But when “Inception” star Joseph Gordon-Levitt perused the OWS landscape recently he saw something much different. Gordon-Levitt shared his experiences with the OWS throng on the cyber pages of The Huffington Post:

“I had a lot of long conversations with all sorts of people — kids, older people, some cops — I talked to some people who look really rebellious, I talked to some people who were wearing a suit,” the star said. “I talked to all sorts of people and everyone’s just feeling really positive and optimistic. They look around and they see people who are on the same page, and they’re not going to just sit around and say, ‘Oh, there’s nothing I can do,’ and it’s reassuring, it’s exciting.”

He said he was moved in particular by the call and response public address system dubbed the people’s mic by protesters. It was “beautiful to see,” he said.

Gordon-Levitt, whose 2011 dramedy “50/50″ could snare some Oscar consideration, got up close to OWS while shooting scenes from the upcoming Bat-sequel “The Dark Knight Rises.”

Now, can the movie inspired by his brush with death pull off an Oscar upset?

“50/50,” the serio-comedy starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the role inspired by Reiser, didn’t obliterate the box office competition following its Sept. 2011 debut. To date, it’s rake in a modest $34 million, not too shabby for a film revolving around cancer but hardly blockbuster material. And the film’s 93 percent “fresh” rating at RottenTomatoes.com also bodes well for its awards season chances.

But the movie doesn’t have that Oscar feel, and while that’s no critique on the film itself it could matter when it comes time to tally up votes.

Let’s face it. Oscar voters have a very set group of rules when analyzing a film’s chances for awards. Does it feature Meryl Streep, Dame Judi Dench or Clint Eastwood? Is it a biopic of a Very Important Person? Did the film make a splash at Sundance/Cannes? Is there a timely, left-of-center political bent to the proceedings?

Here’s one question no Oscar voter is asking? Does the film co-star Seth Rogen, and does he smoke pot in it?

Will Rogen’s presence, and the atypical approach to the subject of cancer, hurt the movie? It’s a shame if it does, since “50/50″ bullies past the usual mawkish subplots to give us a refreshingly honest look at a young man confronting cancer.

That Reiser not only survived by lived to write “50/50″ makes the film all the more rewarding.

The film’s best Oscar chances may rest with Anjelica Huston’s turn as the lead character’s distraught mother. Huston, who previously won an Oscar for “Prizzi’s Honor,” could use one more meaty scene to help lock up a nomination. But her work here transcends typical parental behavior, making her both a fierce protector of her son and a wounded heart herself.

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a 27-year-old who lives a healthy lifestyle and has his whole life ahead of him. He enjoys his job as a writer for radio programs and is working towards taking the next step with his girlfriend. When Adam starts to have back problems, he does the right thing and gets it checked out. Adam’s world is completely turned upside down when an unsympathetic doctor tells him he has a rare form of spinal cancer and even after surgery, only has a small chance of survival. The rest of the film takes the audience through Adam’s struggle to fight cancer.

—–

This movie could have been just a sad, slow-moving story if it weren’t for its star and supporting cast. Seth Rogen successfully plays joking, but well-intentioned best friend, Kyle, who interjects the most hilarious and witty one-liners throughout the film. Anna Kendrick tops her performance from ‘Up in the Air’ taking on the role as the young, awkward, but cute therapist, Katie. Katie is working on getting her doctorate by ‘practicing’ patient therapy and Adam is one of her first patients. Bryce Dallas Howard nails the manipulative but sexy girlfriend, Rachael, and Angelica Huston plays the lovable, worried mother who is scared to death for her son’s life.

**Some Spoilers Ahead**

Since Adam can’t drive, he has to rely on the people around him to get to his treatments. Rachael agrees to help him through everything, although quickly we see she isn’t up for it and their relationship falls to pieces. Kyle tries to cheer him up by getting Adam to concentrate on two things: sex and smoking pot. Things turn sour when Adam’s condition worsens and everyone realizes he could die during surgery.

Gordon-Levitt doesn’t seem too far off from his quirky, nerdy character from ‘(500) Days of Summer’ but as his cancer progresses and the chemo takes over his body we start to see him transform emotionally and physically. He pulls a ‘Demi Moore’ and shaves his head while the camera is shooting. However it’s not just about the shaved head, it’s the way he changes the movement of his whole being as his body submits to the sickness.

