Come Anticipate Up in the Air: Jason Reitman, George Clooney, sad songs

http://www.theupintheairmovie.com/

Personal note, a friend of mine, without a record or anything, has a big song in the movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgAVxYS7c2M

Just remembered that I started the "come anticipate Leatherheads" thread, and that didn't turn out so well.

this movie is some BS imo

dont think im seeing anything involving jason reitman anymore

got burned by jennifer's body eh

I really liked it!

Jeffrey Wells loved UitA, so it's suspect.

I esp. really liked the use of actual recently-fired people, who actually take up a pretty significant chunk of screentime. I expect most haters are probably thinking along these lines:

The jet-set dislocation of a moneyed frequent flyer is the presiding metaphor, as a Golden Club prick (George Clooney) who makes his living firing people and delivering relationship-whittling motivational speeches is made to face his own emotional isolation. Clooney's early scenes with Vera Farmiga promise sexy, satirical amorality, but it soon becomes clear that the actor's attempts to suggest emptiness behind handsomeness are really an excuse for narcissistic cuteness, just as Reitman's use of the crumbling economy is quickly exposed as white noise for yet another tale of an aging bachelor's redemption. (from the Slant blog.)

the interviews were a totally shameless attempt to give weight and significance to something totally facile imo

why not just show clips of interviews with holocaust survivors while you're at it

the clips are a direct result of the job that most of the principal characters perform, and also further underline that clooney's "burn everything" mythos is bs by pointing out that losing everything blows.

but anyway the movie basically lives or dies on yr ability to not to claw clooney's character's eyes out.

Jeffrey Wells loved UitA, so it's suspect.

― A Patch on Blazing Saddles (Dr Morbius), Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:30 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Morbius OTM. Did Wells complain about anybody's weight in his review?

oh vera my vera

the clips are a direct result of the job that most of the principal characters perform, and also further underline that clooney's "burn everything" mythos is bs by pointing out that losing everything blows.

but anyway the movie basically lives or dies on yr ability to not to claw clooney's character's eyes out.

― Simon H., Monday, September 21, 2009 2:42 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i like clooney and thought he was fine here. he's not my problem with the movie really.

Anna Kendrick is in this! She was one of the only people who could act in Twilight, I hope she has the chops for this.

she was good.

I was wondering where I'd seen her before.

he used my friends and sometimes-bandmates music in the trailer for this (and potentially four other songs in the movie)

actually, I have discovered they have two songs on the soundtrack as well (http://www.myspace.com/charlesatlasnyc).

Don't worry about the hyped Recession Relevance angle -- it's another dramedy about how willfully single people are subhuman. Marriage Is All You Need.

the interviews were a totally shameless attempt to give weight and significance to something totally facile imo

totes magotes

Hoberman also on target on this fraud:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-12-01/film/up-in-the-air-sux-but-jason-reitman-says-u-will-b-ok-l8r

Seeing this tomorrow. Can't wait to love it.

im glad we're on the same page with this BS morbs :D

nice try, Eric, but I wdn't bet on it.

Farmiga & Clooney had nice sex-comedy chemistry, too bad this wasn't the right movie. The best line in it is "Well, I don't."

You caught me. I was being facetious. I'll settle for it being less excruciating than that Kimya Dawson shit in Juno.

i love you dr. morbius!

it isn't entirely un-amusing - the first 30 mins is pretty fun - but it is basically "away we go" with more airports.

Don't worry about the hyped Recession Relevance angle -- it's another dramedy about how willfully single people are subhuman. Marriage Is All You Need.

The really insidious thing about this movie is that the first bit and the second bit are not at all treated as separate strands of thought. In fact, it's the latter that is being used to absolve the movie of responsibility about the former.

Ideologically, very much hated this movie. But it's also way more cunning than I'd have expected given it's basically Thank You for Smoking 2.

Eric, why did I think we'd find common ground on this?

fortunately, this was my first (and I hope last) Jason Reitman film. It's not even as socially canny as Legal Eagles (which I believe is the only IVAN Reitman film I like).

Saw a quote from J.R. along lines of "oh I became a husband and father while developing this" blah blah fuck you.

blah blah fuck you

good review of any Jason Reitman flick imo

eazy is your friend the one reitman talks about giving him a song on cassette tape in his fresh air interview?

It's the guy who did this song -- I think the cassette one is a different one, in the closing credits.

Eric, why did I think we'd find common ground on this?

I am anti- this movie, after all. I just give it credit for being a slick fraud.

I think I really fucking hate this guy

I mean I wasn't gonna see this anyway but the political subtext of his previous two really bothered me (not to mention their smarmy, unearned "feelgood" undertones) and this sounds no different. plus I am tired of Clooney's schtick.

btw the indie music soundtrack to this movie is pretty bad and not even really appropriate to what's going on on the screen.

this is really that bad ?

It's surfacy and kinda diverting; what's underneath is contemptible.

I was very confused by the Fresh Air interview with Reitman when he said he was people kept telling him that after being laid off, they felt they lacked purpose in life. Call me shallow, but my complaint with unemployment isn't that I'm bored or directionless, it's just that I'm broke. That's all, really. That's the only reason I even remotely WANT a job. I fucking hate jobs.

Anyway, if the movie has undertones of equating unemployment with being single, and that both conditions mean you lack purpose, then I don't think I have any interest.

No, it's Clooney's hardcore solitary bachelorhood that the film uses to encourage the audience to judge him badly (not so much the fact that he flies around the country terminating people).

i thought this was aight. not a bad performance in the whole thing, anna kendrick esp. terrific. really bad music tho.

No, it's Clooney's hardcore solitary bachelorhood that the film uses to encourage the audience to judge him badly (not so much the fact that he flies around the country terminating people).

― Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:08 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ya the movie never really addresses that his job is ruining people's lives, it even sort of puts him on a pedestal for doing it with some charm

and ya the music honked

and how bad was the scene where ** SPOILER **

he goes to vera farmiga's house? it was tipped like a mile away. and then when he goes away all sadface and you hear her off-camera hubby go "who's that" and she's all "just SOMEONE WHO'S LOST"

argh

Definitely want to see this. Have to wait till next month before it's released here though.

I don't think I've seen this Anna Kendrick before, but at best she should be categorized as best supporting perky chipmunk.

SPOILER

"just SOMEONE WHO'S LOST"

Should've had AUTHOR'S MESSAGE blinking at bottom of screen.

well, the tip is when she's telling Natalie that "selling" is not "losing." I ctually didn't anticipate that twist because at the time I thought it was beyond stupid that they'd suggest those two characters could be a couple.

^oops, "seTTLing"

about how willfully single people are subhuman. Marriage Is All You Need.

I don't think this is entirely fair - Clooney's main trespass in the movie is cutting his family out, not his singlehood.

also not 1/100th the smarminess of Away We Go in effect IMO.

argh I hate that I am siding with the lame critics on this one

this fucking movie.

Clooney's main trespass in the movie is cutting his family out, not his singlehood.

They're sort of equated, but the matelessness gets way more attention: Kendrick hectors him about it, and the whole punchline of Farmiga's character points to the black hole in his soul.

The last forty minutes are so condescending and soul-sucking that I almost threw my cellphone at the screen.

I was very confused by the Fresh Air interview with Reitman when he said he was people kept telling him that after being laid off, they felt they lacked purpose in life. Call me shallow, but my complaint with unemployment isn't that I'm bored or directionless, it's just that I'm broke. That's all, really. That's the only reason I even remotely WANT a job. I fucking hate jobs.

i heard this bullshit, too and i kinda wanted to reach through my speaker and throttle this dude. anyway, Kenan otm. seriously, if you need some workaday bullshit job lining the pockets of people who could give two shits about you (& let's face it, that's got to be about 97% of everybody ever) to have a "sense of purpose" well, son, that's pathetic.

