Up in the Air

The fact that Clooney's coat disappeared and reappeared from cut to cut and scene to scene showed me that making a good, fluid, consistent film was not the goal in, Up in the Air, but the point was to deliver a message and that message was pure propaganda. clooney: 'hey buddy, sure we screwed the economy and ruined your life and the life of your wife and kids and your going to be homeless soon but hey, now you can follow your dreams. don't hate your boss or the efficiency expert we hired to fire you because he is a nice guy like george clooney.' Next chunk of propaganda came in the contrived scene when Clooney's future brother-in-law(man searching for American dream) gets cold feet about the wedding and Corporate Clooney comes to the rescue with,'hey guy, you're right. marriage is a sham, but you discovered that when you were alone. those thoughts bad. being alone bad. never be alone because you think about bad things. don't think just do.' Then came the final message when clooney decides he's had enough and walks out of the seminar during his speech to go get the woman he loves and when he gets there he finds out someone beat him to the pot of gold(marriage and kids and house according to film) at the end of the rainbow(they even show him standing by a rainbow drawing when hes giving the alone speech before he has his epiphany). so hurry or you'll miss out on your chance to get married and pop out kids. After almost being discovered his mistress calls him out and says, 'youre just an escape from reality(husband and kids and warm house.) and wheres your reality and what do you want? and you don't know what you want so I'm better than you but call me next time you wanna get laid.' so he feels dejected until the next scene he has given up his revolution and is back at his job and his boss sends him back on the road after clooney successfully lies to his boss about a suicide caused by him and his assistant. throughout the film he tells the hotshot execs that attend his seminars the analogy of the backpack. the backpack represents people and relationships and the backpack is heavy so drop it if you want to be successful in business. so right before he is about to leave on his last business trip hes at the airport debating whether he should run off to some foreign land on a whim but instead he lets go of his bag, basically saying, 'keep your job...don't get involved in personal relationships unless we fire you and never change.' the morals we're skewed to a fascist viewpoint in this film and i lost what little respect i had for Clooney after watching this movie. the only thing missing was the patriotic music and clooney running off to join the marine corps.

Up in the Air_720p(480P)

source: Up in the Air

What this has going for it: a solid performance by the girl who plays Natalie, a few droll lines, and a twist. But this twist is actually the worst thing about this film. It's worse than the 'Requiem for a Dream' quick-cut repetitive sequences. It's worse than Clooney's relentless crinkly-eyed smile, which I could not take any more, ever, after twenty minutes. It's worse than the cliché parades of fired people and their contrasting reactions, and it's worse than the blatant, blatant, blatant metaphors of travel/solitude/loneliness/baggage. What is it? The twist is when Clooney's character runs from his isolationist preaching gig to find his lady love, only to knock at her door and discover her married and with kids. And this 'twist' took me by surprise simply because the screenplay had made it unthinkable. Had Clooney remained devoted to flying around and the woman an occasional liaison, fine. But LONG BEFORE his dream is shattered by her, he reveals himself changing. He takes her to his old school. He takes her to his sister's wedding. He opens up very, very much. So - her speech to him afterward about his being just a 'good time guy', as well as her anger and confusion, are utterly ridiculous. This made me really angry, that poor writing gets to jump chasms over continuity. All in all, this is Hollywood-as-meaningful tripe. You're better off with the Vampire garbage.

I'd really love to see a "professional" critic, give a good film a good review. Up In The Air is a...mess. In every definition of the word. The story is borderline pointless, the acting is terrible, and the direction is amateur. I'll stick with the acting. George Clooney literally is sleepwalking in this movie. Does he even bother to change his accent or mannerisms for a role, or does he think we'll believe anything his horrible self does? Vera Famiga is doing the only good acting in the film. But, her role is pretty worthless, and she gets forgettable in the black hole that is this movie. And finally, Anna Kendrick. She is HORRIBLE. Her performance is so BAAD, she deserves a Razzie this year. Her accent is uneven (one scene she sounds like she's from Canada), when she cries she looks ridiculous, and finally she doesn't even seem smart enough to play something like this. Just please, do yourself a favor and don't believe the hype that is this movie.

