Up in the Air Sticks its Landing
AwardsDaily Review
by Craig Kennedy
Endings are a killer. They can make a good movie great or they can make a good movie bad. For most of its running time, Jason Reitman’s adaptation of Walter Kern’s novel Up in the Air is a good movie. It purrs along competently and professionally, entertaining while never surprising or offending. Like its star George Clooney, it is slick, good-looking and mostly flawless, but for a while it goes down a little too easily and it flirts with being disposable. Just when it threatens dissolve into a vapor of likeability however, the film sticks its landing like an Olympic gymnast who saves his most difficult routine for last. With an ending that strikes the perfect note and feels decidedly “right,” Up in the Air in its closing moments is transformed from a good film into a memorable one.
George Clooney is Ryan Bingham, a man also concerned with endings. In this case, they’re the endings of careers. As an axe man hired by cowardly bosses to perform the dirty work of informing employees that their services will no longer be needed, he has a firm but gentle manner and a knack for convincing his subjects that the worst moment in their lives might also be an opportunity for growth. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, but most of the time his assurances minimize lawsuits and blowback from disgruntled former employees. This is why his services are in demand all over the country.
A lone wolf, Bingham likes to keep his baggage (material, personal and emotional) small enough to fit into an organized and easily stowed carry-on suitcase. Reducing his possessions and commitments to a minimum, he’s constantly in motion, viewing the world from the comfortable remove of an airplane window flying at 10,000 feet. It’s a vantage from which one city looks the same as the next. Locked into a routine that moves him from airport, to hotel bar, to comfortably-but-generically-appointed hotel suite and back again, his home is everywhere and yet nowhere.
For such a successful man, Bingham’s life goal is a surprisingly mundane one: to be only the 7th man in the history of air travel to reach 10 million frequent flier miles and to reap the rewards for his loyalty. This is a middle-aged man stuck in an emotional limbo whose only measuring stick for success is how far he’s traveled. Where he goes or where he’s coming from doesn’t matter. Though he thinks he has life all mapped out, in fact he’s on the verge of an accelerating existential crisis that will leave him shaken and questioning his master plan.
First he meets Alex (Vera Farmiga), a sexy kindred spirit traveling the country, living anonymously and keeping complications and obligations to a minimum. They understand each other, the sex is great and suddenly flying solo seems a lot less interesting.
Next, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) storms into his life, a young, fresh-faced and eager co-worker with a lot of big ideas on how to depersonalize, streamline and ultimately reduce the costs of the job he performs. Smart enough to realize that Keener’s path leads to his own obsolescence and unable to see this as an opportunity (in the way he counsels his subjects to approach their fate), he balks. Nevertheless, he agrees to take Keener under his wing and show her the ropes in the hope he can prove to his bosses the job requires a personal touch – ironic that a man so adverse to the personal in his private life is so good at it and dependent upon it professionally.
As you’d expect, Bingham teaches Natalie a few things and Natalie surprises him with some wisdom of her own. Meanwhile there is plenty of sparkle and chemistry between Bingham and Alex, though they never quite approach the palpable and molten sexual energy Clooney stirred up with Jennifer Lopez in Steven Soderbergh’s Out of Sight. The thing is, to this point Up in the Air is little more than agreeably entertaining. It doesn’t make any missteps, but it’s too smooth by half and it runs a real danger of becoming bland. It has the phony swagger of a film that knows what it’s doing, but lacks the confidence to take any real chances. It is watchable without being remarkable.
To his credit, Clooney anchors the film during this stretch with his charm and his gift for slightly self-effacing humor that can never be mistaken for a lack of confidence. At the same time, there are the fissures of unspoken self-doubt surrounding his every action and they grow as the film progresses. There’s a great scene where Clooney reveals the wounded and vulnerable human being under Bingham’s protective shell. It’s effective in part because it runs counter to the smooth celebrity persona Clooney has cultivated over the years and it’s a reminder that the man has depths he’s not always given credit for. Think of his haunted, empty look during the closing moments of Michael Clayton or pretty much his entire performance in Soderbergh’s underrated Solaris.