Rogen provides some of the best comic relief I have ever seen in a film with such serious subject-matter as this one. The jokes are timed perfectly and Rogen is fantastic at delivering them. He and Gordon-Levitt work impeccably well together onscreen and the depth to their relationship doesn’t come out until much later in the film. The relationship is relatable to anyone who has struggled with the fact that someone they love is undergoing cancer.

And perhaps no one is cast better in this film than Angelica Huston who plays Adam’s mother just beautifully. Her role in the movie is small, but it is key to its success. Her performance itself is heartbreaking enough that it makes you want to reach through the screen and hug her.

I can’t remember the last time I had a full mix of emotions while watching a film in the theatre. ‘50’50’ is light and dark, but it’s casual enough for a fun night of entertainment. ‘50/50’ is one of the best films of 2011.

—–

As the story begins, Adam (Gordon-Levitt) spends his days working for a public radio station. Adam’s best friend is the immature but likeable Kyle (Seth Rogen) and he’s dating a beautiful girl named Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard). Everything is going well for the young idealist until he visits his doctor and complains about the back pain and the night sweats that he’s been experiencing.

The routine visit becomes something more when the doctor tells Adam that he has cancer. The scene where Adam is informed of the illness shows the way Adam faces his diagnosis. The world around him becomes blurry and he can barely hear the doctor talking to him anymore. He shouldn’t have cancer, he thinks. He’s too young.

His chances of survival, as the title suggests, are 50/50.

From then on, the film is driven by his crew of supporting characters. There is a gentleness in the way the story handles them and their personal flaws. Rachael, for instance, is presented as a fully-dimensional character despite the predictable mistakes that she makes as the girlfriend of a cancer patient.

The relationship between the couple, which would have been managed incorrectly in a lesser film, is well-done here. After the diagnosis, Adam offers Rachael a way out of the relationship. Dating someone with cancer wasn’t part of the bargain, he figures, so he tells her that there would be no hard feelings if she walked away. She doesn’t and the honorable, though disappointing, actions that she takes to cheer him up show her affection for him. Down the line, she makes mistakes (including not driving him to cancer treatments) but her character never feels like the villain. She’s a normal woman who makes some terrible decisions. Her humanity shines through in a scene near the story’s end where the couple converse with each other on his front porch.

Casting is particularly important in a story like this. With characters in the foreground, director Jonathan Levine relies on a group of young, solid actors to bring the story to life. Gordon-Levitt is well suited for the main role but the supporting cast is nearly impeccable as well. Anna Kendrick, as Adam’s self-conscious therapist, and Rogen, who comes across as pompous in some of his other films, create identifiable and insecure characters who are just trying to help Adam through his disease. Anjelica Huston, who plays Adam’s mother, also does well in her small but unforgettable role as Adam’s mother.

“50/50″ is written by Will Reiser, who battled cancer himself. The film is inspired by his own story. Because of Reiser’s own experiences, the story feels honest showing us Adam through the stages of his disease. From the way that Adam’s fellow cancer patients introduce themselves (with their first name and then the type of cancer that they have) to the way that Adam judges his own looks after shaving his head (“I look like Voldermort”), “50/50″ rings true.

For audiences looking for a great movie with strong characters, there’s nothing risky about betting on “50/50.”

Nolan’s mind-melting triumph is without a doubt the most psychologically ambitious film I’ve ever seen. Previous cinematic attempts to grab hold of and realize the concept of consciously entering the world of dreams have usually focused on the visual (Hitchcock’s “Spellbound”), stuck to very simple rules (“Nightmare on Elm Street”), or fizzled out entirely (‘Dreamscape”) when the boundaries beyond simplicity were nudged. The idea of fully and successfully exploiting a psychological dimension where there are no rules seemed futile. Until now. Leave it to the director of “Memento,” a brilliant neo-noir Rubik’s Cube of a mystery audaciously told backwards, to be the first to successfully crack this genre.

