cameron326 wrote:Shogunrua:cameron's review above was quite poor and misleading. Honestly, I wouldn't listen to him if you were deciding whether to watch it or not. While it certainly wasn't great, "Up in the Air" was nevertheless a very good movie I'm guessing you would enjoy, dude. Here was my review;
I'll admit my review was a bit reactionary. But then the average critics score at places like metacritic is around the 80 mark. This was a best picture nominee. Whilst my review is undoubtedly slightly on the harsh side, I feel like my review is closer to the mark than the barrage of 80+ 90+ professional reviews on Metacritic.
Interestingly, I'm usually cautious of moveis where metacritics score 10+ points higher than the Users. This was one of those cases (83 vs 7.1), but I also had a good PSi for it on here and I didn't have anything else in mind to watch.
I gave it a 65. It wasn't a terrible film by any means just an exceedingly average one. So it annoys me to see the critics lapping this shit up with the consequence that mugs like me watch it when I could have spent my time doing things a lot more productive than be lectured "Single Man Bad Family Man Good. Caring Business Good Big Business Bad". And I'm the kind of person who will lap up any kind of soulless corporate America/big business bashing/existential angst if its done with a bit of skill and originality, but the way it was done here was just tosh.
As you say Shogurua, the (fairly central) character Natalie was poor, and the theme(s) were very superficially dealt with. The oscars picks are often unreliable, but I think the hype for this film was just simply dishonest.
For my money the hype came for two reasons alone a) Clooney b) controversial, contemporary theme (superficially and poorly dealt with). Balls.
Believe it or not, I can partially agree with this. I agree that a lot of the "critics" overrated this film, but then again, I'm not particularly bothered by it, since I have long since tuned their worthless opinions out. And certainly, the picture was not blessed with particular depth, as it could have explored its core themes much deeper.
What I do take issue with is you framing the film as a cliched "business/family man" parable, which it's not.
If anything, "Up in the Air" is very creative and interesting in that sense. Throughout the film, George Clooney is presented as a fairly positive character, despite the unsavory nature of his job. Furthermore, he is happy being a bachelor jet-setter, living his life without regret.
His priorities do shift near the end, but not dramatically and unrealistically as in most such films. Furthermore, the ending is not what we expect, as the
[spoiler]happy ending never comes to fruition. In fact, the terrific scene with Vera Farmiga's character is wonderfully real, and we last see Clooney being a little older and wiser, but not quite clear on how he will extricate himself from the dilemma.[/spoiler]
When it comes to the concept and plot, the film is the exact opposite of what you claim; it's actually quite original and intelligent. The problem is that the execution, and in parts, the depth is lacking.
I think it was fully deserving of its Oscar nominations, too; this was the same year that early 90s childrens' cartoon "Ferngully: The Last Rain Forest" won a bunch of awards and was nominated for others.