Looper: Easily One of The Best Films of 2012.

Not even a silly futuristic comb over can smudge the gleam on this masterpiece.

 Grade: A

Profound.

That's the best word to describe Rian Johnson's third film, Looper.

Rarely have I had the opportunity to say that a film has moved me, but Looper is such a film.

I'll admit I have loved Rian Johnson's work, which is only two films and a handful of Breaking Bad episodes deep right now, since Brick, but he has truly exceeded even my highest expectations of his talents with Looper.

On its surface, Looper is a Terminator-adjacent tale of a man, Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, continuing an absolute bang-up year of work), who kills for the mob of the future by blasting away unsuspecting (read: bound, gagged, and blinded) targets sent back in time through illegal time travel. Joe is a looper, a rather short sighted group of assassins who get a significant payday after they close their loop by killing their future selves, thus closing the 'loop' and tying up all loose ends for the mob. Joe enjoys the good life as one of these select few individuals who manage to prosper in a time when the world has become 99.9% occupied by the 99%. When the time comes for Joe to close his loop, his older self (a crustier, crankier, sadder Bruce Willis than we normally get) is not quite ready to face down the barrel of a Blunderbuss (the futuristic short-range shotgun favored by loopers). Older Joe disarms his stunned younger self and launches a mission to change the future, but is he the hero, the villain, or just a man possessed? And how does Emily Blunt's hard scrabble recluse farmer and her pensive child, Cid (Pierce Gagnon), play into all this time-skipping action that culminates not with an epic CGI battle through time and space but with three people on the outskirts of a Kansas farm?

As much these questions seem like the setup for some trite exercise in convoluted, contrived sci-fi action--looking directly at you Total Recall remake--they actually lay the groundwork for one of the most heart-rending examinations of the human condition committed to film this year. Looper is not really about time travel or gangland assassins. It is about selfishness and the reasons we grapple with this terrible and beautiful emotion. It is also about companionship and love, and the reasons we need people and they need. It is a movie with something to say in an era where most films, of any genre, have stopped speaking to us in favor of yelling about nothing.

A few weeks ago, Drew McWeeny over at HitFix said this film moved him to tears, and I am not ashamed to say he is right. It was hard to be unaffected by Looper because Johnson clearly went out of his way to craft characters who are far more than the cliched afterthoughts they so often are. In the process, he makes us care deeply for characters who do some pretty deplorable things. Yet, you never feel guilty about that empathy because it is based on an understanding of characters with very clear purpose. Young Joe is, for most of the film, a selfish, mopey wisp of a man who is visibly disturbed by his profession (as evidenced by his growing addiction to drops), but he is a man who wants to see the day when he no longer has to watch his stopwatch and wait for some poor sucker to pop up in his Blunderbuss' sights. His older self is just as broken, but he is driven by a love that has given him a resolve he never had as a care-deficient youth. Blunt's Sara is haunted by the mistakes of her youth in a manner much like Older Joe, but she is resolute in her desire to atone for those mistakes and give her son a better life than he would have lived without her. Cid doesn't want to make his mom sad, which is a far more challenging task than it appears to be. It is each characters desires and the very human, natural quality of those desires that make Looper so resonant. These characters are each utterly, perhaps irreparably, broken, but they are trying, desperately, to make correct their errors, not for themselves, but for the ones they love. A quality so rare in today's more popular movie's that it's more heartbreaking than Looper's denouement.

Yet, Looper's quality extends beyond its dense story and exceptional character studies to include an earthy visual style that renders the world of 2044 in tangible terms. With only a few features under his built, Rian Johnson proves himself an absolute master of the language of cinema. He understands the value of "show don't tell" in a way that few of today's filmmakers do. Near the middle of the film, Johnson executes a montage that traces Joe's life as he ages from Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Bruce Willis. It is a stunning, purely visual sequence that captures that character's demoralizing tumble into depravity and his eventual rescue. It is a masterful series of shots that are economical and purposeful in a way that few montages are. It also reveals, in short measure, the depth of Johnson's talents. Johnson, for a such a relatively "young" director, is quickly proving himself a maestro of style and substance. His compositions are masterful. His close-ups exquisite.The world he built is distant yet familiar. So much of the craft and artistry that makes Looper amazing comes directly from Johnson's masterful direction, and the quality of the overall experience is enhanced because of Johnson's singular vision.

