User Reviews (608)

Add a Review

  • bkoganbing27 January 2015
    Seeing the character that George Clooney plays in Up In The Air reminds me of George Peppard in The Carpetbaggers. If you remember Jonas Cord was flying all over creation in his private plane developing and supervising his many enterprises. Just like Clooney here, Peppard had some deep seated issues about settling down even though unlike Clooney he was already married.

    Clooney has an interesting job that really keeps him moving. He works for a firm that specializes in aiding fired workers make a transition. I can testify myself that getting fired can be traumatic. In my case though my firing lasted two months and I went back to my old job and stayed there until retirement.

    Clooney's boss Jason Bateman has him going all over the country. He says that he spent only about 43 days in his sparse apartment in Omaha. It really is sparse the various hotel rooms look more homey. But a woman who also spends a lot of time traveling on her job Vera Famiga and a woman who is being trained by Clooney, Anna Kendrick help him see that maybe his life and lack of commitment isn't the best thing for him.

    Nor is his stated goal of gaining 10 million frequent flier miles. He spends so much time in the air that all the airline personnel on all the airlines know him on a first name basis. That's one significant accomplishment. Maybe Clooney should have taken up with a stewardess.

    The characters are drawn well in this script which got one of several Academy Award nominations, in this case for adapted screenplay. Up In The Air also got Academy recognition for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor for Clooney, Best Actress for Famigia, and Best Supporting Actress for Kendrick. I thought Kendrick was especially good as the young lady who sees a career treadmill she doesn't like and gets off.

    Up In The Air is an intelligent and modern comedy with some characters I think we can all identify with.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    01-08-10 "Up in the Air" is a thoughtful and satisfying entertainment. I'm a big fan of the team of creative artists who made it happen. It's an amazing work of art from auteur, Jason Reitman. All the more impressive is the fact that he's only thirty-two. All of these kudos notwithstanding, I want to briefly address the character of Alex because therein lies a serious flaw. I'm not confirmed in my opinion, however, so I want to put it out here for possible contradiction.

    Early in the second act, Alex (Vera Farmiga) starts showing palpable signs of falling in love with Ryan (George Clooney): her eyes, facial expressions and energy feel to me like a woman not only falling in love, but also a woman actively (although not verbally) seeking a deeper emotional bond and commitment. This culminates in the conversation with Natalie (Anna Kendrick), when Alex talks about the importance of marriage, children and home.

    After Ryan and Alex attend his sister Julie's (Melanie Lynskey) wedding, Ryan is seeing clearly the emptiness of his jet-setting life and then, suddenly, he stops mid-sentence during one of his lectures and rushes to Chicago to see Alex; I think there's a marriage proposal balancing on the tip of his tongue.

    Was Ryan primed for this change of attitude by recent events? Yes. Were the looks, expressions, energies and statements of Alex an important part of this priming? Yes.

    When the big reveal happens, and Alex is uncovered as a committed wife and mother who only wants side-action with Ryan, I thought to myself, as the writer and director, Jason Reitman has exaggerated and simplified the transparency of Alex's feelings for Ryan in order to insure that the big reveal plays as a reversal that packs a wallop. This wallop, I think, comes at the expense of the psychological realism and moral validity of Alex.

    Please consider an alternate second act in which the character of Alex is a bit more complicated: If Alex is morally and emotionally sound, and I think the movie wants us to feel that, for the most part, she is, then I don't think she would actively solicit a deepening emotional commitment with Alex without informing him that she's unavailable for marriage. A failure to do so is the self-centered, unscrupulous behavior of a rat. Likewise, denying this moral responsibility with a reference to Ryan's commitment to bachelorhood is a flimsy rationalization. It's entirely possible that Alex finds the force of her emotions such that she cannot help moving towards a deepening of emotional feeling for Ryan. However, as a decent person, I think she would have a deep internal conflict with this emotional trend. Of course this internal conflict and holding back by Alex would be detected by Ryan. Quite possibly, Alex would reach the apex of her internal conflict during the wedding, when she sees Ryan turning away from his confirmed bachelorhood towards a union with her. In turn, Ryan might interpret this behavior as a conflict about Alex's desire to maintain her single lifestyle. From here, the movie might show how Ryan, after the influence of his sister's wedding, flip-flops and becomes the person pursuing marriage while the woman resists. The through-line of cavalier good will and humor would be easily maintained by Ryan because he thinks he knows why Alex is resisting and then - Blam! - Ryan goes to Chicago on impulse and discovers the truth.

    With this version, the reveal still packs a wallop, Alex remains a somewhat decent person, the psychology of her behavior remains valid and there's no telltale intrusion by the writer-director.
  • vortex00713 February 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    Up In the Air takes us to the story about Ryan Bingham, respective man who flitting from city to city to sack employees, yes it's his job. I've never heard about such job so to my utterly astonishment I knew that some bosses are to gutless to do this themselves, so they hire such guys as Ryan Binghanm to do it. Ryan Bingham is a perfect guy, charming, seductive, smart, well-groomed and real gentleman. He's into juice when it's necessary, likes to talk in sarcastic and trenchant tone, has cynic attitude to almost every things in that life especially love and family. No doubt a lot of men dreaming about such life as he has.

    Jason Reitman (the director of Up In the Air) tries to show that it's not right to be such kind of person. Because family and love are obviously the most important things (in his opinion of course). That's the main thing that disappointed me in Up In the Air. I had always assumed that no one knows what's the most relevant thing for every people in this world. If somebody wants to make family, OK no problem! Go on! If you want to be single, OK, go on! And nobody can blame anyone in wrong life attitude, cos it's impossible to prove which attitude is the most correct. Everybody choose his own way and it's his choice. Besides real life already proved that in most cases truly happy family it's a utopia and there is nothing to do with it.

    So why Jason Reitman persistently tries to prove that's the only one way is right? Why? Why he shows us that we shouldn't neglect family and love? I don't understand it. If he thinks that everybody who hasn't got family is miserable I'd say he's seriously mistakes. He can't decide for over the 6 billiards of people. Everyone have his own view on happiness. And badly that such idea in dozens of movies brainwash the public and make them to do what they don't want in fact. I'm happy that at least George Clooney's hero eventually remained single and proceeded his travel around US. Surely such move deserves accolade because it's quite uncommon element of Hollywood movies when love story line ends tragically. No expected happy-end, that's the only one reason I loved the film.