What does the average person know about dreams? Among other things, we know that there can be dreams within dreams within dreams. We know time has no meaning, that we wake before we die or as we fall, and that oftentimes what’s happening, for good or bad, is a reflection of our subconscious fears, desires, and knowledge. Without giving any of the story away, Nolan takes these universally familiar ideas (and many others) and then uses a familiar framing device — The Last Big Heist Before I Get Out — to explore the living hell out of them.

Leonardo DiCaprio is Dom Cobb, a black market Extractor who, for the right price, will invade the dreams of your business rivals and steal their secrets for you. With a bounty on his head and only ever just barely out of reach of those looking to cash in on him, Cobb does what he does for the money, because he’s the very best at it, but also for the narcotic-like connection the technology he uses offers to a life he desperately wants to return to but can’t due to his many legal problems.

As is always this case with the One Last Heist genre, one person who needs something from our protagonist holds the key to everything he wants. Here, it’s a way home for Cobb. The price of the golden ticket, however, is that Cobb must do the impossible, what’s never been before. Both desperate to see his children but also intrigued by the challenge, Cobb bites, assembles a team, puts the plan into place, and then we’re off on a righteous cause to dreamland – inside the many psychological layers that exist within the mind of a powerful businessman.

Like the performances (DiCaprio has finally won me over), the special effects are absolutely flawless and serve the story perfectly. From your own dreams you’re sure to recognize the various visual moods Nolan explores: chaos, the inability to move quickly or escape, moments of inexpressible beauty and how an emotional connection conceived in your dreams can profoundly penetrate your waking reality. Nolan could’ve obviously gone anywhere with this idea but using the conceit of an “architect” (that’s all I’m going to tell you), we’re not subjected to dinosaurs or space aliens or any of that other crazy story-killing nonsense designed to sell the film’s trailer.

Like I mentioned earlier, “Inception” is a triumph and certainly one of the best films you’ll see this year, but until an absolutely exhilarating climax, the intricacies of the plot always feel a little further ahead of you than they should be and even then require an awful lot of exposition for the pieces to finally click into place. Also, the characters and their relationships are surprisingly and unnecessarily clinical. Cobb’s team, which includes Joseph Gordon-Levitt as an efficient fixer, Ellen Page as the “architect,” Tom Hardy as the “forger,” and Dileep Rao as the “chemist” – never gels.

Individually, each character is well-crafted but there’s very little chemistry between them and this causes the second act to be more mechanical and less involving than it should be.  From the beginning, Cobb’s personal journey, which involves his wife (Marion Cotillard), promises to give the film a much needed emotional core, but that promise is always just a whisker out of reach until the very end, which, to be fair, is quite moving.

There are reports that “Inception” cost as much as $200 million to produce, and for that we should be thankful to Warner Brothers. Nolan is a once-in-a-generation auteur whose career is just getting started (he’s still a few days shy of 40) and his talent deserves a studio willing to finance it. Because there’s still a little justice in the world, that’s happened with this bold, challenging, slightly imperfect journey into the true final frontier that’s like nothing you’ve ever seen before.

Opening everywhere tomorrow, “Inception” deserves respect and an audience.

UPDATE: Cannot believe I forgot to mention Hans Zimmer’s incredible score, which is almost certain to be nominated for an Academy Award. Though not melodic like the scores of old, it is lush and large and unobtrusive like the scores of old and a vital part of the film’s most effective moments.

Brendan Frye: “Your muscle seemed plenty cool putting his fist in my head. I want him out.”
The Pin: “Looky, soldier…”
Brendan Frye: “The ape blows or I clam.”

Fast and clever dialogue is one of the best things about hard boiled noir films of the past.  Tough guys didn’t need to be big and buff; all they needed was a quick tongue to get them out of the stickiest of situations.  Very few films are able to recreate this today.

Brendan Frye (in a sticky situation): “Throw one at me if you want, hash head. I’ve got all five senses and I slept last night, that puts me six up on the lot of you.”

Anyone who read my piece on the case for a film noir revival knows I am a die-hard fan of the genre.  Of course, many films in recent years have tried to be noir and failed miserably (The Black Dahlia).  One film that is a recent shining example of picture perfect neo-noir is Rian Johnson’s Brick.