I liked how suddenly the firee was a 'real actor' as soon as some Phony Themes needed to be sounded (ie, the JK Simmons scene, the weeping Detroit guy).

i mean you should just go join a church full of assholes ffs. oh, wait...

xpost

i heard this bullshit, too and i kinda wanted to reach through my speaker and throttle this dude. anyway, Kenan otm. seriously, if you need some workaday bullshit job lining the pockets of people who could give two shits about you (& let's face it, that's got to be about 97% of everybody ever) to have a "sense of purpose" well, son, that's pathetic.

also heard the interview, the "sense of purpose" stuff was condescending bullshit but there is some psychological value to the 9-5 gig aside from the paycheck.

i'm sure jason reitman knows full well the struggle of people without a solid foothold trying to make it in a difficult business

(can you tell i'm having an A+ day at work?) x-post

tbh based on this film (I skipped his first two) he has the slick bullshit down pat regardless of dad's name

'thank you for smoking' had some ok bits but it was smug in this bullshit libertarian way, and 'juno' was better than i expected but still kinda useless imo

tom carson loved this (and hated juno and smoking) and that's good enuf for me

this movie sucked pretty hard

Tom Carson is the most well-known hairstyle & salon photographer in the world. Tom's photos appear in today's top hairstyle magazines and travels all over the world shooting photos for today's top salons.

http://www.gq.com/contributors/tom-carson

Tom Carson is the most well-known film critic in the world. Tom's reviews appear in today's top men magazines and travels all over the world watching movies for today's top publications.

this movie was borderline condescending and also had really predictable plot developments and one-dimensional characters

it wasn't as bad as 'away we go' at least...

Really hated this.

"just SOMEONE WHO'S LOST"

I groaned very audibly at this.

more like laudably

Criticisms here well-taken but I gotta say this was still in the 90th percentile of movies. "Someone who's lost" -- I agree this is a bad line but that's why you hire good actors! She sold it. Lots of good small things in this movie. Excellent sound work in early scene where Clooney zips his suitcase a lot. Strange and totally successful moment of Lynch-like hyperrealism when the chief pilot sits beside Clooney. His mustache should be nominated for best supporting actor.

Also of course the point of the "someone who's lost" scene (or this scene combined with what follows) is the exact opposite of the "all must succumb to pair bonding to be fulfilled" message Morbs identifies -- that is there, but this scene complicates it. No one in the movie actually LIVES the monogamous pair-bonded life except potentially Clooney's youngest sister -- and that couple is clearly set up for ruin by the movie (otherwise why take the time to detail fiance's sinking of life savings into doomed real estate scheme?) If anything the take-home message of the movie is "nobody has a perfect fulfilling pair-bonded life, you just muddle through and try to find out what works for you" -- which for Alex is nice house in the city + mess-around on the side, and for Clooney is the ungrounded life he's established for himself, and to which he returns at the end of the movie, for good.

I also liked the less complicated and unabashedly pro-pair-bonding "Away We Go," by the way, and agree it's appropriate to compare these two movies.

Maybe also "Up in the Air" against "Broken Flowers," a somewhat similar but much worse movie. Clooney is able to DO something while he's looking out the window at nothing; Murray just looks empty.

Clooney is able to DO something while he's looking out the window at nothing; Murray just looks empty.

I have become a Clooney convert. He knows how to put himself in front of a camera and fill up a scene. Reminds me of Cary Grant in that way.

Clooney is fine in it. The acting is certainly not this movie's problem.

I don't remember Broken Flowers having a moral stench.

Nothing out there is any good this year, so a halfway winning film about semi-recognizable adults is being oversold as Sturges 2.0.... tarted up with inexcusably mawkish, Laurent Cantet-for-the-USA Today-set inserts of "real" people (not actors!) addressing the camera and describing their emotions following the loss of their jobs due to downsizing. This spray-on gravitas is preposterous, not just because it's so clearly phoned in, but more importantly because these "real people" are there not to complicate The Ryan Bingham Story (what an actual art film would do with, you know, extra-diegetic nonfictional material), but to cement its home-and-hearth trajectory as American gospel.

http://academichack.net/reviewsDecember2009.htm

Hey Morbs, I checked out 35 Rhums on your rec and it was really good. Thanks!

glad!

yeah i thought the use of REAL FIRED PEOPLE was pretty disgusting

This fucking movie. Only the Academy would consider Anna Kendricks' kewpie doll performance nomination worthy.

The real fired people really add a dollop of meaning to the story of this rootless guy who wishes he had someone to go steady with.

I almost talked to this panhandler I saw a couple of blocks from my hood because I wanted to feel better about my shitty life.

Nothing out there is any good this year, so a halfway winning film about semi-recognizable adults is being oversold as Sturges 2.0.... tarted up with inexcusably mawkish, Laurent Cantet-for-the-USA Today-set inserts of "real" people (not actors!) addressing the camera and describing their emotions following the loss of their jobs due to downsizing. This spray-on gravitas is preposterous, not just because it's so clearly phoned in, but more importantly because these "real people" are there not to complicate The Ryan Bingham Story (what an actual art film would do with, you know, extra-diegetic nonfictional material), but to cement its home-and-hearth trajectory as American gospel.

http://academichack.net/reviewsDecember2009.htm

― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Saturday, December 26, 2009 5:36 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i agree with this dude but "laurence-cantet-for-the-usa-today-set" is a terrible turn of phrase. also, come on. it's annie hall/reds he's obviously going for.

(by which i mean reitman is going for)

Read that whole Academic Hack review! Speaking as a guy who liked this much more than he did, I thought it was great. Except:

"his gradual abandonment of a philosophy of selfish isolation in favor of family and connection -- i.e., switching from being a perpetual traveler to forging a "home""

strangely ignores protagonist's final-reel realization that up in the air, without family or connection, really IS where he belongs!

Re the "real fired people" -- in the context of the movie, though, these guys don't play as real people at all, but as actors. It never occurred to me they weren't actors until people in this thread said so. So I think this is something to hold against the movie's PR campaign, not the movie itself, in which these characters are presented as no more "real" than Clooney himself.

Wait, so they took interviews with flesh and blood people who have gone through some difficulties in the last year and inserted their stories in the end credits? Am I getting this right?

strangely ignores protagonist's final-reel realization that up in the air, without family or connection, really IS where he belongs!

I didn't read the ending that way at all. I thought he was considering Natalie's (?) idea that he should just use his miles to fly somewhere cool and actually enjoy it and maybe grow some roots, instead of living in a world of airports, hotels, and trade shows. But anyway, whatever the ending is, I think there's some ambiguity there. But clearly he's sick of being perpetually airborne, and I think his conversation with the pilot speaks to that.

I've seen plenty of press about the 'real ppl' interviews (start and finish, and a few in the middle) all over the place.

s1ocki, "laurence-cantet-for-the-usa-today-set" is my favorite line in that!

watching reitman on charlie rose, hes really hard for me to even listen to

if i ever see this it will be a few years from now on tnt

Couldn't stand this predictable, trite, perpetually annoying film, but JK Simmons is pretty much always great though. I wish the movie had been about his character.

Well, George Clooney would have shot him.

“New York Magazine: Jason, after just three films you’re already polarizing critics. For example, Armond White of the New York Press opened his Up in the Air review with: “Jason Reitman’s movies come in three forms: Rubbish (Thank You for Smoking), Crap (Juno), and Swill (Up in the Air).”
Jason: [Laughs.] That’s a good one.

New York Magazine: My editor wanted me to get your reaction to that.

Jason: Did your editor also suggest you tell me I’m extraordinarily pale and Jewy-looking and I should lose some weight? [Laughs.] What was the name of the guy who wrote that?

New York Magazine: Armond White.

Jason: Well, I don’t think he’s going to like my fourth film any better. My films are polarizing. I don’t want to tell my audience what to think. Thank You for Smoking—liberals thought it was theirs and conservatives thought it was theirs. And pro-lifers thought Juno was theirs and pro-choicers thought it was theirs. Up in the Air has a similar divide, depending on what people think the ending of the movie means. I would be curious to hear what Armond thinks of The Insider, a film that goes [slams down fist]: “Smoking bad! Tobacco people bad!” And for me that’s so boring. But, look, for some that’s the experience they want and those movies exist for them. I want people to talk.”

hahaha

dude is high on his own supply imo

s1ocki, "laurence-cantet-for-the-usa-today-set" is my favorite line in that!

it's a cute line except that a.) it's laurent b.) cantet doesn't rhyme with set and c.) there really is no such thing as "the usa today set," which is kind of the point of usa today.

(ok i just went back to the original and see he got laurent right. still.)

also like i said above dude is clearly going for reds/annie hall, not laurent cantet.

i haven't even seen this yet so i don't know, but yeah it's pretty hard for me to imagine jason reitman going for laurent cantet.