    Clooney's elegant veneer great as always but it hasn't satiric reflection, his jokes, are quite amusing and make you chuckle occasionally, but nothing special. Comedy is not the strongest side of this work. Anyway it's a good movie to ponder about life in a deep sense of it, but at my point spectator shouldn't instantly take a side of the director here, spectator just need to realize that our life has different ways and nobody can blame if you choose another one instead of typical family path.
  • Halfway through this movie I considered it an 8 out of 10 and decently spent money. The second half came as a big surprise. George Clooney let go of all his suave and let his eyes show fear and isolation that real people feel.

    There were two things going on in this movie. On one end, we were looking at the people getting fired. On the other end, we were seeing the problems with Ryan's way of life. The interviews at the end with the people who lost their jobs explaining that it was family and support that brought them through bad times hit a perfect note for bringing both parts of the story together.

    The title of this film literally explains what it is like to not know what aspects of your life are solid, such as a home or a significant other. Everything going on is simply up in the air. One day, what you thought was one way will turn out to be something else entirely.

    Best of Reitman's three. Very much recommend it.
  • Based on the novel by Walter Kirn, George Clooney stars as corporate downsizing expert Ryan Bingham, who is hired to help ease the transition of long-term employees to the unemployment line across the country. Taking his job very seriously and loving the 290 days away from home—the only problem with that is the 70 days at home in his empty apartment—his world gets turned upside-down when a young upstart in the company threatens to ground the company to fire people via the internet. Not standing for a change in his life, nor the chance for his life goal of total airline miles to end, ("Let's just say I have a number and I haven't hit it yet"), he goes on a mission to prove how personal his job is and how key a face to face meeting can be to talk down an emotionally unstable person and really do the victim a service in an otherwise horrible moment in his life. Along the way, he and the recent college grad, of which the boss loves due to her budget slashing game-changing idea, Natalie, played by Anna Kendrick, both find out what has been lacking in their lives and how to become better people, opening up to love, heartbreak, and the need to grow up.

    Clooney's Bingham is the loner businessman whose only relationships exist from random meetings with attractive females at the multiple airports he frequents. His wallet of plastic has become his lifeblood—credit cards from airlines that accumulate his mileage, hotel status perk cards that let him cut the disgruntled travelers and go straight to the front, and numerous room keys that never seem to be thrown out, causing him to always use more than one before finally opening his hotel suite's door. Detached from his family for years as the brother that exists but cannot be counted on for anything, he contemplates whether he should, or really wants to, attend his sister's wedding—the little girl of the family and someone he should have been involved with after the passing of their father. A series of style cramping incidents for him begins with a phone call from his other sister and the request to take a cardboard cutout of the happy couple, (Melanie Lynskey and Danny McBride, in a role that might actually show some nuance for a guy that usually flies by the cuff), and photograph it in front of famous places he travels to for work "like that French gnome movie,"—I love the Amélie reference. Then comes the threat of being taken out of the air, his home for decades, in order to impersonally let go more people more efficiently; the challenge of taking Natalie on his next schedule of jobs to prove to her why the new system won't work; and the addition of a love interest in Vera Farmiga's Alex, a woman who describes herself to him with "just think of me as you with a vagina"—one of many great lines.

    There is a lot of subtlety and intricate weaving of plot lines throughout the story, details and sequences that need to be seen fresh to get the full benefit of the film. What you might initially think is a witty comedy about a jerk of a guy who not only thinks he's better than everyone else, but actually is, that either finds the error of his ways or gets dropped down a peg or two, eventually becomes a tale chock full of heart and emotion. The real success story of the film is a revelatory performance from Clooney who really knocks this on out of the park. He always showed the charisma and chops to play confident and successful, but here is allowed to also branch out and express the pent-up frustration that comes with isolated loneliness, the passion one can have for a job that seems horrible, yet, when treated carefully, is a job to take seriously, and the compassion for humanity on the whole, softening enough to realize that there are people around him that need help besides his laid off strangers, help that only he can provide. The evolution he undertakes is really pretty amazing and I credit Kirn, Reitman, and Clooney for pulling it off with grace and laughter.

    Every single actor is unforgettable—even the bit parts like Zach Galifianakis and especially J.K. Simmons as two corporate employees who's jobs have been eliminated. Jason Bateman is hilarious as Clooney's smug boss, fully embodying the take no crap nonchalance he made famous in "Arrested Development"; Farmiga is gorgeous and competent to be able to go toe-to-toe with Clooney in the detachment and power-hungry attitude of flying in style for half a year or more; and, if George's reinvention of character is revelatory, then Kendrick's naïve Natalie is masterful. This girl was top in her class, able to get a job in her field wherever her heart desired, yet settled for this firm specializing in firing people so as to not dirty the workers' real superior's hands. Young and confused about life in the big world of adulthood—set on a plan for marriage and children to occur as though set times on a clock—her eyes are opened to the intimacy and fragility with which a person's mental state can be affected by mere words. When you put them all together, Up in the Air resonates on so many levels; deserving of any praise and accolades to be bestowed upon it. Hilariously funny every second of the way, it is still unafraid to dig into the dark moments of life and treat them with respect and relevancy, going places you wouldn't think it would have the guts to go. You really can't say too much about the film, a top ten of the year entry for sure. Reitman proving to be a force to reckon with and Clooney that he just keeps getting better with age.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Up In the Air" is perhaps the most hyped film of the year, and also the most undeserving of said hype.

    The story is a simple and predictable one. Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is a consultant sent throughout the country to fire unsuspecting employees for bosses too cowardly to do the job themselves. He lives for the routine of these trips and the frequent flier miles, spending only a few days at home in a studio apartment too small for a house cat. Enter 23 year-old upstart Natalie (Anna Kendrick) who revolutionizes the process with video conferencing, removing the last human element from the job. Bingham is naturally horrified by the changes and is forced to take Natalie under his wing, teaching her the ways of the force, getting her to loosen up while simultaneously showing her a thing or two about humanity and the wisdom of experience. As his relationship with fellow chronic traveler Alex (Vera Farmiga) heats up, Natalie imparts her own advice to Bingham, helping him to grow a heart.

