..cynical, self-satified, pretentious and phony..

It's a George Clooney film! How could it be anything else???

AB, check out this Russian film called "The Return".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376968/
Recently caught this for the second time, beautiful and haunting film.

Yeah, the thing is, I really like Clooney. I think he's suave and skilled but even he couldn't save this one for me.

When a movie is that far off of conventional wisdom, do you go see it again? How do you know your mood wasn't sour? I ask seriously as one who doesn't take movies seriously after I leave the theater. I mean, restaurant reviewers eat at a place a few times. Do movie buffs every see a movie multiple times before fully forming the opinion?

Loved Avatar 3D. The story is merely good, but the experience reminded me of some powerful shrooms. Fully engrossing is an understatement.

Vira Farmiga bugs me.

[3] Big movie buff here and I always watch a serious film at least twice if I can. Films by directors like Bunuel or Godard you can watch several times, so much to take in.

I've seen "Tokyo Story" by Ozu Yasujiro once every year for the last 14 years, each time a treasure. Last year an artist friend of mine and I watched "Citizen Kane" with the sound turned off, just to watch how Welles constructed the film visually. Genius! (and he was 27 years old..impossible..)

Vera Farmiga's character is probably the best thing about the movie, she's cold, manipulating, self-centered and self-focused; yet, in one of the strengths of the script and direction, she seems warm, available and likeable and Clooney's character is out of his depth (which, of course, she recognizes and later turns against him).

The 1/2 of the plot that focused on the corporate downsizing, especially the sequences with real people talking about their experiences, felt tacked on and extraneous (hello, oscar bait!), but the interplay between Clooney and Farmiga was really strong. Clooney's work was very good, his scene in the airport train was stellar, subtle work and Farmiga did a great job with a very interesting character.

Overall, maybe a B/B- for me.

Alex, debating aesthetics, movies, books, whatever gets tricky here, but in a way when you slam a flick someone else liked (me) a lot, it forces us either to glide past or engage, and engaging takes this a long way from Brett Gardner ... or was that the point.

I thought it was very well acted, shrewdly written, and exceptionally lucky - since the gestation time for a Hollywood film is so long, this had to have been started before the recession kicked in 14-15 months ago. It became a startlingly apposite film.

Clooney is indeed skilled here, but NOT suave, ultimately (part of the point) and both women are very good. If you note the acting is ALL good, it is hard to fault the rhythm and dialogue, since that is what they are working with isn't it?The 'turn' which is always hard in these films is well set-up, though (this is my own taste in such things) the actual walk-off-the-stage moment was a pushing-it writing bit, for me. By contrast the other turn (I'm being careful not to spoil) when he gets a surprise was remarkably low-key for a Hollywood flick. (Maybe because a Canadian director?)

Your opener about expecting a certain flavor may be key here. I talked to someone else who said 'it wasn't all that funny' ... but it isn't a comedy, either in set-up or delivery. Nor am I sure how you got 'self-satisfied' out of this one. Even 'cynical' is undermined by the ending ... which I almost regret. I'd have been happier if they'd stayed more cynical, less tidy.

In short, a dissenting view: I think it is a strong film, way off the cookie-cutter line, and I suppose I regret that movies made for grown ups are mostly disappearing from L.A. and this one, which IS made for grownups (for better or worse), is getting next to no box office, while 2012 raked.

I liked Avatar, too, by the way.

[5] Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm is *my* yearly ritual. Luckily, there are several theatres in LA that will screen it in 70mm (still waiting for it to come back to the Cineramadome, though, the necessity of seeing it there is like a movie-lover's Hajj) at least once a year.

[0] I poured a bowl of cereal when I was a kid around Christmas time. Instead of pouring milk, I poured eggnog. BOLLOCKS! I don't think I've tried it again in over 25 years. Bleh!!!
Watched Inglorious Basterds last eve. I liked it. Brad Pitt cracks me up.

[7] Uh, it's in limited release until this weekend.

Per screen averages are VERY strong.

Paul, interesting point. The great film critic Pauline Kael made a point of only watching movies once believing that her first impression was always her best. I don't subscribe to that myself--I was so taken with A Serious Man, I saw it three times in the theater this fall--though I don't generally feel that I need to see a movie more than once to have a take.

