I Hate The Oscars: Best Picture Nods

Brokeback Mountain losing Best Picture to Crash didn't keep Gyllenhaal from enjoying himself, or from ruining Ang Lee's pictures.

The nominees are in.

With a 10-picture dog race for the Best Picture Oscar, the 82nd Annual Academy Awards promises to be twice as long and at least twice as political.

While keeping in mind that "the Oscars are bullshit and we hate them", let's take a quick look at the nominees for Best Picture.

"Avatar"

SYNOPSIS: A crippled Marine regains the use of his legs in a fantastical tale of redemption. No, it's not the Gary Sinise side-plot from "Forrest Gump", it's a lackluster cliche that is inexplicably the highest-grossing film of modern times. Modern moviegoers like bright shiny things, apparently. Like cats with laser pointers. Cats and lasers take up a lot of screen time in Avatar.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Most critics heralded the graphics and visual experience, most refined critics also pointed out the story left a lot to be desired.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I didn't care for it.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Money talks.

WILL IT WIN?: The surprising win for Avatar at the Golden Globes could bode well or poor for Cameron's sci-fi epic. With a list of nominees as long as it is this year, Avatar could sneak in from behind to win if voters split over the other films (most likely The Hurt Locker, Precious, and Inglourious Basterds). Also, it could win outright because, let's face it, there's a lot of uncultured morons working in show business who get to vote.

"The Blind Side"

SYNOPSIS: Based on the true story of Michael Oher, a child who escaped poverty because he excelled at playing left tackle (at some levels), arguably one of the most important positions on the football field.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty decent. It has 70% on Rotten Tomatoes, with the consensus that Sandra Bullock's performance and the 'based-on-a-true-story' make up for a drama that is at times too easy.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I didn't see it - even though I heard the book it was based on was good, I didn't feel compelled to catch it until it's on Netflix Watch It Now.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Based on a true story. Good performance from a veteran actress who moved beyond her typical fare.

WILL IT WIN?: In a field of five, The Blind Side might have stood a chance. With so many other pics up, though, I doubt it.

"District 9"

SYNOPSIS: Holy Apartheid allegory, Batman! Aliens in Johannesburg are about to be forcibly removed from their impromptu refugee camp, but things get complicated when the buffoon in charge of the ground operation falls severely ill. Exploding limbs ensue.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very favorable. Critics appreciated both the allegorical element and the visceral graphics.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I thought it was okay, but didn't really resolve all the interesting issues it brought up, and instead turned into a typical chase/action movie half way through. My initial review may have been a little harsh, but I stand by my assertion that it's not a classic.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: The way director Neill Blomkamp integrates CGI is impressive, and it was a big crowd pleaser. Perhaps the Academy was trying to atone for the sin of nominating Avatar by recognizing a sci-fi film that did try to have a 'plot' and 'characters'.

WILL IT WIN?: Not too likely. The voting members of the Academy generally shy away from sci fi, and if a CGI-heavy epic walks away with the Oscar, I hate to say it, but it'll likely be Avatar.

"An Education"

SYNOPSIS: A young British schoolgirl (Carey Mulligan) plays hooky from her academic schedule to get an education of another kind. The kind you get from Peter Sarsgaard. Le dreamy sigh.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Overwhelmingly positive. Most critics point to rookie Mulligan's performance as the stuff long film careers are made of (see: Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver").

IHYFM RESPONSE: Unreviewed. I like my British films chock full of Simon Pegg or Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant. Alfred Molina, who plays the father, has yet to disappoint me, though, and I've also enjoyed the majority of performances Sarsgaard has delivered, so missing this was more of a time issue than utter lack of interest - there's just plenty of other films I'd like to see first prior to catching this one.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: It's foreign-ish and apparently mildly sexy, which the Academy likes to recognize so they can pretend to be discerning.

WILL IT WIN?: Pretty unlikely - regardless of how good the movie actually is, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of momentum behind it.