    I could have let the predictable story go if director Jason Reitman had given the audience something else, anything else. But the script is entirely lackluster, full of cheap one liners that even Clooney's usual charm just barely supports. Clooney does his usual Cary Grant routine, which is neither here nor there, not horrible, but not groundbreaking, all sadness in the eyes and slight smile. It is refreshing to see Vera Farmiga as a love interest, a woman over 30 who neither whores herself out or plays the strong ice queen, but exudes intelligence and confidence without becoming a caricature of the high-powered woman. Here, she's entirely natural and beautiful in an atypical way. I'm also strangely attached to Kendrick, who doesn't do anything that impressive, but seems to be trying hard enough. It's in the few bonding moments between Clooney's Bingham and Kendrick's Natalie that the film takes a minute of serious drama and finds a bit of sincerity, but these moments are few and far between.

    If the film had concentrated on the superficiality and desolation of corporate consulting, we might have gotten somewhere. Or, if Bingham and Natalie had found themselves unemployed, the film might have presented just the type of irony and schadenfreude we would need to relate. Instead, the film makes an attempt to reach out to the jobless masses of America in the most trite and insulting way possible, the only slight reflection of sincerity found in the sadness of Clooney and Kendrick's eyes as they listen to the newly unemployed lament their inevitable fates.

    Many critics have praised this film for its timeliness and Reitman's understanding of the current American situation. It was irritating to sit there and watch Bingham tell a man that being fired was his chance to become a French cuisine chef, after the man had just talked about his expensive mortgage and his daughter's need of health care. After a little smile and pep talk from Bingham, the man is suddenly on board, ready to follow his dreams. It's always helpful to be positive and stay focused, but there comes a point when this sort of clichéd platitude becomes insensitive, and here, Reitman shows himself the king of producing them. The film didn't need this sort of faux validation to draw out the drama, there was already enough there to work with.

    For a typical film, Up In the Air is perfectly satisfactory and an enjoyable enough distraction for anyone that gets pleasure watching Clooney do what he does best. But ignore the hype, ignore the awards, and lower your expectations. There's nothings shocking or particularly moving here, unless of course you're one of the unemployed. In that case, it's better to just go see something like "Avatar" and escape for a few hours.
  • Up in the Air has great performances from George Clooney, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick with a great supporting cast. It also has a good combination of emotion, comedy and drama which helps overcome the predictable elements in the third act.
  • This film is about a man who fires people for a living. His world becomes upside down when his job is radically changed by a newly recruited young fresh graduate.

    "Up in the Air" is a well made film. The plot focuses on character development and emotional changes of the characters. It is not easy to make characters interesting and memorable, but "Up in the Air" does just that. Both the characters of George Clooney and Anna Kendrick have strongly divergent attitudes and personalities, but they have great chemistry and change each other slowly but surely. How they radically shake each others core belief is engagingly told. I enjoyed watching "Up in the Air" a lot, as it tells an engaging story of self discovery.
  • I really liked the movie, it kind of invites you to bring your own wine. There's a lot of probing into modern life and relationships, and it's up to you what you take from the film and what you feel for each of the characters. I was quite grateful for having seen Reitman's Thank You For Smoking (2005) previously, because both movies are really arch in the way they set up people in thoroughly pariah job roles and then get you to warm to them. So it didn't really come as a shock to see Clooney as an HR consultant (Ryan Bingham) whose job is to fire people in redundancy exercises where the management are too yeller, instead it rated an amused and knowing eyebrow raise.

    Although a lot of the movie concerns the workplace, the disconnect between the interests of corporates and the interests of society (a link that was present historically in America, but which has been irrevocably decoupled), and how to work in that environment, the interest for me was more to do with relationships. From my male perspective there are some fairly poisonous insights into the female mind (though it may be unfair to generalise), the young Cornell grad Natalie Keener (played by Anna Kendrick) talks about her preconceptions of the man she will meet, the kind of name he will have, apparently the only thing he will love more than her is their "golden lab". The slightly older perspective from Alex Goran (played by Vera Farmiga) is that the man should be taller, should earn more, and come from a good family. To go with the aeronautical theme of the movie, the theatre should have provided some sick bags.

    The main theme is, for me, pure Frank Borzage, it's about earning the right to love and be loved. In common with 80 years ago when those movies were being made, it's an onus that only weighs upon the male of the species, which makes the film a little hackneyed.

    My favourite ambiguity of the film would have to be the backpack lectures that Bingham (Clooney) gives. He has a whole metaphor about everything in your life, the people, the trinkets, all the stuff you can collect, being in a backpack and weighing you down. He says that people aren't swans, they're not meant to be together forever, that they're actually sharks, who have to keep swimming continually, weighed down by nothing. I think there's an element of truth to both poles, I can see both arguments. I just love going to a Hollywood movie and not having an opinion shoved down my throat.

    I had a slight problem regarding the level of realism in the film, I felt that the air-commuter lifestyle that was being shown was over-slicked, like I was watching something of a feather with The Consequences Of Love (or Giulia Doesn't Sleep At Night, two of the great modern hyper-stylised films from Italy). Nothing wrong with stylisation, except that I think Jason was trying to go for a film that had a lot of resonance with Recession America. I felt it was awkward to introduce real-life folks at the end, and also realistic looking termination assessments (or whatever they're called when you can someone), when the actors such as Clooney and Vera Farmiga were just so damned suave, as if from a different universe.

    And this is to Claire.
  • ClaytonDavis28 November 2009
    Director Jason Reitman, that has brought us great Indie classics such as Thank You for Smoking and Juno has crafted his most personal and most effective portrait to date, Up in the Air. The film stars George Clooney, also giving his most intimate and beautiful performance of his career, as Ryan, a traveling "Firing-Man," who plans on racking up as much frequent flyer miles as he can. Completely void of human connection and emotion, even from his two sisters, one of which is getting married, Ryan seems completely content with his choice of living. All seems well until he meets his female version in the beautiful and charismatic Alex, played with sexual force and intensity by Vera Farmiga. At the same time, a change at his job makes him acquire a student, Natalie, played with sensitivity and vigor by Anna Kendrick, to learn the ropes of the business before potentially making a devastating change to Ryan's way of life.

