I adore this film, it's one of my personal favourites. Kermode is a good and intelligent critic however I disagree with his review of this. I don't see why having a heart is a bad thing; the shift in tone mirrors Bingham's character ark. As the film progresses he realises, thanks to the company he's not used to having, that you need other people in life to make those connections that really mean something. He grows a heart only to have it crushed, which is why the film ends on a rather cynical tone. Fantastic film, definitely a must see if you haven't already!
Having a problem with mainstream films thinking they “need to get a heart” is acceptable criticism of this movie. But if you spiral down a path of dread with no light at the end of the tunnel (like Clooney’s character is headed), then you’ve essentially gotten rid of the point they are trying to convey in this film. They don’t wrap the movie up in a bow and say this guy found the answer, but he learned something very valuable and we as viewers did too
This was very good it did not cop out at the end. George Clooney is the perfect cast. He was this character in some ways in real life. That ending? He's lost but helps others find their way. He's not on a journey! He's lost its so freaking sad I think y'all missed it. This was poetry. Color contrasts and scene selection played such a big role in this film. A work of art.
Kermode is talking bollox about the last third of the movie. The best bit of the film is when the Vera Farmiga character, talking from her car inside an anonymous parking lot, reveals her true nature thereby shattering Ryan Bingham's assumptions. The actuality of the importance of one's connections catches up with Bingham, which IS much more realistic than had he carried on being the same as before, according to Kermode's suggestion. The ending is slightly different from the book as well, where Bingham has a still more compelling reason to stand in front of the departures board looking to see where he should travel using his airmiles but doesn't (or can't in actual fact).
This is a better movie than Mark makes out. Of course there's the 'thawing out' bit for our ice man, but the twist is neat and I did not think this descended into schmaltz.Up in the Air had a wit and style that you don't see very often in mainstream Hollywood Movies.
Agree with the comments before this. The movie is well written and hits you square in the gut. The issue with Kermode may be that he is reviewing this from a UK perspective - and you have some controls in the UK over personnel issues that we here in the US don't -- meaning that our system is pretty heartless. Bingham's character take a chance and trusts someone, only to get his heart stomped on - much in the same manner that the folks being fired (not actors, most of them, by the way). If you're an American - see this film.
What exactly would his character arc be if he was just "the guy that flies"? And it's not like the filmakers were making it up as they were going along. The seeds for the ending were planted from the beginning. I think the movie's edge is in just how tremendously sad it is for this guy to have this realisation. The themes of this movie aren't that light.
I think Kermode just can't help but see the outline of a movie he would have preferred. Whether the filmmakers were ever considering making _that_ movie, who's to know. In such a movie, where Clooney is invariably "the guy who flies", you would have Kendrick for character development. Regardless, it's possible that Kermode is missing what this film is actually doing, because he's too busy imagining this other film; and is too quick to reject the last third as being the result of commercial pressures, when it's maybe not as simple as that. In this regard I'm inclined to agree with you.
Director Jason Reitman delivers A very well acted, stylish, well directed, effective & heart warming romantic dramedy that’s A strong nomination for one of 2009’s best films. (95%) (5/5 stars) (positive)
Do you remember when "Norm," the barfly accountant, is made the "corporate killer," i.e., the "you're fired!" guy. As I recall, "Norm" found that he'd lost his soul and passion. In this movie, the main character has neither soul nor passion, so that's why he's great at "throwing people out the front door.";) Then Time and Isolation catches up with him, and things go FUBAR. I fully expected Rod Serling to appear, narrating the twist ending, where no matter where the "corporate terminator" goes, he's going nowhere.
Just watched this film. I thought the heart was actually well integrated into the story, only for it to be really ripped out of it at the end. Growth is messy and difficult and doesn't obey the three act structure. The ending really got me and I would happily watch it again tomorrow.
I like Dr. K. I think he's a smart critic.He's been fair to certain films, were others haven't been.However,The Terminal was never a better film. Yes, George Clooney plays the same old character. Yes,the film SHOWS a heart. Only to crush it and him later on. The film is as cynical to a shallow lifestyle as it is to the 'meaningful' lifestyle. It tells us that in the end, life itself is very vacuous,however you choose to live it.It's a intelligent film/book. english is not my native language.