But anyway, whatever the ending is, I think there's some ambiguity there. But clearly he's sick of being perpetually airborne, and I think his conversation with the pilot speaks to that.

to me the ending was that he realizes he's sick of it but that he missed his chance to do anything about it. I guess him picking his own destination off the board was sorta "hopeful" but it still seemed like a downer ending to me. in a good way

I can't imagine jason reitman going for Annie Hall/Reds either. (These "witnesses" reminded me of a TV ad or some crap corporate promo/propaganda piece.) btw JR, Armond hates Michael Mann too.

yeah i thought the use of REAL FIRED PEOPLE was pretty disgusting
― stupid fruity crazy jag (J0rdan S.), Saturday, December 26, 2009 10:53 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark

what bothered me more than this was how the movie set a lot of these people up as the butt of jokes. these firing montages provided the most consistent laughs in my theater.

as it turns out, the little kid sitting behind me provided my favorite criticism of Up in Air when a minute into the film he said "is this the movie? this looks like a commercial!" i was hoping to hear more of his thoughts after it ended but he left to see "the frog and the princess"

I can't imagine jason reitman going for Annie Hall/Reds either. (These "witnesses" reminded me of a TV ad or some crap corporate promo/propaganda piece.) btw JR, Armond hates Michael Mann too.

― Rage, Resentment, Spleen (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, December 30, 2009 9:47 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i can. it's so obviously where the idea came from.

first of all, in Annie Hall what is the equivalent? In Reds, mostly well-known writers/public intellectuals recounting events of 60 years earlier not quite the same either.

i get the ref to 'time out' but cantet hasn't used inserts of irl people iirc

no morbs you're right, annie hall is prob pushing it. but reds i think for sure. and i think i just realized what the real influence is... WHEN HARRY MET SALLY

he misses the point of 'the insider' + lol at moral ambivalence for idiots.

yeah he sounds dumb

interview reads better if you add ", man" to the end of all his sentences

these firing montages provided the most consistent laughs in my theater.

Hate to give Reitman a break here, but I think this can be chalked up to a large minority of moviegoers being assholes.

(didnt put "majority" bcz it's Christmas)

I don't get how that interview is supposed to prove Reitman dumb (or Armond not-dumb) besides his disinterest in the content of The Insider, which I think is a valid point (not to touch on Mann's style, which, if I recall, is 90% of why that movie is at all memorable.)

the claim that the fact that his movies play it both ways ideologically is a virtue is what makes him sound dumb there to me. i guess that was bitchy of me. i've only seen juno, and i liked that movie but i think it's gross that he's being coy about pro-choice/pro-life. i guess this is morbs of me but the previews for up in the air make it seem worthless.

But Diablo Cody wrote Juno. Isn't this the first of his films where he has primary script credit? (also it seems agreed there's very little of the source novel left in the film)

I can't think of a more rudimentary, uninteresting examination of duality w.r.t political issues than Thank You for Smoking.

The tobacco industry is pretty fucked up and villainous imo.

I know that's a bold claim but goshdarnit it's how I feel!

also his complaint abt the insider is stupid because smoking is bad for you, and what the tobacco companies did was wrong, like idk how he thinks mann couldve shoehorned in some phony ambivalence into that movie to make it less "boring" w/o making a completely different (and more retarded) movie

lol xpost

I don't get how that interview is supposed to prove Reitman dumb (or Armond not-dumb) besides his disinterest in the content of The Insider, which I think is a valid point (not to touch on Mann's style, which, if I recall, is 90% of why that movie is at all memorable.)

― Simon H., Wednesday, December 30, 2009 1:33 PM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the implicit argument that his movies are much more interesting and nuanced than the "boring" insider—a movie that his pedestrian garbage will never, ever come closing to TOUCHING—is what makes that quote noteworthy

yeah if you're jason reitman maybe don't so much disparage michael mann

I don't think me meant to disparage Michael Mann.

*he

More to the point, while I think a lot of his remarks here and elsewhere are sometimes dubious, he's hardly the only director w/ foot in mouth syndrome. I can only account for the movie, really, which I liked.

i can only account for the movie which i thought sucked a big bag of donkey balls

also he has no idea what hes talking about

"my film was polarizing--thats why both pro-choicers and pro-lifers agreed with it"

like what did his film polarize in those situations

he makes it sound like everyone liked it

"my film was polarizing--thats why both pro-choicers and pro-lifers agreed with it"

Haha!

"My films are polarizing. I don’t want to tell my audience what to think. Twins -- Austrian bodybuilders thought it was theirs and Italian midgets thought it was theirs. And quirky fringe scientists thought Ghostbusters was theirs and phantasms and ectoplasmic goo thought it was theirs. Legal Eagles has a similar divide, depending on what people think the whole plot of the movie means. I would be curious to hear what Armond thinks of Raiders of the Lost Ark, a film that goes [slams down fist]: “Booby traps bad! Nazi people bad!” And for me that’s so boring. But, look, for some that’s the experience they want and those movies exist for them. I want people to talk.” - Ivan Reitman

bravo

kudos, sir

(also it seems agreed there's very little of the source novel left in the film)

Haven't read the source novel, but after reading this I'm glad most of it was left in the can.

Didn't really care for this movie at all and much like Thank You For Smoking it got lost in it's own attempt to Make A Statement. At least Charles Atlas made some scratch.

Note to Hollywood: we do want movies of "sexy, satirical amorality with Vera Farmiga" not the promise of one.

we do want movies of "sexy, satirical amorality with Vera Farmiga" not the promise of one.

AMEN!

This fucking movie.

I would be curious to hear what Armond thinks of The Insider, a film that goes [slams down fist]: “Smoking bad! Tobacco people bad!” And for me that’s so boring. But, look, for some that’s the experience they want and those movies exist for them. I want people to talk.

i don't think he ever saw 'the insider'

The only good thing about "Thank You Your Snoking" was Aaron Eckhart is a pretty good-looking guy.

Thank You Your Snoking

I'm awesome.

http://www.iesglobal.com/blog/ttc/2009July/day4/snoking.jpg

http://images.p1points.com/images/content/Sno-king_color-new_300.gif

http://✧✧✧.m✧✧.com/dvadnais/dvadn✧✧✧@m✧✧.c✧✧/Driving_directions_files/SnoKing_logo.png

http://reinodekoguryo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/snorks1.jpg

just begging to have a red No line thru it really

Suggesting "The Insider" is about the tobacco industry is like saying "Up in the Air" is about airplanes.

This movie is totally superficial. Enjoyable so, but still - pretty shallow. Like, the chipmunk acolyte? Her arc feels sort of abruptly incomplete. The way it was set up, she needed to fire Clooney, which would have totally set him adrift and then justified his surprisingly effusive letter of recommendation he pens for her. Like, he loses his job and gains freedom. She gets a raise and loses her soul. Something like that.

http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/5361392.jpg

"You snotty bastard."

Thank You Your Snoking

I'm awesome.

― girl moves (Abbott), Monday, January 4, 2010 8:32 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

real-life lolz

seriously

much-needed tbh

People like the way I write women

ugh

(did not watch GGs (not into pain) but will ugh in bold AND caps if he wins writing Oscar, lol)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/01/james-cameron-jason-reitman-anthony-minghella-avatar.html

hate reitman more and more

The genesis story that Jason Reitman tells is by now well-honed. He discovered Walter Kirn’s novel “Up in the Air” in the independent bookshop Book Soup and spent a long time whipping a script into shape before getting behind the camera.

in the independent bookshop Book Soup
in the independent bookshop Book Soup
in the independent bookshop Book Soup

haha, he really is a shit.

Oh no, he was in a bookstore.

seriously - how pretentious

next we'll hear he writes for an alt-weekly!

if he was honest he'd just admit he read it on his kindle.

That's not earthy enough a story, tho!

See, he was helping those poor indie bookstore workers from losing their jobs!

you have really got the wrong takeaway from this story dude.

name-dropping an indie bookstore is like the least objectionable thing this guy has ever done.

I actually don't think much of this story is particularly objectionable.

That's Hollywood.

why did you do this then:

in the independent bookshop Book Soup
in the independent bookshop Book Soup
in the independent bookshop Book Soup

Because it's hilarious.

the alliteration.

the title of the shop, the notion of writing a screenplay in it, the carefully modulated assertion that it was an indie bookstore, not some suburban B&N ... all hysterical

Unusual details!

Book Soup is an independent bookstore located at 8818 Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood, California, and is the largest general interest independent bookstore in Hollywood. The store is "known for its tall, teetering stacks and mazes of shelves crammed with titles that attracted entertainment and tourist industry clientele..." Popular with many in the entertainment industry, the store hosts a number of events featuring celebrity authors including Muhammad Ali, Howard Stern, Annie Leibovitz, Chuck Palahniuk, Jenna Jameson, and The Doors. Considered a "cultural fixture" of the Sunset Strip, Book Soup has also been featured as a location in a number of films and television shows.