    The film, based on the book of the same title, is a moving and witty piece of cinema. The line deliveries given are some of the best liners of the year. The adaptation by Reitman and Sheldon Turner is of beautiful and social importance in today's day and age. There was no better time than now, to bring a film like this to the table. Dana E. Glauberman's crisp and precise editing sets the pace as we travel with Ryan in this beautiful account. Reitman's direction shows he's a force to be reckoned with and should be in full blown force for Oscar consideration along with the adaptation shared with Turner.

    George Clooney, who's having one hell of a year along with his other comedic turn in The Men Who Stare at Goats, gains sympathy and emotion from the viewer, which up until now, Clooney had always struggled for. The role is right up Clooney's alley and with humorous strength, conveys the pain and loneliness of an otherwise charming man successfully.

    Vera Farmiga as Alex, is a beautiful as she is dark, and as sexy as she is ugly. Farmiga has finally landed the right role that, in her years of wrong place at the wrong time, should land her a first-time Oscar nomination. Never showing her hand, Farmiga keeps and earns your trust, attention, and admiration. It's one of the most divisive and structurally brilliant supporting turns of the year.

    Seemingly not playing with a full deck is Natalie, played most beautifully by Anna Kendrick, who portrays brains don't equal smart choices. Kendrick earns your care and concern for the character, as she follows Ryan around and constantly badgers him about happiness and love, she naïvely and courageously shows the tenderest parts of youth in today's world. Kendrick will likely be sitting along side Farmiga at Oscar's ceremony.

    Jason Bateman, playing Craig Gregory, the boss in charge, is amusing in a brief but memorable role. Amy Morton and Melanie Lynsky, who play Ryan's sisters, are valuable and sufficient enough to book end a wonderful tale. Danny McBride, an outstanding comic talent to watch, is as good as ever. And finally, in otherwise cameos, Sam Elliott and the great Zack Galifianakis are uproarious in their respective roles.

    This could very well be the crowd and critical pleaser of the year. It has what the 2004 film Sideways lacked, the emotional edge. Long after the film, you take these characters home with you and remind yourself of its authenticity in delivery, poise, and premise. Up in the Air is one of the best pictures of the year. ****/****
  • Up In the Air Movie Review

    I finally got around to seeing the soon to be Oscar nominated movie, Up In the Air today. A lot of critics are putting it on their lists for top movie of the year and I will have to agree with them. This is a very good movie. It's funny and witty and has some good dramatic moments at the end that really hit you in the stomach. It's one of those rare movies that is fun to watch and makes you think at the end.

    The movie stars George Clooney as Ryan, his job is to travel around the country and fire people personally and hopefully tries to help them move on with their lives. It's an art form that Ryan has perfected over the years and he is really good at it. I will have to warn you not to watch this movie if you have just been fired, because the movie is littered with scenes of people getting fired. Most of the people react in an angry fashion and it's almost comical in way they show these montages. Then there are people that react with a sadness and desperation that really makes you feel their pain. Ryan explains that he spends some 300 plus days traveling and a miserable 43 days at home. Through his travels he gives speeches at different hotels about putting your life in a backpack and feeling that weight. Your different attachments in life weigh you down. So he believes in having no attachments.

    Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga play Natalie and Alex in the movie and their characters provide a challenge to Ryan's way of life. Natalie is a young college graduate with big ideas that will change the way Ryan will do his job. Ryan is not happy about this and thus there is conflict between the two. Ryan's boss, played by Jason Bateman, pairs Natalie with Ryan so that Ryan can show her the ropes. Their totally different personalities and philosophies on life clash and these provides for most of the funny and witty dialogue of the movie. Ryan is an older man who is calm and full of confidence in his job and in his life. Natalie on the other hand is young, naïve, and looks unsure of what to do most of the time. Alex is another business room that Ryan meets on the road and has a fling with. During the course of the movie they keep in contact and hook up as much as possible. Natalie seems to be just like Ryan in life only in female form. Ryan enjoys being with her so much is seems that he is reconsidering his whole theory on not being attached to other people. Is it possible that Natalie and Alex can change his whole outlook on life? That's obviously where this movie is headed.

    So what is this movie all about? It's about life. Pretty simple but yet very complicated. There are two philosophies on life presented in this movie. There is Ryan who believes that relationships are the heaviest objects you can put in your backpack. Relationships weigh you down in life. There's too much negotiations and compromise that you have to do. You can't be truly happy with all these attachments with other people. As he likes to say, if you are not moving you are dieing. In a way we can see he is right. Relationships can be hard; you have to work hard at it. It's a drag sometimes. The people you are the closest too end up hurting you the most. We've all felt this at sometime in our life. We see in Ryan's life that he has no close relationships. He has no girlfriends, he has no plans to ever marry or have children, he has no close friends, he hardly has a relationship with his two sisters, he fires dozens of people daily and feels nothing for them, and he seems just fine with that. Natalie on the other hand can't help but being attached to other people. She has fond dreams of being married someday and having children. In fact she believes her life is not complete without this. You also see this when she has to fire people. She can't help but feel very bad for these people and can't detach herself from the situation of seeing these peoples lives destroyed right in front of her.

    So at the end of the movie you have to ask yourself, are attachments and relationships worth the effort. The answer I came to be is yes, they are. At the end of the day what keeps you going in life. Is it your possessions or is it the love of your family? For me nothing can compare to the love I get from my family and friends. It's unmeasureable.. As they say you can replace your possessions but you can't replace your loved ones. This philosophy is even more evident in this movie when you think about the people who are fired in this movie. They are devastated by this turn of events but they also realize that they couldn't get through it if it wasn't for their family. You can lose everything but as long as you have a family to go home to you can be happy, you can have hope for the future. Without these relationships you are alone and have no one to help you through the bad times. So I would think about your own life and be grateful for all the people in it.