Kermode doesn't 'get' this film because ultimately he's been a stably employed and happily married (i presume) family man his entire life. That's not to belittle him but this entire movie is about a realistic portrayal of a man who is distinctly not that. A character who probably took a sense of smug satisfaction in avoiding the 'delusions' of becoming a family man - so that he could be his own man. However, as cheesy and hollywood as it may seem - life is long and no one is their own man to such an extent that they are free from the pitfalls of love, growing old, wanting a family/legacy. Ultimately Clooney's character falls for someone only for it to quickly turn out not as he had hoped. In a way trapping the character between a rock and a hard place; he's too old to give up the life he has made for himself, nor does he want to - but ultimately realising the sacrifice he has made; somewhat without knowing it. I really like Kermode's reviews, but this is one of my favourite films and it just seems to me, that he's completely missed the point of it.
I think it's a cultural thing honestly. He interpreted the first 2/3rds as just cynical "dark humor" when it was depicting the reality of the American corporate world especially at that point. Like the scene where the 57 yo man starts crying during his virtual layoff could've easily been a humorous cringey scene in UK Office, but for Americans who that hits closer to home it was more impactful and disturbing
Late to the party but only watched this recently. Watched this review because I couldn't decide if I had entirely missed the point of the movie or not. It seems to be a satire on consumerism in some ways, yet is utterly empty itself (which may be the point that I've missed). Everything is predictable. Kendrick's character isn't as tough as she thinks, but of course she leaves for another career but not before changing Clooney. Farmiga changes Clooney too, and the one genuine surprise in the film is what happens when he goes to declare his feelings for her. Of course we end with Clooney being a changed man and going off on a new journey. It's very well performed and everything looks great, it's just inconsequential. Would (IMO) be a much better film told from Vera Farmiga's characters POV.
@zalkin83 Maybe he didn't want to spoil the end? But I'm with you, the film turned to schmultz and then pulled the rug out from under you. I thought it was a brave move and quite clever.
You clearly didnt understand the movie. Nor the ending. His company agrees with his way and sends him back on the road. He tries to escalate things with alex, and gets shot down. In the end he realizes that his life is not the come home kiss the wife go to bed and do it again the next day. The closing monolouge clearly states that. Seems like you had an agenda going into the movie, and you let said agenda into blinding you.
Until watching this I never actually knew there was a story. I thought it was just an excuse for me to pretend for 110 minutes that Anna is my girlfriend.
@BadlanAlun - Spoiler alert - Quote: "But I think the movie would have been much more adventurous if up in the air he had turned out to be simply; I'm the guy that flies." Maybe I misinterpreted something but that's exactly how I thought it ended? I agree with you though, great movie!
For the whole movie, I was thinking that this is George Clooney... even when there scenes that should have been heartfelt, there was nothing... there is an ominous disconnect for me in this movie... gotta say I suffered thru the last quarter of it. There needed to be more depth of individual characters imo.
@TulseLuper i love kermode, however he is bullshit. i do not understand how somebody can love twilight and not love this, this film is a beautiful display of love wrapped in a lot of laughs alongside a lovely soundtrack and some brilliant acting as opposed to the shite that is twilight. so while i love kermode i've come to realise that he is a dreadful critic who would rather the two worst leads in cinema history (twilight) as opposed to two of the worlds great actors (up in the air).
George Clooney's character is the nicest in the film: professional, honest, accommodating, even when asked to perform nonsense tasks or counsel people on behalf of others who cannot handle the chore. Yet everyone feels entitled to unload on him at every turn. His character is far superior to Vera Farminga's, whose whole self-presentation is a lie. Anna Kendrick's character cannot even do the job she is hired for. Imagine being married to the hideous Amy Morton character with her patronizing demands. American envies, yet hates bachelors, because they have figured out the lies, especially of the feminist variety. Films like this are made to get back at the bachelors.
This is a movie about morality and life fulfillment for the modern man. If you don’t add the “heart” aspect of it, then we are left with a solution-less, unrelatable main character in a dead, meaningless plot. This “critic” needs to evaluate his own life and values
I think it is a problem with mainstream movies that the descent into schmaltz is inevitable. The interesting thing is that American movie stars almost have in their contract that it has to have a "happy" ending this is why non-mainstream films are better - where the stars can die, turn out to be a baddie or have a negative end.