"The Hurt Locker"

SYNOPSIS: In the wake of tragedy, a bomb-demolition squad in 2004 Baghdad is taken over by an adrenaline-junky, and in the waning days of the company's rotation, his squad begins to question whether they'll make it out alive.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Almost unilaterally positive. The cast, Kathryn Bigelow's directing, and Mark Boal's script all received exemplary marks from the critical community, and despite the surprising snub at the Globes, The Hurt Locker has been picking up various awards.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Although I have yet to write a formal review, I think this is a fantastic movie. It breaks the mold of your typical "war drama" and despite some leaps in logic, it feels like the most realistic depiction of war since the infamous Normandy scene of Saving Private Ryan, and unlike that film, it avoids war movie cliches in both the plot and the characters.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: It's a solid movie from top to bottom, and Kathryn Bigelow is one of those directors that's been around for a long time but hasn't gotten due recognition from the Academy (see: Martin Scorsese).

WILL IT WIN?: It stands a chance, especially if there's a Hollywood backlash against Avatar winning the Globe.

"Ingourious Basterds"

SYNOPSIS: In Nazi-occupied France, there's a group of head-bashing badasses in town to let Hitler know the Americans have his number. Most of the movie, however, focuses on the owner of a Parisian movie theater who was hunted by a ruthless SS officer earlier in her life.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very positive. Some have called it Tarantino's best movie yet, almost all trumpet Austrian actor Christoph Waltz's Oscar-nominated performance as the SS Colonel in charge of finding Jews in hiding.

IHYFM RESPONSE: My initial review (of both this movie and for this site) reads a little lukewarm, but the more I've reflected on the picture, and watched it a few more times since its release on DVD, the more I enjoy it. Aside from the Hitchcockian way that QT ratchets up the tension, it serves as a treatise on what's wrong with war movies, namely, how we have this perception that a war movie is only as good as its historical accuracy and protracted and grisly battle scenes.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Tarantino is a controversial director, for sure, but for all the criticism you can level at him for plagiarizing other directors and films, you can't deny his skill at making everything his own. Basterds is a really well-made flick with some great performances.

WILL IT WIN?: There's an outside chance, but the Academy generally goes towards more serious fare. Conventional wisdom says this is the strongest dark horse candidate inasmuch it was so popular.

"Precious"

SYNOPSIS: It was perhaps said best on a recent edition of the "I Love Movies" podcast with host Doug Benson and guests Sarah Silverman and Steve Agee - when the fact you have AIDS is an afterthought on the list of everything wrong with your life, that's pretty shitty.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Although it's overwhelmingly grim, it's an ultimately uplifting tale brought to life by great performances.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't been able to get myself to the theater for this one yet - even though I like dramas, I can only handle the really heavy ones a few times a year.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Performances by Mo'Nique and Gabourey Sidibe.

WILL IT WIN?: Hard-hitting dramas with decent box office returns always have a chance.

"A Serious Man"

SYNOPSIS: The biblical story of Job, told as a dark comedy about a Jewish family man in 1960's-era Minnesota. It's a comedy only the Coen Brothers could do.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very positive. It received high marks for being very well-written, bitingly dark, and a simultaneously personal film for the Coens but also thought-provoking.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really loved this movie. It had me thinking about big-picture issues but had me laughing almost throughout the duration of the film.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Joel and Ethan Coen have long been respected as among the best American filmmakers, and "A Serious Man" ranks among the best of their pictures.

WILL IT WIN?: There's only a slim chance: as satisfying as the movie is, the Coens have recently won the Best Picture nod for No Country For Old Men, and this movie did not make a big splash with audiences.

"Up"

SYNOPSIS: An old man makes his house into an improvised dirigible to fulfill the childhood dreams of him and his departed wife. A young boy accidentally comes along for the ride.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Great. This was the first animated movie to ever open the Cannes film festival, and it received a standing ovation on its completion - which never happens.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really love this movie. It's whimsical, moving, imaginative, and although unconventional, a very satisfying film.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: It's a moving, well-made film from top to bottom, and the infamous opening montage could move even the most hardened person to tears.

