50/50

I was SUPER skeptical of ?50/50? going in. I figured the title was pretty apt ? �that 50/50 was just about the chance I?d have of liking it.

I mean, a cancer�comedy? To me, that just seemed like an insurmountable oxymoron. Those two things do NOT go together. Added to which my ?Tearjerker Alert System? was going off like mad. DANGER! DANGER!

But, in light of my newfound responsibilities as a movie blogger, and in the wake of some extremely positive early reviews? I headed in to watch the story of a young man�diagnosed with cancer, and his buddy who tries his best to help.

I?m glad I did.

You need to know? ?50/50? is NOT a comedy. Don?t let the marketing fool you, this does not belong in the comedy section of the DVD aisles. I understand why the studio would want to market it as such, of course. Comedy is going to sell more tickets than cancer. And it?s not to say the movie isn?t funny. It?s very funny. Frequently. I mean, the humor ratio is way higher in this movie than any other movie of its type. Easily.

But ?50/50? is a serious movie about a serious illness.

Joseph Gordon Levitt plays Adam,�a young man who receives some extraordinarily difficult news. He has a rare form of cancer. There?s a tumor growing on his spine, and it?s life threatening. In fact, the survival rate for that particular type of cancer is 50/50.�That?s not all he has to deal with, either. A life threatening illness disrupts everything you know? especially your relationships with other people. It plays havoc on his relationship with his girlfriend, his coworkers don?t know how to relate to him, and his Mother wants to smother him and care for him any way she can.

The only person in his life that maintains a semblance of normalcy with him is his best friend, Kyle,�played by Seth Rogen. Rogen?s�character does his best to keep things light, and normal, between the two. Not that he tries to pretend as if nothing is wrong, just that he tries to be the one person that isn?t going to act totally imbalanced around Adam. Adam has enough to deal with as it is. The relationship between the two of them is where the comedy comes through. There?s some irreverent moments, and as shown in the previews, the two do use Adam?s cancer to hit on chicks. The movie has some really funny lines, and has a real knack for making you laugh when you wouldn?t expect there to be anything funny.

But this is a serious movie. Joseph Gordon Levitt is really fantastic here, and you WILL wind up caring about his character.

There are a lot of people who are going to see this movie and wind up bawling, I?m sure. It was a pretty sniffle-full theatre when I saw it. Did it get me? No. Not quite. Let?s say?. if�this were a party, the host pointed out ?Crying Fogs? to me over across the room, and asked me if I wanted to go talk to him. I declined. But if I wanted to, he seemed like a pretty approachable guy.

That doesn?t mean I wasn?t moved. I was. And impressed. This is a movie that doesn?t over dramatize anything, it doesn?t have to. It?s filled with funny, funny dialogue, which helps you to grow close to the characters. And above all, in addition to the excellent turn by Joseph Gordon Levitt,�it has some really great performances across the board, notably Kendrick as Adam?s therapist, Huston as his mother, and Rogen as his friend, even though the role wasn?t much of a stretch.

A

Like this:

One blogger likes this post.

. Bookmark the

.

Ashlee Simpson Ashley Greene Ashley Olsen Ashley Scott Ashley Tappin

More Freakonomics Podcasts Coming Your Way

For a while now, we?ve been doing a regular Freakonomics Radio segment on the public-radio behemoth Marketplace. In the past, those segments didn?t make it to our podcast stream. But that?s no longer the case, as of today.

Our inaugural Freakonomics/Marketplace segment is about the historic decline and fall of crime, and features three Steves: me, Levitt, and Pinker, along with host Kai Ryssdal.)

If you subscribe to our podcast via iTunes or the RSS feed, you will now get a new Marketplace segment every other week in addition to our regular podcast. Since our regular podcast also comes out every other week, this means that Freakonomics Radio is now officially a weekly podcast. Like this:

Week 1: Freakonomics Radio podcast (usually about 20-25 minutes)
Week 2: Freakonomics Radio on Marketplace (about 5 minutes)
Week 3: Freakonomics Radio podcast
Week 4: Freakonomics Radio on Marketplace

Also, sometime in early 2012, we?ll be releasing our second set of five hour-long programs to public-radio stations across the country. If your local station doesn?t yet carry Freakonomics, I?d suggest you take advantage of the upcoming Halloween holiday and consider egging their studios.*

*Kidding!