The remaining strengths of Looper can be traced to the Gordon-Levitt, Blunt, and Willis' amazing performances. Gordon-Levitt continues a banner year with his role as young Joe. Aided by a prosthetic that makes him look like Moonlighting-era Bruce Willis, Gordon-Levitt does a masterful mimic of Willis, capturing all of the sly, self-deprecating mannerisms that have madeWillis such an endearing talent. Beyond his interpretation of Willis, Gordon-Levitt brings a squinty soulfulness to Joe that occurs at the dangerous intersection between naivete and ambition. Joe is clearly a man possessed by short-sightedness, but he is not an evil, amoral man; he is simply practical and desperate, traits which Gordon-Levitt so subtly imbues in Joe that they may go unnoticed. Meanwhile, Willis brings his signature slyness, wry wisecracks, and exasperated cool to older Joe, but this time he saddles his character with a thick melancholy and a desperate level of obsession. What's great about Willis' performance is that his Joe is not limited to those typical Willis moments. There are scenes where he is lost in love then there are a few where he is so consumed with rage that it's hard for the audience to empathize with him. Blunt, on the other hand, continues to show why she is such a valuable component of any production. Her poise and rawness makes Sara accessible, but it is the moments where she is most vulnerable that show just how great she is. Her Sara is just as wounded as Joe, but she has a resoluteness that carries Sara through some very challenging moments, partcularly with the amazingly poised Pierce Gagnon.

From performances to direction to story, Looper is a complete package, an incomparable experience that demonstrates the best of what film can be. Granted, the film is enthusiastically dense with a second act that drags slightly, and some might even find this hews too closely to Terminator. I would encourage those who find these to be points of consternation to recognize that these are only minor snags in a fantastic masterwork. Looper should make Rian Johnson a hot commodity, he surely deserves to be, but if it doesn't, cinema, as a whole, will certainly suffer for it.

The In Between Notes:

• The future is indeed drab, but it must be pretty bad when Miatas are considered classics
• Blunderbusses, gats? Are we talking about guns or Steampunk cosplay props?
• I feel worse for Willis having to sport the ridiculouos wrestler comb over for a scene than I do for Gordon-Levitt's probiscous prosthetic
• SLIGHT SPOILER: Hopefully, Hollywood can now drop its pursuit of remaking Akira.

SPOILED ROTTEN - A Second Discussion on The Dark Knight Rises

SPOILERS AHEAD

Full disclosure: I hedged my bet on The Dark Knight Rises review. 

I gave it an A- based on my revised grading scale, which means it was worth going to see on opening weekend, and I stand by the grade. However, if you read the review, you'll find a far more tentative examination of Nolan's final Dark Knight Saga chapter, one which yearns for the unpredictable and far more entertaining ethos of The Dark Knight. 

Of course, in light of the shootings at the Friday night screening of DKR in Aurora, CO, there has been a necessary call for a bit of a moratorium on the DKR discussion, out of respect for the victims of that senseless tragedy. In fact, I'd like to applaud the studios for holding back on releasing box office numbers for DKR over the weekend. Unfortunately, the combination of the Colorado shooting and the increasingly sober reflections on the film itself, DKR is likely to go down in the annals of film history as a disappointment.

Throughout my review, I constantly referenced how DKR paled in comparison to The Dark Knight, and I firmly believe that, left to his own devices, Nolan would have abandoned the series with Batman riding the Batpod into the darkness as a hunted vigilante. In truth, maybe we all should have left the story there as well. Slowly but surely, articles about DKR's skewed, neoconservative politics, slapdash plotting, and tone deaf character work have a popped up online, with more surely coming down the pike. In a sad way, the shootings somewhat opened the door for the responses, as prior to the shooting, critics were receiving death threats for calling Nolan's film to the carpet on some glaring flaws that practically crippled a surefire hit. Suffice to say, fans have calmed down, if only because many don't want to be compared to the madman who robbed so many innocent people of the right to escape terror and hardship in the darkness of a movie theater. It's just such a shame that, in some cases, it took a loss of that magnitude, rather than time and sober reflection, to make the populace calm down a bit and think before responding with violent fervor rather than measured fanaticism.