This film takes the hard boiled detective novels of the post depression era and combines them with today’s high school drama.  This is similar, in terms of adaptation, to how Robert Altman took Raymond Chandler’s Philip Marlowe and placed him in the 1970’s in The Long Goodbye to show us how he would fit in (which wasn’t well at all!).  Brick is full of Marlowe-style dialogue.  When it comes from high school aged kids it may seem strange at first, but it turns out to be a fun play of genre tropes.

Brendan Frye (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a loner whose ex-girlfriend, Emily (Emilie de Ravin), has gone missing.  He has reason to believe she familiarized herself with a questionable group of people and was worried about her safety.  She called him for help one day, but then advised him to forget about it and not get involved.  This only built Brendan’s curiosity and when she mysteriously vanished, he began to dig deeper.

Brendan’s investigation leads him into a seedy underworld of drug dealers that he believes are linked to Emily’s death.  He quickly finds that the best way to get the truth is to get close to these people.  He finds himself in the midst of some rough and interesting company including a seductive femme fatale Kara (Meagan Good), sophisticated socialite Laura (Nora Zehetner), drug abusing Dode (Noah Segan), firecracker Tug (Noah Fleiss), and the infamous drug lord The Pin (Lukas Haas).

As Brendan gathers pieces of the puzzle, we see references to classic film noir.  One of the femme fatales is named Laura, which is the title of a great 1944 film starring Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews.  There is also a shot of a play from behind the curtain where we see a woman slap a man which is a direct replication of a sequence from Jules Dassin’s Rififi (1955).  Another scene shows Brendan laying down looking up at a spinning ceiling fan which emulates a scene from the Coen Brother’s Blood Simple (1984).

The wardrobe in Brick also gives us a kick back to classic noir.  Brendan’s shoes are a similar style to those popular in the 1940’s (he also rolls his pants up in a cuff).  Kara’s stylish clothes appear to be a mild update from the femme fatales of years past.  Both Kara and Laura embody what was crystallized in classic noir films.  Everything from the way they walk and what they wear to the seductive looks they throw is deadly cool.

Aside from direct throwbacks, Brick is just as stylistically brilliant as the most aesthetically appealing of noir films.  The film’s camerawork allows us to feel Brendan’s desperation as he searches for answers he knows aren’t good.  There is a myriad of extreme low and canted angle shots along with high contrast and low-key lighting that can make even the most boring room look intimidating.

Brick is an overall excellent exercise in genre.  It remains one of my favorite neo noir films to date.  Not only is it dark and mysterious but it is also wildly entertaining.  It plays like a combination of Blood Simple and Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.  Brick has everything a noir fan could possible want: mystery, murder, femme fatales, a seedy underground world and witty dialogue all while remaining aesthetically appealing.  Films like this make me call for a full-on noir revival!  Come on filmmakers, I know you have it in you!!

Like the fevered recollections of the newly heartsick, the plot leaps back and forth through the now-haunting highs and inexplicable lows of Tom’s 500 day relationship with Summer (Zooey Deschanel), a girl he met at the office, a girl who warned up front that she’s not wired for any kind of permanent relationship. Foolishly, instead of taking that personally, Tom might have made the mistake of taking her at her word and goes all in, sure he’ll be the first to make his way through Summer’s natural defense, the ethereal aloofness that both draws him and constantly keeps him off guard.  

We’ve seen broken relationships examined through helter skelter, flashback-driven narratives before, most notably in Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall” (1977) and the criminally under-appreciated “Chilly Scenes of Winter” (1979).  What sets “500 Days” apart is Deschanel’s disarming and distant Summer, a character intentionally given no emotional life of her own. The idea here – and it’s a unique one – is to keep the audience in Tom’s shoes. We’re not given any additional insight into who this woman is and therefore remain as mystified by her as he is. This effectively increases our emotional investment in the relationship because if Tom doesn’t win her back, we’ll be right there with him longing for some kind of closure and understanding.

“500 Days” is certainly an indie film (full disclosure: I’ve worked with a couple of the film’s producers) but there’s an accessible mainstream vibe at work, thanks to a witty, engaging and smart script that’s probably easier for audiences to relate to than most romantic comedies. Unlike big-budget studio romcoms where calculated turning and crisis points are made up of contrived, situational misunderstandings most of us have never found ourselves in, here things unravels in small, real and devastating ways. Without a word, Summer literally and figuratively pulls away from Tom. The intimacy cracks, the distance grows and the jokes they once shared aren’t funny anymore.