Yes, the movie does try to be about a human being, but it's not because it's Hollywood--I know for a fact Reitman did it because he'd just had kids and gotten married. It was a personal film. And the ending isn't conventional: the conventional ending would've been a uniting between Farmiga and Clooney. This movie deconstructed the false myths that Clooney's character was living by for the first half. I really sort of disagree here, although I usually agree with Kermode.
Totally felt the same about this movie. For me, the third act caved into a "this is what's important" message and it kind of undermined the sharp, witty tone set in the first two acts
I really liked the film, but I couldn’t stand Anna Kendrick’s character due to her performance completely conflicting with her writing, am I the only one who found that character bizarre
I can see where Mark is coming from, and I did feel that the first two thirds of the movie were better than the last run, but if it were to stay with the same attitude, the same cynical way of looking at Clooney's character, would that be enough to sustain a film? Would it still be satisfying, if Ryan Bingham turned out to be surface deep, and for it to end with him simply gong back to his old ways? I''m not sure if it would.
Why do people complain when actors play the same character in every movie? Diversity does not make you great. Directors cast Clooney because that's how they envisioned their character. Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, Owen Wilson and Charlie Sheen just need to be themselves on screen, what's wrong with that?
up in the air is not one of those films that cops out and descends into melodrama at all. i can see that kermodes crticism would have legitamcy for most films but up in the air does convince as it is beautiful film making, it isnt looking for moral value. alot of films do fall down in this respect as mark mentions but up in the air is not one of them.
I adore this film, it's one of my personal favourites. Kermode is a good and intelligent critic however I disagree with his review of this. I don't see why having a heart is a bad thing; the shift in tone mirrors Bingham's character ark. As the film progresses he realises, thanks to the company he's not used to having, that you need other people in life to make those connections that really mean something. He grows a heart only to have it crushed, which is why the film ends on a rather cynical tone. Fantastic film, definitely a must see if you haven't already!
did Mark watch the end of the movie? I think the ending is realistic and somewhat of a downer.
Having a problem with mainstream films thinking they “need to get a heart” is acceptable criticism of this movie. But if you spiral down a path of dread with no light at the end of the tunnel (like Clooney’s character is headed), then you’ve essentially gotten rid of the point they are trying to convey in this film. They don’t wrap the movie up in a bow and say this guy found the answer, but he learned something very valuable and we as viewers did too
This was very good it did not cop out at the end. George Clooney is the perfect cast. He was this character in some ways in real life. That ending? He's lost but helps others find their way. He's not on a journey! He's lost its so freaking sad I think y'all missed it. This was poetry. Color contrasts and scene selection played such a big role in this film. A work of art.
I think it´s an excellent movie
This movie grew a heart, to crushed it to pieces in the end. Til this day it's one of the ending that can knocked me down.
Kermode is talking bollox about the last third of the movie. The best bit of the film is when the Vera Farmiga character, talking from her car inside an anonymous parking lot, reveals her true nature thereby shattering Ryan Bingham's assumptions. The actuality of the importance of one's connections catches up with Bingham, which IS much more realistic than had he carried on being the same as before, according to Kermode's suggestion. The ending is slightly different from the book as well, where Bingham has a still more compelling reason to stand in front of the departures board looking to see where he should travel using his airmiles but doesn't (or can't in actual fact).
Did Mark watch the end of the movie? Because it ended exactly the way he wanted it to end?
This is a better movie than Mark makes out. Of course there's the 'thawing out' bit for our ice man, but the twist is neat and I did not think this descended into schmaltz.Up in the Air had a wit and style that you don't see very often in mainstream Hollywood Movies.
Don’t let Mark put you off seeing this film, Farmiga is particularly good and the soundtrack is excellent
Agree with the comments before this. The movie is well written and hits you square in the gut. The issue with Kermode may be that he is reviewing this from a UK perspective - and you have some controls in the UK over personnel issues that we here in the US don't -- meaning that our system is pretty heartless. Bingham's character take a chance and trusts someone, only to get his heart stomped on - much in the same manner that the folks being fired (not actors, most of them, by the way). If you're an American - see this film.
What exactly would his character arc be if he was just "the guy that flies"? And it's not like the filmakers were making it up as they were going along. The seeds for the ending were planted from the beginning. I think the movie's edge is in just how tremendously sad it is for this guy to have this realisation. The themes of this movie aren't that light.