I myself don't mean to take advantage of the situation to kick DKR when it's down, and I apologize if it seems that way--that is not my intention--but rather to reflect, after seeing the film twice in a weekend, on the fact that this film could not have succeeded the way many hoped it would because you do not trap lightning in a bottle, you can only marvel--no pun...never mind, pun fully intended--at the moment that fire from the sky cracks the ground and shows you just how amazing a moment of perfect creation can be.

The Dark Knight was lightning cracking the ground. It was an exceptional, if also a bit flawed, work that turned on an amazing, unmatched performance by Heath Ledger as the purest Clown Prince of Chaos to grace the silver screen...ever. Nolan could have toiled for years, waited decades, and still he may not have been able to capture a fraction of the magic he poured into the Dark Knight. His efforts on DKR prove that. 

Nolan is a director who truly, admirably aspires to give meaning to what many inaccurately classify as meaningless. Magic, superheroes, dreams. Nolan has worked with turned examinations of each of these subjects on their heads by revealing the not-so-hidden depth within these subjects. However, Nolan has always had an approach to his subjects that rarely treats characters as more than philosophies. Sure, sometimes he really delves into the humanity of his characters, as in his earlier works like Memento and The Prestige, but often, a few days distance from his work reveals that the characters in his more popular works barely exist as anything other than mouthpieces for esoteric philosophies and perceived dichotomies. Rarely do audiences remember his characters for who they are instead of what they represent. In something a movie like The Dark Knight, that approach is novel because the characters have philosophies that propel them into compelling action--also known as motivation--but in DKR, that approach is distracting because the philosophies led to action that is more head scratching than compelling.

In my initial review, I mentioned the disappointment of Bane, a character built up through every ounce of marketing to be the unstoppable force to Batman's immovable object. He's also framed as a revolutionary seeking to restore balance to economic inequality afflicting Gotham. By the end, he's nothing more than a lovesick henchman following orders and caring little for the plight of the average 99 percenter, finding them no different than Gotham's elite. This bait and switch is not surprising considering how Bane has been used as little more than a heavy in any media other than comics, an approach unaided by his goofy voice and weakly sardonic mannerisms. Even less surprising is the fact that the true mastermind behind Bane's plan is Bruce Wayne's new love interest Miranda Tate, who prefers her birth name, Talia Al Ghul.

Marion Cotillard plays Talia, a role telegraphed since the first photos of her on set surfaced. As soon as it is made clear that Ra's Al Ghul's League of Shadows is involved in the plot to destroy Gotham and the child of Ra's Al Ghul is mentioned, anybody who caught the Batman: The Animated Series episodes based around Ra's Al Ghul knew where DKR was headed, despite Nolan's predilection to change the names of characters in the films to protect their doppelgängers in the comics. This predilection extends to Nolan's favorite character in the film, Robin John Blake, a puzzling name change that is actually hokier than naming the character Dick Grayson or Jason Todd or Tim Drake. 

Now, I can't fault Nolan for his fairly dignified approach to including Robin in his ultra-serious Batman narrative, as it was one of the most consistent and well-conceived narrative threats within the film, albeit a bit contrived considering how quickly and effortlessly Blake ascends to a position in Batman's circle of trust. However, the same can be said for Selina "Don't Call Me Catwoman" Kyle, who also has a real character arc that leads her to a happily ever after with boyfriend/husband/traveling companion Bruce Wayne, after Batman "dies" in a nuclear explosion. Anne Hathaway does a good job with Ms. Kyle, especially in light of the fact that our last onscreen Catwoman was Halle Berry's Razzie winning performance as Patience Phillips. Sadly, as with Talia, Nolan cares more about the boys than the ladies, which means Selina gets an arc but not quite enough character development to make the audience believe that she and Bruce are destined to end up together. It's more of a case of populist appeasement: Fans like the Bat and Cat together so that's what they get for sitting through the 3-hour epic. Again, this can be traced to Nolan's favor of philosophy over character. Selina has a very character driven arc, one that is not bound to a significantly measurable or bombastic philosophy. As a result, her arc is truncated and she becomes more of a guest star than she should have been.

