Why did I not have a desire to see Warrior when it was in theaters? The stellar-looking cast including Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton didn’t hurt but perhaps it was the seemingly overwrought story of two estranged brothers who each are fighting against each other for whichever predetermined important reason. (Was that even supposed to be a surprise in the final act? Because it’s all over the trailer!) Or perhaps Warrior didn’t strike my fancy since I am hardly a sports fanatic even though the brutality and testosterone-y aspects of MMA are pretty cool. Yet, all it took was one of my colleagues saying “You’ll want to tackle someone while watching it” that got me on board. For the record, he was right.

Even if you are Amish or have short-term memory problems, or have otherwise not seen the entire narrative spoiled in the previews, the story in Warrior is so expected that you can see it coming from two summers ago. Hardy plays Tommy Conlon, an angry and bitter man who has suffered through many hardships in life, many from his estranged father Paddy (Nick Nolte) who was drunk and abusive before finding religion and sobriety. Edgerton plays Brendan Conlon, brother to Tommy, who left his family at sixteen to be with his would-be wife. Brendan has not seen Tommy since then and is still hesitant about any contact with his father.

Tommy’s past is a mystery since he is emotionally withdrawn and does not talk about it to anyone, especially his prying father. We learn in bits and pieces about him fleeing with his mother only to watch her painfully die later on as well as his heroics in the military and a promise made to the widow of one of his fallen compadres. Brendan on the other hand has a beautiful wife and two girls but is in a bad financial situation to the point that he is about to be removed from his house without a substantial amount of money. With that, both brothers sign up for a MMA tournament against fourteen other top fighters in the world for a chance to win $5 million.

It is odd that a film like The Fighter, which is good but very predictable, can be nominated for Best Picture along with a slew of other awards and the only Oscar nomination for Warrior goes to Nolte. Granted, Nolte is great with his performance as the outside man desperately seeking redemption from his remaining family. He carries the knowledge of his past failures and is humbled because of them but both sons mostly cast him aside except for Tommy who clearly specifies he needs Paddy as a trainer and nothing else. Hardy also turns in a criminally under-appreciated performance as Tommy who hides years of physical and emotional trauma behind a steely facade with nothing but rage and aggression poking through when he is in the cage.

Rounding out the trio of emotionally scarred Conlon men is Edgerton as Brendan who I first noticed and became a fan of from Animal Kingdom. Edgerton’s character has a good amount of time devoted to him but his character lacks the stress of Tommy or the rejection of Paddy rendering Brendan the more plain character out of the three. He still does a remarkable job though as Brendan is the underdog throughout the process and is given the most material to sympathize with. For most of the film, Tommy comes off almost as an ungrateful punk who doesn’t give a damn about anyone so connecting with him is a bit more difficult.

Even though the story seems a tad unoriginal, co-writer and director Gavin O’Connor infuses the film with so much energy that I feel comfortable in saying that you too will want to tackle someone at parts of the movie. The fight scenes, of which there are many, never feel overly staged or choreographed and the typical handheld camera shots are not overdone to risk confusing you as to what is going on. Punctuating the fight scenes are conversations between Tommy and his father, Brendan and his wife, and so forth but those don’t feel like filler or padding the way some sports movies throw in “heavy” scenes. Even if you are not a fan of martial arts or sports movies, it is close to impossible to watch this film and not get teary-eyed when appropriate or otherwise invested in the characters. I haven’t seen a lot of the heavily lauded films from last year so I can’t proclaim this is the best but I am disheartened that this top-notch drama did not receive a bit more recognition.

One might be able to argue that Dane Cook or Nickelback’s success is funny, but one of the big taboos in comedy is cancer. You typically don’t see much humor derived from an ailment that affects millions each year. Screenwriter Will Reiser though effectively manages to take the topic of cancer and turn it into a honest, genuine, and surprisingly funny look on the craziness surrounding an already terrible predicament in 50/50.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, essentially a stand-in for Reiser, who learns he has a rare form of cancer along his spine in the peak of his life. Seth Rogen, from reports who basically plays himself as he did to Reiser, is the supportive, opportunistic, and (of course) foul-mouthed friend to help along the way. We also meet Adam’s super-supportive girlfriend Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard), his overbearing mother (Anjelica Huston), and his new-to-the-field therapist (Anna Kendrick) as they try and support Adam though the diagnosis, treatment, and aftermath.

