When it comes to movies that are based on “true stories”, most audience members will keep that phrase in mind with the understanding that many of the things they are about to see probably didn’t happen, or, at least, not the way they happen on screen. Especially if the subjects have anything to do with the making of the movie, they often are shown in an incredibly understanding light, often meant to preserve their roles as the protagonist or hero of the story, fighting against those whose lives are just as real, but apparently not as glowing or correct. And while the villain of the new “based on a true story” dramedy 50/50 isn’t quite as three-dimensional or as much a human being (it’s cancer) as its victim, that didn’t keep writer Will Reiser from painting his on-screen counterpart as anything less than a flawless and good-natured citizen, even if it unfortunately doesn’t necessarily make for a very compelling character or story.

It’s an interesting concept: a movie about disease that doesn’t find someone trying to find a miracle cure for it, crossing items off a list of things they want to do before they die, or going through some long, drawn out process of reevaluating their life. Instead, it’s about a normal person learning to live with something that wasn’t part of their plan, taking it all somewhat lightly and, eventually, beating it. And while that may be a different take on a fairly old story, there’s not much past that that keeps 50/50 very memorable or effective. Adam (Reiser’s on-screen alter-ego, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is written and played pretty blandly, often expressing very little emotion or insight into his circumstances, which, while maybe showing how repressed and timid he is, doesn’t make him a very relatable or entertaining character. And while he’s surrounded by a dozen other livelier characters, they are all either far too broad and one-dimensional (like Adam’s constantly worrisome mother, played by Anjelica Huston, and his questionably motivated girlfriend, played by Bryce Dallas Howard), or they’re simply variations of characters that the actors have become known to play (such as Seth Rogan, in the shlubby, brutally honest, but well-meaning friend role). Even with the few little bursts of unexpected humor that are injected into several otherwise predictable situations, the potential this story had, to use cancer as a comedic tool instead of a shadow that covers every normal event that has happened in a thousand other movies in a gloomy fog, is wasted on a boringly simple story that never really attempts to shed any light on the situation through its characters eyes until the movie is almost over.

However, aside from its boring characters and direction, and a supremely annoying and obvious soundtrack, there is one glowing element of 50/50 that almost keeps it from being just average, and that is Anna Kendrick and her performance as Adam’s grief counselor. Without ever feeling too solemn or scholarly, Kendrick keeps her performance at just the right balance of naïve and helpful that she becomes one of the only aspects of his life, and of the movie, that keeps Adam from completely giving up on fighting his disease, and the audience from not caring about the protagonist at all. Through her prying and questioning, the audience learns about Adam’s past, giving an otherwise repressed and somewhat boring character a little more depth, Using this character and her profession as an outlet, we’re given a little more insight into Adam’s thoughts and feelings throughout the course of the movie, as well as a little more levity as her inexperience and honesty get almost as many laughs as Seth Rogan, with almost none of the vulgarity.

Again, 50/50 isn’t really a bad movie, just a painfully average one, the kind you furrow your brow at, and wonder how it isn’t better than what you’re watching. It’s almost incredible how average almost every aspect of the movie is, from it’s frustratingly adequate direction by otherwise exciting filmmaker Jonathan Levine, to its all too familiar scenes and characters, there’s just not much here that feels like this was a story that was worth telling. While it’s understandable that Reiser would want his story told, and that those around him probably thought this was a new and interesting take on an old story, for those who aren’t familiar with him, or are familiar with movies or experiences similar to this, it’s just not that entertaining. Everybody has a story and experiences that make their lives different than everyone else’s, and sometimes this can make for a compelling narrative when it’s adapted for the screen, but, unfortunately, this time, it didn’t.

5 out of 10.

It’s an undeniable fact that no one movie will appeal to everyone. However, if a filmmaker is doing their job, this won’t be because of the subject matter. Personally, I’m not a big fan of boxing, but Rocky is a great movie, and I’m not a fan of killing people, but I love The Professional. So, as anything but a fan of baseball, walking into Moneyball, which promised to be the most exciting mixture of statistics and athletics that has ever been committed to film, I knew that if the filmmaker’s were doing their jobs, they wouldn’t focus on these aspects so much in such great detail that it would alienate a non-sports fan like me. Fortunately, I think through all of the fast-talking and name-specific references, I was still able to understand what was going on pretty well.

