Movie Review: Young Adult

Young Adult *** ½

Directed by: Jason Reitman.

Written by: Diablo Cody.

Starring: Charlize Theron (Mavis Gary), Patton Oswalt (Matt Freehauf), Patrick Wilson (Buddy Slade), Elizabeth Reaser (Beth Slade), Collette Wolfe (Sandra Freehauf), Jill Eikenberry (Hedda Gary), Richard Bekins (David Gary), Mary Beth Hurt (Jan).

Director Jason Reitman and writer Diablo Cody’s first collaboration was the wonderful, lightning quick comedy Juno (2007), which is one of those films that everyone loved until they realized that everyone loved it. They have re-teamed now for Young Adult, but if you are expecting the same kind of lightning quick, dialogue heavy comedy, than you may well end up disappointed. Young Adult is a more mature, if slightly less satisfying film, than Juno was. It centers on Mavis Gary (Charlize Theron) who was the popular bitch in high school who you either loved or hated from afar. 20 years on, she is still a bitch – and the daring thing about Young Adult is that by the end of the film, she hasn’t learned anything. I am tired of movies where people learn a life lesson and become better people in the course of two hours. If one thing links Juno and Young Adult together it is that they don’t share this illusion. In Juno, Jason Bateman’s character flies in the face of the typical Apatow man we have seen on screens in the past few years – he’s immature jerk at the beginning of the movie, and despite the love of a good, gorgeous woman (which is all they need to change in an Apatow film), he remains one right up until the end (the most devastating line in Juno is when Bateman tells Garner he’s moving into a loft and she responds by saying “Aren’t you the cool guy”).

For Mavis, high school was the best time in her life, and she still lives like a teenager 20 years on. She moved out of her “hick” town of Mercury, Minnesota, for life in the “big city” of Minneapolis. She makes a living being a ghost writer for a once popular teen series about Waverly Prep School, which allows her to relive her high school life again and again. She’s now working on the last novel in the series. Mavis has constructed a view of herself as sophisticated, a person who has outgrown her humble roots, but in reality she is depressed and has descended into alcoholism. She gets the idea into her head that she belongs with her high school boyfriend Buddy Slade (Patrick Wilson), even though he is now married and just became a father for the first time. So, she hits the road to Mercury to win back “the love of her life”.

Strangely, I thought of Lars von Trier’s Melancholia while watching Young Adult, even though the two films couldn’t possibly be more different on their surfaces. What they do share however is an outlook of depression as massive self involvement. Kirsten Dunst in Melancholia cannot see outside of herself to whatever is going on around her, and Mavis is the same way. It’s clear to everyone that Buddy is happily married and adores his new daughter, but Mavis doesn’t see it that way. For her, he is miserable – stuck in a dead end job, in a dead end town, with a boring wife and an ugly daughter. She cannot possibly conceive that Buddy would not want to be with her anymore – that he has in fact grown up, while she remains stuck as a teenager.

This is a brave performance by Theron who never tries to make Mavis into a sympathetic character. She is, in short, a bitch and Theron never tries to soften her edges. She is cruel and self obsessed. Theron dives head long into the role, and delivers perhaps the best performance of her career (yes, better than she was under all that makeup in Monster). She is also funny – cruelly so – and the movie is funny in that painful/awkward way that the best of TV’s The Office is. Patton Oswalt is equally great as Matt Freehauf, who is, in his own way, also trapped in his high school self. In senior year, he was taken out to the woods and beaten by some football jocks, for apparently being gay, even though he isn’t which has left him permanently disabled. Even though it comes out that Mavis always called him a “theatre fag” behind his back, it never even dawns on her that she is partly responsible for what happened to him. She hangs out with Matt often while back in Mercury – because he still seems to idolize her like people did in high school, and she needs a drinking buddy. Matt is a sad, pathetic little man, but he does invoke our sympathy, even as he lets Mavis use him. These two people are damaged beyond repair, and they need each other. Matt’s sister (Colette Wolff), who makes a big impression in just a few short scenes (especially her final one), is even sadder, trapped as ever in Mavis’ outward superiority, without ever realizing how damaged she is.

Young Adult surprised me. I expected another Juno-like comedy, as even in her follow up film (Jennifer’s Body), Cody seemed to stick with the same basic writing style of witty one liners piled on top of each other. And yet, Young Adult is a different film – a much darker comedy, about damaged people who will remain damaged. Reitman’s direction is more surefooted than it was in Juno, and the performances are universally excellent. Juno was the feel good comedy of 2007. Young Adult may well be the feel bad comedy of 2011.

DVD Review: The Smurfs

The Smurfs **

Directed by: Raja Gosnell.

Written by: J. David Stem & David N. Weiss & Jay Scherick & David Ronn based on the characters of Peyo.

Starring: Hank Azaria (Gargamel), Neil Patrick Harris (Patrick Winslow), Jayma Mays (Grace Winslow), Sofía Vergara (Odile), Tim Gunn (Henri), Jonathan Winters (Papa), Alan Cumming (Gutsy), Katy Perry (Smurfette), Fred Armisen (Brainy), George Lopez (Grouchy), Anton Yelchin (Clumsy).

As a kid, I remember watching The Smurfs TV show and enjoying it, even if all these years later, I don’t remember much about the show itself other than the Smurfs were blue, lived in mushrooms and were constantly fighting against Gargamel and his cat Azarel. Oh, and that Papa Smurf was the only one who got to wear red, and apparently there was only one girl smurf, Smurfette. Everything else, is long forgotten, so I approached the new Smurfs movie hoping that it would tap into that kid who used to love them so (as the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies have done in their best moments). Sadly, it doesn’t. It’s a very colorful movie, a very quick movie, with a lot of kiddie potty humor and not a whole lot else. Kids will love it, but unlike the best kids movies, this is one that parents would be advised to stick in the DVD player and find something else to do for two hours.

The plot centers around the Smurfs, once again, trying to twart Gargamel (Hank Azaria), who wants to capture them to get their “essence” which will make him a much more powerful wizard than he already is. Clumsy Smurf accidentally leads Gargamel to the secret Smurf village, making everyone flee, and then stupid Clumsy, takes the wrong path and is followed by some of his friends – Papa, Smurfette, Gutsy, Brainy and Grouchy, where eventually they end up being sucked into a portal that takes them to New York City, with Gargamel and Azarel close behind them. Now, they need to find a way to reopen the portal and get home, while also trying to dodge Gargamel. They are helped in their efforts by Patrick (Neil Patrick Harris) and his pregnant wife Grace (Jayma Mays), who they accidentally meet and befriend.