While the previews mostly portrayed this film as more comedic in tone, 50/50 is primarily a drama with a sprinkling of comedy, usually courtesy of Rogen. There is only so much light you can make of a film about a debilitating illness without it coming across as inappropriate or crass. Fortunately, Reiser’s script walks a pretty fine line between making a mockery of the suffering of millions and taking what comes from life in stride. The film succeeds on this front as it is not a heavy-handed “live your life to the fullest” affair but also addresses the hardship that comes with the plights of Adam’s fellow cancer buddies played by Philip Baker Hall and Trashcan Man Matt Frewer.

Not many actors can pull of such a varied performance as Gordon-Levitt did as he hits every stage of the process in perfect form with scenes filled with joy, anger or grief and some all combined together. I would say it is an award-worthy performance but apparently the powers that be do not agree. The rest of the actors merely revolve around Adam in some shape or form with Rogen not breaking too much new ground and Kendrick playing the same young and sensitive, yet inexperienced role that she has in other films. Huston in minimal screentime had quite an impact as the mother that Adam purposefully distances himself from yet relies on when everything comes down to the wire.

Director Jonathan Levine takes what you would anticipate being an ensemble effort and focuses superbly on Adam and his struggle. From the first diagnosis when the “State University” doctor remarks that his cancer is quite interesting because it is rare and yada yada yada, Levine pulls back and focuses solely on the ear of the patient as he tries to comprehend the words being causally tossed at him. We follow Adam throughout the entire ordeal as he has his first chemotherapy, gets high on weed-laced macaroons, and comes to terms with the probable outcome that he will die. The emphasis on Adam and the events in his life during his treatment put you in the mindset of someone in that situation. It is not a joyous, “to hell with rules” mindset but one of reason, despair, and sorrow.

On one hand, 50/50 is not a feel-good movie as it evokes many emotions that most (including myself) would disregard while watching a film. But it is not only a strong movie off the back of Gordon-Levitt’s great performance, but also one that can help you see the bright side in even the worst situation.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows picks up close to where the last one left off. Holmes (Robert Downy Jr.) has spent an untold amount of time between films piecing together a continent wide conspiracy. With Watson (Jude Law) getting married, Holmes knows he has to finagle him into also being interested in the conspiracy. There have been bombings throughout Europe and Holmes concludes that his arch nemesis, Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris) is behind them. He safely stops one bomb just for the mark to be assassinated none the less by the hit man. During Watson’s bachelor party, Holmes sets out to collect more clues. Enter Noomi Rapace (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) as Madam Simza, the soothsayer. Fighting ensues and a disastrous and drunk evening winds up with a disheveled Watson late for his wedding the following day. Holmes is used to being the smartest man in the chase until he tangles again with Moriarty. The professor is always two steps ahead and not shy of grand gestures to aid Holmes in meeting his maker even if innocents are hurt. The great reveal comes with Moriarty admitting that even if he didn’t start the world war he was fine taking the world over financially with supplying the weapons to maintain the wars’ destructiveness. Throughout the film, the history is slightly tweaked to fit the plot and help the audience make sense of it all. The climax and confrontation is set (where else would it be in a comic book style storyline) at the Summit Meeting between the nations.

Downy’s performance is successful in delivering the quirky, intelligent, animated, lovable performance that we received from the first film. With Law bringing his cynical, realistic outlook on life attitude back they are a match still made in heaven. There’s been some time since such a male pair shared such charisma and elegance on screen together. They both put their best feet forward. The only downside, for the writing more so than performance, is there was no depth given to Holmes’ character. There were instances where you know there is going to be more than his intellectual insanity but it fell away as quick as it appeared. Watson seemed to see through the exterior but it was never delved into further than him acknowledging non-verbally that it there. Frustratingly, there is an entire underdeveloped subplot with Watson being married at the end of their adventure that would have left Sherlock alone in the flat which could have been used to really define Sherlock’s need for companionship. The loneliness behind his smile should have been given some room to be explored. However, It was still a very well put together action film.