The store was founded in 1975 by Glenn Goldman. Goldman and David Mackler (both in graduate school at UCLA at the time) raised $50,000 and, after doing extensive research on where to locate their store, opened Book Soup on Sunset Boulevard. The rationale for the location, as Goldman explained, was that there "had been a period of upheaval here in the '60s—of thought and ideas—and I felt that the people who lived in the neighborhood would and could really support a bookstore." Book Soup (the name was the least-offensive of those proposed by Goldman and Mackler) was nestled between a head shop and strip club. Mackler designed the store's interior.

What were the more offensive names, one wonders.

the title of the shop, the notion of writing a screenplay in it, the carefully modulated assertion that it was an indie bookstore, not some suburban B&N ... all hysterical

― queen frostine (Eric H.), Monday, January 18, 2010 11:38 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

uh i dont think he said he wrote the screenplay in the store haha

also how is saying "the independent bookshop" carefully-modulated

Book Fuck

Book Poop

the independent bookshop poop soup

Poop to Nuts

Rough Bindings

He discovered Walter Kirn’s novel “Up in the Air” in the independent bookshop Anal Book Hole

anal book nook iirc

"And he's called the Bookworm, you say."

He should have just said he discovered it in a book store after he read a draft that someone else had adapted and sought out the novel. In a book store. Where people often find books.

Am I wrong, or is Walter Kirn another pseudo-conservative a la Chris Buckley?

He called himself a libertarian, I think in his KCRW Treatment interview.

My favorite moment from the Golden Globes was Cameron winning best director and best film, because they would cut to Jason Reitman looking snotty and disappointed in the audience. He was clearly expecting to win.

James Cameron is an annoying tool, but he still manages to be less objectionable than Jason Reitman.

Reitman has proved himself to be a prat in a lot of ways, but I'll still root for him over Avatar any damn day.

no way

avatar's just corny, up in the air is actually straight objectionable

Avatar isn't objectionable? Straight-up racist, pandering, focus-grouped-to-death faux new age BS.

Actually, Avatar wasn't focus-grouped.

im pretty meh on both films but i'd reward cameron's psycho creative lunacy over reitman's mannered libertarian feel-good pat-backing any day.

both films are basically anti-human, i'll side with the one with the aliens

haha!
a friend of mine is saying that i should actually go see this movie so that my objections to it have more cred. i'm like, i don't like anything jason reitman's done, on top of that i feel manipulated into sort of liking it while watching and then feeling confused and dirty afterwards. and every time i've heard him talk or read anything, i am made to sneer, which is unattractive on many levels. my tolerance for hollywood douchebaggery is low these days. i do like clooney, but maybe this will make me not like him! ohno!
so...

Clooney (and really the whole cast) is what keeps me from outright hating this movie.

see, that just makes me think of the whole Little Miss Sunshine debacle all over again - awesome cast, uncreative writing, bad movie, get mega accolades, leaves me o_O - i find that kind of thing infuriating

if i go see this i will have to have a more nuanced take on this than "it sucks"

same thing w/ avatar tbh

At least Avatar manages to have a coherent ending even if it is just hippie saccharin.

Little Miss Sunshine bugged me all the way through, but I liked the first two-thirds of UITA a lot (especially the scene where they crash the tech convention). Clooney/Farmiga amorality = A++. But man, that ending is so clumsy and WTF that I blurted out "are you fucking kidding me?" in the middle of it.

psycho creative lunacy

I wish this were an accurate descriptor of Avatar's terrible qualities, but the truth is so much more banal.

what is the horrible truth about this movie neither of us likes

There's no lunacy in it beyond the insane budget and crepey alien sex - it's just recycled plot points and shitty dialogue.

Also, Reitman (or the other screenwriter, whichever) gets points for getting rid of the Haggis-worthy cancer twist from the novel, whereas Cameron seems to have gotten rid of all the even vaguely interesting stuff that was in his original treatment.

who know Book Soup was as polarizing as this movie

haha who knew

best thing about UITA was farmiga's bottom

if i go see this i will have to have a more nuanced take on this than "it sucks"

― max, Tuesday, 19 January 2010 02:54 (2 days ago

prolly not other than being able to say "it sucks and it was boring as fuck"

best thing about UITA was farmiga's bottom

― caek, Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:23 AM

spoiler alert, but this ^^^ is absolutely true, its only like 20 minutes into the movie so u will be sitting around wondering where the rest of the booty shots went

there were several audible gasps in the cinema i saw it in

gif

seriously. jh0?

she kinda looks like j.newsom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vera_Farmiga_by_Bridget_Laudien.jpghttp://centripetalnotion.com/images/newsom2.jpg

pic linked due to malware warning

http://i49.tinypic.com/2wfo3sw.gif

You expect The Omen music to start playing with that.

the Tonight show thing is a much more relevant satire of the employee-boss dynamic, with hordes of American swept up in the job status of TV millionaires.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2wfo3sw.gif

the fake andrew wk?

best thing about UITA was farmiga's bottom
― caek, Tuesday, 19 January 2010 09:23 (2 days ago) Bookmark

...which was one of the most outrageously obvious body doubles EVER!

Yep.

She had recently given birth and said: 'The breast milk down both sides – it would have been inappropriate.'

so disillusioned, thought i could trust u hollywood

Reitman is on the Bill Simmons ESPN podcast today.

It is occasionally quite irritating!

i can believe it was a body double, but what was obvious about it? have you seen her ass before?

CANCER?

CANCER?

No, I said, would you like a CAN, SIR?

HURRR.

fucking hell. this was terrible.

a perfect opening for how tone deaf the movie was.

a book of all the reviews of this film would be a great snapshot of how fkn clueless our reviewers are.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c253a100-0062-11df-b50b-00144feabdc0.html

"When the film is smart, it is very smart. “Think of me as yourself, only with a vagina,” is Farmiga’s erotic appeal to Clooney."

hmmmm, that is p smart.

"Later, after a cocktail hour spent salivating over each other’s gilt-edged loyalty cards, she says: “We’re two people who get turned on by elite status.”"

haaaaaa! she's describing what happens in the scene!

"when the film is smart, it is very smart"

does tht reviewer even comprehend what any of the words in tht sentence mean?

idk if im revealing something weird here, but honestly "me + vagina" is not erotically appealing.

tbf i think that was reitman's point.

History maygina

history mangina

this movie is so good at being oscar zeitgeist bait'n'switch bullshit i get pangs of ebertian "it achieves what it aspires to" if try to say it sucks raw ass.

There's a reason why deleted scenes should stay deleted

Oscar momentum is a funny thing. For most of last fall, "Up In The Air" seemed to be the film to be beat as it was widely considered to be a frontrunner for Best Picture, George Clooney seemed to be a favorite for Best Actor and Jason Reitman was poised for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay honors. And while the Oscar nominations panned out, a late season surge by "The Hurt Locker," a career encapsulating turn by Jeff Bridges in "Crazy Heart" and an ugly screenplay credit fight between Reitman and Sheldon Turner quashed the film's chances and it walked away empty handed on Sunday night.

Thus, today's "Up In The Air" DVD/BluRay release feels a bit anti-climatic. However, Paramount didn't skimp on the extras for their Oscar horse, and if you're a fan of the film, the BluRay might be the one to get. Loaded with 14 deleted scenes (versus 5 on the DVD) and a handful of other exclusive features, it's the edition to own. You can check out two the deleted sequences below and warning for those who haven't seen the film, a spoiler warning does apply to the "Omaha Montage" clip.

The first clip is a dream sequence that features Clooney's Ryan Bingham floating around in a spacesuit. It's a pretty heavy-handed metaphor for the alienation that Bingham feels, and it's not particularly compelling so its easy to see why it got the axe. In the second clip, we see Bingham somewhat unbelievably set up a home life in the hopes of settling down with Vera Farmiga's Alex Goran. It's not quite clear if this is another dream sequence or not, but seeing as how its intercut with other plot threads from the film, we're guessing it's not. It clearly does not fit in at all with Bingham's character arc and it's easy to see why it was excised. It's just way too over the top.

(looks like one of the clips was removed from YouTube but the other is still there)

on another note i recently watched stripes, and the deleted scenes (interspersed throughout the theatrical version) are really, really bad

christ ILX *really* hated this?

Well, why did you like it?

i only just watched it, i'll have to figure that out but i had no idea it was despised by all and sundry. i guess a movie with a lead male character who hates the idea of settling down appealed to me.