The fact that Clooney's coat disappeared and reappeared from cut to cut and scene to scene showed me that making a good, fluid, consistent film was not the goal in, Up in the Air, but the point was to deliver a message and that message was pure propaganda. clooney: 'hey buddy, sure we screwed the economy and ruined your life and the life of your wife and kids and your going to be homeless soon but hey, now you can follow your dreams. don't hate your boss or the efficiency expert we hired to fire you because he is a nice guy like george clooney.' Next chunk of propaganda came in the contrived scene when Clooney's future brother-in-law(man searching for American dream) gets cold feet about the wedding and Corporate Clooney comes to the rescue with,'hey guy, you're right. marriage is a sham, but you discovered that when you were alone. those thoughts bad. being alone bad. never be alone because you think about bad things. don't think just do.' Then came the final message when clooney decides he's had enough and walks out of the seminar during his speech to go get the woman he loves and when he gets there he finds out someone beat him to the pot of gold(marriage and kids and house according to film) at the end of the rainbow(they even show him standing by a rainbow drawing when hes giving the alone speech before he has his epiphany). so hurry or you'll miss out on your chance to get married and pop out kids. After almost being discovered his mistress calls him out and says, 'youre just an escape from reality(husband and kids and warm house.) and wheres your reality and what do you want? and you don't know what you want so I'm better than you but call me next time you wanna get laid.' so he feels dejected until the next scene he has given up his revolution and is back at his job and his boss sends him back on the road after clooney successfully lies to his boss about a suicide caused by him and his assistant. throughout the film he tells the hotshot execs that attend his seminars the analogy of the backpack. the backpack represents people and relationships and the backpack is heavy so drop it if you want to be successful in business. so right before he is about to leave on his last business trip hes at the airport debating whether he should run off to some foreign land on a whim but instead he lets go of his bag, basically saying, 'keep your job...don't get involved in personal relationships unless we fire you and never change.' the morals we're skewed to a fascist viewpoint in this film and i lost what little respect i had for Clooney after watching this movie. the only thing missing was the patriotic music and clooney running off to join the marine corps.

This film is about a man who fires people for a living. His world becomes upside down when his job is radically changed by a newly recruited young fresh graduate. "Up in the Air" is a well made film. The plot focuses on character development and emotional changes of the characters. It is not easy to make characters interesting and memorable, but "Up in the Air" does just that. Both the characters of George Clooney and Anna Kendrick have strongly divergent attitudes and personalities, but they have great chemistry and change each other slowly but surely. How they radically shake each others core belief is engagingly told. I enjoyed watching "Up in the Air" a lot, as it tells an engaging story of self discovery.

I attended the World Premiere of "Up in the Air" at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival. Co-written (with Sheldon Turner), directed, and produced by Academy Award-nominee Jason Reitman from a Walter Kim novel, the film features an all-star cast including George Clooney, Jason Bateman, Anna Kendrick, Vera Farmiga, and Melanie Lynskey. Ryan Bingham (Clooney) spends most of his life in hotels, airports, and on planes -- "up in the air." When companies need to downsize but don't have the cojones to send in their own people to do it, he's the one they're hiring to do the firing -- hatchet man at-large. It's not a life that lends itself to love -- trees need ground in which to grow. It's a classic rom-com premise that has all the makings of a hit. The film is primarily a vehicle for George Clooney and he's easily up to the task. There's quite a bit of sadness, though, which was unexpected. But a tour de force for Clooney and a clever script make it memorable. Co-star Anna Kendrick is a star to be reckoned with. "Up in the Air" is clearly Reitman's vision and he's assembled a team that executes it perfectly. There are no bells and whistles here -- visuals take a back seat to the performers, and Eric Steelberg's cinematography is observant but not intrusive. Dana E. Glauberman's editing is efficient and economical. This film is so incredibly mass appeal that I can't imagine anyone not enjoying it. The audience was rolling in the aisles. Jason Reitman does it again with a true crowd pleaser.

