Up in the Air (2009)

4/5

Jason Reitman's Up in the Air is a film that sidesteps your expectations and delivers something surprisingly moving. The plot follows a professional "termination engineer" Ryan Bingham (Clooney) as he fires employees for bosses who don't want to do it themselves. He takes prides in the number of frequent flier miles he earns and the freedom he enjoys by not tying himself to a home or to friends. On a trip he meets Alex (Farmiga) and they begin a casual romance. His paradigm becomes endangered when a new Cornell grad named Natalie Keener (Kendrick) proposes online employment transition, allowing them to save 85% on travel costs. Clooney is forced to take her with him on his next few trips to show her the tricks of the trade and why her online termination plan will never succeed.

The acting was fine, but some of the characters' interactions seemed a bit too forced and written. Farmiga's character was confusing for the sake of being confusing, to produce the illusion of complexity and to advance the plot, instead of feeling realistic and true. It took me a little while after seeing the movie to realize that the focus is not on Clooney and Farmiga's relationship. It is instead on Clooney's worldview, his vulnerability, and his transition into the future. And quite frankly, that's much more interesting than a movie about their relationship anyway.

The intro credit sequence was probably my favorite part of the entire movie. Never in my life did I imagine myself saying that for a series of aerial images of the American heartland with "This Land Is Your Land" playing in the background. But they made magic out of nothing, it seems. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was never quite as good as those first two minutes. The comedy was brisk, producing some clever moments as well as some laugh out loud moments, but after a while it seemed to depend a bit too much on the use of swear words as punchlines. The movie is a good one, but understand that it may not be about the same thing you think it's about. Also, it just doesn't live up to the bar Reitman set for himself with his amazing previous films, Thank You for Smoking and Juno.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1193138/

Hulk (2003)

4/5

Ang Lee's Hulk exceeded all my expectations. Going in, I wasn't particularly excited to be watching this unappealing and poorly-reviewed 140-minute adaptation of a comic book I never read. But Lee's expert direction quickly engaged me and all my self-imposed distancing faded. After an initially wobbly start (a habit of Lee's I now expect), I couldn't turn my eyes away. I lost track of time and got caught up in the story.

By far the best aspect of this movie is its story. Disregard the mediocre script and dull dialogue and instead focus on the characters and their motivations; you will find an epic, Shakespearean tragedy. The movie is a surprisingly mature examination of themes concerning familial relationships, love and sacrifice, and mistakes and second chances. Ang Lee allows the scenes to breathe; he lets silence and inaction talk, which went much appreciated by me. I was impressed by the honest performances by Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, and Nick Nolte. (Eric Bana's titular performance left me underwhelmed.)

The visual style is unique; Lee is very aware of the movie's graphic novel roots. He uses moving panels, multiple angles, and special transitioning effects to create a one-of-a-kind viewing experience. Sometimes it was obtrusive, but more often than not it heightened the tensions and emotions. While such effects were fantastic, the computer-generated Hulk was (expectedly) a bit lacking. Even so, I think it held up rather well considering that it's 5 years old. The movie is (certainly) a bit overlong and not as tight as it could be, but at no part are you ever really disinterested. For that I am thankful, because I know a lot of 90 minute movies that feel a lot longer than this one did. If you know what you're getting into, I highly recommend this thrilling and serious action movie.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0286716/

The Big Lebowski (1998)

4/5

The first time I saw The Big Lebowski, I was a bit underwhelmed. I had heard the superlatives thrust about in zealous reviews, but at that time I was unfamiliar with the Coens and I didn't know "what it was that they did." Now I know, and I am truly impressed by their work here. Their inimitable style--from the precisely-crafted dialogue to the beautifully-envisioned compositions--is in full force in this movie. Unforgettable characters have emerged from forgettable roles. Simple phrases have become generational mottos. This is a movie that will remain in the collective cultural memory for a long time to come.

The humor finds itself in what the characters do and do not say and how they say it; it finds itself in their actions but more importantly in their motivations; it finds itself in the times, the places, and the moods of these individuals we slowly grow to appreciate if not love (thanks to narration by a "stranger"). While it is not particularly rare for me to laugh during a movie, it is hard for me to remember laughing so loudly, forcefully, and obnoxiously before this one.

Even so, the animated dream sequences are dated. I really don't like special effects that don't hold up over time. But there is a far more significant underlying problem I have with the film. As when I saw it the first time, I have trouble finding a point to it--something I can apply to my daily life more than simply quoting hilarious lines and/or putting them in my movie quotes quizzes. Maybe this movie is just entertainment, but I think the Coens should do more than that. I certainly know they can. But the question is whether or not I got anything more out of it than hearty laughs and good memories; and what is the answer? Does anyone have an answer in the affirmative, because I very much would like to love this movie more than I already do, and that is one major hurdle it must jump. Still, I would pop this movie in the DVD player in a heartbeat if I ever needed a quick laugh. And it's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it already.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118715/

Thank You for Smoking (2005)

5/5

Thank You for Smoking is, quite frankly, amazing. It is one of the few comedies I've seen that I think can be considered a film and not just entertainment. What separates it from its comic contemporaries is that it's made with a love for the craft of filmmaking. There is a desire to fill every frame with beauty, to tell the story and jokes through moving pictures instead of words, to go above and beyond merely adequate and take full advantage of all the medium has to offer. The plot centers on Nick Naylor, spokesperson for big tobacco, as he fights lobbyists who want to put an image of skull and crossbones on cigarette packs. But that is not what the movie is about. It is about him being a father, raising a child who looks up to him like he's God. It is about argument, communication, and language. It is about people who change and people who don't; it is about coming to terms with one's purpose.

Every character is fully realized, thanks to excellent writing, casting, directing, and most importantly acting. And everyone is hilarious. I never found myself wishing the "funny" people would be on screen more, because they were all funny. The editing is incredible. Nothing is lingered on, our interest is piqued at every second, and the comic timing is flawless. The character and plot development unfold with ease and the most pristine pacing I've seen in a comedy since Charlie Chaplin. CGI is used subtly to accentuate the humor already there without drawing attention to itself. The dialogue is spot-on. Every joke hits with unerring precision. The camerawork and compositions are truly breathtaking, more evocative than most movies and on par with the best. Every single technical aspect is there in full force. And it is a fulfilling film, a satisfying one. After you stop laughing, you realize you learned something important, you gained more than just a quick euphoric feeling. You witnessed art.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0427944/

The Golden Compass (2007)

3/5

I read these books a while back and really liked them. I never fell in love with them like a fanboy, but I appreciated the depth of characters and mature content usually absent in "children's books." Those are almost precisely the things this movie lacked. It was a children's movie without the adult themes and complex characters. And yet somehow it managed to stay too faithful to the book. There was no adaptation involved; instead it compacted every single important event in the book and shoved it into this movie, which made everything seem forced and outright ridiculous. Moreover, the world they imagined was so different from what I had imagined. It was futuristic with blue balls of energy powering everything. What is that? When I read the book I imagined it was just London in present day. Another qualm is the CGI. I hated it. Filmmakers depend on it too much; it seems as if they don't even shoot anything anymore. It's just not believable.

But to be fair, I did find myself enjoying it a lot. The bear fight scene was awesome, and there were some parts that were really exciting. There's nothing really terrible about the movie, just frustrating. It's irritating when you see good material treated sloppily. Don't go out and see it if you can avoid it. Save yourself a whole lot of ire and just read (or re-read) the books.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0385752/