Movie Review: Up in the Air (2009)
Gifted with a charming smile and good looks, George Clooney has always been a very charismatic movie star. He probably will never be known to have great depth or range but over the years, he has turned into a fairly solid actor who plays a certain persona (himself?) extremely well. Here, in Up the Air, you will see nothing new from him but he infuses his character with so much persona that his performance looks effortless and completely genuine. Ryan Bingham (Clooney) makes a living doing a peculiar job. He travels all over the country to fire other companies’ people. Firing an employee can be a messy process, hence some companies outsource the entire process and Bingham’s company is a direct beneficiary of the current economic environment.
Bingham has been extremely busy, spending over 320 days of the year on the road, in hotels, airports and unfamiliar places all over the country. However, from the first instant of the film, you know that Bingham loves it. He revels in the anonymity of being a perpetual traveler, not having to deal with significant relationships and other anchors that keep most people’s lives stagnant. One of his personal dream is to close in on 10 million frequent flyer-miles just for the sake of being the seventh person ever to join that club. One day, he even gets to meet Alex (Vera Farmiga), a female version of himself and the two begin a “casual” relationship. For these reasons, he feels threatened, when one day, a young co-worker named Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) pushes a new plan to cut cost that will revolutionize the business and ground Bingham for good. Instead of having to travel all over the country, people like him will just fire people over the internet. Keener and Bingham end up going on the next assignment together so she gets to see the human connection behind the process.
Nominated for six Academy Awards, Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air is a tale that resonates close to home for the many people who have experienced the loss of a job in the current economic turmoil. Unfortunately, much like Bingham’s shallow persona, Up in the Air is a superficial movie that pretends to deal with a current issue but ends up giving it the phony “everything is fine” Hollywood message instead. It would have been much more interesting to see Reitman digging deeper into the dark undercurrent of the issues at hand. Go ask the millions of people who lost their job whether they are enjoying their “new beginning” or their chance to “build a new empire”. By far, the most touching moments were the montage of real people who lost their jobs but those are used sparingly here and there. In short, it just doesn’t feel genuine.
In terms of film-making however, Reitman’s movie effortlessly mixes some humor, satire, poignancy and relevancy. It gives a nice feel of the ins-and-out of corporate life and travel. Although it never really feels like a drama or a comedy, the film moves at a nice pace and remains mostly witty and entertaining throughout thanks to three good central performances. The characters are developed just enough to drive the plot and it is a credit to George Clooney’s appeal that this movie was such a critical and box office success. Some actors radiate charisma and Clooney is one of them. He is supported by two wonderful supporting performances: Anna Kendrick gives a solid performance as the ambitious Natalie. I’m not sure if it was quite Academy Award worthy as it seem a tad forced at times especially when she had to act emotional but overall, she was believable as an idealistic young woman who gets a wake-up call to the real world. Vera Farmiga was absolutely outstanding. Few actresses would not be overwhelmed when matched with Clooney’s on-screen charisma but she more than held her own. She completely deserved her Oscar nomination. The three banter away and it’s often a pleasure to listen to their (adult) conversations in an age when we are often bombarded with inarticulate childish mumbling.
Elevated by the star power of the ever so charismatic George Clooney, Up in the Air is a very entertaining, well-crafted but ultimately superficial movie that pretends to be more than it really is.
B+
Notes: Rated R for language and some sexual content. 108 minutes.
30 Comments
B+ a bit too much for a superficial movie? No? Oh well, nothing new: I don’t like it. It’s the worse of Reiteman’s films for me and I never liked Clooney.
I liked it more than you, although I didn’t find it as superficial. I kinda found the “everything is fine” moments a way of saying how the companies/messengers are in a way blind to what they are doing, whether done purposely or not.
Oh, and I heart Vera Farminga.
I really liked this one and you’re right about Clooney always playing himself. Somehow he manages to get the roles that suit him and I usually enjoy his films.
I understand some of the points you are making. I actually didn’t like the real people in the movie, because I thought that it was a documentary for awhile. It distracted me. I enjoyed the movie, but it’s not the best movie ever as some people said it was.
Clooney needs to do something different. I know he did it with Syriana, but something like that. I thought the acting was good all around. I’m glad Vera Farmiga got the props that she deserved.
Not to belittle your review, but I disagree.
The ending in itself was, in my mind anyway, a condemnation of Ryan’s fresh start speech. After
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ryan finds out Alex is married, Natalie leaves and he can go back to traveling full-time he is dejected and longs for the life he abandoned (e.g. sister’s wedding).