There are a couple of jokes in the movie I liked – but I think they were mostly showcased in the preview, like Patrick asking them if they get their names at birth or after they exhibited certain personality characteristics (to which the Smurfs just reply “yes”, which of course makes no sense), or Patrick asking if they never find that song they always sing annoying. But for the most part, nothing much made be smile much, let alone laugh. I have to admit that Neil Patrick Harris does what he can in the role of Patrick – making him much more down to earth and believable than he has any right to be. And Hank Azaria has a blast going completely and totally over the top as the bumbling idiot Gargamel. He’s so inept, that even though he is an evil wizard, you don’t have to worry about nightmares for the kiddies.

The Smurfs was made for children, so perhaps it’s unfair to criticize the movie for being something that kids will like, but adults won’t. And make no mistake, children will like The Smurfs, even if the movie does run a little on the long side (over 100 minutes for a freaking Smurfs movie). Still, if you have young children and buy the DVD, you’ll most likely be tempted to break it at some point, as that song will get stuck in your head as the kids watch and rewatch it. The Smurfs is what it is – a movie made strictly for kids – nothing more, nothing less.

Movie Review: The Artist

The Artist ****

Directed by: Michel Hazanavicius.

Written by: Michel Hazanavicius.

Starring: Jean Dujardin (George Valentin), Bérénice Bejo (Peppy Miller), John Goodman (Al Zimmer), James Cromwell (Clifton), Penelope Ann Miller (Doris), Missi Pyle (Constance), Beth Grant (Peppy's Maid), Ed Lauter (The Butler), Ken Davitian (Pawnbroker), Malcolm McDowell (Extra). Uggie (The Dog).

The Artist is pure cinematic bliss. It takes place in Hollywood between 1927 and 1932, just as silent films were being replaced by talkies. George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is one of the biggest silent stars in the world – making a series of seemingly goofy “adventure” films, where he mugs for the camera, gets involved in endless sword fights, wins the girl, and rides off into the sunset – always with his faithful pooch beside him. But like many silent film stars, he is about to discover that talkies will ruin him. It requires a different acting style when there’s sound, and Valentin cannot be heard when he tries to speak. He will be abandoned by the studio he made so much money for, and by his wife. The stock market crash wipes him out financially, and now he’s washed up and broke.

His story is contrasted by the story of Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). She is young and pretty, and meets Valentin when he is on top of the world as a silent star. She gets works as an extra, and gradually works her way up in the ranks. When the silent era ends, the studio wants new stars, and they fixate on Peppy, who turns into the biggest star in the world. Yet, she never forgets Valentin, who was so nice to her early on in her career and who gave her such wonderful advice.

Written and directed by Michel Hazanvicius, The Artist is an almost completely silent film. Made in the style of the silent films of the 1920s, complete with inter titles to give you the dialogue, The Artist recreates the lost era of silent filmmaking. For fans of the era, like myself, Hazanavicius’ film is a wonderful homage to the time period, full of movie references. It is pretty much a perfectly made film – with his wonderful cinematography and the amazing score which recreate the era just about perfectly.

And it must be said that French stars Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo throw themselves into their roles with gusto as well. As Valentin discovers, acting in talkies is different that acting in silent films, and yet both of these stars nail the different acting style perfectly. Dujardin looks like a silent movie star, and his mugging in the films comedic scenes is just about perfect, and yet he still manages to be dramatic enough as Valentin’s life spirals down the drain. And Bejo is the perfect ingénue, with a natural screen presence. Throw in a stable of Hollywood supporting players – particularly John Goodman as a cigar chomping Hollywood exec and James Cromwell, as Valentin’s ever loyal chauffer, and you have a wonderful cast.

Yes, The Artist is about as deep as thimble. There really is not much here beyond its surface level. And yet, I find I don’t really care about that. The surface is so utterly charming, so funny, so pitch perfectly crafted on a technical level, that I found resistance to be futile. The movie wins you over in its opening scenes, and never really lets you go right up until it’s finale. The movie is, simply put, just pure, unadulterated cinematic joy.

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: Antoinne et Collette (1962)

Antoine et Colette (1962) *** ½

Directed by: François Truffaut.

Starring: Jean-Pierre Léaud (Antoine Doinel), Marie-France Pisier (Colette), Patrick Auffay (René), François Darbon (Colette's Stepfather), Rosy Varte (Colette's Mother).

There has never been a cinematic alter ego for a director as well known Antoine Doinel was for Francois Truffuat. Truffaut’s first film, The 400 Blows, followed Doinel as a young teenager, struggling at home and at school, and eventually turning to street life and petty crime, before being sent to a reform school. This was the film that made Truffaut’s reputation, and remains one of the seminal works of the French New Wave. Truffaut based the film on his own experiences growing up. In 1962, he was approached to be part of an omnibus film, Love at Twenty, and decided to make a sequel to The 400 Blows, called Antoine et Colette, where we know see Antoine a few years older, on his own and supporting himself working at a record factory. He becomes obsessed with a beautiful girl named Colette, who he meets at the orchestra. The rest of the film follows Antoine’s attempts to win her over – but she just wants to be friends.

The film is short – about a half hour – but it certainly does stand the test of the time, and is one of the best films about unrequited love I can remember. Jean-Pierre Leaud once again plays Antoine, who has settled down a little bit in the year between the movies, become more mature and responsible. He no longer has to depend on anyone but himself for support – his parents are out of the picture, he doesn’t go to school, etc. He can do what he wants. What he really wants is Colette.

The early scenes in the film are brilliantly staged by Truffaut. We see Antoine settle into his seat at the orchestra, and then catch a glimpse of the beautiful Colette. Again and again, he shows up there to try and catch a look at her, and later, he tries to maneuver himself into a position where he can sit next to her. Eventually, the two of the talk, and flirt, and agree to meet again. What this means to Antoine, and what this means to Colette, of course, mean two entirely different things.

Antoine et Colette is an amusing, light hearted film. I’ll bet most people can relate to poor Antoine, having a crush on someone as a teenager, and believing their relationship is far more than it is to the other person. I enjoyed the scenes where Antoine meets her parents, and tries to be respectful, and how much sympathy they have for him. But if nothing else, Antoine should have clued in that Colette thinks of him as little more than a friend when her response to his love letter begins “Your letter was very well written…” Not exactly the response he was hoping for.