    Grade- B

    Rated R- Lots of use of the F-word and other cuss words through out the movie, 2 seconds of nudity of Vera Farmiga, lots of sexual innuendo and vulgar talk between George Clooney and Vera Farmiga.
  • Katz57 December 2009
    So 2009, and the decade known as...(what do we call this decade?), are ending later this month. And there is no better film to wrap up a (frankly) terrible decade (in terms of news events, unemployment, the economy, the media stronghold, the trashing and dumbing down of American culture, technology, narcissism, vanity obsession, a divided nation, violence and hostility) than Up in the Air. The film, the best I've seen all year and one of the best of the decade, captures many of the factors that made this decade the worst one, at least in my 42 years. The 70s may have been bad economically but hey, at least we had Bruce Springsteen and real music on the radio, women still seemed to like men and not only if the men were millionaires, thoughtful movies in the theater, and only five or so TV channels to pick from. Up in the Air features George Clooney as a man with no "roots," (that is, no wife, no kids, and his apartment in Omaha is about as furnished as a room at Embassy Suites), who fires people for a living because the companies who hire him are too cowardly to do it themselves. It is a juicy role for Clooney, who has made a career out of playing easy-talking charmers. The film sounds depressing and in many ways it is, but it is also witty, quietly hilarious at times, and full of pathos when it becomes a morality piece near the middle (and like the best morality pieces, it doesn't shove its message down your throat). It reminded me in many ways of American Beauty, the masterpiece that capped off the '90s when it hit theaters ten years ago. Clooney's character slowly is stripped of the things he only cared about--including a one-night-stand that becomes a "Same Time Next Year"-like meeting in Hampton Inns and Hiltons in Miami, Detroit, Wichita and other random cities, with another constant traveler (we never know what exactly she does, and that's not supposed to matter) played by Vera Farmiga, who may win an Oscar nomination for her mysterious, slightly passive and jaded, 30something character. The final important character is an eager young Cornell graduate (played by Anna Kendrick, from Twilight) who thinks that a career in firing people is a wise choice now, and in some respects she's not that far off. Her character represents many of the Twitter-obsessed twentysomethings driven for money money money, who live for texting, and has naive and even immature ideals of what makes a relationship work. But she too goes through a transformation, as Up in the Air reaches a "feel good while feeling bad" quality of Frank Capra's darker films, like Meet John Doe. One of the most amazing things about this film is its use of real people in the "firing scenes;" people who have really lost their jobs several weeks or months before being filmed. Director Jason Reitman combines scenes of these people being fired by Clooney and Kendrick, and their instant responses are wholly authentic. There are a few actors playing the "firees" as well, but they blend in with the real folks. I really can't think of a better film to cap off this decade. This one will stay with you. Highly recommended.
  • Up In The Air is a nice movie - a good satire about work and a comedy about the price of modern business.

    It looks like its going to mop up at the awards and I'm just not convinced it really deserves to.

    Why? Well, it has a good performance from Clooney as the confident consultant and good directorship, but it lacks true honesty - it sacrifices real integrity for Hollywood feelings and I'm not sure i want to see the top awards going on a film-flam type of film.

    Others will say this is honest and strong and entertaining (A tough act to pull off) but even though it is a nice film, well made, strong performances etc; it just somehow is a little trite. Even Clooney, who really can make anything work, ends up a little bemused. I think its a shame that films like $5 a day, which we loved, will be chiefly ignored and this will be lauded to the skies.

    Fun to watch and it does have heart; but for out money it is too shallow to really deserve all the accolades coming its way.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    On the surface, an easy going film with an almost message, semi-memorable characters and a bit of believability. George Clooney's 'Ryan' goes around the country firing people for corporations that don't have the respect or humanity to do it themselves.

    There is a love interest here and there is the moderately keen, Miss Keener ready to revolutionize the world of firing tagging along with charming Ryan. But where the film could have said something about human relationships, about humanity, about the real Zeitgeist of our incredibly cut throat Western world with its reliance on child labour designer clothing, Made in China products and our pathetic reliance on technology to improve our lives, it jumps into a banal story about the human heart and learning to let go of control. Once again, another film about a man afraid of the Commitment Monster...

    Blah... trite and too basic to be tender, the director had a potential gold mine here but mined the blasé and the overused. A film with such an intriguing idea skips around the Truth and the Heart, giving us a leading man burnt by a woman and living on in a world far too much like his broken heart. Just blah.

    And again... what a great idea for a film (based on the book) but everything you'd want to see in it, they leave out...(how lives are destroyed by the inhuman terminations...) go figure... No one is changed in this movie, no one is really touched and Miss Keener gets a great job at the end (leading me to believe she might get fired later by someone like Ryan had this been a good movie).
  • Anyone who has ever been fired must see "Up In The Air." Jason Reitman has done again. The director of "Thank You For Smoking" and "Juno" puts real life out there in an incredible way, where we all laugh and then walk out of the theatre thinking about what is really important. A film with a message that's entertaining: what a concept.

    George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a man that flies all over the country firing people for companies that don't have the spine to do it themselves. He is so proficient at it, when he meets his "expert traveler" equivalent, Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga); he is emotionally drawn to another person, beyond a passing interest, for the first time.

    Bingham's travels are a quest to be a traveling legend. When his company takes the advice of young newbie, Natalie Keener (Kendrick), he is grounded, endangering his quest to achieve frequent flier miles that number in the, uh, stratosphere. When his boss (Jason Bateman) assigns him to "show her the ropes," so she can revolutionize the company's firing technology, the resulting road trip is not only riotously funny, it is a self-exploring journey into the three people's strengths and weaknesses. The life decisions they make are the emotionally important message of the film.

    The rest of the story must go untold, so you can savor every morsel from your own perspective. For that is what this film does best. Almost all of us have been canned. Sitting across the table, being told we'll be glad it happened, one day. Our participation in the film is subtle, as we sit across the table from Bingham as he cans us.

    The film's cast is like the story: they suck you in. Clooney is Clooney, like Cary Grant was Cary Grant. You think he's not acting, that's just who he is in real life. Maybe it is. Vera Farmiga's performance is seductively natural. You've met people like her. You admire her. Then you find out you don't know her at all. She is the mystery you wish you were. Anna Kendrick as Natalie is a perfect, perky, know-it-all that becomes all too human. Kendrick makes her character's transformation special parts of the film, when she could have easily have been regulated to a supporting character. This has become Reitman's trademark as a director. He empowers actors to make the movie their own.

    Up In The Air is a movie that is over before you want it to be. You want to get to know the characters better, to follow them around a little longer and make sure everything goes well for them. Another credit to Reitman for his extraordinary skill at taking the common things in life and make them extraordinary. Which makes us all feel better about the common-ness of our own lives.