No offense taken but could you clarify what part of the review you are referring to? I would be happy to answer but I’m unsure what you are disagreeing about lol
I was referring to the “everything is fine Hollywood message” you spoke of.
Oh I see. I was referring to the people who lost their jobs. Not Bingham. I get that at the end, he is disillusioned and feels empty because of the lifestyle he has been living.
@ Encore: it was a bit on the light side but I did enjoy the movie. I thought it was well made and well acted
@ Film Reel: That’s why he is a movie star! Plays the same version of himself over and over again extremely well
@ Red: I heart Vera too but you keep spelling her name “Farminga”, it’s Farmiga lol
@ Branden: I’d love to see Clooney try something completely different but I’m not sure he is up for it. If you look at his career, he has pretty much stuck with the suave, charming dude role who can send women swooning with his trademark smile.
lol, whoops!!
I quite enjoy this movie, but I thought the two main actresses impressed me more than Clooney, but than again I’ve never been a fan of his. Don’t know if he’s a movie star because he can play a certain persona of himself over and over again. If that’s the case then I really resent that… an actor should be ‘chameleon-like’ to the point that the audience can’t always recognize him/her from role to role. I want to watch a character in a given story, if all I want to see is the actor, I can just watch their interviews or public appearances. That’s why actors like Clooney and Tom Cruise wear themselves out fast for me. And as a woman, I don’t even find him all that charming. As for the ending, what I came away with is that hedonism and self-seeking way of life leads to nothing but emptiness and disappointment, and that’s a pretty poignant message.
lol Ruth. This is why I differentiate between “Movie stars” and actors’ actor. George Clooney, Tom Cruise, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis, Jackie Chan, Reese Witherspoon (these days), Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Aniston you name them. As much as one may like some of those people, they are movie stars most of the time.
All they do is play a version of themselves over and over and over again and they are paid the big bucks because most people love to see those specific characters on screen. An actor on the other hand, seeks a wide range of roles and parts, is perfectly happy being in a supporting role, and has actual real interest in acting as an art and craft.
Michael Caine had a fantastic quote about that subject:
“The difference between a movie star and a movie actor is a movie star gets a script — movie star Michael Caine gets a script and he says, “Now how can I change this script. It’s not quite Michael Caine. I’ve got to change it.” And they say things like, “Michael Caine wouldn’t wear that kind of thing. Michael Caine wouldn’t say that to a girl. Michael Caine wouldn’t drive that sort of car. So we’ll have to edit the script.” And everyone says, “Oh, of course, Michael, we’ll change all that.” They change the script to suit them. A movie actor, he changes himself to suit the script. He wears glasses, puts on a fat belly, gains weight, loses weight, grows a beard, moustache, any bloody thing.”
Right on, Castor, which pains me even more that real actors like Christian Bale have never been nominated for an Oscar! Love that quote from Michael Caine, I bet he feels the same way I do about Bale
I really enjoyed this film as well. I feel it really captured the morale that were all currently facing with the economy, the 21st century family structure, and other issues (how I interpreted it).
I actually really liked this flick. I think it’s Reitman’s best yet. I didn’t, however, think any of the performances were Oscar worthy!
And I know that was a body double but I will from here on out picture Farmiga like that naked!!!
I think you present a pretty fair and balanced argument here. I’ve read both gushing reviews and scathing reviews (this month’s Sight & Sound tears it apart!) I found it to be one of the best written scripts I’d experienced in a long while, despite the fact that it didn’t delve too deeply into the lives of those affected by job loss… but ultimately I think that would’ve detracted from the poignancy of Bingham’s emotional journey. I thoroughly enjoy this film.
Despite the hype and Reitman being on board, I didn’t expect much from this movie other than it being a platform for Clooney to be Clooney. But what a found was a film steeped in irony, with a corporate killer taking the very girl running him out of his job under his wing. I’ve been running a number of interesting parallels between Ryan Bingham and Tyler Durden (the real one, not the hallucination) beyond the constant flying, almost paranoid isolation, and the fact that both of them used doppelgängers as emotional crutches (Ryan’s doppelgänger had a vagina). Lots of depth everywhere. I’m also a huge fan that Cut Chemist made a repeat appearance in a Reitman film. Liked the irony of him being a chemistry teacher in Juno, loved the irony (maybe it’s the opposite of irony here) of him being a DJ in this flick.