Antoine et Colette may be a minor work by a major director, but that doesn’t mean it is not worthy of attention. This is the film that often gets overlooked in the Antoine Doinel catalogue, because it is a short. But there is genuine emotion here – the last scene is almost heartbreaking – and it really is Truffaut pouring out his soul. For some reason, I had not seen any of the Doinel films after The 400 Blows, but after watching this film, I intend to correct that as soon as possible.

DVD Review: Our Idiot Brother

Our Idiot Brother ** ½

Directed by: Jesse Peretz.

Written by: Evgenia Peretz and David Schisgall.

Starring: Paul Rudd (Ned), Elizabeth Banks (Miranda), Zooey Deschanel (Natalie), Emily Mortimer (Liz), Adam Scott (Jeremy), Rashida Jones (Cindy), Steve Coogan (Dylan), Kathryn Hahn (Janet), T.J. Miller (Billy), Shirley Knight (Ilene), Matthew Mindler (River), Hugh Dancy (Christian), Lydia Haug (Tatiana), Janet Montgomery (Lady Arabella).

It’s hard to dislike a movie like Our Idiot Brother, because Ned, its main character, is so sweet, innocent and naïve and is always smiling that you simply want him to be happy. He’s completely clueless, but also completely likable. In the film’s opening scene, he sells pot to a uniformed police officer, because he tells Ned he is having a bad week. Even when the cop arrests him, Ned finds it impossible to be angry with him – after all he’s just doing his job. When he gets out of prison a few months later (bragging that he won an award for “Most Co-operative inmate” four months in a row) and tries to return to his life on an organic farm with his girlfriend Janet, and their dog Willie Nelson, he finds that she has moved on without him – and intends on keeping the dog. But hey, she’s got the right to be happy, right? And her new boyfriend seems like a nice guy. All he really wants is the dog. So now, without a place to live or a job, he is forced to depend on the kindness of his three sisters – where his sweet, innocent, naïve nature throws their lives into chaos. Not because of any intent on his part, but because he is guileless – he believes everything that people tell him, and cannot lie his way out of anything.

To be clear, Ned doesn’t really do anything wrong. It is not his fault that he finds out that his sister Natalie has cheated on her girlfriend and winds up pregnant. Or that he discovers that Liz’s husband Dylan is cheating on her with a ballerina. Or that he gets information out of a rich socialite that his sister Miranda cannot get out of her – but refuses to say that he was told so “on the record”. Ned just finds it impossible to lie – the least bit of pressure on him and he crumbles.

As played by Paul Rudd, Ned becomes one of the most likable characters in recent memory. Everyone likes him – even his parole officer, who likes no one. As an audience member, I was disarmed by Ned the same way most of the characters in the movie are. It’s rare in these cynical times to find a character who is so trusting and sweet and innocent who has not been trampled down by life. Rudd is such a gifted comic actor – and so naturally likable in the first place – that you cannot help but be won over by him. And the rest of the cast is pretty good as well – from Elizabeth Banks, Emily Mortimer and Zooey Deschanel as his bossy sisters to Steve Coogan, playing the Steve Coogan role of self obsessed asshole, to TJ Miller as his exs dopey new boyfriend, who shares a lot in common with him, the entire cast is likable.

At the top of my review I said it was hard to dislike a movie like Our Idiot Brother because Ned was so sweet and innocent that you cannot help but feel for him. That’s true. But it’s also hard to become truly involved in the plot of the movie for the same reason. The film seems to manufacture conflicts for Ned to get in the middle of, and it doesn’t quite feel natural. The movie is a pleasant way to spend 90 minutes, but nothing more. Still, I can’t help but hope that everything works out for Ned.

The Best Films I Have Never Seen Before: Harold and Maude (1971)

Harold and Maude (1971) ***

Directed by: Hal Ashby.

Written by: Colin Higgins.

Starring:  Ruth Gordon (Maude), Bud Cort (Harold), Vivian Pickles (Mrs. Chasen), Cyril Cusack (Glaucus), Charles Tyner (Uncle Victor), Ellen Geer (Sunshine Doré), Eric Christmas (Priest), G. Wood (Psychiatrist), Judy Engles (Candy Gulf), Shari Summers (Edith Phern).

Harold and Maude was pretty much dismissed by critics back in 1971, and was initially a box office failure. And then, almost immediately afterwards, it became a cult hit – playing in some theaters for years on end. Watching the film for the first time now, it’s easy to see why critics initially hated it, and why some audiences fell in love with it. It reminded me at times of Mike Nichols’ The Graduate, and its influence on filmmakers like Wes Anderson is pretty clear. Yet the humor in the movie is dark and strange, and at times somewhat creepy. The whole premise of the movie – a 20 year old man falling in love with a 80 year old woman – is creepy as well (for the record, this isn’t a double standard thing – I’d be just creeped out by a romantic comedy starring Peter O’Toole and Emma Watson). Yet there is something about Harold and Maude that kept me fascinated by it – and enough of the comedy is laugh out loud funny that I have to admit, despite my reservations, that I enjoyed the film.

The best thing about Harold and Maude is Bud Cort – the talented young actor who had just made two movies with Robert Altman the previous year (MASH and Brewster McCloud). He is Harold, a 20 year, rich kid who is bored by life. His only joy is faking his own suicide again and again and again, to the point where his mother (Vivien Pickles, who is absolutely hilarious in her role) has stopped caring. His fake suicides are a running gag in the film, and provide some of the funniest moments (my favorite is when he apparently sets himself on fire, done all in one shot in the background). He is a child of the 1960s, facing possible drafting into a war that he (and the movie) sees as ridiculous. He is the classic disenfranchised youth.

Ruth Gordon plays Maude, an 80 year old Holocaust survivor (this isn’t, to the best of my recollection mentioned in the movie, but you can clearly see a numbered tattoo on her arm in the film), who is the exact opposite of Harold. She has embraced life to the fullest, and lives every day with joy, always looking to try new experiences. She will not let life get her down. The two of them meet at a funeral – neither of them knew the deceased, but both simply like going to funerals – Harold because he’s obsessed with death, Maude to remind herself of what she’s fighting against). What starts as a friendship, quickly turns into something else entirely.