    Written by: Vincent for Overcranked.net If you liked this come read more reviews http://www.overcranked.net/movies.php
  • mistarkus7 December 2009
    We are drawn in by interesting, unique storyline and smart satirizations. About a man whose unique job is to fly around the country to inform people that they are fired. He meets a young ambitious woman that joins his company and who wants to change the system. Her ideas clash with his personal lifestyle choices.

    What the movie really is about is lifestyle choices, and relationship choices, choosing independence and freedom versus commitment and well established interpersonal relationships. By taking a definitive stance the movie provides interesting commentary on those that for whatever reason (not necessarily for work) don't stay put.

    A Monotone mood is established, that gave a bland aspect as though nothing substantial was happening. Part of the story took a dull meandering at times, however there were unconventional plot twists that made something that was seemingly Hollywood predictable not that way at all. And it was still interesting and entertaining to watch the contemporary witticisms.

    The two main characters, although not the most true to life characters ever created, were brilliant satires of people we all know. We are all too familiar with the fiercely independent, non-committal, cockily at ease bachelor and we have also come across the, sharp, type A, ivy league know it all yet with an obvious naivety especially shown with her declaration of the specific laundry list of traits that her partner must have.

    There were also some smart satirical illustrations of contemporary times in business, relationships, how people interact and the recession. For example the use of the smart phones in the new techno/relationship world is not simply put in as a momentum mechanism but is used as a symbol to satirize contemporary society.

    It is not so much Clooney's acting that is a marvel as the casting, which was perfect. By being so spot on by choosing someone on the cusp of getting a little older yet with plenty of playful, youthful vigor we sense the conflict and the melancholy.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I wish I had seen this back to back with "The Informant!"

    Both are good examples of what I think is a new phenomenon in film narrative. No, not exactly new; rather the techniques are maturing to the point that people don't notice them any more. And that's what you want.

    It is a matter of ambiguous narration. We've always had this, even with silent movie cards. For 75 years or so (let's start with Kane), we've had the sliding notion of the narration of the storyteller, the "voiceover" narration of the protagonist, and the interior narration of one character to another. This latter is obvious in many bad science fiction movies where the professor patiently explains some key dynamics of the story. We accept that these can meld — have for decades.

    But we now have a trend where we like to have narrative perspectives made discrete and explicit because we like to play games with what one knows that another does not, and how one can annotate another. So we have movies like "Informant," whose key hook is in weaving ambiguities among these platforms.

    Here in "Up" is a more complex and delicate composition. First of all, instead of being built on the great confrontation between the big and little guy, it moves on the conflict between independent loneliness and risk in losing ones' self in another.

    It is about love, is modern in the sense that it moves the tension into the narrative structure itself, and is tuned well, because Clooney knows what he is doing.

    We have the on screen narrator, Clooney's character Bingham, who knows more than the character does. He narrates to a novice. He also narrates as a living, triggering change in other characters. We hear those characters as bona fide narrators. We hear Bingham to them, to himself, to his apprentice, and to a romantic possibility he finds. Its all about story, each one, and about the dissonances and overlaps among them.

    The power comes from some large things and small.

    The large device is obvious. The standard fold in films is to have an inner "film" of some kind that allows us to enter as participant. Here it is a remote video conferencing for one of the narrative threads, allowing us to fold in to that one only.

    The "small" narrative device factors powerfully in the film, but the mechanism is somewhat hidden. The template we are expecting is the standard romantic pattern: love is found, lost and regained. This is broken: our guy does not get anything close to wholeness. He goes back to a hell of what both he and we know will be loneliness. The apprentice girl learning about love? Her life is ruined by a suicide that will haunt her, caused by inept handling of false narrative. The effectiveness of the folding device of video conferencing? Discarded as ineffective.

    It all turns on our discovery that Bingham is himself a narrative, a distraction, a fabrication in the romantic sense. It comes from out of the blue because there are so many narrators, so many fabricators that we didn't notice the power of this one, Bingham's love interest played by Vera Farmiga. Her power is absolute and breaks everything. This could be a depressing movie if you are sensitive to job loss, suicide and disappointment in love. But it is designed to pass the narrative prerogative to you to handle, so is judged as "intelligent."

    The inner plot is its own narrative. Two young lovers are getting married. One is related by birth, the other by being a salesman of the artificial. Bingham gives them the happiness he cannot have, that he has to deny himself. (There are hints that problems with his parents is the cause.) He literally at the end gives them his happiness in terms of the credits he has accumulated in his endeavors. This in substitute for their own fabricated happiness (in the form of a fake honeymoon).

    Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
  • Up In The Air takes a strange premise that could easily feel stale or cold, especially given the perfunctory connotation that airport travel has, but succeeds as a pleasant, if forgettable, movie. Clooney is very good as a detached but thoughtful lead, and Kendrick also impressed, injecting life and uncertainty into the movie. The comedy works well and doesn't feel overdone. The way the travel scenes were cut also showed Bingham's comfort and intimate knowledge of the airport drill in a way that was fun to watch. Reitman does a good job of keeping each scene engaging and is at his best when he uses subtle social commentary. The themes of personal connection and security were amusingly turned on their head by Clooney having to teach Kendrick about maneuvering firing, as she makes the job he loves obsolete. The twist with Farmiga's character was also good and surprising, keeping the film from being a by- the- numbers rom-com. The timing and reaction to the 10 million miles was also well done. It's not a movie that's exceptional in any area and not one that will ever immediately come to mind, but it's a solid, pleasant watch with some originality.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) works for a company based in Omaha in downsizing business and gives motivational lectures. He travels to other companies to fire people and to give advice to the employee in their next step in their careers. The pragmatic and independent Ryan is completely detached and cool and he does not have any steady relationship and does not believe in marriage. He only dreams on reaching ten million miles in his favorite air company. During a trip, he meets the cynical executive Alex (Vera Farmiga) and they have one night stand; further they schedule a next encounter in Miami a couple of weeks later. When he returns to his head office, his boss has just hired the rookie and arrogant Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) that suggests the use of video-conference to fire people from their jobs and reduce the costs of flights, hotels and meals. Ryan exposes the failures in the proposed system and his boss assigns him to travel with Natalie to learn the procedure. Along their journey crossing America, Ryan has a closer contact with Alex and his family and feels uncertainty in his credo. In the end, he realizes that he is only a parenthesis in the life of Alex.

