50/50

Every performance in the film is flawless.

Like another recent feel-good film about the disease, Gus Van Sant's "Restless," it creates a comforting myth. That's one of the things movies are good for.

Like many other comedies about serious matters, 50/50 grows more dramatic in its second half. What really impressed me, though, was how easily Reiser could pivot back to comedy at a moment's notice without seeming cheap.

The filmmakers do everything they can to balance levity and leavening. The subject says "drama," and the three supporting women deliver well-shaded, understated performances. (Howard shows us how weakness can be just as destructive as malice.)

Buoyant and observant, 50/50 is a small winner; the director, Jonathan Levine ("The Wackness"), has a great touch, mordant but light-handed.

The best parts are the in-between ones, neither laugh-out-loud funny nor overtly heart-wrenching.

Artificial, irresponsible, filthy and forgettable, it knocks itself cross-eyed trying to make you roar with laughter at chemotherapy, with the nauseating Seth Rogen milking most of the yuks. But a stoner comedy about cancer? I don't think so.

In this funny and touching movie every actors are amazing.Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen were absolutely fantastic and the movie in general is fantastic.

The rhythmic machinery of a bittersweet reality: A 3.0-star "stagnant" drift through medical mortality.2011 (3.0)I watched "50/50" in the theater in 2011, and it remains a functional 3.0-star record in my archive—a "vivid" but ultimately safe exploration of illness that failed to provide a visceral "revelation" of true cinematic weight. While the film attempted a "sensational" balance between comedy and tragedy with high-tension emotional stakes, the narrative rhythm felt somewhat "stagnant" and predictable, following a 100% familiar path that lacked the "chewy" intellectual depth of my 5.0-star pillars. Seeing the "pathetic" vulnerability of the protagonist as he faced a coin-flip chance of survival **** the fourth wall of my cynicism, yet the emotional payoff felt a bit too "vividly" polished for a story about "raw" survival. The 95% preservation of my memory is centered on the rhythmic chemistry between the leads, creating a theatrical encounter that felt more like a "stagnant" character study than a "raw" rebellious masterpiece. Unlike the high-tension precision of "The Experiment" or the "sensational" soul of "The Animatrix," this experience provided no permanent, "sensational" scar on my soul, leaving me in a state of "silent frustration" at its conventional heart. It stands in my 2011 record as a "vivid" exercise in sentimentalism—a 3.0-star artifact of rhythmic honesty that, while "raw" in its subject matter, remained too "stagnant" to reach the "sensational" heights of my most cherished psychological archives.

Really good movie with drama and comedy. It's a raunchy sad love story pretty much. His best friend cracks me up.

Boring as hell .All the jokes were about the same sexual topic over and over . Alot of film time was just spent viewing the guy with cancer with the same look on his face. Dont waste your time

Knocked Up, With Cancer. As a film fanatic and physician who happened to do his residency at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center I can attest to the fact that this film is **** seems as though there were two films on the table; a serious one dealing with a young man coming to terms with his diagnosis and its affect on his sexuality and relationships and an imbecilic unfunny Seth Rogan bromance filled with jokes about vomit, yeast infections and dogs licking themselves. I assume that a committee meeting took place at some point and it was decided that the only way to generate some cash flow for this p.o.s was to go down the low road in order to pick up the coveted 18-35 imbecile demographic. The results were offensive.