There is much to like about the film. Directed by Hal Ashby (who would go onto to direct much better films like The Last Detail, Shampoo, Bound for Glory, Coming Home and a personal favorite Being There) has an interesting visual style. He films much of the movie in static long shots that he holds just a second or two longer than most directors would to allow the humor to seep in. The songs by Cat Stevens are memorable, and help to give the film that The Graduate type vibe, with only the one voice all the way through. Cort is excellent as Harold – deadpan perfection in most of his humorous scenes, though he isn’t quite as convincing when the film becomes more emotional. Vivien Pickles may in fact give the best performance in the movie as his mother – the scene where she fills out Harold’s dating service application is the best in the film. Ruth Gordon is a little more problematic, not really because of her performance, but because of how the film is written. She can become a little cloying and annoying, and some of her lines are hackneyed. The ending of the film doesn’t work at all, because it seems to fly in the face of everything that went before it.

Yet, overall Harold and Maude is a satisfying, unique comedy. It isn’t the classic that the supporters claim it is – at least not to me – but there is much to like about it. Ashby would go onto better things than this, but he continued to have to battle the studios (as he did here) to get the films he wanted to get made done. Harold and Maude is a fine film – it just isn’t a masterpiece.

Movie Review: The Descendants

The Descendants ****

Directed by: Alexander Payne.

Written by: Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings.

Starring: George Clooney (Matt King), Shailene Woodley (Alexandra), Judy Greer (Julie), Matthew Lillard (Brian), Beau Bridges (Cousin Hugh), Robert Forster (Scott), Rob Huebel (Mark Mitchell), Mary Birdsong (Kai), Amara Miller (Scottie), Nick Krause (Sid).

Alexander Payne is one the best filmmakers in America right now. After churning out his abortion comedy debut Citizen Ruth, his high school masterpiece Election, his old age comedy About Schmidt and the simple perfection that was his wine country comedy Sideways all in an eight year span, it has taken him seven long years to follow it up with his latest film, The Descendants. I can think of no higher praise than to say that even with the lofty expectations that come when major directors take so much time off, The Descendants does not disappoint. It is every inch an Alexander Payne film.

The film stars George Clooney (who wanted the role that Thomas Haden Church got in Sideways, but Payne said no because he didn’t think anyone would believe the biggest star in the world as an out of work actor) as Matt King, a lawyer in Hawaii, who is struggling with the decisions he has to make. The first involves a huge parcel of land entrusted to him and his family since the 1800s on one of the Hawaii islands. The trust ends in 7 years, and things could get ugly if he and all of his cousins do not sell it by then. But Matt is the lone trustee – so he gets to decide who to sell it to. No matter what offer he picks, everyone will be extremely wealthy because of the deal. The second is even harder. His wife has gotten into a boating accident, and is lying in a coma that doctors say she won’t wake up from. He has to pull the plug. The problem now is that he has to be a full time parent to his troubled teenage daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and his 10 year daughter Scottie (Amara Miller), and he’s always been so busy, he doesn’t really know how to relate to them, or what to do with them. Things get even more complicated when he finds out that his wife was having an affair, and was planning on asking him for a divorce. After telling all of his wife’s friends and family, he takes his daughters (and a stoned surfer named Sid) out to try and track down the other man, to give him a chance to say goodbye as well. His motives aren’t really altruistic – he’s pissed as hell, and wants to see the man his wife was set to leave him for.

What never ceases to amaze me about Payne’s films is how even in the midst of tragedy, how he can mine humor out of the situation. And not easy humor either, but realistic humor that grows out of the characters and the situation that they are in. Here, he is aided in great part by George Clooney, who gives one of his best performances in the film. He is a man who has always lived his life according to his plan. Unlike his cousins, he has not squandered his money, but saved it. He has been frugal – perhaps too frugal – but he believes what he believes and sticks with it. He knows his marriage to his wife wasn’t great, but he didn’t think it was that bad either. He knows he should be doing something more for his daughters, but he doesn’t know how to relate to them. The movie is about how he adapts to the new situation, and grows into the person he needs to be for his family. Clooney exudes charm and humor in the role – he does “movie star” performances as good as anyone, but there’s a deeper level here that gradually comes out. He carries the movie.

The supporting cast is wonderful as well. As someone who has suffered through a few episodes of The Secret Life of the American Teenager, I was amazed by how good Shailene Woodley is in this film, considering how awful I think she is on that show. Here, played a rebellious teenager, with alcohol and drug issues, and an affinity for older men, who is angry at her mother for the affair and the coma, and angry at her father for letting it all happen, she is truly great. Also wonderful is Judy Greer, in a role that comes late in the film, as a woman who is trying to hold onto what she has. And in more purely comic performances, Robert Forrester is great as Clooney’s gruff father in law and Nick Krause is quite good as the seemingly stoned out, shallow surfer dude – who may not be as shallow as he first appears.

The Hawaii backdrop works well for The Descendants. Yes, it is beautiful, but Payne doesn’t dwell on the beauty or the tourist areas. This is a film about people who live in Hawaii – there lives are just as messy as people who live anywhere else, no matter that they do live in a tropical paradise. The cinematography is lush and vibrant, and works well for the movie.

The Descendants is a great movie – witty and funny, but also humane and heartbreaking. This is a crowd pleaser, but on a deeper, more satisfying level than most. It’s one of the year’s best.

Movie Review: A Very Harold and Kumar 3-D Christmas

A Very Harold and Kumar 3-D Christmas ***

Directed by: Todd Strauss-Schulson.

Written by: Jon Hurwitz & Hayden Schlossberg.

Starring: Kal Penn (Kumar), John Cho (Harold), Neil Patrick Harris (Neil Patrick Harris), Tom Lennon (Todd), Amir Blumenfeld (Adrian), Paula Garcés (Maria), Danny Trejo (Mr. Perez), Patton Oswalt (Mall Santa), Bobby Lee (Kenneth Park), RZA (Lamar), Da'Vone McDonald (Latrell), Jordan Hinson (Mary), Elias Koteas (Sergei Katsov), Yasen Peyankov (Yuri), John Hoogenakker (Gustav), Eddie Kaye Thomas (Rosenberg), David Krumholtz (Goldstein), Richard Riehle (Santa Claus).