    "Up in the Air" is one of the most intelligent romantic comedy I have ever seen. The delightful story is engaging, with witty dialogs, dramatic situations and a charming couple – I am a big fan of the lovely Vera Farmiga, and George Clooney has his best performance in years, showing a wonderful chemistry with Ms. Farmiga. Anna Kendrick is hilarious in the role of Natalie and her attitudes reflect the behavior part of the younger generation. The double meaning of the original title is not possible to translate to Portuguese. My vote is eight.

    Title (Brazil): "Amor Sem Escalas" ("Love without Stop Over")
  • "Up in the Air," director Jason Reitman's follow up to his break-out hit "Juno," is easily the most topical film I've seen this year. No other movie has been so in tune with current events and the cultural anxiety brought about by the recent economic crisis.

    George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, whose job it is to do companies' dirty work for them and fire employees. He's a transient being, living out of suitcases and hotel rooms, and that's just the way he likes it. But then he meets Alex, a fellow transient being (Vera Farmiga) for whom he develops real feelings, and Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a spunky go-getter who's assigned to trail him and learn from him but who instead wakes him up a bit to the emptiness of a life devoid of meaningful emotional connections.

    "Up in the Air" is a very solid bit of movie-making, never less than entertaining and extremely well acted. But it's a movie that doesn't hold together very well when you step back and start thinking about it. Vera Farmiga gives a lovely performance as Alex, but her character is the weakest written and doesn't make a lot of sense. She prides herself on being as detached from emotional baggage as Ryan is, and something we learn about her late in the movie proves that she means what she says, but would someone who really wants to keep emotional attachments to a minimum decide to be a man's weekend date for his sister's wedding? And after he crossed the boundaries she explicitly erected, wouldn't she call things off rather than leave open the opportunity to continue on with their relationship? Would there really be an audience for the kind of "motivational" speaking engagements Bingham delivers? Would anyone in his right mind even think of building a presentation from the concept of getting rid of everything in your life that has meaning? Too much of this felt like it serviced the plot without ringing true on its own terms.

    You can call these things quibbles, and maybe they are. Like I said, much of "Up in the Air" works very well. But the script calls too many things about itself into question for the movie to be completely satisfying.

    Grade: B+
  • Warning: Spoilers
    We watched Up in the Air yesterday, by director Jason Reitman (of Thank You for Smoking and Juno fame) with George Clooney and two great female actresses- Vera Farmiga playing George's love interest and Anna Kendrick as his overly zealous co-worker. It was nice to get to know these two new faces. I had not seen Vera in a film before although she looked familiar and you might recognize Anna from the Twilight Saga where she plays Jessica, Bella's friend.

    The movie is a very fast paced, excellently written, quite dark comedy centering around Clooney's character and his job which is firing people whose bosses "don't have the balls to sack their own employees". The actors playing the "firees" are real life people who have been terminated, adding a certain poignancy to their candid interviews. There are some excellent one-liners that come of these which George delivers perfectly "try not to take this personally", "review this packet, I am sure you will find a lot of helpful information in it" etc. These scenes make for some extremely memorable moments and George excels in the cynical but casual portrayal of his character, delivering each line with a super size heaping of charm.

    Vera is fantastic as his female counterpart and quasi clone of him. I was most impressed with Anna and thought she did a terrific job maintaining her seriousness and composure during many of the firing scenes and hilarious interactions with George. One favorite of mine was when he forces her to change suitcases at the airport and to carry on instead of checking in- something he learned saves him about a week of time each year. While his luggage is always extremely neatly packed, each type of clothing having its own compartment, hers is overflowing with loose items and even a pillow. George proceeds to throw out half of her belongings as he tries to initiate her to his road warrior ways. He imparts some more wisdom when he tells her to always stand in line behind Asians, as they are quick and efficient. A pleasant relationship grows between them and it is nice to watch his character melt just a little bit.

    Some of the banter between him and Vera is very funny but at times feels over scripted and not quite real, such as when they are comparing their elite status cards at their first meeting. I thought this was a bit overdone but very enjoyable nonetheless.

    There is a lot of American Airlines and Hilton promotion but in counterpart Reitman got to shoot a lot of airport, airplane and hotel scenery for free and that's a pretty smart decision so once you know that, the blatant placement doesn't get too much in the way.

    Overall, this was a very enjoyable film, speaking very much to today's mood and spirit, easy to watch, with many laugh out loud moments. What could me more fun and humorous than to watch a company thriving on the misfortune of others. Things don't end so well for George's character Ryan Bingham however, as the holes and lack of performance in his own life are exposed throughout his journeys- no significant other, no children, weak ties with his family and worst of all, no place to call home.

    Fabio and I both definitely recommend this film and give it a whopping 9/10! Please visit http://paulinasmovies.blogspot.com and become a follower to read more reviews!
  • This was a good movie but I'm not sure why it's on top of all the movie critics top 5 lists. It seems to push all of the politically correct anti-business buttons in terms of heartless corporations mass firing downtrodden proletariats from their soul sucking jobs in the private sector while enlightening the movie viewer with the redemptive story of Ryan Bingham (Clooney) whose full time job is firing people while bedding down different women along the way. He is a "termination consultant" who is contracted by different companies to tell their employees they are fired. There are a number of scenes of him firing people with the predictable tears, violence, suicide threats, and so forth. You see, life in the private sector is really like this, day in and day out. Capitalism is exploitation, property is crime, we are all expendable components of an evil machine that ends up destroying us in the end. No wonder the left wing film critics love this movie.

    Anyhow, Ryan falls in love with a fellow business traveler, Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) whose soul is even more shriveled than his own. Ryan also develops a relationship with a newbie to his "firing" company, named Natalie (Anna Kendrick) who eventually becomes disillusioned with firing people for a living. Go figure. Ryan becomes humbled by Natalie's humanity, not to mention his own experience of being used and discarded by Alex. Thus, we are lead to believe, Ryan becomes a better person for being on the receiving end of what he is usually dishing out. This aspect of it wasn't remotely believable.