WILL IT WIN?: Of all the movies in this category that were made with a LOT of computers, this is hands-down the most deserving, and its overwhelming popularity means it stands a chance.

"Up In The Air"

SYNOPSIS: George Clooney plays a management consultant that performs firings for a living. When a hot-shot college grad makes suggestions that will restructure his entire firm, he starts to have doubts about whether his 'no luggage' lifestyle is really all he needs.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very positive. Again, a well-written script, solid directing, and some great performances by Clooney and company

IHYFM RESPONSE: I enjoyed the movie, thought that it was funny, thought-provoking, and overall enjoyable.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Jason Reitman, director of Thank You For Smoking and Juno, has yet to make a dud. The cast is great, and the script is solid.

WILL IT WIN?: There's been quite the backlash from the filmgoing community over this pic, saying it's overrated and dull. That doesn't help its chances.

MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- The intense character study from the scribe of The Wrestler, Big Fan.

- The sharpest satire in years, In The Loop.

- A delightfully bizarre true-story pic from Steven Soderbergh, The Informant!

"Roger Dodger": people that work in advertising are lonely a-holes

Are you ready for an obscenely obvious observation? Relationships, they say, aren't easy. If they were, we would lose the basis for most music, books, plays, movies, television, and Dr. Phil.

If only we all had someone that knew the ins and outs of relating to one another, and that was willing to impart their hard-earned knowledge on us. We'd have certainly have a leg up on navigating the tables of the high school cafeteria, that's for damn sure.

That, in a nutshell, is the premise of writer-director Dylan Kidd's debut film, 2002's "Roger Dodger". Jesse Eisenberg, in his breakout role, plays Nick, a high schooler that can't for the life of him figure out how to talk to the ladies. He seeks out the advice of his uncle Roger, played by veteran character actor, and George C. Scott's son, Campbell Scott. Roger is a copywriter in New York City that has the uncanny ability to shake things down to their essence. This ability not only makes him a keen observer of human behavior, and thus adept at smooth-talking, but the relish with which he breaks people down is his Achilles' Heel.

Regardless of whether his skills ultimately get Roger what he wants (namely, a romantic partner out of his boss, the wonderful Isabella Rossellini, perhaps best known to you as Jack Donaghey's ex-wife on "30 Rock"), he has a lot of simple tips that would seem like splitting the atom to a high school kid. Take, for example, his first tirade of advice he imparts on his nephew (sadly, I'm unable to embed the video).

As their wild night on the town continues, Roger takes more and more drastic measures to teach Nick how to 'get' with women. It becomes increasingly apparent that for all his powers of observation, Roger is just as inept at figuring out human relationships as is anyone else.

"Roger Dodger" is a day in the life of a Lothario that is one hell of a lot of fun to hate. It's fast-paced, intelligently told, and well-acted; it's perhaps the only movie you'll ever see where you'll root for the awkward teen hero to fail.

TOO MUCH: Xylophone in the electro-rock soundtrack. Mild pedophilia from costars Elizabeth Berkley and Jennifer Beals, although to their credit, they make it not entirely disturbing.

COULD HAVE USED MORE: Tripods - this movie was handheld years before the Bourne sequels brought the Blair Witch look back into vogue. The counter argument to this is that it would rob the only non-handheld shot in the NY portion of the film of its emotional impact.

FILM SNOB NOTE: Ben Shenkman, "Donovan", makes appearances in various David Wain projects.

IHYFM RATING: FOUR out of FIVE MEHS. It's smart, funny, and well-made, but it's just a little too long.

IF YOU SAID THIS WAS YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE, I'D THINK: If you're a guy, you'd make a great wingman, and probably a lousy husband.

Quick Film Snob Focus: Mr. President

If you happened to have your television turned on last night, or looked at a newspaper this morning, you may have heard that the President gave a little speech yesterday, and no, it wasn't about the iPad.