That’s not to say everything dwells on the dark and dreary. The opening narration instructs that what we’re about to see is not a love story, but rather a story about love. And like the flush of new love, Tom’s highs are as high as the lows are low. It’s all there; the charming but awkward initial encounters, the first kiss, the warm bloom of young people in love. There’s even a well-crafted, exuberant dance number that hits at just the right moment, when love seems most assured.

Webb, who cut his teeth as a music video director, has a marvelous eye and does the impossible turning Los Angeles into the kind of urban, upscale romantic place people might actually desire to live in. Other than some of the black and white noir films from the 40’s and 50’s, this city I refer to as The Giant One-Story Ghetto has never looked so good. But Webb’s storytelling skills and direction of his talented leads are just as impressive.

The narrative may jump around, but you never lose track of where things are because the emotional threads are what matter and those are in very skilled hands. Gordon-Levitt’s terrific and gives Tom just the right mix of bookish vulnerability and restlessness, which helps to make sense of why an aspiring architect would settle for life as a greeting card writer but risk so much for love. Deschanel’s even better. It can’t easy be to build an unknowable character interpreted only through the eyes of another, but using the power of her considerable screen presence, the actress creates a secret place within Summer few will ever be allowed to see, a special place that through no fault of her own will bring down many a Tom who dares believe he’ll find his way in.

With a runtime of 95 minutes the middle section still manages to sag some, the soundtrack’s unnecessarily cluttered in spots and the few supporting characters aren’t given the kind of subplots needed to flesh them out and make them seem like something more than afterthoughts. But these are minor issues in an otherwise refreshing and engaging film that doesn’t reinvent the genre, but does tweak it enough to allow you to enjoy yourself even as you admire the impressive craftsmanship behind it.

Something must be seriously wrong with “Killshot,” the straight-to-video flick starring the resurgent Mickey Rourke. The movie features not just Rourke, but rising star Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Diane Lane, Rosario Dawson and Thomas Jane – reputable actors, all.

And it’s under the direction of John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”), working from an Elmore Leonard story. And it still rocketed past every movie theater save one in Arizona earlier this year, netting a measly $18,000?

The film, heading to DVD May 26, deserved a better fate.

Sure, it’s not as snarky as a great Leonard adaptation like “Get Shorty,” but it’s vigorously entertaining and another sign Rourke’s artistic rebound is the real deal – even if the film was shot before the actor’s comeback saga started.

The ex-”Wrestler” plays Blackbird, a killer for hire who shot one too many people on his latest assignment. Now, it’s his turn to run, but a chance encounter with a puffed-up thug named Richie (Gordon Levitt) stops him cold. The kid reminds him of his own little brother who died during a botched hit when he didn’t follow his older brother’s professional code.

Hit men take said codes very seriously.

Richie is all mouth and attitude, but he touches something inside the hardnosed hit man.

Their paths end up crossing a separated couple (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) trying to see if their marriage deserves a second chance.

The storylines here need more room to breathe, but they aren’t the main attraction in “Killshot.” It’s the fine cast, an eclectic assortment of stars who rise above the narrative gaps. The weakest link might be Gordon Levitt, working so hard against type the cords stand out in his neck. Yet somehow the performance still clicks, mostly because he shares his scenes with Rourke.

The former ’80s mainstay finds another role uniquely suited to his battered visage. He’s playing Hollywood’s latest cliché, the conflicted hit man, but Rourke finds the humanity – and danger – lurking within the stale concept.

“Killshot” sounds like a grade-B thriller right down to its cheesy title, and its DVD debut only reinforces that impression. But the format’s lower expectations, and a cast worthy of a theatrical release, provide some unexpected rewards.

“The Informers,” a drama with a similar grade of actors, earned a wide theatrical release last month. So why couldn’t the far superior “Killshot” get the same level of respect?

Christian Toto is a contributing reporter for The Washington Times, MovieMaker Magazine and The Denver Post. He blogs about film at whatwouldtotowatch.com