Noomi’s character should have been given more of a role than just a plot device as her talent was not used to the best of her ability. I guess when coming from such a spectacular trilogy maybe it was a personal choice to cross over to the American cinema with this type of role. She is not bad by any means and she still works well with what she was given but there should have been more provided for her character. When you take such a strong actor and give them a mediocre role it shadows their true talent. Harris kicks in the door with his performance. I have never loved and hated a character so much. He is a genius in his evil, super villain with pizzazz role. You began to root for him and his despicably absurd ploy for financial world domination. With what we know of Moriarty I was shocked that it look so long for the hand-to-hand combat to come. His devilishly handsome and overly confident self meets Holmes move for move to leave us holding our breath as they get close to the edge of the falls.

The entire film is action and adventure sprinkled with dialogue and great direction. There are moments like when they get to the Summit that seem a little dragged out to make up for too many fighting sequences. The attention to detail is lacking in the action sequences and some may never notice but I did. Sherlock Holmes resides in Britain for most of his life, so why is it that he has an Eastern fighting style? I understand it is what most movie goers these days expect but that little anachronism changes the way I see the Guy Ritchie franchise of the great detective. It is why there is so much action in the movie bringing the film more current than the actual setting to appease the audiences. If some of the extraneous scenes were dropped the two-hour-plus movie wouldn’t have felt more like three. Ritchie stayed true to his form with the slow motion this-is-what-went-down technique and flash backs to cover what had previously happened but was skipped temporarily in the film. Over all it was a very enjoyable film and I would say it is slightly better than the original but sets expectations higher for a third installment to set itself apart from this film.

I’ve already said my piece (twice actually) regarding The Hangover Part II, namely that I would not cry if it died in a blazing inferno. No such luck though as the film was released last Memorial Day weekend to buckets of money being thrown at it. I guess that means we can expect another sequel in a year and a half or so much to my chagrin since this entry was just like the first, except not funny.

Perhaps that is too harsh. Perhaps Hangover II is in fact funny but I was too biased to notice. I don’t think that is the case though unless you equate lazy storytelling with funny. Much like the last film, there is a wedding involved, the “Wolfpack” getting into trouble with the locals and the authorities, a missing member of the group, a new addition to the group (this time there are three in fact), and shenanigans as our leads attempt to piece together the previous night’s events. And there is even a random song from Ed Helms and an appearance by Mike Tyson. What a coincidence! At this point, I can’t tell if writer/director Todd Phillips and co-writers Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong are merely trying to emulate the first film or just have nothing else for our trio of Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Helms to do other than recreate the first.

My chief concern for this film, even just hearing about it during production, was that it would be a soulless cash grab missing any of the “charm” of the original. The fact that the main cast members (except Heather Graham, sad) returned was remarkable to avoid a painful recasting or written-out character. From the acting front, everything still clicked as Cooper, Galifianakis, and Helms have a good chemistry together which makes the events fairly easy to watch. Ken Jeong randomly reemerges as Chow but he was quite entertaining in his brief screentime. Even Doug (Justin Bartha) returns although he is left out of the fun and games but not because he is the missing person. That honor goes to Mason Lee as Teddy, who is Stu’s soon-to-be brother-in-law but his interactions with the gang are few thus making his disappearance not as impactful as Doug’s in the first.

So while the cast was good enough here, the really issue lies with the story which is just a shameless rip-off of the original. Many of the scenes that originally drew big laughs from myself and I’d imagine many others are almost painstakingly recreated here which just leads to a yawn and fond rememberance of a film that was wild and unpredictable, as opposed to this film that was unpredictable only in how many callbacks to the first it could jam into the 1 hour 40 minute running time. While I didn’t pick up on the location of Teddy like Stu did (although that seemed a bit forced as well), pretty much everything else in the film is so predictable and easy to see coming. That is of course unless you haven’t watched the original.

Everything else on a technical level was sound with quite impressive shots of not only the gritty, urban Bangkok locale but also of the remote private Thailand island where the wedding is to take place. Honestly, it was the end of the film which solidified that I did not care for this movie with the random realization of where Teddy is, followed by Alan taking control of a speedboat to get back to the wedding (nothing can go wrong, right?), and then Stu finally standing up to his douche of a father-in-law. It all seemed so forced and convenient since the rest of the movie has established that everything will happen just like the first so we know that Stu’s nuptials are not in any real danger.