If the movie had stuck to that premise, I would have sent Reitman flowers.

according to the new york times, this is the 101 on critical hate of up in the air (which is not an ilx thing -- don't remember reading any raves, read lots of pans): http://www.slate.com/id/2246901/

Ross Douthat liked it = color me unsurprised.

this wasn't bad, altho the sdtk kinda annoyed me. was glad it didn't get into a touchy-feely BAD MAN LEARNS LESSON trope at the end but it still felt kinda pointless overall. Hated the young girl/protege actress' performance.

finally saw this. i didn't expect much and it was worse than that. fuckin' reitman jr. smug as always, trite as always, taking down strawmen as always.

the complete absence of a plot beyond "this happens then this happens" is fine in a novel with a strong voice and inexcusable in a major motion picture. at least JUNO had dramatic tensions, however false. the final Interviews With Actual Real People What Has Been Laid Off In This Economy left a particularly bad taste - picture implies that it's giving the little people a voice or something but does precisely zero to earn it.

this movie had too much music in it

this was only slightly less predictable/offensive than 27 Dresses

Main thing I got out of this: Jason Reitman is making better Cameron Crowe movies than Cameron Crowe is (and faster too).

I am anti- this movie, after all. I just give it credit for being a slick fraud.

― really senile old crap shit (Eric H.), Friday, 4 December 2009 18:36 (6 months ago)

succinct, otm. should just have read this thread first tbh.

absolutely gutted at the butt-double. it really was the best thing about this

I didn't catch this on release, bought a used copy today, and I'm glad I did. I'm sure there were reviews out of the gate that went way overboard, and that always leads to backlash. But it ambles along, and I thought it came together at the end. The most interesting character was the mousy assistant. The Hurt Locker basically left my mind the minute I left the theatre, but Up in the Air I'll mull over for a few days.

First I'll scroll back and read about how awful it is.

Still mulling Vera Farmiga wearing Clooney's tie tbh

In a world that inspires so much ambiguity, how marvelous to look at Up in the Air and know that I can vomit without shame.

Um, anyhow...She's unusual. Amazingly, I managed to watch this months after the fact without knowing a thing about the big surprise. One or two people upthread said it was telegraphed; they're a lot more alert than I am.

I'm glad that a film about losing jobs was able to create one for Young MC.

It busts a move alright.

this movie was repulsive

I've changed my mind. I feel unclean for having seen it. Proceed apace.

In a world that inspires so much ambiguity, how marvelous to look at Up in the Air and know that I can vomit without shame.

― Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, September 16, 2010 8:52 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

<3

hated this boring, awful, smarmy movie. but loved george clooney in it mostly because i love george clooney in anything, always. weirds me out that he isn't a big romantic superstar making bank on daffy romantic comedies with jennifer aniston and julia roberts. cuz the best moments in this are where he's wasting time in a bar, flirting with his ladyfriend. he's so good at that kind of thing, makes it seem so effortless and joyful, it's like watching fred astaire dance. all the more poignant cuz fred astaire actually spent the bulk of his career dancing.

Turned this off after 20 mins.

^^^ good idea

awful film

I know the movie's old news, but I truly don't get the more-loathsome-than-Jerry-Springer-crossed-with-Satan vitriol here. I hardly ever feel that way about any film any more, and generally try to reserve it for truly juvenile idiocy like, oh, Inland Empire.

In the end, it settles on a pro-family-and-marriage "message." Big surprise--it shares that with 97% of Hollywood films ever made. 48 and single, I guess I could have done without that, but 1) given a choice I'd rather be married, so I hardly recoil from that, and 2) it really sends out mixed signals anyway, since no matter what it thinks it's telling you at the end, the fact is that Clooney's perfectly happpy for most of the film. As far as the work-related half of the movie, that's something it shares with about 1% of every Hollywood film ever made, so that's inherently of interest to me right away. I don't see what's smarmy about it, and really don't see how the unemployed talking heads were exploited, as suggested somewhere upthread. You get a wide range of reactions from these people; I've only been fired once in my life, and it was 20 years ago, but I'm pretty sure my reaction landed somewhere on the spectrum you get in Up in the Air. Clooney stepping in to save the day with the guy who wanted to be a chef was a bit much, agreed. Maybe as a unionized teacher with enough seniority that I'm immune to ever losing my job, I'm too detached from what's going on out there to pick up on what's smarmy about Up in the Air. As is, I just found the job-related half consistently interesting.

it's a movie about a hangman that never once seems to realize that there might be some moral ambiguity to what he does for a living... it's one of the most consciously blinders-on movies i've ever seen

I wanted to punch the screen when it went to handheld at the marriage ceremony. It was like all the little things were piling up and piling up and then that moment it crossed the Rubicon into 'awful' territory. The only really good thing about the film, aside to some degree the performances (which can be enough if the material is benign, but when that material is actively bad, it isn't), was the fetishization of efficient packing at the beginning. And I liked the establishing shots of the cities.

im glad i've forgotten it

That the movie's so handsome and polished – like its leading man – fooled a lot of critics and people; it made the thing doubly loathsome.

I was fooled--thanks, got it. Jesus...

never once seems to realize that there might be some moral ambiguity to what he does

Well, if it had been a Ron Howard film, he would have led you around with a pointer and given Clooney a big soul-searching speech on the moral ambiguity of his job--I don't think you want that, so I'm not sure what you mean. The ambiguity is there--just by virtue of it being largely unaddressed, it's there. To me, it's like a Hawksian thing: he's a guy with a loathsome job (made extra clear by the silly self-actualizing spiel they stick him with), but a guy who has some ideas on how to do it well and make it as unloathsome as possible. I think it does a very good job of not tipping its hand one way or the other; if that's not ambiguity, it's close enough for me. Where the film does lapse into speechifying is with the relationship half, especially Anna Kendricks' "You're like a 12-year-old" harangue.

in general, films having "halves" is not a good thing.

jerry maguire is an example of a film which (i) integrates the guy's job into the drama without simply having one half of the film about a profession because it was a timely gimmick, and the other half about a completely separate aspect of his life (ii) does not deal with the "family = good" thing in quite the same loathsome/i hate my audience/i am going blow their minds with a reactionary reverse way. and i don't even like jerry maguire that much. up in the air is worse than paedophiles.

Excellent. From "vomit" to "loathsome" to "paedophiles." I'm stumped as to what's next on that spectrum.

reitman killed a guy

it's a bad film!

reitman killed a guy

just to watch him die

If 10% of the country is out of work, and you make a film that deals with people being out of work, how is that gimmicky? I mean, couldn't it also be called "topical"?

The movie's interested in the unemployed insofar as it can turn them as fodder for a fable in which a silver-haired man who looks like George Clooney realizes how much he wants a family.

it could be if it didn't suck

xpost

Yes, it tries to do to things at once--is that the objection, or is it that you just don't like where it arrives on one of them?

and indeed, it's just kind of cosily 'wouldn't it be better if there were fewer unemployed'. no doi. and just uses those vox pops for vague authenticity.

"Two."

If 10% of the country is out of work, and you make a film that deals with people being out of work, how is that gimmicky? I mean, couldn't it also be called "topical"?

i did say timely. but if you completely fail to do anything with it other than take up minutes and draw the most facile on the nose comparisons with the other half of the film, yes, it's a gimmick.

are you saying they should have put an economy half in the other 2010 best film nominees to make them timely? would that have made them better films?

my problem (i) is a question of competence. this is a badly put together story because the halves are not connected in terms of plot or theme. like this film could have been a bit better if they'd just gotten rid of the economy red herring. my problem (ii) in re: the way the moral of the story (which I don't have a problem with per se) is arrived at and expressed is a question of jason reitman being a bad person and people who like his films being bad people too.

Again, it's not Welfare. I don't think it pretends to be, although everyone here seems to think it does. This reminds me so much of some of the Obama carping on other threads.

if you're going to make a movie during a period of huge unemployment with a main character somebody who fires people for a living, you have to go a little more blackly comic than this movie feared to tread.

if precious was going round sacking people, would that have been a better film? because when you sack people you feel sad and lonely? and when you get beaten up and raped at home you feel sad and lonely? so they're connected, right? and sacking people is timely.

I think there's a very definite attempt to connect the halves together. You may think it's clumsy or even wildly off the mark, but that is there.

Bell's gone, back to work. More on this later.

there's a certain heaviness and darkness to the subject built-in, and if you're not prepared to grapple with that on at least some level—even a very subtle one—you're swinging above your weight.

xxp yes, ok, we agree. they attempt to connect them. i'm not denying that. i'm just saying they utterly fail, like they would have done if they'd tried it in avatar or hurt locker or precious. this may have something to do with jason reitman being a bad person.

like that scene when a woman commits suicide off-screen so that anna kendrick can learn that... i dunno... it's ok to be the trigger for a desperate person's suicide

like that shit is just CLUELESS

I didn't hate this film as much as some people on this thread but it definitely irritated me. most I can say for it was that it looked nice, all shiny and slick.

however, clemenza liked this and hated Inland Empire so ummmm

like that shit is just CLUELESS

Clueless was better than this movie tho

clemenza wouldn't even be in the godfather 2 because he thought he was a huge star and could make crazy demands so i wouldnt really trust anything he says tbh

I know the movie's old news, but I truly don't get the more-loathsome-than-Jerry-Springer-crossed-with-Satan vitriol here. I hardly ever feel that way about any film any more, and generally try to reserve it for truly juvenile idiocy like, oh, Inland Empire.