The Harold and Kumar movies are among the crudest, gross out humor movies in the past few years. The difference between them and most of the others of its ilk is that they are also funny. Very funny. As I grow older, I don’t find that much humor in bodily fluids, not that I ever really did but it’s even less now. But somehow, these movies have always made me laugh. They are clever, and the play with the genre just a little bit. Here, for example, is a 3-D movie that knows just how ridiculous 3-D movies are. They don’t try to hide from it, and rather they embrace it. While many 3-D movies hurl things at the camera in an attempt to make things look cool, this movie hurls things at the camera to let you know that they know just how ridiculous it is to hurl things at the camera. I liked that.

It’s been a few years since Harold and Kumar escaped from Guantanamo Bay, and got high with President Bush. In that time, Harold has gotten married to the object of his affection Maria, made a success of himself on Wall Street, and has moved into a big house in suburban New Jersey. Kumar has done very little except get high, staying in the apartment he used to share with Harold. The two haven’t even seen each other in a few years. But on Christmas Eve, a package arrives at the apartment addressed to Harold – and Kumar decides to deliver it to his old friend. And as always happens when Harold and Kumar get together, things go horribly wrong, and Harold Christmas tree is burnt to cinder. This wouldn’t normally be a huge deal, but that tree was grown by Maria’s father (played by Machete himself Danny Trejo), and he already hates Harold, and made a big deal about the tree. Harold has until his in laws return from Midnight Mass to replace the tree. And of course, Kumar says he’ll help out. What happens from there, I’ll let you discover, but needless to say, it involves drugs, alcohol, violence, Neil Patrick Harris, Russian gangsters, nudity and waffle making robot.

By this, the third movie, Kal Penn and John Cho have their characters down cold – so much so, that they will forever be associated with these roles. Penn has moved on from acting, into working in politics for the White House, but I guess he couldn’t resist one more movie Harold and Kumar outing. I see John Cho pop up in small supporting roles once in a while, but this may just end up being the only starring role he gets. That was part of the reason why they made the movies in the first place – because they were not making any movies like this with actors like Penn and Cho. They have an effortless chemistry together that simply works. The rest of the cast comes and goes – often for only a scene or two – but they seem to be having fun. And as a result, so do we.

I really don’t have much more to say about the movie. This is not the pitch perfect, anti-Christmas comedy that Terry Zwigoff’s Bad Santa (2003) was. That film went for broke, and cheerfully tried (and succeeded) in offending just about everyone – but was also hilarious. Harold and Kumar is less offensive, and more good hearted. I couldn’t help but enjoy myself while watching the movie.

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: Ball of Fire (1941)

Ball of Fire (1941) *** ½  

Directed by: Howard Hawks.

Written by: Charles Brackett & Billy Wilder.

Starring:  Gary Cooper (Prof. Bertram Potts), Barbara Stanwyck (Sugarpuss O'Shea), Oskar Homolka (Prof. Gurkakoff), Henry Travers (Prof. Jerome), S.Z. Sakall (Prof. Magenbruch), Tully Marshall (Prof. Robinson), Leonid Kinskey (Prof. Quintana), Richard Haydn (Prof. Oddly), Aubrey Mather (Prof. Peagram), Allen Jenkins (Garbage Man), Dana Andrews (Joe Lilac), Dan Duryea (Duke Pastrami), Ralph Peters (Asthma Anderson), Kathleen Howard (Miss Bragg), Mary Field (Miss Totten).

Howard Hawks’ Ball of Fire is not as well known as his other classic screwball comedies – Bringing Up Baby (1938) or His Girl Friday (1940), probably because it isn’t quite as good. Those two films move at lightning quick speed for their entire running time, never slowing down for a minute to let the audience catch their breath. By comparison, Ball of Fire seems almost slow. That isn’t to say that Ball of Fire isn’t an excellent comedy – it is – but that it is not quite as good as Hawks’ best work in the genre. But there is still plenty to recommend the film on.

The movie stars Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck (who also starred together in Frank Capra’s Meet John Doe released the same year, and previously reviewed as part of this series). Cooper is Professor Bertram Potts, one of 8 professors who have spent almost a decade compiling “all of human knowledge” for a set of encyclopedias. They have made it all the way to the letter S, and Potts has just finished his section on slang, when they meet their garbage man, who tosses out a bunch of words and phrases that Potts had not covered. Fearing his section is hopelessly out of date, he heads out onto the town to learn more about slang – eventually meeting the sassy night club singer Sugarpuss O’Shea (Stanwyck). She initially rejects Potts suggestion that she help him out, but when her gangster boyfriend (Dana Andrews) gets into trouble, and the cops start looking for her, she moves right in with the Professors, thinking it’s a good place to hide out. All eight of them are immediately smitten with her, none more so than Potts. And, as you can probably guess, these opposites really do attract – but than Sugarpuss is an awkward situation, since she lied to them, and now Andrews wants her to run off with him and get married.

As I mentioned before, Ball of Fire doesn’t move with the same lightning quickness that films like Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday did. In fact, the movie has an almost languid pace at times. Yet the screenplay, by Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett, is full of intelligent, witty dialogue. Hawks’ direction is top notch, as is the cinematography by Gregg Tolland. Gary Cooper is perfectly cast as the uptight, somewhat naïve Potts. Like Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby, he is an intellectual who becomes smitten with a woman who moves too fast, and is out of his comfort zone. Cooper, who is best known for his more heroic roles (like his Oscar winning turn in Sergeant York the same year, and oddly enough, also directed by Hawks), but I have always preferred Cooper when he plays the everyman – like here and in Meet John Doe. Stanwyck pretty much steals the movie (which is why she got an Oscar nomination for it – although she should have gotten it for The Lady Eve that year), as the brash woman who comes in and stirs up the professors lives.

Ball of Fire isn’t quite as great as Hawks was capable of making, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a wonderful film. Sugarpuss O’Shea definitely counts as a prototypical “Hawksian” woman, and the film is full of excellent little touches – and supporting performances from the entire cast (I really did like Dan Dureya as a hood for example). Is it a great film? Not quite, but it puts most modern comedies to shame.

The Best Films I Have Never Seen Before: Real Life (1979)

Real Life (1979) ***

Directed by: Albert Brooks.

Written by: Albert Brooks and Monica Mcgowan Johnson and Harry Shearer.