It's always possible that my mood impacted my feelings about the movie--I've certainly had the experience where I didn't like a movie and then turned out to like it years later (The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and vice versa (I really enjoyed Knocked Up when it came out but less so when I saw it later on TV)--but I also trust my instincts and judgment. Which is not to say that I'm right. It's just my take.

I found this movie borderline offensive, it was so smug in its characterizations. Again, as I mentioned, everything about it took me out of the story, distracted me. I thought the direction was uneven and flashy and slick. And I don't suspect that I'd change my mind on that no matter the mood or how many times I see it. Sometimes I enjoy watching movies that I don't really like, but this is one of those instances where I was repelled by the world created in the movie and don't have any inclination to ever go back.

[11] AB, which Kael book do you recommend? I have to admit I have never liked her writing at all..but maybe need a second look?

I'm gonna hold off on an opinion until I see this one (something I plan on doing, although I'm not in any particular rush)

However, I will say I'm almost always enjoy Clooney and almost never enjoy Jason Reitman (you ain't your daddy, my friend)...so I should end up just leaving the theatre angry.

[13] I almost never recommend this under the circumstances, but before you end up mowing down unsuspecting theatergoers while ranting about the dearth of talent from the present generation of Hollywood scions, might I suggest copping a bootleg version? >;)

[14] hey come on, I actually like Sofia Coppola!

much of this stems from my utter disdain for Juno

[14] Wasn't she awesome in Godfather 3?

LOOGY converstion from previous thread..I still think BUC is easier. Molina may have appeared in more games, but any time he got on base it was call for celebration. He was there just to catch AJ and throw out runners..which he did very well. Life of a LOOGY too tense..imagine coming in to face Chase Utley and Ryan Howard with two men on in the 8th inning??!

[17] BUC is perhaps the easiest job on the roster (actually, that would be third-string catcher), but that moment in 2008 when Jorge went down for the rest of the season, Molina might have seen his life pass right before his eyes (and we all know where it ended up). At least as a LOOGY, there's far less potential for having to replace a starter in the rotation, never mind the lefty starter.

Interesting note on Kael. Thanks for sharing on your personal take. With another lifetime to spare I could maybe start to understand the film making process!

How could anyone dislike Juno?

I don't dissect movies. I don't know why, but they're sheer fun for me. And since I use rottentomatoes (usually must be >80% fresh) to screen all movies before I see them, I seldom see true clunkers. I can't remember the last truly awful movie I saw.

But I have seen some great movies this year. The best bit of story telling though? The first ten minutes of Up. If I'm crying within ten minutes and over animated characters, something has gone very right.

[18] It doesn't take much to make a film, just a lot of patience. Now to make a good film takes a lot of passion and understanding people. You don't have to have talent yourself (though it helps), you can surround yourself with talented people. But you have to know how to get them to do what your bidding and be as passionate about it as you are.

One of my instructors had a principle he identified as FTPPTF: fail To Plan, Plan To Fail. That applies to many other fields and circumstances, but it helps in filmmaking, too.

But that's just my opinion... >;)

[16] Yeah, and the most you'll do is throw 10 pitches to the both of them. Stressfull gig or no, that's a pretty sweet job even if they paid you the league minimum.

Mike Myers made over $10M as a LOOGY. 541IP over 13 years. I'd sign up for that

[5][8] Mine is "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World"

Where to start with Pauline Kael? That's a good question.

She came to criticism late in her life. She is from northern California and was in his Forties, running a revivial movie house in the Bay Area when she started writing blurbs about movies. That led to a local radio show and then she started writing longer cricism in earnest. She freelanced in the Sixties--notably writing a scathing critic of the French Auteur Theory as presented by the American critic Andrew Sarris, as well as a pan of The Sound of Music and a rave of Bonnie and Clyde--before winding up at The New Yorker, where she remained (for the most part) throughout the rest of his career.

Kael's style can be distracting. She writes "You" all the time like "You are sitting in the audience..." which drives some people crazy. It made my old man nuts. But she used "you" instead of the British "one," and was attempting to speak about how movies made us feel collectively. The reason the technique can infuriate is because she is pugnacious and a contrarian. She loved nothing more than to de-bunk the serious-minded Hollywood (or even art house) movies that audiences are supposed to adore--from The Defiant Ones to Rainman.