While the Catwoman and Robin development arcs are fairly solid, the failure of Bane overwhelms much of the proceedings, eclipsing the adequate work with Selina Kyle and John Blake. In particular, the Bane issue jabs at the audience's suspension of disbelief, especially our ability to believe that he wants to waste months dangling a nuclear device over Gotham simply to make Bruce Wayne feel like crap when blowing up the city immediately would have crushed Bruce Wayne far more effectively. Even more, Bane wants to show Bruce Wayne how his city is falling apart, but Nolan only shows a bunch of cops living underground with every other citizen locked inside their homes...not tearing the city apart. Based on what we are shown, Bane's plan failed before Batman even showed up. 

What Bane's plan does is allow for a second act that is equivalent to the unseen moments that preceded the very beginning of Batman Begins. Essentially, Bruce Wayne is locked in a prison and, through sheer force of will, must rise to become a hero, just like he did in Batman Begins. And that's exactly where Dark Knight Rises exists, in the space around and behind Batman Begins. The Dark Knight is an afterthought in DKR. With the exception of a mention about the Harvey Dent act and Commissioner Gordon's guilt over the lie he told about Batman killing Harvey Dent, the events of The Dark knight are vapors that ignore the elements of what is to date the most popular entry in the franchise. This is to say nothing of the marginalization of great characters like Alfred, who is excused for most of the film, and Lucius Fox. 

Despite the stack of flaws, DKR deserves to be seen in the theater if only to enjoy the spectacle, which it undoubtedly is, with an audience that will likely respond with shock and awe to the twists and the middling action--never Nolan's strong point. Just know that once you get some distance from this event of a movie and start pulling at the threads, this thing is gonna unravel faster than rayon. At that point, you'll probably end up right where I was after seeing DKR for the first time--wishing Heath Ledger was still with us so that we could watch the Joker challenge the Bat to dance with devil in the pale moonlight of Chicagotham.

Why the Oh So Serious Dark Knight Rises Above the Average Superhero movie

Grade: A-

The Dark Knight Rises may not be a masterpiece, but it is an exceptionally tense and taught epic that wraps up the plot threads that Christopher and Jonathan Nolan initiated in 2005's Batman Begins in a way that will satisfy a lot of people.

That said, I miss The Joker.

As a sequel to Batman Begins, Dark Knight Rises (DKR) is near perfect, but as a sequel that exists in the shadow of the more compelling The Dark Knight, DKR is weighed down by a rampant, but apt, joylessness that makes one long for Joker's antics. Indeed, the proceedings of DKR are no laughing matter, and while one doesn't go to a Nolan film expecting to double over in laughter, the general sense of unpredictability that permeated The Dark Knight is a bit lost in DKR. It's still a decent bit of work, but for those who prefer the Dark Knight over Batman Begins, it's a bit slight.

What works, more than anything else, in DKR is the characters, especially the arcs for the three main 'protagonists': Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), and John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Since the end of the Dark Knight, which saw Bats on the run after Commissioner Gordon lets Batman take the fall for Harvey Dent's death, Batman has disappeared and Bruce Wayne's been laying low. When a madman in a muzzle and a fur-lined pimpcoat, Bane (Tom Hardy) roles through Gotham threatening to turn the city into a prison-state, Wayne and the Bat come out of seclusion out of a sense of duty as a much as in response to goading by a slinky cat burglar, Kyle; a noble young cop, Blake; his trusty accomplices, Alfred (Michael Caine) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman);  and earnest potential love interest Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard).

Bale, Hathaway, and Gordon-Levitt all excel at giving a range of depth to their characters despite splitting time with almost half a dozen other main characters. Hathaway and Gordon-Levitt in particular shine with Hathaway delivering the most accurate and compelling Selina Kyle ever committed to film. Her first scene with Bale, where she flips so casually between naiveté and sly aloofness is pretty masterful. Gordon-Levitt's Blake is also fascinating but hard to discuss without spoiling too much of the film; however, he does provide an interesting and inevitable twist on the notion that few good men survive in the GCPD. Not to be outdone, Bale continues to bring much needed humanity to a character who has grown increasingly bereft of humanity despite being the most human of heroes. The moment when Bruce Wayne literally rises is a triumph mostly because Bale shows that Wayne's fortitude burns through his body and mind. It's great to see each of the characters grow into their roles as they face the horror of Bane's plan, but so much of their growth is steeped in a lore that many members of the audience are extremely familiar with, which ultimately reveals that Nolan's take on Batman follows in the vein of other creators who have tweaked this infinitely malleable legend.

