No laughs in 'feel good' cancer movie, made worse by thoroughly obnoxious Seth Rogen performance

Rating: 3/10 (25 January 2012)

50/50 is by Will Reiser, who by his own admission had writer's block until he was stricken with a rare form of spinal cancer. He thought it would be an original idea if he wrote a 'comedy' about a topic he was familiar with. As it turned out, 50/50 (which refers to the protagonist's chances of survival), plays more like a 'dramedy', than a narrative written strictly for laughs.
At the outset, a story such as this is going to have difficulties, due to the apparent lack of a strong antagonist. Obviously, Reiser's stand-in for himself, Adam Lerner (played endearingly by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) does have that internal arc, where we're curious as to see how he copes with his illness. The external story arc, whether Adam survives the cancer or not, seems to be a foregone conclusion, since not only are many people aware that Reiser survived the cancer (after all he was well enough to write the screenplay) but the whole idea of killing the protagonist off, might have been a little too much for most film goers to take.
Unfortunately, the writing takes a decisive wrong turn when Reiser opts to make Adam's girlfriend, Rachael, the 'bad guy'. It's not like Rachael's been married to Adam for years and then decides to abandon him, by having an affair. No, it's quite understandable that a young woman would feel resentful about being placed in the role of a 'caregiver' instead of a 'girlfriend', at such a tender age. What is her great crime? She decides to have that affair and fails to tell Adam about it. And the reason why she fails to tell Adam she's cheating on him is because just as much as she wants out, she also feels extremely guilty about what she's doing and would really like to still help Adam, but can do nothing, as he begins wasting away from the side effects of chemotherapy.
Along comes the obnoxious Seth Rogen, who plays Adam's vile buddy, Kyle. Rogen as Kyle, in his holier than thou attitude, throws Rachael under the bus, painting her as a despicable villain, merely because she's acting like most people would in her situation (note that squeaky clean therapist, Katherine, played by Anne Kendrick, only has to see Adam in her office and isn't privy to the extent of Adam's deterioration, as Rachael is). Note that Adam was very kind with Rachael at first, when he tells her that he would understand if she left him. But due to Kyle's unwholesome, negative influence, Kyle cajoles Adam into destroying Rachael's oil painting. What an ugly scene!
I understand that it's sometimes important to try and use humor to try and soften an overwhelmingly depressing situation (as in the case of a diagnosis of cancer). But what is so humorous about a 'buddy' such as Kyle, always encouraging his stricken friend, to continue to attempt that one next sexual conquest followed by another. Is this his way of making Adam feel more 'normal'? I hardly believe that Adam needs that kind of encouragement. It will only lead to bad feelings amongst all parties involved!
I was reading one cancer survivor's review of 50/50 and he felt the film minimized what it was like to cope with cancer. The poster writes in substance: "Chemo is an incredibly powerful drug...the longer you're on it, the more cells it continues to destroy, and it basically slowly kills you. I saw the character sick after his first infusion, and then doing quite well throughout the rest of his illness...The opposite is true; you get worse, not more functional, and weaker. Your sex drive plummets...appetite, your sense of taste and smell. None of that was portrayed." The poster did concede there was a scene where Adam was unsuccessful at sex, after experiencing exhaustion, but on the whole, I do believe he's right. While the film does imply Adam is "cured' after his surgery, many times the illness comes back in a more virulent form a few years down the road. That's after all the intrusive and debilitating surgery as well as the side effects from chemotherapy.
Perhaps the most realistic and true moment in 50/50 is when Adam breaks down inside the car and proclaims, "I'm tired of it all". The story devolves into an unlikely and quite sentimental romance between Adam and his therapist, who unethically gets involved with him at film's end. Angelica Huston tries for laughs at the beginning, playing an apparent, overbearing Jewish mother. Later, there are a few better heartfelt exchanges between mother and son.
Perhaps the greatest disservice of a film such as 50/50 is how it fails to question the cancer establishment's unbridled faith in treatments such as chemotherapy. The gullibility of a character like Adam is the norm in our society. Instead of exploring alternative options, he fails to ask any questions of his oncologist, and blindly accepts his pronouncements. As it turns out, the practitioner is typical of many physicians today, who doesn't expect you to challenge him, and acts as if he has all the answers. As is usually the case, the chemo treatments turn out to be worse than the disease itself, killing the bad cells as well as the good, and destroying the quality of the patient's life.
I found most of 50/50 to be a very unpleasant experience, because it implies there is only one way to treat cancer (chemo, radiation and surgery). While Gordon-Levitt does his best in a difficult part, Seth Rogen has proved to have worn out his welcome as a serious actor and should be relegated to roles on bad TV sitcoms—where hopefully he will disappear from the entertainment scene, sooner than later!