Blake Lively Blu Cantrell Bonnie Jill Laflin Bridget Moynahan Britney Spears

1911: Film Review

The Bottom Line

An erratic, laborious interpretation of Chinese revolutionary history that lets down its epic subject.

Director

Jackie Chan

Co-director

Zhang Li

Screenwriters

Wang Xingdong, Chen Baoguang

Cast

Winston Chao, Jackie Chan, Li Bingbing

HONG KONG -- Flouting Chairman Mao?s remark that ?Revolution is not taking people out to dinner,? gate crashing and dinner parties take up more screen time than grisly battles and nation building in 1911. Jackie Chan stars and co-directs this historical epic with Zhang Li to commemorate the centennial of the Xinhai Revolution, which ended two centuries of the monarchial system in China. However, Chan has not injected any of his playful charm or physical virtuosity into Wang Xingdong?s and Chen Baoguang?s insipid, poorly structured screenplay.

A mainland Chinese propaganda vehicle through and through, the film postulates history in such a scrappy, inaccessible manner that either as entertainment or education, it?s a lost cause. Initial domestic response is not particularly zealous. Overseas release including a U.S. bow will only pique specialist and academic curiosity. Chan?s usual fan base may give this one a pass despite the astonishing fact that this is his 100th film as an actor.

1911 chronicles the political careers of China?s first president Sun Yat Sen (Winston Chao) and military commander Huang Xing (Chan) as parallel trajectories that embody the two-pronged offensives of the revolution. Sun is the diplomat and statesman spearheading overseas fund-raising efforts and navigating a complex web of western imperialist interests, while Huang gets his hands dirty (and his fingers blown off) in bloody warfare. However, their relationship never delves into personal depths or illuminates how it shaped the country?s destiny. They seldom even appear in the same scene.

Two battles are represented as the turning points in their struggle: the failed third Guangzhou Uprising on April 23, 1911 and the Wuchang Uprising on October 10, 1911 which motivated 14 provinces to declare independence from the reigning Qing court.

The action devised by Chan?s own stunt team is run-of-the-mill and episodic with no forward momentum. The truncated narrative and rushed editing give the dubious impression that the revolutionaries lose battle after battle without putting their strategic position (namely that they were extremely outnumbered and short of ammunition) in context.

Chao, who?s played Sun numerous times since The Song Sisters (1997), practically inhabits the role, infusing the film with a dignified presence. However, this cannot alleviate the stodgy dialogue he?s given, which sounds like reams of political treatises, or the gauche behavior the script assigns him, like making a facile analogy between western imperialist expansionism and a lamb chop.

Screenwriters Wang and Chen, who penned the blockbuster epics The Founding of a Republic and Beginning of the Great Revival, recycle the same formula of making 1911 a vehicle for star-studded cameos. However, stars in 1911 are less numerous and luminous. The gimmick is wearing thin anyway.

Historical accounts of the protagonists? real lives rock with adventure and romance. The screenplay fails to take advantage of their potential for entertainment. The dearth of background or anecdotal information in characterization is signaled in the prologue execution of Qiu Jin (Ning Jing) without relating to her background as a political visionary and proto-feminist. Huang was a military genius, who held up 20,000-strong Qing troop for a month with 200 men in the Guangxi uprising in 1908. Chan just bounces around the warzone like a cheerleader with daft exhortations like ?your safety comes first!?

By comparison, ambitious General Yuan Shikai emerges as the most formidable character as the film devotes more time to reveal how he plays the court and the Republican government against each other. His devious intimidation of Empress Dowager Longyu (Joan Chen hamming up a prima donna act) provides rare moments of dramatic tension.