What is less successful, or maybe just less surprising, is Nolan's take on Bane, which is unfortunate because he is one of the prime engines behind this story. At this point, I have to qualify this dissection by remarking on my knowledge of Batman lore, which is not relatively extensive but nowhere near as in-depth as some true Batmanologists. Having grown up in the age of the first round of Bat-flicks, the legendary Batman: The Animated Series, and the Knightfall crossover that introduced Bane, I know a thing or two about Bane. The Bane of the comics, and the animated series to some extent, may rock a luchador mask and get hopped on a comic book drug, but he is a smart guy who often gets the better of Bats because he is just as driven as Bats. Without spoiling anything, the Bane of DKR starts out just like this, but an eleventh hour twist to the character really hurts because it is very reminiscent of Schumacher's take on Bane in the maligned Batman and Robin. 

On its own merits and taken as an introspective and thoughtful superhero actioner and the second act to Batman Begins, DKR is solid if not exceptional. Nolan really excels at making the terror of a super-villian plot tangible. Something comic readers take for granted is the fact that living in the wake of a some deranged cosplayer with an itchy trigger finger is legitimately terrifying. What Nolan does with DKR, and has continually done with the series, is ground the world of Batman in a way that strikes a nerve with post 9/11 Americans. Bane's plot to take over Gotham is particularly unnerving, but not as unnerving as Joker's plot in the Dark Knight because the human element is less scarce in DKR. In DKR, Nolan focuses more on the suffering of the police force and the city's costumed hero than its people, which would have driven home the oppressive conditions of Bane's confusing "occupation" in  which he takes over the city to give people their freedom (?). Despite the missed opportunity to focus deeply on the suffering of Gotham's citizens, Nolan uses Bane's occupation to set a tense third act where the fate go Gotham hangs in the balance. It is here that DKR rises above other superhero epics, even the Avengers to a degree, because the tangibility of the threat makes the efforts of the heroes, all of the heroes, matter in a way that makes the Avengers battle in Manhattan lack some significance. 

DKR is smaller in scale than Avengers, but its tangibility makes it seem far more epic. Yet, it is not necessarily the better film. Simply, it is another variation on superhero mythos that shows just how adaptable superhero stories are. As the closest narratives to modern myths, superhero tales like Dark Knight and Avengers succeed not on their ability to follow a formula but to be shaped according to the needs of their audiences. Avengers and DKR both appeal to similar audiences but with tones that reflect jarringly different takes on urban terror in America. What is great about this fact is that these stories exist to address such topics in a way that entertains and challenges audiences. Granted, some audiences, myself included, may be more partial to a lighter take on the material, but Nolan's approach is just as valid. In fact, it is necessary because it never hurts to remind audiences that the folks in the goofy outfits can be serious when the occasion calls for it.

In-Between Observations:

• Bane's voice is clearer but absolutely hilarious; Joker would have never let him live it down.
• Anybody remotely familiar with the Birth of the Demon arc will not be surprised by the ending.
• Bruce Wayne's injuries recall Terry Funk's injuries as described in wrestling expose Beyond the Mat. Coincidence?
• Gotham City is no longer Chicago but Los Angeles and New York as evidenced by some sloppy editing.

Comic Con Day 2 (Day 1 for us) Report

Comic Con belongs to the young. But, it sure enough goes out of its way to make you want to be at least ten to fifteen years younger.

There are few experiences as simultaneously thrilling and painful as shuffling through the crowds on the Exhibit Hall floor of San Diego's expansive convention center to make your way to a, at least, thousand-person line that seems to go nowhere. By the end of the day, your feet feel like they've been stabbed by hot needles and your back is almost numb. But, the waiting and shuffling is all worth the pain, as long as you get to see that one panel or actor or creator or toy or video game or, heaven forfend, comic book. Isn't it?