Starring: Albert Brooks (Albert Brooks), Charles Grodin (Warren Yeager), Frances Lee McCain (Jeannette Yeager), Lisa Urette (Lisa Yeager), Robert Stirrat (Eric Yeager), Matthew Tobin (Dr. Howard Hill), J.A. Preston (Dr. Ted Cleary).

I’ve always been a fan of Albert Brooks. From his own movies – including Lost in America (1985), Defending Your Life (1991) and Mother (1996) which are three of the funniest movies you will ever see – to his work for other director – like Broadcast News, Taxi Driver and Finding Nemo – to his seemingly endless string of Simpsons guest voices (the best of which is probably Hank Scorpio), Brooks has always made me laugh more than most other actors. And recently in Drive, he scared me, which was shocking because for the most part, Brooks plays a thinly veiled version of himself in his roles. Somehow though, I had never seen his first two films. His first film, Real Life, shows just how talented and funny Brooks can be – as a writer, director and an actor, and while it doesn’t rise to the level of his best work, it is still damn funny. And considering how reality TV has risen since he made this film, it seems almost prophetic at times.

In the film Brooks plays Albert Brooks, a version of himself. He is a filmmaker and standup comedian who has garnered some notoriety because of his short films on Saturday Night Live, and now he wants to move onto feature films. But he doesn’t want to do a scripted movie. Inspired by the groundbreaking PBS series American Family, Brooks wants to make a film documenting the life of one year in the life of the typical American family. In order to ensure they pick the right family, they select 200 to undergo rigorous testing in a “scientific” setting, including role playing games and driving tests. He ends up with two choices, one who lives in Phoenix and the other who lives in Green Bay. Not wanting to spend the winter in Green Bay, he picks the Phoenix family. Husband Warren (Charles Grodin), a vet, his neurotic wife Jeannette (Frances Lee McCain) and their two children – Lisa and Eric. He even sends them to Hawaii for two weeks, so he and his crew can get set up and not disturb them. When they get back, they’ll get right to filming American life as it really is. They have even got a new camera, which will capture life as the human eye does, and is said to be less intrusive, as it gives the camera men more freedom to move around. The fact that the camera is a helmet that looks like a storm trooper out of Star Wars doesn’t seem to phase Brooks. In fact he brags “Only six of these cameras were ever made; only five of them ever worked – we have four of those”. Brooks moves in across the street to monitor the filming, and even hires two psychologists to ensure that they do not put too much of a strain on the family.

What Brooks find though, is what scientists have long known. That the simple act of observing can change the families behavior. And when you have a filmmaker like Brooks, all manic energy, he’s not just observing but becomes an active participant in the drama. When Warren messes up a surgery on a horse, and they capture it on film, he falls into a deep depression, and simply sits around the house all day doing nothing. This won’t do for Brooks. He needs action and excitement, and he tries to goose the family along. He dresses up like a clown to try and make everyone happy, and then tries to counsel the wife when she gets cold feet. With nothing else happening, he even thinks that perhaps he can make something happen with her – even suggesting the possibility of an affair. And of course, he needs a big finale – and he’s determined to get one.

Some of the best moments in the film are little, throwaway visual gags. I love every scene with the guys with the monstrous cameras on their heads, which were supposed to be unobtrusive. Often times, we see them running in the background of a shot, and it never failed to bring a smile to my face. And the performances work as well. Grodin has always been a talented comedic actor, and this is some of his better work, as the normal guy, clearly uncomfortable on camera, and trying too hard. And Brooks himself, is, as always, hilarious.

In 1979, the idea of reality TV was still in its infancy. Brooks admired the American Family PBS series, and thought it would be funny to extend it to see the filmmakers behind the scenes movements as well. Now of course, all you need to get a reality TV show is to be a B list star from the 1980s or have the last name Kardashian (by the way, I still have no idea who the Kardashians are, or why I should care about their lives). If they have “typical American families” on reality TV, it’s because they are either little people, or don’t know about birth control. Brooks saw the comedic possibilities in all of this years before it really hit the big time, and Real Life is an insightful comedy about the whole phenomenon. Still, I think had he waited a few decades to make Real Life, he could have made a truly great comedy, not just a good one.

The Best Films I Have Never Seen Before: The Prince and the Showgirl (1957)

The Prince and the Showgirl (1957) ***

Directed by: Laurence Olivier.

Written by: Terence Rattigan based on his play.

Starring: Laurence Olivier (The Regent), Marilyn Monroe (Elsie), Richard Wattis (Northbrook), Jeremy Spenser (King Nicolas), Sybil Thorndike (The Queen Dowager), Jean Kent (Maisie Springfield).

On the surface, you couldn’t pick two actors worse suited to star in a movie together than Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe. He was a serious, Shakespearian actor, used to grand, eloquent dialogue. And she was the famed ditzy blonde, whose seemingly naiveté masked a great actress, oozing with sexuality. While no one is really going to mistake The Prince and the Showgirl for a great film, the two had definite chemistry together, and the film is a good little comedy, where the two play off each other wonderfully. The two apparently clashed on set – with Monroe’s habitual tardiness and fluffed line readings grating on Olivier as both her co-star and her director. He also didn’t like how she showed up with Paula Strasberg to be her acting coach. Strasberg, wife of Lee Strasberg, taught “method” acting, which Olivier despised (while filming Marathon Man, when he found out that Dustin Hoffman stayed up all night before shooting the torture scene to get the right look and feel of being tired Oliver apparently remarked “My dear boy, why don’t you just try acting?”). But the result worked – as even Olivier later admitted.

The movie is a trifling comedy, but an engaging and fun one. Olivier plays the Regent of a small European country in England for the King’s Coronation. He is in charge of his country until his son, the rightful heir to the throne, turns 18, which is coming in the next 18 months. People are worried, because the son has aligned himself with Germany, and when he takes over all of Europe fears war (this is 1911 afterall). The Foreign Office assigns Northbrook (Richard Watts) to keep the strict Regent entertained during his stay. So he takes him to a play, where he is charmed the performance of Elsie (Monroe). So charmed in fact, that she invites her over to the embassy for a late, private supper. Elsie knows this game, but goes along with it anyway.

The movie is a series of comical misunderstandings, and witty banter. You can tell its based on a play, as the structure of the film really does feel like it, even if Olivier and cinematographer Jack Cardiff, do their best to make the film seem less stage bound. The first act of the movie takes places largely in one of the grand rooms of the embassy, with Olivier and Monroe bantering and flirting, first she being offended, and then he being offended, and generally, the evening not working out how anyone planned. When she passes out, he decides he never wants to see her again – but through plot twists that only happen in the movies, she ends up staying with the Regent and his family all weekend. And while at first, he despises her as a “silly American”, gradually she wears him down. Marilyn Monroe can do that to men.