She's got wonderful insights and she is effusive. Sometimes you have to wade through her effusiveness to get the pearls of insight--she wrote and wrote and wrote. I was usually willing to forgive the indulgence--like I do with other digressive New Yorker writers like Liebling and Angell--because her passion was so true.

I hated Kael when I first encountered her in middle school, mostly because she disliked my hero at the time, Woody Allen. But by high school I grew to love her. Her righteousness, her sense of being absolutely sure and correct in her opinion was very appealing to me at the time, and I wasn't alone. Her immitators and fans have been dubbed the Paulettes for years.

I don't know if I would like her as much if I just picked her stuff up today. I haven't re-read it much lately, and I've got all of her collections. But her influence on me is undeniable, not just as a writer, but the way I looked at movies.

Picking a Kael collection might depend on which movies she covers. You might want to go with a collection that has movies you are familiar with. I really like the last one, MOVIE LOVE, covering the late 80s and early 90s--her writing wasn't as florid but her takes (GOOD FELLAS, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, DANCES WITH WOLVES comes to mind), are sharp.

I would suggest REELING and even the following one, DEEPER INTO MOVIES, as good places to start because they cover her favorite time, the early 70s, where she campioned directors like Sam Peckinpaugh, Martin Scorsese, Brian DePalma, Steven Speilberg, and especially, Robert Altman. Kael's influence was no little thing during this time, and her reviews of smaller movies like MEAN STREETS or THE LONG GOODBYE which weren't backed by the studios in any significant way, were very important.

You might love her, you might hate her, but you likely won't be unmoved.

great opening question alex.
jesus i HATE diet coke - i have now taken to ordering a REGULAR coke at restaurants to make damn sure i don't get a diet coke.

anyway i haven't seen this movie yet but like raging plan to, though am not in a big rush.
i think i approach movies a bit like paul - i am willing to suspend a certain amount of belief and just take a movie for entertainment - i don't have this approach with plays for example.
interesting conversation though - enjoyed hearing others' perspective on an area i don't know much about.

Kael was a goddess for me from the start, but I grew up in a New Yorjker-reading household. She was prickly, conceited, and was known, often, to use exaggerated reviews pro or con to test her power (which was real). She did this most memorably with LAST TANGO IN PARIS where she later conceded her praise was over the top, as an experiment, in part. But she was fearless in both praise and blame, wrote exceptionally well and counted as a truly distinctive voice.

Alex, my point was not to try to change your mind on the film (or any film) but to register that it had a very different impact on me AND to offer a comment about how, at least, it attempted to be grownup in a climate that makes this VERY hard in Hollywood. I mean, I did like Avatar a lot, but that's a technical pleasure and the story is as cliched as they get. I enjoyed UP very much, but that's formula sentimentality (I can cry at that too, and did, while being aware of how broad the manipulation is.) All movies (all art) are exercises in manipulating us, but when it gets too obvious ...

Incidentally, we could write a paper on how identical the endings of UP, AVATAR, and HULK 2 are ... the last 20-30 minutes are always cut-to-the-action games.

[19] Chyll, I disagree here: it often takes a lot to make even a bad film. Just as it can take a lot to write a bad book.

24) Great stuff, man. And your points are well-taken. I guess I don't admire the grown-up attempt because it seemed so, un-adult to me, but I appreciate where you are coming from, the desire to see anything more substantial in this pop culture climate of Hollywood.

P. Kael also gushed over NASHVILLE and CASUALTIES OF WAR something fierce too. I didn't necessarily agree with her, but I liked that she was willing to be so forceful abouty her tastes. Plus, she championed comedians like Richard Pryor, Bill Murray, Lily Tomlin, and Steve Martin--Better Midler and early Robin Williams too.

...I saw both of Jason Reitman's other movies, and enjoyed THANK YOU FOR NOT SMOKING more than JUNO which I also thought was a fraud, didn't buy a minute of it. One trend that I find really grating in his movies, the Wes Anderson thing, of precious, indie-rock tunes. The worst example of this--at least Anderson has good taste, even if it is showy--came in that awful DAN IN REAL LIFE, which could be the most unpleasent movie I've seen in years.

[24] The New Yorjker would never have allowed that typo.