I agree with this completely.

Loathing for this film probably stems from its smug sense of self-importance.

Also, speaking of timely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-LhEHGRH_g

David M: thanks for the support. My standard joke when someone takes my side as really mean and evil people pounce on me from all sides on this board: your complimentary set of steak knives is in the mail.

like that scene when a woman commits suicide off-screen so that anna kendrick can learn that... i dunno... it's ok to be the trigger for a desperate person's suicide

Anna Kendrick didn't trigger anything; the woman committed suicide because she was fired, not because of the way the news was delivered. There's the suggestion that she and Clooney were negligent in not reporting the woman's bridge threat--I was confused as to whether Clooney, when questioned later, forgot about the woman or whether he was lying--but not preventing something and triggering something are not the same thing. Having said that, how do you conclude that Kendrick learns that "it's ok to be the trigger for a desperate person's suicide"? She leaves the firm, obviously because it upset her. If you want to say the woman's suicide is a rather clunky plot device meant to hammer home a point that had already been made--getting fired is devastating--I might agree with you; saying that Kendrick reacted cavalierly to her suicide just seems factually wrong to me.

"Smug sense of self-importance"? As opposed to what--giant bunny rabbits spun forth from (cue solemn voiceover) the mind of David Lynch?

I'd never seen a film about a man who fires people for a living. I liked that. I've seen The Hurt Locker 40 times: in 1986 it was called Platoon, in 1980 it was called The Big Red One, in 1956 it was called something else. Some were a little better than others, some were a lot better. But I generally prefer seeing things I haven't seen before. (The relationship part of the film, yes, I'd seen that before.)

I'm not convincing anyone here, so how about we leave it at this: it's a film that tries to say something about the here and now, and tries to say something about relationships, and tries to tie the two together. I think it does a pretty good job, everyone else--except for the piercingly honest and shrewdly insightful David M--thinks it fails miserably. But the notion that someone liking something that you've convinced yourself that you've seen through amounts to being "fooled"--well, it wouldn't be a bad idea to retire that.

i can't believe u still think u like it

giant bunny rabbits spun forth from (cue solemn voiceover) the mind of David Lynch?....But I generally prefer seeing things I haven't seen before.

curious what other films featuring giant bunny rabbits, identity-switching, killer prostitutes, and demonic eastern european circus families you've seen before

I mean, like this movie all you want but let's not pretend it's groundbreaking or novel in any way. It's standard "asshole learns important lesson about life" feelgood bullshit, Hollywood cranks these out on the regular FYI

clemenza, I'm sorry for insulting you. Not my intention.

But I can't credit a movie for its intentions either.

I'll stand corrected that I hadn't seen Inland Empire before (wish I could go back in time and return with a slightly amended version of that sentence). I'll stand by the statement that I've never seen a film about a guy who fires people for a living. If you know of any other films covering similar territory, I'd be interested in knowing which ones.

"FYI"--there you go again. I know what Hollywood cranks out; I've been watching Hollywood films since the mid-'60s. "Asshole learns important lesson about life" covers a wide spectrum of films, from great to inconsequential. That is not a damning assessment in and of itself. And I'd hardly call the ending of Up in the Air "feelgood," no more than I'd say that of the blank expressions worn by Hoffman and Ross at the end of The Graduate. Make of it as you will, but he didn't end up with the girl.

the fact that he "fires people for a living" is really a pretty minor aspect of the film - it's simply stuck in there to serve as evidence of Clooney being a heartless, alienated bastard. the "asshole learns an important lesson about life" subgenre requires that the protagonist be something of a dick for a living - a corporate lawyer, a corrupt politician, etc. This film isn't really concerned about Clooney's job, it's just window dressing.

Wall Street is a better example of a film that is both a) yr standard "asshole learns an important lesson" morality story and b) actually concerned with the milieu/politics/economics the story is set in

otm. it's not unusual to place a human drama in a professional context and not fail structurally.

jerry maguire is an example of a film which (i) integrates the guy's job into the drama without simply having one half of the film about a profession because it was a timely gimmick, and the other half about a completely separate aspect of his life (ii) does not deal with the "family = good" thing in quite the same loathsome/i hate my audience/i am going blow their minds with a reactionary reverse way. and i don't even like jerry maguire that much. up in the air is worse than paedophiles.

― caek, Friday, September 17, 2010 6:02 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

boom.

It's not about the concept (a man fires people), it's about the execution. And what lessons does he learn regarding that job? That people need to be fired face to face, because it's a personal thing and it requires a deft touch. At the end it's not his job that makes him sad, it's his loneliness.

also the directing ranges from blandly inept to outright offensive.

didn't reitman even admit in interviews that the whole firing/economic context thing was an afterthought added in pre-production?

no, that's in the book. it was the bookending 'authentic' interviews that he added at the last minute because of the recession. one of the reasons why it felt shoehorned.

I like Wall Street a bunch, but I actually think it's much more transparent when it comes to telegraphing its message than Up in the Air. The path of Charlie Sheen's redemption couldn't be any clearer or more predictable from point A to B to C to D. With Clooney, I'll go back to what I said earlier: he's got a loathsome job, but he's not loathsome himself in terms of how he tries to conduct himself. His intervention with the would-be chef, yeah, too much; much better is his belief that at the very least his company ought to be flying in to speak to these people face-to-face, not doing so via a computer screen. I know Stone's father worked on Wall Street, but beyond that, I'm not sure why you're ascribing sincere concern to Stone but not Reitman.

ah yeah, that sounds right. i blame the "film of two halves" problems on the book/premise then. all the other problems i blame on reitman. xp

clemenza, I don't really think that the character or the film views his job as loathsome. it tries too, briefly, but the way it resolves suggests otherwise. The real key to the job for the Clooney character, at its core, is he has to be there, face-to-face, to do what he can to comfort people at the beginning of their difficult life. They have families to take care of, but they have families to go to. He comforts people but nobody comforts him.

I should add, just to say, I think that the performances are good-to-excellent across the board. My problem is that the film feels like it is SAYING. SOMETHING. IMPORTANT. but really it isn't at all. If it didn't, and weren't so poorly directed (which of course is a big part of that IMPORTANT) thing, it might have been alright. But it's hardly new territory, and it doesn't find anything at all new to do with the material, and it certainly doesn't do anything at all interesting with what it IS doing.

I'd rather watch Vera Farmiga than Daryl Hannah's work in Wall Street, but it puzzled me what this would-be glittering Hawks-type rom-com was doing in the middle of a typical Oscar prestige picture.

He comforts people but nobody comforts him.

I'll have to give that some thought. If that is what's going on, well, I can live with that. But I do think the fact that the script (or book) makes Clooney mouth all these empty and wildly inappropriate platitudes as he breaks the news is strong indication that the makers consider it essentially a loathsome job.

Wall Street got Oscar attention because Stone had won awards the previous year with Platoon, but otherwise it would have been ignored like Salvador. Which is to say -- it's a juicy, trashy fun.

except it's used for 3 things in the film. 1.) zach galifanakis 'lols' 2.) depressed woman who winds up killing herself and 3.) for him to inspire somebody to be a chef and show his younger protege that there's something important about their job.

Charlie Sheen crying and handcuffed is more emotionally effecting than Clooney watching his sister married to the tune of bog-standard indie guitar plucking

Hmmm. No.

I want to agree with you, but Sheen is such a moist towel. Timothy Hutton woulda been better casting, or -- God help me -- Tom Cruise.

it's juicy, trashy fun

Alice Cooper in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the new-wave pedigree of Queen's The Game, and the importance of RBIs--for the fourth time on this board, you folks have worn me out. It's Friday night, and the TV calls--so let me duck out on a statement I agree with 100%.

I want to agree with you, but Sheen is such a moist towel. Timothy Hutton woulda been better casting, or -- God help me -- Tom Cruise.