The movie is all witty banter, and the actors make the most of it. I’ve never been quite the fan of Olivier as many are, but the fact that he is a great actor is unquestionable, and he seems to delight in doing fun performances, where he gets to put on goofy accents (I LOVED him in Powell and Pressburger’s 49^th Parallel as a French Canadian). Here, he is a stiff upper lipped, stick in the mud, and is quite hilarious throughout. But it’s Monroe who really steals the movie. She is one of those rare actresses who you quite simply cannot take your eyes off of when she’s onscreen – and she is the center of practically every scene here. This another of her great comedic performances.

The plot is ridiculous of course, and how Monroe’s simple wisdom helps solve all the problems is unbelievable in the extreme. But does that really matter? Not really. This is a movie about Olivier and Monroe, and they are both excellent in the film, which makes it a delight. Not a great film, but a fun one.

DVD Review: Hesher

Hesher **

Directed by: Spencer Susser   

Written by: Spencer Susser & David Michôd.

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Hesher), Devin Brochu (T.J.), Rainn Wilson (Paul Forney), Piper Laurie (Grandma), Natalie Portman (Nicole), Brendan Hill (Dustin), John Carroll Lynch (Larry).

By now, I think I have seen too many indie movies about dysfunctional families. They come along like clockwork every year, having created “buzz” at Sundance, and then dropped into the marketplace where some succeed, but most fail and are forgotten. They follow formulaic scripts as much as the blockbusters do, but on a smaller scale. Some of these films, much like some blockbusters, are actually still quite good. Spencer Susser’s Hesher, I think, is an attempt to subvert the genre by adding in the title character, who really has no business being in this movie, to try and make it darker or edgier. Instead, he just shows off how clichéd the rest of the movie is, and makes us wonder what the hell he’s doing in the movie.

T. J. (Devin Brochu) is a messed up little boy, who looks like he’s about 10, but is probably more like 13, since he’s clearly in high school. As if being the one kid in class who needs to fully hit puberty isn’t bad enough, his mother has recently died in a car accident. His father Paul (Rainn Wilson) is zonked out on pills, in a deep depression and simply sits around the house all day. His grandmother (Piper Laurie) cares about her son, and her grandson, but isn’t really much help.

TJ meets Hesher (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) when in a fit of rage; he smashes a window of a house on a construction site – the very house that Hesher is crashing in - bringing the security guard, and ruining Hesher’s living situation. Then Hesher starts following him around, and eventually, will just move in with the family. Why Paul and Grandma do nothing is never really explained. Hesher is some sort of heavy metal reject, seemingly out of the 1980s, with long, greasy hair, lots of tattoos (on his back, a giant middle finger, on his chest, a stick figure blowing his brains out) and he drives around in a big, black, old van. He moves in with the family, I guess, because he has nowhere else to go, and they don’t kick him out. Where he came from, where his family is, whether he has any friends, is never explained. But given the way he acts, it’s would not be surprising if he has driven everyone in his life away from him. Hesher is, in short, an asshole.

The movie is about T.J.’s journey, and how with the help of Hesher, he starts to heal himself and move on from his mother’s death – and how he brings Paul along with him. So the journey is clichéd, and I think that’s why co-writer/director Spencer Susser drops Hesher right into the middle of it – because we’ve seen this type of movie before, where a child is healed by his relationship by an outsider, but never before has the outsider been like Hesher. Normally, it’s some kindly, understanding older character, not someone who seemingly acts in his own self interest at every step along the way like Hesher does. Hesher does what he wants, when he wants, and really, never helps TJ at all. He lets the bully continue to pick on him, he drive a wedge between TJ and the object of his unrealistic, adolescent boy crush on Nicole (Natalie Portman), who works in a grocery store. He smokes, drinks, does drugs and swears at will in front of TJ. If the lesson to be learned from Hesher, the movie, is to be more like Hesher, the character, then I’m not buying it. He is, as I mentioned before, an asshole.

But perhaps the movie still could have worked if they had made Hesher into a convincing and entertaining asshole – which they don’t. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of my favorite actors working right now, but even he cannot make Hesher seem like he belongs in this movie – belongs in fact in the human race. Hesher is a shallow, superficial character, and it’s like Susser thought that the tattoos, hair and profanity would distract us from that shallowness It doesn’t. It doesn’t help that the rest of the characters are just as paper thin. Rainn Wilson is a talented actor, but he can’t make looking at the TV in a daze interesting. And Piper Laurie cannot make the spaced grandma convincing either. Natalie Portman, who saw so much to like in Hesher, she also produced it, has a one note role, and I could never figure out why she does pretty much anything that she does. Little Devin Brochu fairs the best with TJ, but that’s probably just because he’s the only character who seems to have been fully thought out.

Watching Hesher, I kept waiting for the pieces to fall into place. It is a diverting movie, and for a while, I went with it, thinking there was something more to it than what I was seeing – that the filmmakers were building to something. But they never really do. What we end up with is a clichéd movie with some clever moments, that adds up to pretty much nothing.

DVD Review: Terri

Terri *** ½

Directed by: Azazel Jacobs.

Written by: Patrick Dewitt.

Starring: Jacob Wysocki (Terri), John C. Reilly (Mr. Fitzgerald), Bridger Zadina (Chad), Creed Bratton (Uncle James), Olivia Crocicchia (Heather Miles), Tim Heidecker (Mr. Flemisch), Justin Prentice (Dirty Jack), Mary Anne McGarry (Ms Hamish).

High school can be hell if you’re different – and Terri certainly is different. He is massively overweight and shy. He also comes to school every day in pajamas – and when asked why, he tells people because they’re comfortable. His home life is a mess – his parents are both absent (he simply says he doesn’t know where they are when asked), and he lives with his uncle, who is in the beginning phase of dementia. Every day he walks to school through an idyllic looking forest, and when he emerges, and sees the school, he stops and sighs – screwing up the courage to go back to school for at least one more day.