[22] My biggest beef with Kael is/was her attitude towards Andrew Sarris. Sarris skewered the same sort of self-satisified "important" movies she did (Stanley Kramer was always a target) and his championing of the auteur theory was a hugely important moment for american film and film criticism. Kael always seemed to contradict herself, for me. She'd bash Sarris and the auteur theory, and then defend any film Brian DePalma or Robert Altman directed. It also bothered me because Sarris was always so gentlemanly (still is, it seems). I don't know why you'd beat up on the guy who (along with Manny Farber and a handful of others) got Americans to take their own cinema as seriously as the Europeans. Kael was indeed a great champion of many of the 70s "new Hollywood" auteurs, but Sarris was instrumental in getting Americans to appreciate what they'd already seen from Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, Welles, Lubitsch, Keaton, et al.

Her weird praise/attack on Welles' work on Citizen Kane (which she rightfully loved), never made sense to me.

What I love about Kael is her unbridled enthusiasm for movies, moviegoing and especially movies she loved. She did a great job of bringing that joy to the reader without losing her edge.

As for Juno - I loathed the first 10 minutes and then found some real depth to it later on, when it stopped yapping and being cutesy and let the characters genuinely interact.

I guess that's it. I have no trouble "buying" a movie. None. I sit down and I'm enthralled. The worst movies to me are the ones that have me thinking about other stuff. But maybe I'm "doing" it wrong! Juno, seriously? She was so cute and endearing!

Perfect example, I liked (not loved) Dan in Real Life. I saw it on a plane and so it broke my rotten tomatoes rule. But I only liked it. I mean I don't see how Dane Cook was ever thought of as an actor. But Steve Carell? I think he's fantastic. I've now seen him in a bunch of things, and I can't believe I'm watching the same actor - from The Office to Bruce Almighty to Anchorman to the 40 yo Virgin to Little Miss Sunshine to Dan in Real Life. He alone made those movies very watchable.

Yes, yes, to Kael 'getting' and championing the comedians ... good recall, Alex.

And alas, yes, yes, to her thing for DePalma. Where did THAT come from, matt b? Her admiration for Altman made more sense as he did make a few really excellent, applecart-upsetting films, but she remained essential a fangrll after that. She did have an element of that, I think it went with - as you guys have noted - her flat out passion for film. I Lost It At The Movies was a PERFECT title for a collection.

I rarely look for 'support' in other peoples' assessments, but I did check metacritic.com and the Newsweek piece on Up In The Air (linked there, vg site) also makes the points I was trying to make.

Juno was merely the second most infuriating movie I've seen this decade (no 15 year old girl likes The Stooges that much...sorry Diablo); hands down the most indefensible film I've seen in the past 10 years was Crash...don't get me started on Crash.

I still haven't decided what my favorite movie of the decade has been, but There Will Be Blood might end up being it. Also adored American Psycho and Brokeback Mountain.

I've seen a lot of "best of the '00's" lists giving love to Eternal Sunshine (which I liked a lot, but didn't necessarily love) and 25th Hour (which I saw once 7 years ago and now want to give a second look).

Just putting in my two cents. One, I hate diet sodas of all kinds and two, I didn't love Up In The Air either. I wanted to, but just didn't get sucked in. That said, I thought Vera Farmiga was good and at least they had chemistry.

Other than that, I didn't buy into it, which made me feel like an outsider in the world of movie hype.

[29] Don't get me wrong, I'm a DePalma fan, too (though his good films have been few and far between since the 70s). I just found it amazing how she could bash the auteurist critics and then become such a DePalma groupie. Dressed To Kill, Blow Out, Sisters, Carrie? Sure, terrific flicks. Casualties of War? Not so much.

I'll always love Sarris for writing in his end of year wrap-up in the New York Observer back in 1993, that despite whatever movies would go on to win Oscars and critics' awards, the film that would go on to be a beloved enduring classic was Groundhog Day. 15+ years later, I think he was on target.

[32] well that would work off the premise that Groundhog Day has endured more than Schindler's List, which...well...I dunno.

[33] Its certainly watched and enjoyed more often. That's not a shot at Schindler's List...but it's not a film one really wants to watch repeatedly.

Ok. I finally saw Up In The Air and...I liked it. It's definitely a bit overrated in some quarters, but mostly it worked for me. I don't think it was cynical (a cynical ending would have been a cop-out happy romantic end, imho), but it may have been a *tad* self-satisfied (has Jason Reitman ever had to work a day in his life he didn't choose to, at what he chose to do?). I thought the performances and dialogue made it play.