Vera Farmiga is funny and sexy as Alex and she’s a fine sparring partner with Clooney, but that’s pretty much all she’s ever allowed to be. Instead, the big surprise of the film is Anna Kendrick as Natalie. The relative newcomer of the cast, her character runs the risk of cliché. She could easily have slipped into the stereotypical, buzz-kill shrew/foil to Clooney’s efficient charisma machine, but she brings a real energy and an empathetic vulnerability to Natalie that balances the film nicely. If Clooney is the smooth guiding hand, Kendrick is the wild card and the spark that keeps the film moving through its early and middle stretches.
Though Up in the Air spends its first 3/4s playing it safe, that’s not to say it’s bad. The performances are excellent. It’s funny, it’s entertaining and it’s even occasionally heartfelt. Part way through there’s a scene with the great J.K. Simmons (Burn After Reading) as the man getting fired. It’s one of a number of celebrity cameo firings, but it is particularly strong. Humorous and sharp yet ultimately moving and bittersweet, it encapsulates perfectly everything the film is trying to be. Whether Up in the Air will live up to that promise remains unclear however until near the very end. That’s when it surprises you and reveals a gravitas it had only hinted at before. It’s not a big twist or a major shock. It’s not even entirely unexpected, but to say more about it would ruin the effect for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie.
While it isn’t the best movie of the year, it is a very nearly effortless and always engaging one. The ending and the way it taps into the unique zeitgeist of our times set it apart from the usual comedy-drama. Refreshingly adult, it pushes emotional buttons without feeling calculated or manipulative. It is dignified without being stodgy; a smart film yet still playful. With Clooney in top form and a stand-up-and-take-notice performance from Kendrick, Up in the Air is easily director Reitman’s strongest and most self-assured film to date. Hopefully it is a harbinger of good things to come.
max says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 10:12am
I don’t get all the award buzz around Up in the air. It is a good movie, a little too easy on the theme “financial crisis” in my opinion, but it is very well done and with great dialogues… in the first part… because in the second half and in the ending the movie is just a little too dull for me and the writing is really poor, especially when it has to be compared with that of the first hour of the movie. I don’t see it being the best movie of the year in any way. I really hope it is not going to be another CRASH season for Oscar!
Erik says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 10:16am
so… any chance of comepetition in supporting actress now? Mo’nique is still the frontrunner, but Kendrick has the first precursor (for whatever it’s worth getting an NBR), is picking up momentum with stellar reviews, her film has no ‘backlash’ (yet), and this category often favors likeable young pretty actresses in breakthough performances.
Mark says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 10:59am
I am really beginning to think that Ms. Kendrick might just take home the Supporting Actress Oscar. From what I hear, she hits it out of the park! A friend of mine said that it would be all too easy to dismiss her performance as one-note but if you pay attention very closely, she expertly fleshes out the arc of her character. And she’s the one you think about after leaving the theatre.
lovespike says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 11:17am
It looks like it will be a duel between Mo’nique and Kendrick to the finish. I have yet to see UITA so can’t comment on who I think deserves it, these vastly different characters will probably be hard to compare anyway. Although I am hoping for a Julianne Moore surprise attack at some point to get her long overdue Oscar
joeymac says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 11:21am
Nicely written review. I’m looking forward to seeing the movie, always liked The Clooney. I think this has tempered my expectations in some ways and deepened them in others.
Had missed that J.K. Simmons is in it. He’s one character actor I’ll always go to see.
Is Awards Daily starting to have more regular reviews?
Marble_Plum says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 11:27am
It has ten 100s on MetaCritic. That’s pretty great!
Craig Kennedy says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 11:44am
Max, without spoiling it for everyone, what was boring about the ending? Were you hoping for a car chase? I ask obviously because I had the opposite response. The ending saved the movie.
Erik, I’m more comfortable talking about movies than I am about awards possibilities (I’ll let the pros Ryan and Sasha weigh in on that), but without looking at the competition I like Kendrick’s chances for a nom. Mainly because I didn’t know her from Shinola and wasn’t expecting anything from her. Having said that, I’m having a hard time seeing beyond Mo’nique as the winner simply because that’s what everyone is telling me will happen.