Terri is played in a remarkable little performance by Jacob Wysocki and is about how this character moves through high school, and eventually does make meaningful connections with three people. The first is Mr. Fitzgerald (John C. Reilly), the principal of the school, who is one of those adults who perhaps tries too hard to be hip and “understand” his students – although his heart is in the right place. He sets up weekly meetings with Terri, and tries his best to make Terri feel comfortable, and make his life just a little bit easier. The second is Chad (Bridger Zadina), another one of those students who get called in for weekly meetings. He is small, but angry and obsessively pulls out his hair and eats it. The third is Heather (Olivia Crocicchia), who was once one of the most popular girls in school – but then lets a boy finger her in home economics, and is seen by the entire class, who immediately write her off as a slut, and refuse to talk to her. But Terri will talk to her – he knows what it’s like to be ostracized.

The movie was well written by Patrick DeWitt and directed by Azazel Jacobs. This is a movie in which all of the characters seem real, and also original. I’ve never seen a character quite like Terri in a movie before, and I was fascinated by him. At a certain point, he had to decide to embrace his outsider status. He could be more normal if he chose to – just by not dressing in pajamas, and not making himself such an easy target. But in a way, he is comfortable with himself. He is called into Fitzgerald’s office, and the two begin talking – but more than that, actually communicating. We get the feeling that Fitzgerald spends most of his days dealing with bad kids – doling out punishments and yelling. After all, in all my years in high school, I never got in real trouble, and never once had a meeting with any of the administrators. But I think Fitzgerald is trying to help Terri – and the others he meets with regularly who are not troublemakers. We get only snippets of his own slightly troubled home life and at one point he simply tells Terri “Life is hard, and we’re all just doing the best we can”. It’s a simple life lesson, but if it’s one that you truly accept, there are few that are more valuable.

The scenes between these two characters are the heart of the movie, and it says something of Wysocki’s talent that he more than holds his own with an actor of Reilly’s talents. I know John C. Reilly has had a lot of success in recent years in mainstream, broad comedies like Talladega Nights and Step Brothers, but he has always seemed more comfortable and confident in smaller movies like this.

When you add in the supporting cast around these two, you notice just how well observed Terri is. Chad is the only manic character in the movie – full of nervous energy, and it’s a nice offset against the rest of the more subdued cast. Creed Bratton, from The Office, gives us glimpses inside the man Uncle James used to be, before his illness robbed him of whatever and whoever he was before. Heather is perhaps a little underwritten, but as played by Olivia Crocicchia, you feel for her and like her. When she’s asked why she let that boy do what he did in front of everyone, she says “Because he wanted to, and it’s nice to feel wanted”. She has more in common with Terri and Chad than we at first realize. She isn’t just drawn to Terri because no one else will talk to her – but some deeper level of connection that unfortunately, is only hinted at in the film.

American indie movies about dysfunctional families and teenagers have become pretty standard – we seemingly get at least a dozen each year. But unlike most, Terri is not interested in simply being clever and scoring cheap laughs. It doesn’t mock its characters, but takes them seriously. It is a wonderful little film.

Movie Review: 50/50

50/50 *** ½   

Directed by: Jonathan Levine.

Written by: Will Reiser.

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Adam), Seth Rogen (Kyle), Anna Kendrick (Katherine), Bryce Dallas Howard (Rachael), Anjelica Huston (Diane), Serge Houde (Richard), Andrew Airlie (Dr. Ross), Matt Frewer (Mitch), Philip Baker Hall (Alan).

When you’re 27 years old, cancer is the last thing on your mind. But for Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) that nagging pain in his side turns out to be a rare kind of spinal cancer, and it sends his whole word into a loop. He was a young guy, working a cool job alongside his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) and has a pretty girlfriend, Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) and everything seems fine. The biggest problem he has is that his mother, Diane (Anjelica Huston) worries too much, and his father has alzheimers. But when you get cancer, no matter how old you are, everything changes.

What I admired most about 50/50 is that it is not another dire movie about cancer. It’s also not an inspirational movie, where we are moved by the cancer patient’s brave struggle against the illness. Instead, it is a movie full of life and humor. Yes, there is a dark undercurrent behind the movie, but this is not a typical cancer movie, which is exactly why it works so well.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt has emerged in the past few years as one of the best actors of his generation, and he pretty much carries 50/50 on his shoulders. He nails the comedy and the drama in the movie, and makes Adam into a real living human being – not just the “guy with cancer”. It seems like he struggles more with meeting everyone’s expectations of him, rather than with the illness itself. He goes off to his chemo treatments, still hangs out with his best friend, and when his girlfriend cheats on him, he reacts the same way any guy would. She has excuses of course, but he doesn’t much care. He knew that the cancer would be hard on both of them and their relationship – he even gave her out when he first found out about it – but she goes ahead and cheats anyway. It is an accomplishment of the movie – and the wonderful Bryce Dallas Howard – that you understand, if not forgive, her actions.

The only time that Adam truly gets to be himself – to truly confront his illness head on – is in his therapy sessions with the young woman working on her doctorate – Katherine (Anna Kendrick). He was expecting someone older – but then again, so was she. Kendrick, who like Gordon-Levitt, has emerged as an actor who I cannot help buy love every time I see her, hits the right notes in her role as well. She doesn’t really know what she’s doing, but she tries really hard – and it helps that Adam seems to have a sense of humor about the whole thing – and calls her on it when she gets to “therapist” with him. He wants no bullshit.

The movie has a nice, relaxed feel to it – and the interactions between pretty much all the characters feels genuine – even Seth Rogen, who we at first think is just being his same old shallow self, but the performance really has much more going on in it. The film was written by Rogen’s friend Will Reiser, who survived his own battle with cancer, and decided he wanted to write a movie about what he went through. Perhaps most cancer patients don’t go through everything like Adam does, but the journey still feels real.

The movie moves along fairly effortlessly for its first two acts – mixing comedy and drama with ease and letting us get to know its characters. The third act, which is when the real heavy lifting comes in, is surprisingly moving. The movie suckers you into thinking that you’re watching a comedy, that just happens to be about a guy with cancer, and then hits you hard in the final reel. You may be surprised just how moved you are by the movie – I certainly way. But that’s what happens when you get a writer who has lived through something like this, coupled with an actor of Gordon-Levitt’s ability, who wins you over without you even realizing it. Director Jonathan Levine does a wonderful job here as well. I don’t think 50/50 is quite a great movie – and it may well be not all that true to life – but it works surprisingly well for what it is.