It wasn’t perfect, so I don’t think I can fault your rating. This was a very topical flick, but one with enough heart to endure for years to come. Great review.
@ This Guy: It was definitely a highly entertaining movie. I think that delving deeper and darker could have pushed the movie over the top. I can see how it would have burdened the film, if not done properly though.
@ Steve: Thanks for sharing your insightful thoughts. I agree that in terms of film-making (writing included), it was a very thoughtful and well crafted movie. I only wish it would have taken a more significant stance on a current topic instead of it being an afterthought plot device.
I’m just curious, why wasn’t the ending a “significant” enough stance for you? What would it have taken? I thought it addressed the topic of unemployment tenderly but without being preachy.
Basically put, it uses the unemployed people as a plot device only instead of making a study of our time. Instead, it is about an individual (Bingham). Sure, some people are like Bingham and it’s done nicely but at the end of the day, we have seen plenty of movies like this where the main character thinks he can live a meaningful life one way and ends up regretting it. From the moment Up in the Air started, everyone knew how it was going to end and it’s too bad it didn’t leave more of an impact (a societal one) than that.
Call me stupid, but I didn’t know how it would end. I think the ending worked so well because it is so similar in tone to unemployed life today. Bingham can find satisfaction in something – most people think it’s hollow, but it’s his life and we all deserve to find some sort of pleasure in it. Sure, it’s not in being needed by other people, and that’s what worries the unemployed.
But then again, I speak like I know from experience. I’m 17, never had a real job (or been laid off from one).
I loved this film as really releated to the characters in different parts. Especially Kendrick’s as I am a similar age. I just found it so moving and it really broke my heart at the end as I did not see the twist coming.
Hey Castor: don’t knock Angie. I think she’s quite diverse actually, she just doesn’t do many good movies.
Not knocking on her
Unlike some, I like Angelina Jolie but she is Angie the movie star more often than she is Angie the Actress. I doubt anyone can question that. I’d love to see her in some smaller independent movies where we can see another side of her but it doesn’t look that’s where she wants to go in the near future.
agree with you. its a real star-vehicle and is all the better for it. Clooney is one of the last of the real movie stars
I like Clooney in the sense that everyone likes him — he’s genial, handsome, witty, the usual — but never really loved him as an actor. “Up in the Air” might have changed my mind about him. Yes, Ryan Bingham is a character he’s played before, but this time Clooney brings something different to the part, a kind of world-weariness and maturity I haven’t seen in him before. As an actor he’s coming into his own, letting his characters lose their cool a little more. We see evidence of this when he gets his heart stomped on. His face in that scene is as open and vulnerable as I’ve ever seen it.
Other reasons this movie nabbed the third spot in my Best of 2009 list: Vera Farmiga (LOVE her), Anna Kendrick (funny and sad at once), Melanie Lynskey, little moments of odd humor like the “cancer/can, sir?” bit.
See!!! Thank you so much someone finally realized it!! This movie isn’t as great as they are saying it is. Honestly, I’ll say it was a good movie but it didn’t convey too much emotions for me other than a couple of the really emotional firings, and the wedding scenes, mostly cause of the folk music playing,and I kept thinking of About Schmidt. I mean I got so much crap for this, which really just surprised me. Here check out mine and see what you think: http://dtmmr.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/up-in-the-air-2009/. Thank you so much!!!
“Up in the Air is a superficial movie that pretends to deal with a current issue but ends up giving it the phony ‘everything is fine’ Hollywood message instead.”
I couldn’t disagree with you more. I think it’s the farthest thing from superficial because it doesn’t act like it has all the answers or that everything will be fine. Reitman hasn’t crafted a lullaby to lull the unemployed to sleep; he’s presented their problems in an honest light. That may be hard for some people to deal with, and sometimes everything doesn’t turn out all right. The ending isn’t exactly the bright glimmer of hope that all unemployed Americans are hoping for right now.
In fact, Reitman spurns superficiality by using Ryan Binham to show how hollow a person who builds their life around frequent flyer miles and rewards programs really is.
Yes, I vehemently stand by my A+ rating of “Up in the Air.” If anyone cares to challenge me, I would be more than happy to defend myself.
http://marshallandthemovies.com/2009/12/20/upintheairreview/
I won’t challenge you but I will say this… the ending isn’t happy or sad. It’s purposely left open to interpretation… you could really look at it either way!!!
A totally original film in my opinion. I’m suprised how well they pulled it off. Theres only one person I would have given Ryan’s character to and that would have been Clooney.
Trackbacks