That thought crossed my mind as soon as my girlfriend, Danielle, and I missed Nickelodeon's Legend of Korra panel--yes, we're fans and we're not ashamed, mostly--because Con security cut the line to Ballroom 20, forcing us to mosey around the Exhibit Hall for almost six hours before we managed to get into a 45-minute line to access the elusive Hall H. Between missing the line to Ballroom 20 and capturing two back row seats in Hall H, we managed to find a few bright spots that made our end-of-the-day exhaustion and pain seem almost worth the trouble. Almost.

Highlights:

• Managed to score a print of a cover to the new Cyber Force #1 series by Top Cow Comic founder Marc Silvestri for a meager twenty bucks.  Check it out.

I'm partial to the multiple Crow knock-off characters. Sue me.  I was lucky enough to get this print signed by the artist after waiting in line for about 45 minutes. Standing in line with Art Hunters--those intrepid few who cross the country form convention to convention collecting sketches (some costing upwards of thousands of dollars) and signatures from comic artists--will teach you a lot about patience and devotion. Most art hunters are mega-fans with a ridiculous amount of investment in stories behind the art, and they will bicker about which storylines and characters are the better than others while hounding unshapely cosplayers for a quick picture. Devotion. Patience.

• I played a demo of Square-Enix's upcoming Hong Kong GTA action game, Sleeping Dogs. In ten minutes, I chased a bald dude with a knife through the crowded streets of Hong Kong and broke many a thug's bones. It was great. I'm looking forward to this title probably more than any other movie this summer. 
• We moseyed on over to the least trafficked section of Comic Con: the comic book vendors section. I managed to pick up a cheap hardcover of American Vampire for roughly what it would have cost to buy the same book on Amazon, which was fair.
• We snuck outside to get some air around 3pm, sacrificing the opportunity to be denied a spot in the Ballroom 20 line to see the new Green Arrow show panel. The Gaslamp Quarter just beyond the edge of the Convention Center was almost as packed as the Convention Center and navigating the streets of the Quarter is easily the same as traversing Times Square on a Saturday morning.
• After gulping down a couple of slices or charred pizza, we decided to brave the line to Hall H, which stretched from the side of the convention center to the front of the Hilton behind the Convention Center.  

Thankfully, the line moved swiftly, and we made it into Hall H in time to see the end of the Resident Evil: Retribution panel, which Milla Jovovich dominated with a spark of charisma unseen in most of her onscreen roles.

• Following the Resident Evil panel, Sony delivered a panel around three of its biggest upcoming sci-fi flicks: Total Recall, Looper, and Elysium.

• The Total Recall, a reboot of the Paul Verhoeven-Arnold Schwarzenegger "classic" directd by Len Wiseman, panel brought director Len Wiseman and stars Colin Farrell, Bryan Crnaston, Kate Beckinsale, and Jessica Biel to the Hall H stage. Here are the panel highlights:
• Wiseman spoke about building an intricate sci-fi world and differentiating the narrative of the reboot from the original and maintaining the presence of the three-breasted hooker from the 1990 original. 
• Farrell talked about his character's, Doug Quaid, search for identity as well as his efforts to distance his performance from Arnold's, a challenge I'm sure.
• Beckinsale fielded more questions than Biel, mostly centered around being a bad ass action hero in multiple movies.
• Cranston delighted with astute non-sequitirs and glib comments while also promising that his character would be different from the original.
• Wiseman also delivered an extended trailer with a lot of footage that's already available online somewhere, none of which made Total Recall seem all that more spectacular than the mindless diversion it is destined to be. (apologies for the grainyness--remember, back row seats.)

• Next, director Rian Johnson, of the impressive Brick; Joseph Gordon-Levitt; and Emily Blunt came out to discuss this September's Looper, the tale of a time-traveling assassin forced to kill his older self, who looks a lot like Bruce Willis--or is it the other way around. Highlights ensue:
• Johnson's goal was to maintain the feel a smaller film despite the scale and scope of Looper, which Gordon-Levitt echoed, and to keep the time travel elements from dominating the narrative.
• Gordon-Levitt, a frighteningly smart guy who seems far too candid and aware to be a movie star, mentioned the challenges of acting as a young Bruce Willis and echoed Johnson's appreication for narrative over spectacle.
• Blunt, also disarmingly smart and candid, shared some interesting insight into going radically against the typical hardy Brits she plays with her role as a Midwestern "bad ass", indeed the most overused word of any comic convention
• The extended trailer for Looper revealed what appears to be a fairly thoughtful yet action packed take on the time traveller's dilemma and looks to be one the better flicks to come out this fall.

