THE HURT LOCKER (Kathryn Bigelow, 2009): Arguably the first great war film for our generation (warts and all, I'd include
Redacted's inclusion on such a list, but I digress), Kathryn Bigelow's
The Hurt Locker is, among many things, a model example of examining the universal (political) via the singular (personal). Plot is scant, the thematic rumblings better for it: after an insurgent attack kills the leader of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team in Iraq, Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) fills in his shoes, quickly turning heads as a reckless "wild man" in his devil-may-care approach to the constantly life-threatening tasks at hand. Among the best of recent shaky-cam implementations (take that, Greengrass), Bigelow's roughly-hewn approach emphasizes the rush of battle and complicates typically easy psycho-sexual metaphors (
Jarhead) into something far more existentially confrontational. A singular, obvious screenwriting tactic is all that upsets this transfixing and vital vision.
A-
UP IN THE AIR (Jason Reitman, 2009): Like its antisocial protagonist - a "Terminations Expert" (George Clooney) hired out to companies solely for the purpose of delivering pink slips -
Up in the Air's problems lie primarily in a an inability to communicate and an indecisiveness as to what it wants in the first place. The film bites off more than it knows how to chew (particularly the confused third act) and asks us to swallow it wholesale. Purportedly a reflection of our Current State of Affairs, the film trots out a healthy mixture of celebrities and non-actors for tearful employment dispatches, yet these sequences never accrue a sense of purpose beyond mere lip service to social trends (Oscar, are you listening?), one reinforced by the fairy-tale sense of remove the film takes to its chief subject. Responsibility to the fellow man takes a backseat to Screenplay 101 hysteria, made largely palatable by an able cast of celebrities (finally, a film that recognizes Vera Farmiga's luminous screen presence) whose knowing smarm
almost relegates this bout of well-polished bullshit to the realm of auto-critique where it belongs. Without having achieved that status,
Up in the Air is merely oblivious.
C
"First great war film of our time"
ReplyDeleteHrmm... what about Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima?
You couldn't write a more incoherant review if you tried. Oh, wait you did.
ReplyDeleteAdam: "Of our time" is not the same as "for our generation". Of course, that's a fickle description, too. But it used less words than "about the current clusterfuck in which we find ourselves in".
ReplyDeleteJeff: If I spelled incoherent like that, there'd surely be three or four comments already pointing it out.
"Up in the Air" broke my heart! I was so looking forward to a great little quirky romance (like "Eternal Sunshine") based on all the awards nominations and excellent reviews. I went with a friend who was equally excited. The creepy rendition of "This Land" during the dull opening credits made me nervous. The dreadful ensuing movie confirmed the worst. "Up in the Air" is a boring mess about three unlikeable stereotypes. Don't believe the hype - George Clooney does nothing new here although the two female leads are fine. My friend and I were shocked at how bad. It drags on forever and it's a complete downer. Most of the people in the theater (located in an upscale NYC suburb) felt the same way. I guess some veiled political agenda against capitalism is what makes it such a critical darling but it's boring, meaningless and at times (e.g wedding montage) amateurish. Don't waste your money or anticipation on "Up in the Air."
ReplyDeleteI would not recommend "up in the air" to anyone. I agree with anonymous. The movie is a downer. The viewer is manipulated in the worst possible way.
ReplyDeleteWow!! I'm shocked to read such negative comments about Up in the Air!
ReplyDeleteI laughed often, as did the majority of the theater where I saw it, reflected on my own relationship, felt compassion, sorrow, and was engaged throughout the movie.
While I don't think the movie was perfect, it certainly is worth watching. Clooney was solid and easily-likable, and the female leads were great. Especially Vera. I am amazed she hasn't been cast more often in big roles. I think most people will be able to take something worthwhile from the film.
Thank you for not adding to the chorus of ninnies that are fellating the hell out of this pleasant enough flick. It's not genius, it's not brilliant and Clooney is the equivalent of Sheen on 2 & 1/2 Men - look at them say their lines...Kudos!!
ReplyDeleteI don't buy it.
