are told that Larry’s wife left him.  A wonderfully depicted scene illustrates this brilliantly.  Larry is entering his driveway and we see the emptiness within the enormous garage.

2.            Larry loved his job at Umart. When he’s fired, his sunny disposition becomes a look of fear and uncertainty. We can see a piece of his heart had just been torn out.

3.            Larry is virtually forced from his home.  He loves his home; it represents all that’s left of his marriage.  He loves his neighbors.  The look on his face, as he drives away, for the last time, perfectly captures this sense of loss.

Mercedes experiences loss in much different way.  She is leading a loveless marriage. She feels her ability to teach has disappeared.  She feels she doesn’t make a difference. 

As the film progresses we see the other side of the theme, that being Recovery. 

Mercedes’ recovery, pertaining to love, includes the breaking ties with her husband and standing up for herself.  He made an insulting remark, to which she responded by having him immediately stop the car, to which, she gets out, right there, in the middle of the street. 

This is her first movement away from her pain.  Shortly after we see Mercy, sitting alone, at a bus stop, in the darkness of the night. Moments later Larry offers her a ride home.  She hesitates at first, but does wind up accepting the ride.  Upon the ride home, we see her husband is seen arrested for DUI.   Then in the morning, her husband returns home from jail, only to find his belongings in the yard.

Finally her purpose is found when Larry, in his final class presentation, states the effect her class had upon him.  This brought a smile to her, but it wasn’t until LaLa, one of her students, mentioned that Larry said that her class changed his life.  Once she confirmed this statement with Larry, we know her recovery is now complete. 

The “class changed my life” line is also a direct call back to an earlier moment in the film, properly linking the ending of the movie to the beginning of the film.

Larry recovers from lost love through his feelings for Mercedes.  His recovery from Economical loss is seen through his understanding and success in his Economics class.  In addition, we later see his application of that knowledge as he voluntarily forecloses on his home.  He needed to put the past aside and move forward.  It is in this moment, although a loss in itself, that he’s able to make the push, away from his failed marriage and economic troubles, to a life filled with possibilities not weighed down by his previous baggage.

Throughout the film, Larry’s own sense of self-worth can be seen evolving.  He goes from playing the victim to a man seen as the owner of his own fate.  He goes from uneducated to knowledgeable.  From lost to found.

The acting in Larry Crowne is exceptional, from Hanks and Roberts down the line.  The film has moments where it feels like a polished Hollywood product, yet there are also several times when you feel like you’re watching a low budget independent film. This mix worked extremely well, as it shifted tone and space, highlighting the emotions of the characters from sequence to sequence, from scene to scene. 

Larry Crowne is a film for anyone who likes romantic films.  It’s a film for those who like a subtle style of comedy.  It’s also for anyone that enjoys quality acting, where the star owns their role but doesn’t overshadow the nature of their character. Let me know what you think, I’d love to her your take.