Obama delivered the address in his typical Obama style, and it got me thinking about how the office of the Presidency has been portrayed in film, as any movie featuring POTUS usually has them delivering at least one speech with some serious gravitas. With no further ado:

President: Danny Glover as Thomas Wilson (2012), Bill Pullman as Thomas J. Whitmore (Independence Day).

Movies: Roland Emmerich's disaster pics "2012" and "Independence Day"

Style: Both Presidents are family men that are faced with ridiculous pressure, be it aliens or Mayan prophecies. Pullman responds by rousing the troops and flying a jet, Glover responds by taking one for the team and getting wiped off the face of the earth by the USS John F Kennedy.

Typical Quote: "I'm a combat pilot, Will. I belong in the air."

Most Like: George W Bush likes to think of himself as a combat pilot, but was more likely to be swept away by the proverbial tide in execution of his duties.

President: Alan Alda as an unnamed President

Movie: Michael Moore's foray into scripted comedy and satire, as well as John Candy's last screen performance, "Canadian Bacon".

Style: Comically inept. His aides and generals run the show, and he's better suited for hosting a talk show than running the country - the end credit titles inform us he began hosting "Good Morning, Cleveland" after losing his bid for re-election.

Typical Quote: "It's time to turn off that war machine, and turn on our children."

Most Like: Although there are similarities to 43, Alda's goofy innocence screams Jimmy Carter.

President: Kevin Kline as presidential impersonator-turned-President Bill Mitchell

Movie: Ivan Reitman's 1993 presidential rom-com "Dave".

Style: Practical, smooth-talking, no-nonsense. 'Dave' always is able to cut the tension with some quick wit.

Typical Quote: [when balancing the budget]: "I don't want to tell some eight-year-old kid he's got to sleep in the street so somebody can feel better about their car. Do you want to tell them that?"

Most Like: Last night B.O. had a lot of straight talk and quick wit too.

It's awards season! Why I didn't have a list of picks for the Golden Globes

Ricky Gervais, doing what he does best: making people uncomfortable

It must be January.

The celebrite are rallying around a common cause (Haiti, licking Cameron's balls), wearing designer clothing, and giving Katie Holmes a chance to show her face in public. It's awards season, people, and Hollywood will not stop patting its back until after "Wolfman" has entered and left the theaters.

You may have asked yourself why, oh why, did this internet sage/court jester not weigh in on the Golden Globes with a list of picks prior to the ceremony?

The easy answer is I am fucking lazy.

The other answer is that even though I saw over 30 films released in 2009, I saw only a fraction of the movies that were up for awards last week.

I haven't seen "Precious" and it's vomit-inducing gorging of KFC, I haven't seen Jeff Bridges in his asshole country singer with a heart of gold performance in "Crazy Heart", didn't see the pirouetting madness of "Nine". Didn't see "An Education", "A Simple Man", "It's Complicated", "Julie & Julia", "The Blind Side", "(500) Days of Summer", "Invictus", "The Messenger", "The Last Station", "The Informant!", or "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", to name just a few several.

To make judgments on all the nominees even though I've only seen a fraction of the films up for awards would feel, at the very least, disingenuous.

Therein lies the problem with these awards, specifically the Oscars. Most of the people voting on the awards have likely not seen all the movies in question, and in turn tend to vote on either word of mouth (Marion Cotillard winning for "La Vie en Rose") or marketing (the frustrating Best Picture win of "Crash"). These awards are no more a yardstick of artistic merit than is any middle school student council race a yardstick of sound fiscal policy for the spring dance.

I've long since grown jaded with the awards season in Hollywood, but, not to sound like a broken record, I was still rather surprised and disappointed that James Cameron won the one-two punch over ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow for Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director, the former being the visually impressive but largely lackluster sci-fi epic "Avatar", the former being a gritty, intelligent, and visceral tale of a bomb demolition squad in Iraq, "The Hurt Locker". At least Cameron gave props to Bigelow, as he has ever since her film began making the rounds early last year. This was especially surprising inasmuch the Globes often recognize the smaller pictures that walk away empty-handed on Oscar night; the implications of Cameron's win at the Globes could mean a multitude of things I'll try to deconstruct after March 7th.