The film?s only romantic interest -- between Huang and his wife Xu Zonghan (Li Bingbing) completely skims over the process of how their paper wedding blossoms into real love, reducing emotions to a few disconnected reaction shots of Xu frowning or fretting. In the same neglectful way, scholar-martyr Lin Juemin?s (He Ge) celebrated letter (now part of Chinese school curricula) to his wife Chen Yiying is never quoted once, nor have they created a moving episode out of their love. Instead, stylized shots of him frolicking on Penang beach like a Club Med commercial are inserted into totally incongruous scenes over and over.

The technical package is visibly expensive, but skilled cinematography aside its production design does not create particularly stylish period atmospherics. Sets of U.S. or European backdrops look especially overwrought and faux.

Opened: Hong Kong Sept. 29, U.S. Oct. 7
Sales (Hong Kong & Macau): Media Asia Distribution
Production companies: Changchun Film Studio Group LLC, Shanghai Film Studio Group Co Ltd, Hubei Provincial Party Committee Propaganda Dept, Beijing Alnair Culture & Media Co Ltd, Jiangsu Broadcasting Corporation, Jackie Chan International Cinema Cultural Holdings Ltd, Xiaoxiang Film Studio Co Ltd, China City Construction Holding Group Co Ltd, Hebei Film Studio, Tianjin North Film Group, Hillcas (Shanghai) Film Co Ltd, Media Asia Films Ltd, Huaxia Film Distribution Co Ltd, Langfang Guohua Film Base, Nanjing Broadcasting Group
Cast: Winston Chao, Jackie Chan, Li Bingbing, Sun Chun, Joan Chen, Jiang Wu, Angelababy, Hu Ge, Jaycee Chan, Yu Shaoqun, Ning Jing
Director: Jackie Chan
Co-director: Zhang Li
Screenwriters: Wang Xingdong, Chen Baoguang
Producers: Wang Zheben, Wang Tianyun, Bi Shulin
Executive producers: Ren Zhonglun, Liu Lijuan, Guo Bin, Qi Jiangchong, Zhou Pixue, Yu Lian, Shen Xiaoyi, Wang Dafang, Peter Lam, Gu Guoqing
Director of photography: Huang Wei
Production designer: Chen Minzheng
Music: Ding Wei
Editor: Yang Hongyu
No rating, 110 minutes

Desiree Dymond Diane Kruger Dido Diora Baird Dita Von Teese

Rakenrol: Movie Review

"Rakenrol" in essence is a very messy film. It is a confusing smorgasbord of random scenes, characters and plot lines that contribute little or nothing to the movie. Actually, come to think of it, the movie has no clear direction on what it wants to do or where it wants to lead the audience. It's not as straightforward as what we are used to seeing - even for indie films we have seen from the past. Bottomline, "Rakenrol" is a huge disappointment. It is a film that looks and feels like it has a serious case of ADHD and not even the cameos by the greats of Pinoy rock can salvage this film from utter doom.

Odie (Jason Abalos) and his best friend Irene (Glaiza de Castro) are outcasts in their school. While most of their peers like mainstream pop music, both of them are obsessed with local underground rock music. One day, both decide to make a band of their own. They meet Mo (Ketchup Eusebio), the vocalist of a now defunct band and Junfour (Alwyn Uytingco), a pent-up bully with rage issues. With their line-up complete, their band Hapipaks faces countless struggles and misadventures as they try to make a mark on the local music scene.

It's not actually all bad for "Rakenrol". It does have its moments. We actually liked the short skits on rock genres and the flashback sequences that used pen-like graphics as visual aids. They do give the film a character of its own but these creative sequences are in fact few and far between. The main story was surprisingly good. It had potential especially how life and music mimic each other hand-by-hand but it all gets ruined with scenes and characters that we wished were scrapped from the get-go. Do we really need the scene with Flame Tigerblden or Jonathan or the characters of Yagit and Matet de Leon? Do they really add up anything to the story or to the movie's impact? If they had importance then it was not clear-cut (this is more so for Yagit). And if they were added just for cheap laughs then for shame.

