Skip to main content

"50/50" - Critics love it, but a few individuals whom haven't seen it refuse to do so because...

So, I just got back home from seeing the film "50/50," which just started airing in theaters today. I saw a preview for this a while back and immediately knew I wanted to see it. As far contemporary actors go, Joseph Gordon-Levitt ranks very highly for me and continues to climb the ladder. It seems that most people know this actor as the guy from the tv show, "3rd Rock From the Sun". He's done a bit since then. The only problem being that he's been the focal point of mainly independent films, which critics have hailed, but which haven't received much attention otherwise. These films include: "Brick," "Mysterious Skin," "The Lookout," etc. He also played a part in the smash hit, "Inception" and really hit it big as far as lesser-name films are concerned with his lead in "(500) Days of Summer". So, when I heard of him playing the lead character in a dramedy regarding a man battling cancer, I knew I was going to have to check it out at the theater.

Critics have hailed this film. As of this moment at RottenTomatoes.com, the film has generated 99 positive reviews and 9 negative, for a 92% grade and an average score of around 8 out of 10. Having just seen this film, I'd have to say I agree with the majority of the critics. It was not a perfect film. I actually think it could have benefited from a bit longer of a script to generate stronger character development, especially if the film was simply a drama. However, since it attempted and largely succeeded in incorporating humor into the drama, perhaps condensing the feature was the right thing to do. In any case, it's an at times very funny film and yet very heart-wrenching and powerful. It's quite the balancing act to successful integrate a rather large quantity of jokes in a film centered around a person battling cancer, but this film pulled it off as well as it possibly could. I strongly recommend seeing this film.

Just before I left for the theater, I checked out the film's page at IMDb.com and read through some posts. I could not believe how many people made posts such as this, "Cancer is not funny! I can't believe there's a movie out which makes fun of cancer! I'm not going to see this!" or "This movie is a slap in the face to people who have cancer!" or "No one in this movie knows what it's like to face cancer! Nobody! Hollywood is trying to make a quick buck off of cancer!" ...and so it goes...

Alright, well, I hate to sound condescending, but are people really that stupid? Do they seriously believe that Hollywood would release a picture with its central focus being to make fun of cancer and of a person battling the illness? I don't think so. Who would sign up for and release that? No one that I know. What these imbeciles don't realize is based on a true story about Will Reiser, the film's writer! That's right. The WRITER of this film and his battle with cancer is who and what this film is about. So, no one in the film knows what dealing with cancer is like? Actually... So, it's this guy's story. He's the one whom had to endure the illness. None of us know what it was like to experience what he did. We'll never be able to garner his exact perspective of what all transpired. Why in the world some would believe that a writer of a film, whom the story is based upon, would poke fun of the illness that almost killed him is beyond me. Ah, how about watching the movie before making such asinine allegations? That always seems to do the trick.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...