As I would have suggested for the Globes, I'll likewise suggest for the Oscars. Don't watch it for the winners.

Watch it for the hosts.

"Big Fan": who said sports movies need sports?

Earlier this year, Face of the Alternative Comedy Movement, Patton Oswalt, was a guest on the superlative podcast "I Love Movies" with Doug Benson. The conversation took a brief detour from waxing philosophical about which episodes of MASH suck and whether Pacino has given himself brain damage with hair product to Patton's current projects, which included a highly-anticipated indie venture written and directed by "The Wrestler" scribe Robert Siegel.

The movie was "Big Fan". Reviews were favorable. It had recently been announced that the Academy was expanding the best picture category to ten nominees, in an effort to both call back to the glory days of Hollywood and make the awards ceremony last longer than the NBA playoffs. It was suggested, only half-jokingly, that "Big Fan" might be a dark horse contender for the Academy's biggest prize.

I checked out the trailer. As I mentioned in previous posts, I'm a huge Patton Oswalt fan. I'm a sucker for indie drama/black comedies. I could not wait for this movie to come out.

It was going to play for one night in Chicago, at the Music Box theater. Robert Siegel and Patton Oswalt were going to be there for the screening and a Q&A.

I was out of town.

If ever you want to make a film snob experience heartbreak, this is not a bad way to go.

It seemed as though I would have to wait for the DVD to come out, but as fortune would have it, I received an offer to get a screener thanks to a previous sports-related stomping ground of mine.

If ever you want to make a film snob experience elation, this too is not a bad way to go.

On the eve of the DVD release of "Big Fan", my ISF co-editor and I sat down with a screener. My anticipation for the movie had been building for months, not unlike waiting for the Super Bowl to learn what the Neon was. Unlike that disappointing revelation, however, "Big Fan" delivered the goods.

The movie follows Patton Oswalt as Paul Aufiero, a Staten Island loser with a dead-end job as a parking lot attendant. The only thing that interests him in life is the New York Football Giants, and their star linebacker, Quantrell Bishop. His mother, whom he still lives with, wishes he would take after his sister or lawyer brother instead of spending his evenings calling into the local sports talk radio show to sputter out scripted rants and raves intended to deflate the tauntings of caller Philadelphia Phil (Michael Rapaport).

When Paul and his buddy Sal (Kevin Corrigan, the disgruntled house-party host in "Superbad") spot Bishop outside a local pizza joint, they follow him around New York in the hopes of meeting him and saying 'hi'. The meeting does not go quite as planned - Paul ends up in the hospital, and Bishop is suspended until a police investigation of their meeting is complete. Paul decides he can't remember what happened at the club in the hopes Bishop can retake the field and push the G-Men into the playoffs.

"Big Fan" is a focused character study that is simultaneously heartbreaking and bleakly hysterical. Paul is not only an outsider when it comes to his hero, he's an outcast in his own family, and he even struggles to fit in with his fellow Giants fans. He spends game days awkwardly trolling tailgates at the Meadowlands before watching the game in the parking lot with Sal. He's so ostracized from the only thing he loves, we don't even see a single snap of pigskin the duration of the taught 87-minute runtime; instead, we get to watch Oswalt's expressions as he feels the pain and joy of his team's up and downs.

As a character study, we're able to both sympathize and pity Oswalt's Paul. His single-minded fanaticism is oddly admirable, but also tragically pathetic as he really has nothing else in his life, and doesn't seem capable of much more even if he wanted it (perhaps best illustrated by his grimly amusing efforts to conduct legal research on Google). The lengths Paul goes to for his team, and the passion painted (literally and figuratively) on his face for the Giants' last game of the regular season, questions the dark places frenzied sports fans can sink to, whether it's booing Santa Claus or tearing off the testicles of a rival team's supporter.