The film also lacks the mindset of actually developing the conflicts it presents. For example, Irene was kissed by the rockstar Jacci Rocha. She was seriously offended to the point she went down his car and went home on her own. Next thing you know, they are already in a relationship. Another example is Junfour who impregnates his girlfriend. He ignores her in a a handful of scenes. Next thing you know, everything is okay and Junfour is a dad. It's minute details that "Rakenrol" fails to work on and yet makes an effort on snipping in distracting scenes. Finally, we also think the film was overtly miscast. Outside Ketchup Eusebio and Alwyn Uytingco, everyone seems out of place. Jason Abalos seems awkward performing as Odie while Glaiza de Castro was just plain average and they certainly lack chemistry as a couple. The worst off was Diether Ocampo. He was obviously cast because of his looks and body not his oratory talents. "Rakenrol" has potential. Inside all the clutter is a wonderful story with lessons abound. All wwe can say is "sayang" (what a waste).

Rating: 2 and a half reels

Why you should watch it:
- a great story with some lessons hidden in it
- it might appeal more to followers of Pinoy rock but probably barely

Why you shouldn't watch it:
- a convoluted mess of filler characters and scenes that contribute little or nothing to the movie's appeal
- the movie is miscast with most actors feeling out of character

Izabella Miko Izabella Scorupco Jaime King Jaime Pressly Jamie Chung

Werner Herzog Is Coming for You, Tom Cruise, and More...

Sorry About the Audio Ads

Hey guys, sorry about the audio ads. They slipped into the rotation somehow and we're trying to figure out where they're coming from so we can get them pulled. We're not cool with auto-playing audio ads so huge apologies for...

Erika Christensen Estella Warren Esther Caсadas Eva Green Eva Longoria

Paul Feig Will Not Make You a 'Bridget Jones Diary'

Sorry About the Audio Ads

Hey guys, sorry about the audio ads. They slipped into the rotation somehow and we're trying to figure out where they're coming from so we can get them pulled. We're not cool with auto-playing audio ads so huge apologies for...

Heidi Montag Hilarie Burton Hilary Duff Hilary Swank Isla Fisher

Horrible Bosses: Movie Review

If you have ever been a worker (which we assume almost everyone did even once), then ?Horrible Bosses? is the perfect movie for you. And you know why? The answer is simply obvious ? who loves their boss anyway? Most of the time, bosses are hell-bent to make subordinates? lives a living, breathing hell of an experience. While ?Horrible Bosses? was kind of trippy in some scenarios (the protagonists were either completely desperate or just plain na�ve while the three bosses a little bit exaggerated and stereotypical), bottom line is that it is a wild, zany and a seriously funny movie. While it may not compete with the best out there, it will leave you completely satisfied and a little bit de-stressed and healthier due to the non-stop laughter you?ll be doing for almost two hours.

For Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day) and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis), the only thing that would make the daily grind more tolerable would be to grind their intolerable bosses into dust. Unfortunately, quitting is not an option for all of them so with the benefit of a few-too-many drinks and some dubious advice from an ex-con (Jamie Foxx) they meet at a bar, the three friends devise a convoluted and seemingly foolproof plan to rid themselves of their respective employers permanently. There?s only one problem - that even the best laid plans are only as foolproof as the brains behind them.

?Horrible Bosses? is so witty and funny not because of the wacky scenarios and the completely crazy (while some may say plausible) premise but because of the characters and the actors that played them. The story might not be all-original, some scenes may feel a little bit forced just to keep the story moving forward or yes, the film is a little bit stereotypical (sensitive types might even deem it racial) but all these faults we can forgive because of the cast. If it?s not the subordinates who make you cringe then it?s the bosses turn. It?s a well-balanced two-sided affair that you rarely see on the big screen. The chemistry just simply and the characters themselves have their own distinct nuances that contribute to the film's hilarity. Some may see ?Horrible Bosses? as a dirty, crass and low-brow comedy film but we beg to differ. At the end of the day it?s funny as hell and that?s what you are looking for in a comedy right?

Rating: 4 and a half reels

Why you should watch it:
- definitely one of the funniest films we have seen all year
- the cast and the insane characters they portray are the breadwinners of ?Horrible Bosses?

Why you shouldn?t watch it:
- the story seems a little bit forced

Estella Warren Esther Caсadas Eva Green Eva Longoria Eva Mendes