― Gucci Mane hermeneuticist (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, September 17, 2010 11:53 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

should have started that sentence with an "even"

gah, cutting off. I should have started that sentence with an "even"

i can't imagine what might incline one to defend, much less champion, this film, clemenza. the one bright spark in it (clooney as a romantic lead) was given very little screen time, and what we got instead was shallow, silly, borderline offensive mush. everything was spelled out in such ridiculously bold and simplistic capital letters. he loves hotels and corporate spaces. his apartment is absurdly spartan. he keeps his family at arm's length and cares about no one. he is empty inside. I GET IT. though terrified of intimacy, he craves it. he is a child evading the familial responsibilities that "naturally" accompany adulthood. responsibilities and emotional connections that he secretly craves. I GET IT.

and it's easy to refudiate any movie by describing it in those sneering terms, but i never believed anything about this movie. i never believed in clooney's ryan bingham. he seemed far too neatly circumscribed, too socially graceful for the shrivelled life he'd chosen. i never believed that his nihilistic motivational speech could appeal to anyone. i never believed in his chipper/naive new assistant. as charming as anna kendrick may have been, the character remained a shallow, tiresome cliche. there were moments of honesty and insight (mostly in the family dynamics, e.g., his sister's reaction when ryan offers to give her away), and again, i loved the flirtation/seduction scenes between ryan and alex. but the rest was as relentlessly empty as ryan's object-lesson life.

boo

^ would rewrite

I suppose I should be grateful for a concession or two there--vomit and pedophilia now have moments of honesty and insight to keep them company. I swear I've never seen such mortification heaped upon such a relatively genial film.

I noticed tonight that the pull-quote on the DVD box is from Tom Carson (hopefully not taken out of context). Carson's beautiful Leave Home essay is probably my favorite piece in Stranded. He's someone whose writing I really used to value--I want to hunt down his review and see if we were both duped by the same things.

i heard he did that blurb as a joke

Had to scroll up and read my own comments to remember whether I liked this movie. Turns out I did!

I went back and read your post, Guayaquil--I could have done without Yosemite Sam Elliot's moustache, otherwise agree with it all. Broken Flowers, yes. Bill Murray has to be completely numb in Broken Flowers, of course, because it's a Jim Jarmusch film. (I love Stranger Than Paradise. Sixth time around, as someone above might say, I GET IT.) Your comment also led me to Morbius's "moral stench." In all this back-and-forth the past two days, I've had this nagging sense that something's missing, a mysterious void...now I know what it is.

i heard he did that blurb as a joke

Joke, right? I can't tell anymore. I found the original review--there's a link way upthread--and apparently the film's sledgehammer messages didn't land on Carson, either:

Not until it dawns on the audience that Ryan's budding second thoughts about his life choices don't necessarily mean he'll be redeemed--he's still got to reshape his world to suit his new priorities, and the world may or may not feel like obliging...

Disappointed to find out he doesn't like American Beauty, though, which I love. But let's not open that door.

wise decision

you fucking people

It sucks to be right.

rmde if yall didn't think there was an implicit judgement on what clooney did for a living, if you didn't see the self loathing in his deliberate alienation from human contact, if you saw some kind of pat moral lesson in the ending

aw man what happened to rmde.gif

can't remember if I did or not...it wasn't really good enough to stick in my mind for more than 2 days...
xp

aw man what happened to rmde.gif

It was swallowed by our hate for this film.

lol

just watched this tonight obv and i didn't love it or anything but the river of bile in this thread is astounding

i saw an incredibly condescending & conventional film written by jason reitman

was flipping channels recently and resaw the part where Vera Farmiga tells himself to "be an adult" about her double life. Having him be clueless about her having a family was hands down the stupidest thing in the movie. How could they have spent so many nights together without her ever calling her little kids? They went to a damn wedding together!

Not to mention she's clearly made to look like she's angling into his personal life. Such a weird "twist" to throw in.

it's an awful awful movie and reitman is an awful awful filmmaker and human being.

j0rdan otm go watch michael clayton (yeah the end is dum but it's 10x anything up in the air could hope to be)

i saw an incredibly condescending & conventional film written by jason reitman

― truly blunted rhyme fiend (J0rdan S.),

otm, but you forgot lazy

Not to mention repulsive, vomit, and pedophilia--don't forgot those!

nah, didn't forget em, movie didn't elicit any such strong emotions tbh.

It could've been worse: Reitman says if Clooney hadn't worked out, he wanted Steve Martin in the role to make another Lost in Translation. And even worse than that, someone could get the idea from that and cast Clooney and Danny McBride in a Planes, Trains and Automobiles remake.

All that said, I liked About Schmidt better.

Clooney and Danny McBride in a Planes, Trains and Automobiles remake.

would watch

I've seen this twice now and really enjoyed it both times. I wouldn't say it was amazing but I found Clooney's character compellingly conflicted. The talking heads were a little shoehorned but the top-down city/landscape establishing shots were beautiful. It was just a nice bit of morally conflicted, not-actually-happy-ending fluff.

Those establishing shots were really great.

again i say, just watch michael clayton

Just watch Koyanisqaatsi.

I liked this well enough as I was watching it, but the more distance I get from it the more uncomfortable it makes me. There's some good stuff in there though, not quite understanding all the hyperbolic reactions. I didn't see the twist about Farmiga's character coming at all, it floored me even if it was kinda cheap - and the ensuing scene (Clooney talking on the phone with her, the look of hurt on his face, her blame-shifting "well I'm an adult" response) was pretty devastating and real to me. I liked the initial portrait of Clooney as a guy who was actually delighted with his lonely, itinerant existence - that's something I haven't really seen in a movie before. Sam Elliott rules.

I sorta feel like it's a trap to start talking about Reitman, but I've disliked him a lot ever since I read an interview with him in a roundtable with some other directors and he came off like an ass (and also since I saw Juno LOL). It seems a lot of people here feel similarly, and I wonder if it makes some of you predisposed to tear apart a movie that you would ordinarily only find mildly distasteful. People make fun of his quotes about The Insider upthread, but I kinda see what he's saying (it's just that The Insider was a wildly inappropriate example for him to use). I like stories that humanize people with... morally... questionable careers, but having watched Thank You For Smoking not long after this (it was really excruciatingly bad) it seems more like he's really willing to let himself be seduced by that type of character to the extent that he'll go to bat for their most grotesque flaws, so long as they're really smooth and charismatic.. he's just not very honest about his anti-heroes. Goodfellas seems like a better model for how to do that kind of thing.

Way too much mopey acoustic guitar music.

Fucking hate Juno, fwiw.

The movie is distasteful enough without knowing Reitman's CV.

I thought "Thank You For Smoking" (a crypto-conservative adaptation of a crypto-conservative novel) was fun at the time, and worth it all for the Rob Lowe smoking-in-space bits, but when said crypt-conservative makes three crypto-conservative films in a row, is it possible to separate the crypto-conservatism from the final products? Like, doesn't it just make him seem all the more cynical?

Next up is apparently another adaption, of the novel "Labor Day," and possibly an adaptation of a short story about football or something.

Joyce Maynard, I guess.

The dog days of August . . . All summer long, thirteen-year-old Henry kept hoping that something different would happen, but it never did.

Then, just as the Labor Day weekend gets under way, in the Pricemart where Henry′s mother, Adele, on one of her rare forays out of the house and into the wider world has taken him to buy pants for school, a bleeding man approaches Henry and asks for help.

Frank is a man with a secret, and a man on the run. Adele is a wounded soul whose dreams of family life and romantic dancing died years ago, even before her husband left her and their son. And Henry is a "loser" and a loner, a boy on the cusp of manhood who, over the next five days, will learn some of life′s most valuable lessons: how to throw a baseball, the secret to perfect peach pie, and the importance of placing others--especially those you love--above yourself.

what is crypto-conservative about up in the air again?

or juno?

im kind of sick of the idea that if character can have an abortion in a movie and yet doesnt, that makes it conservative. or the idea that family life can be like, good for a person. calling that shit "conservative" just seems like liberal hyper-sensitivity to me.

i mean i can obviously see how those ideas could fit into a conservative program, but they're not conservative on their own.

totally. i'm cool with abortions killing babies, but abortions killing films is where i draw the line.

Agreed s1ocki.

i saw this last night.

what exactly was the message of his backpack lecture? why would people pay to hear it?
how did he know vera's home address? i guess we assume he did some creepin on google or something?
how did he know where to mail anna kendrick's recommendation?
how is it remotely realistic that a dude with his schedule would fly one airline?
why did they decide to gank sam eliot's big lebowski scene and do it worse?

i mean i'm with yall on some of the contemptible messaging in this film but DAMN it's appalling that writing this lazy rarely gets called out like it should.

^ real talk

what exactly was the message of his backpack lecture? why would people pay to hear it?

this one really bugged me, think i mentioned it upthread.