Siegel's directorial debut is refreshingly focused and restrained, both a taught thriller and dark comedy, driven by Oswalt's bold performance. With the Oscar pool wide open for 10 nods, there's a definite chance it will sneak into the running, and if it does, a Best Actor nomination could be in the works for Patton Oswalt, "Big Fan"'s ironically short and fat star.*

"Big Fan" comes out on DVD this Tuesday.

TOO MUCH: the movie was 87 minutes - unless Andy Warhol is directing, that's not a lot of time for fluff

COULD HAVE USED MORE: one more scene like the one wherein Corrigan tries to wean Oswalt off of Mountain Dew

FILM SNOB NOTE: Jonathan Hamm, who plays Quantrell Bishop, is not to be confused with Jon Hamm, who plays Don Draper on "Mad Men". Helen Reddy's "Delta Dawn" and John Prine's "Sweet Revenge" both serve as great black-comedy punchlines.

IHYFM RATING: FOUR AND A HALF out of FIVE MEHS. It's a small-scale story that doesn't try to be more than it is; effective filmmaking that is terrifically entertaining.

IF YOU SAID THIS WAS YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE, I'D THINK: Whatever your team is, that's my team too.

*I almost made it without making that pun. I am a total hack.

Still waiting for the "Avatar" backlash

From AvatarSucks.com

I thought I knew the internet. I thought that it would be only a matter of time before message boards, blogs, and Youtubes were flooded with masses of disgruntled film fans blasting Cameron for the silly "Dances With Wolves" plot, terrible characters and dialogue, and worse-than-high-school-drama-club acting (don't believe me? Go to 2:48).

The internet has, along with the rest of the world, let me down. "Avatar" has grossed almost $400 million to date domestically, and when those numbers are added to the international box office returns, "Avatar" shoots to over $1 billion dollars earned. For the time being, it doesn't show any signs of slowing.

Collectively, we're about as artistically discerning as an infant being taunted with a dangling set of car keys.

What worries me the most about the success of "Avatar" isn't that people are going to see it - in its theatrical run roughly the same amount of domestic viewers saw "Transformers 2" - it's that the movie-going public seems to be hailing it as one of the best movies ever, and that the Hollywood establishment, in their infinite wisdom, will undoubtedly try to recapture financial lightning in the bottle with motion-capture CGI epics that don't pay much attention to story or characters but are still advertised as high art.

As I said in my original review, "Avatar" is pretty to look at, and the 3D experience is impressive, but it is ultimately a very shiny package for an empty box. The characters are of the most simplistic background and motivations, the plot is tired, predictable, and lacking in any substantial depth or emotional relevance.

Compare "Avatar" to Cameron's 1989 underwater epic "The Abyss". There are a lot of similarities - military aggression versus scientific research, alien species under threat of annihilation, and yes, unprecedented computer technology was used to bring the film to the screen. The difference between the two films is that the story and characters of "The Abyss" drive the movie. No, the characters are not richly developed, but they are certainly more fleshed-out than the absolute cookie-cutter stars of "Avatar". So far is the plot is concerned, there's a lot more going on in "The Abyss", especially in the excessively long yet superior director's cut. Even though both films have bleeding-heart messages (and both start with the letter "A"!), "The Abyss" works because it's focused on the two main characters repairing their marriage and in turn saving the world in the manner of Sodom. The story and characters of "Avatar" pale in comparison. Just as infuriatingly, "The Abyss" occasionally has a sense of humor about itself, whereas "Avatar" takes itself more seriously than does a teenage poet.