• Finally, District 9 director Neil Blomkamp debuted footage from his second major film, Elysium, which stars Matt Damon as man with days to live in a future where the rich have created an exclusive space station that orbits an overpopulated, diseased Earth. 
• Blomkamp briefly expressed an unease with hawking a movie and wished to be in the "darkness" with the fans before debuting the fairly impressive, if typical sci-fi, footage. 
• Damon and co-stars Jodie Foster and Sharlto Coply joined Blomkamp to discuss the importance of creating a flick that was both meaningful and exciting. 
• Overall, the footage was solid, but not exactly revelatory, save for Copley as--you guessed it--a "bad ass". 

After the Elysium screening, we ran back to the Exhibit Hall to snag some free stuff. We did okay, but there's still two more days.

Review - 50/50

Grade: A

Good: Amazing performance from Joseph Gordon-Levitt is at the heart of this respectful take on a young man struggling with cancer. Seth Rogen’s raunchy comedy is actually a relief. Great supporting work from Anna Kendrick and Anjelica Huston; Tearjerker that earns tears by avoiding emotional manipulation.

Bad: Hits a few rote plot points with Bryce Dallas-Howard’s character and offers a predictable relationship subplot; Rogen does his typical schtick, so mileage may vary.

Ugly: Surgery sucks.

In my review of 30 Minutes or Less, I mentioned how the popularity of R-rated comedies has led to the use of comedy to examine other genres. I also made note that the popularity of R-rated comedies today is due in large part to the success of movies like The Hangover and Judd Apatow’s oeuvre. It’s been a while since audiences have had a Apatow-directed project hit the screen, the latest being 2009’s Funny People. Despite the current absence of an Apatow-directed project, his influence is still fairly ubiquitous in the realm of R-rated comedies. Apatow’s style of combining subtle raunch with pure heart has left an indelible mark on writers and directors of contemporary grown-up comedies, forcing many to consider their characters as human beings rather punch lines or stereotypes and to craft stories based around realistic issues such as unplanned pregnancy and terminal illness. As is par for the course in Hollywood, studios have tried to ape this format to mostly diminishing returns, but Summit’s upcoming 50/50 is probably the closest any studio has ever come to capturing Apatow’s magic touch.

Directed by The Wackness’ Jonathan Levine, 50/50 stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Adam Lerner, seemingly the nicest 27-year old in the world. Adam enjoys a decent existence as a public radio producer in Seattle, where he works with his slightly dickish best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen). He lives with girlfriend, flighty artist Racheal (Bryce Dallas-Howard) and dodges calls from his smothering mother Diane (Anjelica Huston). All seems well for Adam until a routine trip to doctor reveals that a pain in Adam’s back is actually a malignant tumor. Adam is diagnosed—by a doctor so bereft of bedside manner that one has to wonder how he made it past his residency—with a rare form of cancer, Schwanomma, that is marked by a 50% survival rate. From there, the film follows Adam’s attempts to deal with the diagnosis and chemotherapy on the path to an extremely risky surgery. Along the way, Adam tries to cope with a seeming death sentence with the help of his friend, family and an inexperienced, yet optimistic therapist (Anna Kendrick).

From that description, 50/50—based largely on the experiences of screenwriter Will Reiser—sounds like straight-up Oscar bait, designed to mercilessly manipulate audiences into watching it with tense smiles and tear-stained eyes. In truth, this movie will really make audiences laugh, cry and cheer. What makes 50/50 different from a Lifetime movie of the week is that it earns those laughs, tears and cheers through an honesty and subtlety that it could have easily avoided for schmaltz, melodrama and tasteless gags. 50/50 succeeds mostly due to Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s amazingly understated performance. Most actors would look at a film like 50/50 as an opportunity to devour scenery with overwrought emotion, but Gordon-Levitt wisely avoids this path, opting to play Adam as shell-shocked and generally taciturn. Many cancer sufferers like Adam struggle with phenomenal loneliness despite the presence of family and friends, and Gordon-Levitt superbly captures the quiet loneliness that is as deadly as the cancer. His restraint throughout the majority of 50/50 leads to the usual moments of breakdown near the film’s climax that are truly heart-wrenching. What makes these moments so potent is the fact that Gordon-Levitt earns them. They don’t come out of the blue or after a series of histrionics. These moments are the result of suffering in silence and isolation, and they are far closer to reality than any overblown emotion that a lesser actor might supply.