Whereas I liked the first Hangover because it was crass, silly, and unexpected, I dislike its sequel because it has all of those same characteristics but nothing else to bring to the table. Was it funny learning that Stu has “semen in him?” Quite. The random monk beating Helms and Cooper with a cane? Pretty funny. But there are so few moments in this film that are not almost directly lifted from its predecessor to make it anything more than Hollywood’s poster child for churning out sequels that no one (well, maybe just me) wants to see.

I caught a lot of crap at work for “liking” the Final Destination series. Primarily, this is coming from a guy who proclaims his favorite movie ever is the original Saw, so I consider his opinion moot. Given the unevenness of the series, I would say “tolerate” is a more appropriate verb for my feelings on these films. That seems fair since Final Destination films seem to range from pretty good, like the original, to the offensively stupid, such as a large chunk of part 3 and all of part 4. Since the various writers and directors of the previous four films seem to have moved on, Final Destination 5‘s writer Eric Heisserer and director Steven Quale have almost a blank canvas to create on.

The synopses part of these reviews almost seem rote now but if you’ve seen any of the previous films, you know the gist. In this case, Sam (Nicholas D’Agosto) has a vision of a cataclysmic bridge collapse on the way to his company’s team building retreat. He manages to get everyone off the bus only for them all to get made dead via collapsing bridge decks, swinging suspension cables, or random sailboats. Fearing his premonition, Sam manages to get his girlfriend Molly (Emma Bell), friend Peter (Miles Fisher) and other company folk off the bridge before it collapses. From then, they all die. This is not a spoiler. This is expected for this type of film.

With five films in the can now, the main hook of the Final Destination series is undoubtedly the deaths and the almost far-fetched yet somewhat conceivable ways that people can die. On that front, FD5 is almost tame in respect to some of the other films as many of the deaths are fairly straight-forward bad luck such as the flying wrench to the skull or crushing blow to the head from Buddha. Only one sequence really sticks out as the typical Rube-Goldbergian style that the series is built on. This scene though in a gymnasium is full of misdirection and red herrings (not sure that this applies here but we’ll go with it) that make the final outcome completely out of the blue, especially since this part was featured heavily in the trailers.

In the review for FD3, I remarked: “it is clear for me that what makes a Final Destination good as opposed to just mediocre are the characters.” FD4 (or THE Final Destination if you must) was shit because it completely disregards characters entirely for stupid gross-out gory moments and deaths. FD5 though walks the thin line not seen since the second between characters you actually care about and over-the-top death scenes. Here we have a good few minutes to get introduced to the characters and their histories and dynamics before they are almost playing on death’s swing set. While it might seem minor, the fact that Sam and Molly are on the rocks or that Olivia is self-conscious about her glasses are far more beneficial than just padding the film’s runtime. Unlike the last film, we can connect with these characters to some extent and can appreciate their relationships or worries which make their inevitable deaths just a bit more impactful.

It certainly helps greatly that we have professional actors in the film as opposed to the bottom-of-the-casting-barrel detritus that turned up last time. I don’t know why but I am a fan of D’Agosto, probably stretching back to his performance in Election. #pbf’s unrequited love Emma Bell is no slouch either as the love interest and final girl of the group. And Jacqueline MacInnes Wood is quite fetching. And a good actress to boot! In fact, all of the cast including Courtney B. Vance and David Koechner are believable in their respective roles even though Vance’s random agent seems a bit ridiculous since he is trying to blame a natural bridge collapse on Sam.

Vance’s role seemed to be a not very well conceived callback to the first where Alex is suspected of involvement in the airplane blowing up. That worked, to an extent, in that film but the notion that a mild-mannered guy could cause a freak natural disaster bridge collapse is stretching things a bit. There are other underlying callbacks to the first with the mentions of Paris and occurrences of the number 180 but there was no moment where the survivors figured out how their situation tied into the first film which was almost a staple in this series (the last film notwithstanding to my recollection.) Yet, without giving too much away, the final sequence ties in nicely with Devon Sawa and Kerr Smith from the original in a way I was pretty happy with.

At this rate, there isn’t too much new that can be done with these films but I was pleasantly surprised with how effectively Heisserer and Quale are able to balance the characters with the expected death scenes. Given that this was an online rental, I did not have the benefit of 3D while watching it but the effects sans one dimension were great (especially with the opening bridge collapse) so I was not missing too much. If I had to pick, I’d probably put this entry on par with part 2. It’s amazing how having realistic, albeit someone douchey, characters can make a mindless movie like this so much more enjoyable.