Starting at the beginning of the Oakland A’s 2002 season, Moneyball follows the struggle of general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), as he attempts to reconstruct his team with no money after losing three of his biggest players to wealthier teams in the off-season. After befriending a statistician from a rival team (Jonah Hill), the two put into use a math-based system of finding individual players that have been individually considered to be useless, but, as a team, have the potential to win games for the franchise. Now, while this story would seem to focus much of its conflict around arguments over percentages, enough dramatic weight is applied to the clash between Beane and his methods and seemingly everyone else, from the fans to his own employees and players, that things never seem too unemotionally specific and methodical. Through hearing reactions to the controversial system, seeing the discord between Beane and the team’s coach (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), and watching the general hatred people seemed to have for this man for no other reason than his attempts at giving the city a not completely shitty team on a budget, you understand Beane’s frustration at the complete lack of trust anybody seems to have in him or what he’s doing, even after it seems to pay off. However, it’s in the one person who never seems to lose faith in Billy that the movie finds one of its most disingenuous aspects: his daughter. While there really nothing very wrong with the story between Billy and his daughter, surrounded this story with men loudly arguing over numbers and strategy in the basement of a stadium makes it feel like a poorly integrated attempt at adding a human element to Billy’s story that feels tacked on and useless instead of accomplishing its goal of making Beane more sympathetic.

Director Bennett Miller keeps Moneyball moving along fast enough while keeping things manageably understandable as far as the math goes, constantly flashing to shots of computer screens and spreadsheet printouts to prove how complicated it all is, but it’s Aaron Sorkin’s script that allows the audience to fully understand the gravity of the character’s situations and adds some much needed humanity and humor to the story. Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill do well as the comedically unlikely duo who face the odds together, and keep the audience invested in what would otherwise be a heavily recreated documentary. Unfortunately, the constant trading of players, expositional chunks, and strategizing keep the characters from ever becoming much more than brick walls for Billy to run into, easily replaceable benchwarmers, or statistic-spewing talking heads. Aside from Pitt and Hill, there aren’t too many opportunities here for any of the supporting characters to shine, as they are largely forgotten about for long periods of the movie before being thrown in front of the camera to remind the audience they disagree with Billy before disappearing again.

Moneyball is not a movie for everybody. Many may find it unnecessary and complicated, but walking out of the theater, I turned to my friend Jake, who said, “You know, it was a little slow, and a little boring, but that’s kind of like baseball.” So, naturally, he loved it. Now, while I didn’t necessarily follow all of the more behind-the-scenes aspects of the movie, I was still able to understand what was important, laugh at most of the jokes, and keep track of the story. And if someone like me could enjoy a movie like this, than I feel like anyone who actually considers themselves a fan of the game is probably going to love it.

7 out of 10.

Sarah Jessica Parker has made a career out of playing characters that serve as a cathartic escape for women. Seeing her follow them through high school as the nerdy outcast in Square Pegs, and continuing past a flirty, ditzy phase in such movies as L.A. Story, Mars Attacks and Hocus Pocus, straight through to middle age in Sex and the City, it’s apparent she draws a pretty specific audience. So, when the trailers for a movie like I Don’t Know How She Does It start popping up in theaters and on TV, there’s nothing to suggest that it’s anything but exactly what everyone expects it to be. In other words, no surprises, no big revelations about the nature of humanity; just another chick-flick starring a bafflingly unappealing leading woman in another story about how underappreciated women are, and how blind men are to their various troubles. However, it’s in this lack of these expected tropes and clichés that I Don’t Know How She Does It ends up actually being something a little bit unexpected, and not nearly as dreadful as its title and publicity would have you believe.