I think Kermode just can't help but see the outline of a movie he would have preferred. Whether the filmmakers were ever considering making _that_ movie, who's to know. In such a movie, where Clooney is invariably "the guy who flies", you would have Kendrick for character development.
Regardless, it's possible that Kermode is missing what this film is actually doing, because he's too busy imagining this other film; and is too quick to reject the last third as being the result of commercial pressures, when it's maybe not as simple as that. In this regard I'm inclined to agree with you.
One of the few movies I can actually watch repeatedly every few months and it be fresh each time.
Interesting review, I love UP IN THE AIR, best film of 2009
Director Jason Reitman delivers A very well acted, stylish, well directed, effective & heart warming romantic dramedy that’s A strong nomination for one of 2009’s best films. (95%) (5/5 stars) (positive)
Do you remember when "Norm," the barfly accountant, is made the "corporate killer," i.e., the "you're fired!" guy. As I recall, "Norm" found that he'd lost his soul and passion. In this movie, the main character has neither soul nor passion, so that's why he's great at "throwing people out the front door.";) Then Time and Isolation catches up with him, and things go FUBAR. I fully expected Rod Serling to appear, narrating the twist ending, where no matter where the "corporate terminator" goes, he's going nowhere.
Just watched this film. I thought the heart was actually well integrated into the story, only for it to be really ripped out of it at the end. Growth is messy and difficult and doesn't obey the three act structure. The ending really got me and I would happily watch it again tomorrow.
I like Dr. K. I think he's a smart critic.He's been fair to certain films, were others haven't been.However,The Terminal was never a better film.
Yes, George Clooney plays the same old character.
Yes,the film SHOWS a heart. Only to crush it and him later on. The film is as cynical to a shallow lifestyle as it is to the 'meaningful' lifestyle. It tells us that in the end, life itself is very vacuous,however you choose to live it.It's a intelligent film/book. english is not my native language.
George Clooney can't play any other character than... George Clooney. I agree with Mark.
Kermode doesn't 'get' this film because ultimately he's been a stably employed and happily married (i presume) family man his entire life. That's not to belittle him but this entire movie is about a realistic portrayal of a man who is distinctly not that. A character who probably took a sense of smug satisfaction in avoiding the 'delusions' of becoming a family man - so that he could be his own man. However, as cheesy and hollywood as it may seem - life is long and no one is their own man to such an extent that they are free from the pitfalls of love, growing old, wanting a family/legacy. Ultimately Clooney's character falls for someone only for it to quickly turn out not as he had hoped. In a way trapping the character between a rock and a hard place; he's too old to give up the life he has made for himself, nor does he want to - but ultimately realising the sacrifice he has made; somewhat without knowing it.
I really like Kermode's reviews, but this is one of my favourite films and it just seems to me, that he's completely missed the point of it.
I think it's a cultural thing honestly. He interpreted the first 2/3rds as just cynical "dark humor" when it was depicting the reality of the American corporate world especially at that point. Like the scene where the 57 yo man starts crying during his virtual layoff could've easily been a humorous cringey scene in UK Office, but for Americans who that hits closer to home it was more impactful and disturbing
Late to the party but only watched this recently. Watched this review because I couldn't decide if I had entirely missed the point of the movie or not. It seems to be a satire on consumerism in some ways, yet is utterly empty itself (which may be the point that I've missed). Everything is predictable. Kendrick's character isn't as tough as she thinks, but of course she leaves for another career but not before changing Clooney. Farmiga changes Clooney too, and the one genuine surprise in the film is what happens when he goes to declare his feelings for her. Of course we end with Clooney being a changed man and going off on a new journey.
It's very well performed and everything looks great, it's just inconsequential. Would (IMO) be a much better film told from Vera Farmiga's characters POV.
@zalkin83 Maybe he didn't want to spoil the end? But I'm with you, the film turned to schmultz and then pulled the rug out from under you. I thought it was a brave move and quite clever.
You clearly didnt understand the movie. Nor the ending. His company agrees with his way and sends him back on the road. He tries to escalate things with alex, and gets shot down. In the end he realizes that his life is not the come home kiss the wife go to bed and do it again the next day. The closing monolouge clearly states that. Seems like you had an agenda going into the movie, and you let said agenda into blinding you.