While Gordon-Levitt’s performance is the unequivocal highlight of 50/50, the work of Rogen, Kendrick and Huston is also quite splendid. Seth Rogen brings his trademark exuberant snark and bawdiness to 50/50, which counteracts what could be a significantly melancholy proceeding. Rogen isn’t stepping to far outside his comfort zone with his performance, often delivering the same type of dick and sex jokes with alternating smarm and mania, but in 50/50 it serves a greater purpose. The audience needs Rogen’s type of energy as relief, but Adam needs it to survive, and for that reason Rogen’s typical humor becomes far less grating than it normally is. Like Rogen, Anna Kendrick brings her familiar perkiness and subtle anxiousness to bear as Adam’s therapist, Katie. Kendrick plays Katie with a balance of nervousness and earnestness that is appropriate for the character’s therapist-in-training status and uses the doctor-patient barrier to restrain a growing attraction to Adam. While it’s pretty clear where Katie and Adam will end up, Kendrick gives Katie an air of reluctance that is sensible, yet obviously challenging as she is well acquainted with the consequence of Adam’s condition. That sense of realism is what grounds Kendrick’s performance, and most of 50/50, in the notion that a happy ending isn’t all that likely.

On the other side of Adam’s support system is his mother Diane, played with disturbing accuracy by Anjelica Huston. Huston role is smaller than Rogen and Kendrick’s, despite her playing the typical cornerstone of support, but it is significant in how well it reveals the motherly response to dying child. The old adage of “a parent shouldn’t have to bury their child” is clearly at the heart of Huston’s performance. When she delivers moments of pure elation sadness, or fear, all of which her son coldly rebuffs, she becomes the mother that, hopefully, most members of the audience can identify with. Rarely have I seen a concerned parent rendered so pitch perfectly on screen and Huston deserves a true tip of the hat for the honesty in her performance. The only main performance that fails to connect is Bryce Dallas-Howard’s role as Adam’s girlfriend, Rachael. Sadly, it’s a thankless role as the girl who might not have what it takes to support a dying man. With some more shading and depth, it could have been something remarkable, but alas it is the stereotypical character who is villainized without reasonable examination.

The misstep with Dallas-Howard’s Rachael is one of only a few that Director Jonathan Levine makes with 50/50. Generally, he offers a respectful honest and occasionally lighthearted look at Adam’s struggle cancer without ever resorting to melodrama. He intelligently applies a low-fi approach to 50/50, letting the actors do the work without beating the audience over the head with flashing signs that say “CRY HERE!” He employs a fairly dim visual style that allows the film to mimic the dreariness of Seattle while highlighting the Adam’s isolation. In addition, he reigns in theatrical displays of emotion among the cast to open the door for more honest responses to the grave situation, which shows a much-needed level of respect rather than milking cancer for melancholy. Even when focusing on the more challenging aspects of the treatment and coping processes, Levine never overdoes it, showing something once and letting it stand instead of repeatedly dragging the audience into Adam’s personal hell. Levine does so well with most aspects of the film that when he does falter it’s painfully obvious. Aside from the issues with Dallas-Howard’s character, the burgeoning relationship between Adam and Katie can be pretty predictable and Rogen’s schtick is a bit too similar to his other roles. However, these are minor issues in light of the myriad triumphs that dominate 50/50.

Fair warning for those who are prone to easy tears, 50/50 will make you bawl by the end, but it never feels like a cheap manipulation. This is an honest film that deals with cancer respectfully and uses the light touch and raunchy comedy to provide relief and perspective, never mockery. With some amazing performances and tight direction, this is definitely prime Oscar bait and a true descendent of the Apatow legacy, and it is the rare film that actually deserves to both claims.