The other significant worry about the momentum of "Avatar" is this year's Academy Awards, where there will be ten contenders for the prestigious - and meaningless - award for Best Picture. There is a distinct possibility that "Avatar" and Cameron will be up against the fantastic "The Hurt Locker", directed by ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow (Cameron, though, has been a vocal supporter of Bigelow's drama all year). I am afraid there's a real chance that big-budget CGI will triumph over low-budget visceral character-driven action and drama when it comes time for the Oscars. This discussion has been ongoing this week at Slate's Movie Club, and as Roger Ebert stated, "should Avatar snatch that Oscar away, it will be because it grossed zillions of millions, not because it's better".

That is what is at the core of my curmudgeonly objections to "Avatar". Film is, as is the case with any art-form, subjective. I have long since come to terms with the fact that I am an unapologetic snob, and not everything that I appreciate will be accepted by the masses, and likewise what pleases the masses will not necessarily impress me. In this case, though, I feel like the case against the film is so clear, so obvious, yet the masses have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the incessant marketing and glimmering visuals, and are hailing this as one of the best movies ever made.

I've seen the emperor's new clothes for what they really are. I hope you do, too.

"Up In The Air": let George Clooney jump-start your existential crisis

Jason Reitman has had a distinct advantage as a young filmmaker. It's likely easier to find your artistic voice and master the art of visual storytelling when your father is Ivan Fucking Reitman.

Jason's first two films, “Thank You For Smoking” and “Juno”, were highly polished works in terms of their characters and storytelling, thanks to source material from TYFS author Christopher Buckley and Stripper With a Thesaurus Made of Gold, Diablo Cody. They were crisp in their presentation as well, as Reitman has a good sense of how to use the camera and editing effectively. Good storytelling and visual aesthetics, I've heard, are mildly important to the overall impact of a film, and Reitman has a handle on both.

“Up In The Air”, loosely based on the novel by Walter Kirn, is no different. From the opening credits, stylishly shot and edited footage of clouds and landscapes from the perspective of an air traveler ironically set to a funky cover of “This Land is Your Land” by Sharon Jones, the film embodies Reitman's playful style of filmmaking.

Our story begins with George Clooney, who plays the worst kind of management consultant. Rather than being brought in to help analyze a company's workflow, he's brought in for the sole purpose of firing employees the bosses are too big of pussies to let go themselves. He spends most of his life on the road, traveling from city to city day by day, and predictably doesn't have any meaningful relationships in his life, even with his immediate family. Trouble starts brewing when a young hotshot, Anna Kendrick, comes in to make Clooney's company more streamlined and economically efficient by making all of the firings take place over webcams. As his company seems poised to lose its personal touch and usefulness for gents like Clooney, he meets a woman, Vera Farmiga, with a similar lifestyle to his, and begins to wonder if his philosophy of living as light as possible, in both your possessions and relationships, is really the best way to go.

What we're left with is an almost-chilling referendum on what we all value in life. What Clooney must discover for himself is whether all the exclusive travel perks and miles are worth it if he doesn't have anyone special to share them with. This hits the hardest for Clooney when he finally caves into attending his sister's wedding and has a glimpse of what he might be missing.

There are no easy answers in “Up In The Air”, though, and Reitman treats his viewers with respect by not taking a Capra-esqe way out of the web he's spun. Although there aren't definitive solutions offered, at the end of the film you will have quite a bit to think about, and the biggest credit to Reitman is that he's made you smile every step of the way.

TOO MUCH: Reitman knows what he's doing – there's not much fat to be trimmed here.

COULD HAVE USED MORE: Small bit roles from Zach Galifianakis, JK Simmons, and Sam Elliott left me wanting more.

FILM SNOB NOTE: The montage of people talking about their experience of losing their jobs were actual people from the St. Louis area who responded to a call for documentary interviewees Reitman placed in the paper.

IHYFM RATING: FIVE out of FIVE MEHS. Will it as be enduring as “The Godfather” or “Lawrence of Arabia”? No. Is it one of the better movies of 2009? Yes. It's definitely worth seeing.

IF YOU SAID THIS WAS YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE, I'D THINK: You appreciate the irony in the fact I would have seen this movie weeks earlier if my consultant friends hadn't been on the road.