Until watching this I never actually knew there was a story. I thought it was just an excuse for me to pretend for 110 minutes that Anna is my girlfriend.
@BadlanAlun - Spoiler alert -
Quote: "But I think the movie would have been much more adventurous if up in the air he had turned out to be simply; I'm the guy that flies."
Maybe I misinterpreted something but that's exactly how I thought it ended? I agree with you though, great movie!
@DoctorHello have you seen O Brother Where Art Thou?
Mark thought the first two thirds of Up In The Air was dark??
Weird.
Didn't you just spoil the whole thing? I mean I liked the review as usual but... c'mon? :D
I agree with this review!!!
For the whole movie, I was thinking that this is George Clooney... even when there scenes that should have been heartfelt, there was nothing... there is an ominous disconnect for me in this movie... gotta say I suffered thru the last quarter of it.
There needed to be more depth of individual characters imo.
It’s odd how I agree with 90% of Kermose guess I’m a snoot too lmao
@TulseLuper i love kermode, however he is bullshit. i do not understand how somebody can love twilight and not love this, this film is a beautiful display of love wrapped in a lot of laughs alongside a lovely soundtrack and some brilliant acting as opposed to the shite that is twilight. so while i love kermode i've come to realise that he is a dreadful critic who would rather the two worst leads in cinema history (twilight) as opposed to two of the worlds great actors (up in the air).
Have you seen Syriana..?
Does anyone else think Mark seems a bit subdued?
George Clooney's character is the nicest in the film: professional, honest, accommodating, even when asked to perform nonsense tasks or counsel people on behalf of others who cannot handle the chore. Yet everyone feels entitled to unload on him at every turn. His character is far superior to Vera Farminga's, whose whole self-presentation is a lie. Anna Kendrick's character cannot even do the job she is hired for. Imagine being married to the hideous Amy Morton character with her patronizing demands. American envies, yet hates bachelors, because they have figured out the lies, especially of the feminist variety. Films like this are made to get back at the bachelors.
brother were are thou?
This is a movie about morality and life fulfillment for the modern man. If you don’t add the “heart” aspect of it, then we are left with a solution-less, unrelatable main character in a dead, meaningless plot. This “critic” needs to evaluate his own life and values
I think it is a problem with mainstream movies that the descent into schmaltz is inevitable. The interesting thing is that American movie stars almost have in their contract that it has to have a "happy" ending this is why non-mainstream films are better - where the stars can die, turn out to be a baddie or have a negative end.
Yes, the movie does try to be about a human being, but it's not because it's Hollywood--I know for a fact Reitman did it because he'd just had kids and gotten married. It was a personal film. And the ending isn't conventional: the conventional ending would've been a uniting between Farmiga and Clooney. This movie deconstructed the false myths that Clooney's character was living by for the first half. I really sort of disagree here, although I usually agree with Kermode.
Totally felt the same about this movie. For me, the third act caved into a "this is what's important" message and it kind of undermined the sharp, witty tone set in the first two acts
I really liked the film, but I couldn’t stand Anna Kendrick’s character due to her performance completely conflicting with her writing, am I the only one who found that character bizarre
I can see where Mark is coming from, and I did feel that the first two thirds of the movie were better than the last run, but if it were to stay with the same attitude, the same cynical way of looking at Clooney's character, would that be enough to sustain a film? Would it still be satisfying, if Ryan Bingham turned out to be surface deep, and for it to end with him simply gong back to his old ways? I''m not sure if it would.
That movie was half filler consisting of a city name in a different font and city-scape...really dragged down the film for me.
A rather dull film apart from the woman they cant say the name of who was great
A shabby Peter Pan at best
Up In the Air was MEHHHHHHHH
Why do people complain when actors play the same character in every movie? Diversity does not make you great. Directors cast Clooney because that's how they envisioned their character. Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, Owen Wilson and Charlie Sheen just need to be themselves on screen, what's wrong with that?
haha watch syriana, burn after reading, the men who stare at goats, he is honestly unrecognizable
Nice American accent there on the movie trailer sendup. Still, you're no Don LaFontaine.
up in the air is not one of those films that cops out and descends into melodrama at all. i can see that kermodes crticism would have legitamcy for most films but up in the air does convince as it is beautiful film making, it isnt looking for moral value. alot of films do fall down in this respect as mark mentions but up in the air is not one of them.
Tedious movie.