I thought this movie was corporate propaganda. It attempts to "humanize" those that fire people for a living by saying "oh look! These cold-hearted snakes are really people too just like me. They have families, heart aches etc. and are really decent people just trying to do a job." Yeah right. People who take jobs like this have more in common with Tom Cruise's character from Colateral, than they do with George Clooney's nice-guy in this film. If I were a corporate leader, I would hope that those I was about to lay off had seen this movie.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there seemed to be no real reason for Clooney's character to prefer a life "Up in the Air". His family seemed basically normal (unlike Willaim Hurt's character in The Accidental Tourist" for instance), so there seemed to be no real reason that this guy wanted an empty back pack for his life.
movie is way overhyped. good review. script was trash, acting was ok -- farmiga was good. oscar? hell no.
ReplyDeletedear god this may well be one of the most pretentious reviews I have ever seen! if you are already lucky enough to get paid for writing reviews, you really don't need to overcompensate with (near ludicrous) descriptive language, structure and references. Just chill the fuck out already! That being said, I very strongly disagree with your views on 'Up in the Air'. I can relate to the story on a very personal level (this is basically my dads life) and I know that it does reflect the lifestyle of many modern businessmen..I think you got this one wrong and you really need to watch it again; only this time don't try to look for any bullshit political commentary and accept the fact that this lifestyle is a reality for many people.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 4:45: To which references are you referring? Sorry you dislike commas, dashes and parenthesis so very much. Alas, I won't be watching that thing again unless it stands to benefit me substantially; my problem doesn't lie in the subject matter (of course it reflects the lifestyle of many businessmen - duh), but the film's superficial treatment of it.
ReplyDeletemeeow! as you may have noticed, I myself am often guilty of creating ridiculously long sentences (with the help of commas, paranthesis, and semicolons) but I do my best to restrain myself from attempting to reference every single thought and fact I know into one teeny tiny comment. Unfortunately it just doesn't read well, and it distracts from the content (of the review in your case!). As for the movie, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You say the movie is superficial, I say (no shit!) the lifestyle is superficial, but a reality for many people nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteINSERT SPOILER ALERT? Up in the Air is a mess. Alex does not come off as a credible married person with children. These people have tells. Especially over hours and hours. And if she's such a breezy straight shooter she would have told him. What was the point of hiding it from him? Moreover, what was the point of hiding it from the audience? (Surprise is a cheap effect.) And anyway how did Ryan get her home address? Any why at the end was the remote firing program scrapped? It was scrapped, and Alex was married, because Reitman is only messing with us. The movie wants to have it all ways. This screenplay CANNOT be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is i travel alot well not as much as any one in this film. But maybe twice a year to see family. I live in omaha and seeing thous rolling plains. Seeing the city sky line and knowing where they were before the title card came up. Yes it is a downer but i can find it funny. Every shot in this movie has a point to it. If you are bored by this movie you. Plus even thou he was hurt he is still going to try and change his ways for the better. He knows now not to cut people off. Since you need to learn from being hurt that is life.
ReplyDeleteHmm - Dan's comment - that the film was a surreptitious move to humanise those who fire their fellow citizens - and Anon's view that it is an attack on capitalism - I had another take on it. Seemed to me that the firing and the subsequent "intervention" - basically Bingham's spin - was met with helplessness from the firees. No objection, no appeals to unions or politicians, no gathering together to fight the system, just anger and fear - that seems to me to be acquiescing to the capitalist system rather than attacking it. In other words, they've got to lost their jobs but let's do it nicely.The film only gained a sense of real people saying real things when the unemployed got to talk. The other characters were unlikeable cut-outs. A good script editor might have halped.
ReplyDeleteYou are all full of it - how much are they paying you, just another American piece of propoganda- remember the Americans are in IRAQ because they want to be. Making a film like this insults intelligent people.
ReplyDeleteRe: Anonymous 9:09 AM: A cookie to anyone who can tell me what the hell this one is talking about.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous Yes, one of the points of the movie is that one of the characters WANTS to be there... that's practically the whole point of the ending!
ReplyDelete