    A good movie, but for my money, the most overrated of the year.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    **Major Spoilers** For about two thirds of Up In The Air, I was thinking to myself, "this is definitely going to be on my top five list for the year." The acting is very good. The characters were strong and likable. The dialogue was sharp and witty. There seemed to be the right mixture of both comedy and drama. It felt like a movie that was going somewhere great. Then came the rest of the story. Don't get me wrong. I've seen some films before that were ruined by bad endings. Up In The Air does not fall into that category. In fact, I wouldn't even call the ending bad. It was just not as well done as the rest of the movie. It felt hurried and predictable. I honestly don't think any of the events that occurred at the end of the film were a surprise to anyone watching (including the "major" revelation about Vera Farmiga's character). And a few of the scenes felt like they were slipped in out of obligation (i.e. the scene where Clooney's character calls the airline to set up a trip for his sister and her husband, or when we find out that Anna Kendrick's character quit because of the suicide). However, even with all of that, I still liked it. There was still so much that was good about this movie, that it might not be on my top five list for the year, but it is definitely on my top ten.
  • Every year there are new film productions copying either independent, low-budget films or foreign language films. It's not always making copycats, but sometimes reflecting the same concept twice, as well. As the first thing to say, Up in the Air, doesn't reflect at all what the novel writer Walter Kirn tries to tell inside his story scoop. Besides, looking at this year's another production "The Messenger" , we see the same character models and same story development tools, there. Is it also a coincidence that both Ben Foster and Anna Kendrick are being hired for the same type of work only within a different industry? If it is, the coincidences will continue by having Woody Harrelson and George Clooney as the trainers of our young fellas, and still continue with both Ben Foster and Anna Kendrick throwing in the towel before working their way up in the job. I find it necessary to look for external resources before evaluating a film after my first view. Up in the Air is a bad adaptation, totally messing up with its story; making it look cheerful and smart to the viewer. What's cheerful is making the audience feel sad and curious about the actors, and what's smart is the screenplay just offering a wise motto of life.

    The whole movie is actually the answer of one single question: "What's Randy Bingman's motto in life?"

    George Clooney plays Randy the Mr.Backpack, who lives by means of his mouth. He makes a living with his mouth. From start to end, Randy just does 2 things: He talks and he travels.

    Randy's words are like passengers of a plane. When they are unspoken, they are at the gates waiting for their flight arrival. While they are being spoken, they may turn to have multiple meanings. But after they were spoken his words are in our memory:

    "I want you to pack your backpack with little stuff you own. Your laptop, your desk, your chair, and your bed, and your room, and your house. Now, I want you to leave everything behind of you. Now, do you feel a bit light?"

    "Your relationships are the heaviest components of your life. It's hard to get rid of them"

    Opening with a mocumentary style, George Clooney's confused character Randy introduces himself to us from the p.o.v of the people he sees and talks everyday. His job is his life and his personality. He is hired out to national companies of which managers prefer not to fire their own employees; instead Randy does this though job. He is a Human Resources professional. Awaring of his success, Randy's boss gives a trainee beside him. Thus Anna Kendrick's character -one of the best supporting actress nominees of the year in Academy- teams up with Randy. Clooney and Kendrick are coherent together, this gives us a chance to put ourselves in their shoes; even though their lives are boring and pockets are making huge amounts of paychecks with just talking and travelling.

    As the story goes it mostly becomes more boring, longer dialogues, longer scenes, terribly bad editing; very rarely there are important thematic values that offers us lifelong wise advices. On the other hand, the ideological concept is so feminist. Vera Farmiga's character, Alex always finds the right way to do and her acts are always right and she never makes mistakes; just like a super-heroine. Randy falls in love with her, and from her p.o.v it's Randy's mistake to come to her house to explore that she's married. 'Cause being open-hearted is not a proper code of conduct. This concept rules that women have rights to betray their husbands with making cool guys fall in love with them, while men are faulty when they think that marriage is an important decision and it must not be given very quick.

    Looking at the filming aspects, the first thing that comes to mind is there are so many directing and editing mistakes, mostly mistakes on the ongoing production phase: Deliberate errors by filmmakers... Crew and equipment visible when Natalie's being introduced due to the reflection in the glass window... Continuity mistakes expose that most of the scenes are reshot over and over again; and when the exterior scene backgrounds change, Jason Reitman's editors doesn't find it necessary to cut those scenes properly. When Ryan gets dropped off after leaving the school, you see him walking inside with the same car still in place, but in the next shot he's two steps behind of himself and the car is gone. During that party at Alex's place, she changes her sweater from satin blouse to black v-neck sweater and back again to her satin blouse in a very short period of time(less than a minute or two). Looking at all the picture compositions, all the qualities are just average; nothing more than that.

    Consider the Academy nominations, of all the 6 major award nominations Up in the Air got, it only deserves to win the Best Screenplay award. Myself as an amateur screenplay writer, even though I don't generally like adaptation scripts, Up in the Air is my favourite screenplay of this year. Sadly, the film altogether was nothing more than average. It should have nominated for Best Original Song as well for the song Up in the Air by Rolfe Kent.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    What this has going for it: a solid performance by the girl who plays Natalie, a few droll lines, and a twist. But this twist is actually the worst thing about this film. It's worse than the 'Requiem for a Dream' quick-cut repetitive sequences. It's worse than Clooney's relentless crinkly-eyed smile, which I could not take any more, ever, after twenty minutes. It's worse than the cliché parades of fired people and their contrasting reactions, and it's worse than the blatant, blatant, blatant metaphors of travel/solitude/loneliness/baggage. What is it? The twist is when Clooney's character runs from his isolationist preaching gig to find his lady love, only to knock at her door and discover her married and with kids. And this 'twist' took me by surprise simply because the screenplay had made it unthinkable. Had Clooney remained devoted to flying around and the woman an occasional liaison, fine. But LONG BEFORE his dream is shattered by her, he reveals himself changing. He takes her to his old school. He takes her to his sister's wedding. He opens up very, very much. So - her speech to him afterward about his being just a 'good time guy', as well as her anger and confusion, are utterly ridiculous. This made me really angry, that poor writing gets to jump chasms over continuity. All in all, this is Hollywood-as-meaningful tripe. You're better off with the Vampire garbage.
An error has occured. Please try again.