Movie Review: Up in the Air

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. I CERTAINLY WON'T ACCUSE JASON REITMAN OF TAKING ON BORING SUBJECTS — It's easy to hate those privileged enough to be in the Lucky Sperm club, but with Up in the Air, Jason Reitman has proven to me that he's talented enough to get by on his own name and not his father's. He's began his career with a trifecta of issues confronting the main characters that have all certainly whetted my appetite: Thank You For Smoking offered us Aaron Eckhart lobbying for Big Tobacco; Juno had Ellen Page dealing with an unplanned pregnancy; and now Up in the Air presents George Clooney taking on the role of the corporate hitman, firing people across the country. In this day and age, I'll applaud the effort to take the road less traveled.
   
2. THE PERFORMANCES DESERVE ALL THAT PRAISE THEY'VE BEEN GETTING — It's hard to believe there was actually speculation at one time about George Clooney's career as a leading man. How long ago that does seem, now seeing as this New York Magazine article noted, he "has been elected the industry’s new class president." Indeed, it's hard to think of anybody else that could have played Ryan Bingham without coming off as unlikable—let alone anywhere near as casually charming as Clooney does it here. But casting's been a real strong point for Reitman in both of his previous efforts, and that's no different here as both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick earned those Supporting Actress nods (although I'd say Farmiga has more of the scene-stealing stuff if you had to pick one or the other).
   
3. I'LL MEET THE "FILM FOR OUR TIMES" ARGUMENT HALFWAY ... — As it concerns the angle the story has on how social networking has affected how we conduct ourselves personally in all relationships of our daily life, then sure, I like that side of what the film's touching on. In addition to the sexting between Clooney and Farmiga, the plan dreamt up by Kendrick's Natalie to fire employees from a single location via teleconferencing software offered a fairly effective contrast to Bingham's approach involving more of what he calls "dignity" on both the professional and personal levels to make it really compelling had the idea played itself out more fully.
   

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. LIKE I SAID, HALFWAY ... — Since the movie is dealing with characters sending people to unemployment at a time when the country is dealing with the issue too, that parallel's pretty unavoidable. That segment of the audience might see similar pain or outrage in one of the voices that bookends the film, but the lasting impression is made by the stars—all three of whom have roles involving them seemingly getting through life with the comforts of expense accounts and only having to deal with creating the unemployed, never joining the unemployed. Forgive me for feeling as detached at times from the main characters as Bingham spends most of the movie being before, you know ...
   
2. BASICALLY THAT ENTIRE THIRD ACT — Unfortunately, while Reitman's topics of choice have thrilled me entering his three movies, all of them also seem to share some rather ho-hum resolutions. Up in the Air has that moment when you can begin to feel the shift, when that cynicism Bingham's been sporting so charmingly the first hour or so of the movie has eroded away and you suddenly realize that the real reason he's been keeping that other job giving self-help lectures was just to allow him to have a seemingly sensible podium to stand behind for that change-of-heart scene. While I imagine that others have Farmiga's Alex in mind when arguing to the contrary, I still feel that most every element involved in the narrative ultimately felt either quite predictable or certainly less than satisfying.
   
3. CONDESCENDING MUCH? — As I said, the movie begins and ends with a series of shots of actual, real-life people who'd lost their jobs recently. When the script needs professional actors for a little elaboration on those roles though, then it's time to call in one of those standbys for that sort of stuff. But it's been fairly well-publicized that Reitman sought out these newly unemployed folks to add into the film, as the book it was based on wasn't particularly audience-friendly fare after 9/11. While there's indeed a number of real-life victims of the Great Recession, Reitman's use of these people feels more like a gimmick. To some, it might be insignificant and even timely, but to me it felt forced and rather disingenuous.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

Confirms Clooney's status as a leading man with more than enough elements to entertain you although hardly enough to stay with you.