Those are great points! I never figured out the point of those lectures either.

iirc we only ever saw his opening bit and never saw where he was going with it, ie nowhere

"yall need a good backpack"

i didn't pay that close attention, and it's been a while, but wasn't the lecture meant to be a business-world-self-help version of his business-world-accumulated wisdom about living without attachments, traveling lightly, whatever? every extra person or thing you're attached to weighs you down because it's like you're carrying it around, best limit yourself to no more than fits in a backpack (conveniently on-stage as prop)?

but who cares about that, people in this thread are not putting enough stress on more important things, like staring at vera farmiga.

....But it wasn't her ass!

that truly is a downer

if Juno was conservative, what does that make Knocked Up? blee.

....But it wasn't her ass!

magic of film.

Love this thread.

Hate this thread.

Revived because while rewatching a bit at my parents' house earlier it reminded me why I like hotel bars more than most people.

Practically forgot I saw this until I watched 50/50 and remembered how painful it is watching Anna Kendrick on screen.

i love dr morbs in this thread so much

I wonder if there should be an anticipation thread for that new Cody/Reitman joint...ya know, for the discussion (i.e. lolz).

Revived because while rewatching a bit at my parents' house earlier it reminded me why I like hotel bars more than most people.

― Anakin Ska Walker (AKA Skarth Vader) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, September 23, 2011 11:09 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i kicked it in a hotel bar the other day; hotel bars rule

Young Adult is really a pretty loathsome movie

I hope the Fannies made a shit-ton of money off of it tho

nah -- Charlize Theron was terrific.

As for The Other Movie, watching it again a few months ago reenforced the absurdity of the Farmiga plot thread. Why on earth is she written as someone who might spend her life with Clooney. If she's supposed to be a same-time-next-year lay why the fuck would she consent to spend a weekend with Clooney's family? It makes the "surprise" at the end of the movie even more preposterous and loathsome.

my issues are more with the overall construction of the movie - the story arc, the setting, the rote staging ("insert scene where main character stares meaningfully at the detritus of their life while innocuous indie-film-score music plays" etc), the predictable ending, the lack of actual jokes

xp

what about Young Adult

lol

Slipping back to the original topic. Clooney and Vera Farmiga somehow or other made Up in the Air watchable. They didn't make it sensible, because that would have been impossible, but their being onscreen for roughly 98% of the time kept me from turning it off. This is a mystery about movie stars; they have the power to cloud your mind - but in a good way.

I really like this movie.

Encrypto conservative

Why does he need to learn the same lesson like five times in a row again and again near the end of the movie

I liked the Elliot Smith song, but having an entire film of saddos doing solo indie folk just mushed it all together. Why did we need to hear that sort of song when it switches back to hand-held again when they're breaking into the school other than "oh is this supposed to be an indie movie or something"?

So, they stayed long enough at the closed school to see everything and get into all the locked internal doors and then the basketball team shows up to find two adult strangers just sitting on the bleachers?

Your (ten?) million-miles status has nothing to do with the number of frequent flyers miles you have to spend, which he was never going to use anyway, so by doing the obvious thing that the film sets up for him to do by giving a trip to his sister he's sacrificing absolutely nothing, tho it was a nice gesture.

I travel way too much and was able to recognize at least the DFW airport from the overhead shot, and where they'd filmed bits inside DTW.

The speechifying bits were just when things started getting worse and worse so that we knew what was going to happen when he gets to her place.

I took the "what's in your backpack" to be a riff on "what color is your parachute," which makes far more sense since he's a guy who fires people.

Sam Elliot's cameo really was straight out of Big Lebowski. Also, commercial pilots don't get that old, since they retire or wash out medically long before then, right?

anyone seen his new film Men, Women & Children? it's had a right kicking and the trailer has no dialogue which seemed suspect from the get go.
but i was still intrigued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5aKdBxlmIc

it was savagely reviewed, even by reitman standards

labor day was not really good, but not entirely awful

didnt realize it was based on a joyce manard novel and if she was the pie maker consultant in residence as this photo seems 2 suggest, she made a good contribution. never really considered i wanted josh brolin to purposefully teach me how to bake a peach pie but the heart wants what it wants i guess

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/blog_post/primary_image/interviews/joyce-maynard-on-labor-day/primary_MaynardBrolinWinslet.jpg

*maynard

Dennis Haysbert as Secretluvur

I was trying to think of something that you could plausibly blame for everything that's rotten about the world right now, and I immediately thought of this.

Not true--but I did watch it last night for the first time since the first time. Same reaction: not bad. I really liked Clooney's sister (the one divorcing, not the one getting married). And now I know Anna Kendrick better: liked her. I wish they'd dropped all the backpack speeches. I felt sad for Young MC.

okay so I've been to a bunch of tech conferences, not ONE was anything like it was in this movie. that's a peeve of mine, when a movie has the obligatory BIG PARTY scene and it's over-the-top and lavish instead of Miller on tap and maybe a store-bought cake. suddenly they're on a giant cruise? and then the boat breaks down? what was the point of that? this party must have cost $500 a head (plus or minus Young MC's fee) and they don't even check IDs?

other than that I thought this was okay. first half was pretty fun, second half pretty much blew. I thought the twist with Vera Farmiga was telegraphed a mile away. like everything in the movie. "who wouldn't want a picture in front of this....historical airport!?!?" Danny McBride getting cold feet for basically no reason ("but I'm gonna die someday!") was just the dumbest thing. Ditto for Clooney turning all saddo despite spending half the film talking about how much he loves not being tied down. The backpack thing was pretty dumb too. Felt like the film was just stumbling around in search of meaning but couldn't really find anything to say but "shucks, why wouldn't you want a family?"

I guess it was decent

Jason Reitman gives Alexander Payne a run for his money these days as one of the worst directors around

men, women and children was a ten years too late in its exploration of teens into sex and the controlling parents that love them.

Some of his earlier movies are fine but at best (young adult) he makes b movie schlock that wouldn’t be out of place on a hallmark film of the week

I remember watching this movie and liking it but literally nothing in frogbs's summary rings a bell w me so I guess it didn't make much of an impression, e.g. from the discussion here it sounds like there was a backpack in it which i don't remember at all

i did not like this at all

i felt bad for young mc

I felt mad for Young MC.

This film calls to mind a discussion we had on the board a month or so back about film's being forgotten once their Oscar runs are finished, sort of like the awards-bait version of "Forgotbusters." This is a prime candidate: I doubt I've thought of it once since seeing it (forgot about Young MC until just now!) and this is the first time I've seen anyone bring it up in years.

yea sorry

it was on Netflix and we were just like, "I heard that was good"

I actually liked it up until the bit where the cardboard cutout came in and it was pretty obvious this couple was gonna be framed as the polar opposite of Clooney's life and wind up teaching him an unexpected lesson or two

reitman's got a new movie with charlize theron - i'll watch it just for her. tbh his movies are comfortable pap for the most part

Unless there’s a big name attached (Spielberg, Clooney), I don’t know if political films ever make money any more. (Meaning films about actual politicians, or famous political stories attached to them.) Maybe that’s always been the case, I don’t know. I’m not even sure if The Post or The Ides of March did especially well. Everybody knows everything by now, and nobody needs a movie to pull back the curtain on anything.

I thought The Front Runner was okay. The book was better, not surprisingly--Matt Bai’s central argument, that Gary Hart’s ’88 implosion was qualitatively something new, was framed persuasively. The film catches some of that, most effectively when J.K. Simmons’s campaign manager pleads with Hugh Jackman as Hart to address the runaway story, and Hart--beyond the fact that he’d simply rather not respond--seems to genuinely believe that it’s a non-story not worth addressing, one that will run its course in a day. Reitman tries hard for fly-on-the-wall war-room atmospherics, to the point that sometimes you’re left watching the camera glide past people sitting in a room mumbling, and the film stops dead. Jackman’s pretty good, though they let Hart off easy--I remember him as much more hapless and empty than the seriousness he’s given here. There’s a good moment where, after exploding at a staff member for prying into his private life, the same question comes at him during a key press conference, and he turns diffident and evasive; it’s like a rough draft of Michael Dukakis’s robotic capital punishment answer at the debate a few months later. The film tries to be fair to Donna Rice but completely bypasses any and all interaction between her and Hart--a big mistake, I’d say (legalities, I suppose).

I always mention how much feel for period these kinds of films have. I know that that kind of thing can get really clunky and intrusive if you overdo it, but I think there ought to be some attempt to place the events in a historical moment. Except for a brief television clip of Jim and Tammy Bakker (which was not unrelated to Hart’s story) and glimpses of some really large cell phones, The Front Runner doesn’t even try.