Instead of the problems normally faced by the characters in these kinds of movies (cheating husband/failing marriage, out of control kids, mid-life crises, etc.), here the filmmakers thankfully have a well-adjusted woman with a loving family and great job, whose main conflict is basically just trying to make it all work. Parker plays an investment broker who is already bogged down with work when the opportunity of her career arrives, to the disappointment of her family, who are already weary of her late nights and constant travel. After missing her son’s first haircut, however, she becomes determined to try and balance her work and family just a little bit better. And that’s it. No big twists or dues-ex-machinas. It’s just about a woman trying to make her life work. If not for the cutesy music cues, ill-fitting cutaways to confusing interview segments (Are they just breaking the fourth wall? Is there supposed to be a camera crew filming her friends and family?), and some extremely average direction, the story here could have totally made for a decent low-key dramedy. Of course, while the things that I just listed make it far more accessible to more people, along with several of those all-too-familiar moments of miscommunication and accidental revelations that these kinds of movies are plagued with (You should always check the webcam before adjusting your pantyhose SJP! Come on!), they also add a lot of laughs that keep the movie entertaining enough, despite sacrificing a lot of the honesty and credibility the movie strives to convey.

Most of the familiar situations are helped by some unexpectedly great one-liners and several hilarious performances, specifically from Greg Kinnear as Parker’s understanding husband and Olivia Munn as her cold and robotic assistant. While Kinnear can usually be depended on to create a sympathetic and realistic character for this kind of role, Munn, usually a comedy assassin, takes what’s essentially just another young, ambitious second banana archetype, and propels her to the brink of believability in her honesty and professionalism. While this could’ve seemed out of place in an otherwise realistic setting, the character’s story and Munn’s performance allows the audience to find something relatable and human in her otherwise outlandish character, making her one of the more memorable and funny characters in the movie.

I Don’t Know How She Does It is not a great movie, but you know what…it’s not too bad either. There’s nothing here that’s particularly amazing, but to finally see a movie aimed at this audience that, aside from a bit of an overdependence on “in-law” and “unqualified male co-worker” jokes, doesn’t really focus on too many stereotypes and clichés and tries to simply portray a realistic modern woman’s life. The greatest compliment the movie could expect is probably that it’s different. Not so different that anyone but middle-aged women will be drawn to it by its premise alone, but definitely different enough to make it one of the better movies based on apparently nothing but a common phrase.

5 out of 10.

Contagion is a very impressive movie. The scope alone, trekking all over the world to follow the spread of and measures taken against a particularly aggressive strain of a new virus that threatens to contaminate the world, makes Contagion one of the more ambitious stories being told this year. However, aside from the scope, the multitude of great actors featured, and the numerous twists and turns the story takes, Contagion is nothing if not a well-made, thought provoking movie that is all at once frightening, surprising and kind of incredible.

Now, while the broader story of Contagion revolves around the previously mentioned viral outbreak, in addition to this general event, we follow its impact on several specific people, all involved with or affected by the strain, either in their attempts to stop it, or their attempts to overcome its effects on their families, friends, and careers. While several of these stories are engaging and expansive in their coverage of all aspects of those concerned with infection, including Matt Damon as the grieving and miraculously immune widower of the first victim, Jude Law as a shady, messianic blogger, and Kate WInslet as a rookie CDC operative, one of Contagion’s major flaws is the lack of time its able to give to all of its dozen different storylines. While the set-ups to many of these characters and their backgrounds are told well enough, there is simply not enough follow through on enough of them to make the audience feel like they’re given any closure. Seemingly important characters disappear, seemingly unimportant characters spontaneously gain an emotional back-story with no prior hint of necessity, and other characters literally run away from the story, never to be seen from again. Of course, with such ambition, it was all but impossible for the filmmakers to completely succeed, as they attempt fitting what feels like a mini-series’ worth of story into a two-hour movie.

However, despite this flaw ultimately bringing Contagion down a few notches by the movie’s end, it’s also what keeps it interesting and, most importantly, different. There have been dozens of “viral outbreak” movies over the years, but never before have they attempted to tell quite as complex a story as this, and it’s this attempt that makes Contagion’s flaws so forgivable. There might be some questionable dialogue, convenient plotting and even a few dropped storylines, but in the end, Contagion offers such a phenomenal cast and such a fascinating look at an otherwise normal and overdone story, that many of these flaws pale in comparison to its strengths.

8 out of 10.