Heard wonderful things about this film (mostly through the critics) and was looking forward to it but after seeing it at the Arc Light Theater last night I am wondering what all the critical praise is about? Is it coming from the influence of the heavy hitters on the cast like George Clooney, the Reitman father-son combo, or the studio? Not sure, but I am sure that the film is dry, dull, boring and did not move me in any way (and the audience in the theater). Some summary: Ryan Bingham (played by Clooney)is at home in his infinite aerial travel. He flies to offices where his job is to fire other people out of their jobs in a calm, cool and hazard free manner. He has a great travel routine, preferred rental car and hotel stay and seems to enjoy his away from home traveling lifestyle. He enjoys short flings with women as long as they stay in a controlled routine and do not affect his routine. In his life appear two significant women -- a young upstart (Kendrick) who threatens to reduce his travel with a Computer Chat methodology to fire people and a sexy traveling professional woman (Farmiga) who reminds him of the lack of substance in his life in spite of his concealed need for it. Well, that summary sounds like the makings of a good film and it could have been but the actuality of the filmic execution was poor. The acting performances of all the characters seemed so held back and unmoving and they are good actors so it must have been the screenplay or the direction. The comedy was dull -- primarily because of the pretentious dialog (look for the Cancer/Can Sir joke in the plane) -- and most jokes fail except for a sympathy laugh that you must give because they are so obviously in need of a reaction. The camera work as well is boring and when it does pick up it is inappropriate. We see rapid pans and the Steadicams pushes in quick when Clooney is explaining his travel routine expertise and I felt that these camera moves would be better for a "Bourne Ultimatum" film or a "James Bond" film. The rest of the film has slow dolly moves and traditional framing -- nothing good or bad to say here, just a display of uninspired camera moves. The screenplay is at best relevant because of the current job cuts and economic climate. The majority of it is an attempt to appear clever and substantial but it pales in comparison to films who really execute this like "Annie Hall", "Sideways" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". I usually like Clooney but in this film his performance is too cool, too reserved and unmoving. I suppose the real flaw is in the writing and directing of Jason Reitman -- he, thus far, appears to be a mediocre talent who seems to be getting his way with the Awards and Critics not on merit but on the influence of his father Ivan Reitman and other influential forces. Some positive notes: I have to say that the Opening Credit sequence was well done and so was the use of purposeful hollow or full fonts in the films inter titles. Also the color correction was strong -- they use mostly cool and clean colors to punctuate Clooney's isolation and only use warmer, richer colors when he is at his sister's wedding falling in love with the character played by Vera Farmiga. This year 2009, so far, unlike last year, looks fairly weak for the Oscar season -- "Invictus" and "Basterds" seem to be the only strong films; and if "Up In The Air" gets a Best Picture nomination or win we will look back only critically at the nomination and forget the film. Maybe I do not "get" Reitman's style because I found "Juno" boring, over-hyped and definitely not deserving of an Original Screenplay Oscar Win as well; "Thank you for Smoking" was passable to me.

On the surface, an easy going film with an almost message, semi-memorable characters and a bit of believability. George Clooney's 'Ryan' goes around the country firing people for corporations that don't have the respect or humanity to do it themselves. There is a love interest here and there is the moderately keen, Miss Keener ready to revolutionize the world of firing tagging along with charming Ryan. But where the film could have said something about human relationships, about humanity, about the real Zeitgeist of our incredibly cut throat Western world with its reliance on child labour designer clothing, Made in China products and our pathetic reliance on technology to improve our lives, it jumps into a banal story about the human heart and learning to let go of control. Once again, another film about a man afraid of the Commitment Monster... Blah... trite and too basic to be tender, the director had a potential gold mine here but mined the blasé and the overused. A film with such an intriguing idea skips around the Truth and the Heart, giving us a leading man burnt by a woman and living on in a world far too much like his broken heart. Just blah. And again... what a great idea for a film (based on the book) but everything you'd want to see in it, they leave out...(how lives are destroyed by the inhuman terminations...) go figure... No one is changed in this movie, no one is really touched and Miss Keener gets a great job at the end (leading me to believe she might get fired later by someone like Ryan had this been a good movie).