Mark, that’s a great point. Clooney is the star and the focus, but if you really think about it, it’s all kind of about Kendrick. Whatever Clooney decides to do with his life, he’s on the downhill side. He’s wasted a big chunk being exactly who he is for better or for worse. But Kendrick has her whole future ahead of her.
Joeymac, JK is great as always but it’s really nothing more than a cameo. It’s a good and important one, but very small.
max says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 12:30pm
Craig, the last 40 minutes were really predictable for me. I detected some sort of agenda in the characters’ behavior. I hate good scripts that aim high and then when it comes down to give the story a finale they give me the impression the author is using the characters for the ending he/she wants, betraying somehow their soul, making them acting in a way a bit incoherent… not spoiling the movie for anyone I just ask you: do you think that Vera Farmiga’s character behaves coherently referring to what is revealed towards the end? And Clooney’s character? To me there were a series of plot holes that kind of ruined the movie and the characters for me; and there were several finales too, some reminding me of other movies like Intolerable Cruelty.
No, definitely not the best script or the best movie of the year, even if I really enjoyed the first part!
Ryan Adams says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 12:39pm
Haven’t seen it yet, but the script was as fun to read as good tight short story. That said, I’m wary of what I’m hearing about how things fall into place neatly with a tidy meaningful precision we rarely experience in real life.
If a script’s twists click into place like clever puzzle pieces, the result had better deliver an Oh NO! shock (as in The Usual Suspects) rather than a Happily Ever After cuddly sensation (as in Juno). Because otherwise I begin to despise Reality for never being that easy.
Craig Kennedy says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 1:15pm
Max, I’ll agree the Farmiga character was problematic, but I never fully warmed up to her anyway. She was a springboard for Clooney and little more.
In a comparison to Jerry Maguire, AO Scott does a nice job of explaining the resonance of the film and particularly what works about the ending. He keys in on the uncertainty and how it’s actually more powerful for being less dramatic. He says it much better than I did above.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/movies/06scott.html?_r=1
Ryan, is there a middle ground for you between Usual Suspects and Juno? I don’t know what the script was like, but this isn’t a major ground shaker a la Suspects, but it’s good precisely because it’s not neat and tidy like Juno. Also, no one says “honest to blog” or “home skillet.”
Jonas says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 1:19pm
I’m looking forward to see this, although I will have to wait until the 28th of January when it comes to Denmark.
mileshigh says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 1:28pm
Looking forward to this movie!
Brad Hodges says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 1:29pm
Here’s a bit of trivia: If Jason Reitman wins Best Director for Up in the Air, he will break a very old record: youngest Best Director winner. He would be 32 years, 4 mos., 16 days, and the current record holder, Norman Taurog (who won for Skippy in 1931) was 32 years, 8 mos., 18 days.
John Villeneuve says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 1:52pm
Off Topic Alert!
Sorry, Craig, I just wanted to say how much I liked your piece on Precious. After leaving the theater, I headed straight home to wash off the food grease.
Craig Kennedy says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 1:58pm
Thanks John, it’s nice to have some company on that one. Every year there’s a film or two where I’m totally out in the wilderness from the general critical/audience response. This year it’s Precious.
I’ve been quietly enjoying your work around AD as well. You’re a nice complement to Sasha and Ryan.
sartre says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 2:13pm
Your erudite and flavor rich reviews go down as smoothly and satisfyingly as Cognac, Craig. I’ve not much cared for Reitman’s earlier work but you certainly make a persuasive case for checking this out.
Ryan Adams says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 2:35pm
“…is there a middle ground for you between Usual Suspects and Juno?”
Michael Clayton. The deleted scene where Keyser Söze and Shiva the God of Death share a jug of Sunny D and pee on Tilda’s armpits.
Craig Kennedy says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 2:44pm
lol Ryan. Is that before or after the discussion about Herschell Gordon Lewis?
Sartre, this one just might be a little to slick for your tastes and it sounds like you’re kind of predisposed against it. Could be an uphill battle. I won’t tell you it’s a must-see.
richard crawford says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 2:46pm
it’s so-so.
Dan says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 3:04pm
John and Craig – I am in that wilderness too, regarding Precious – I describe, for example, the 8 second phantom existence of the father as an “almost mordantly psychiatric elision” – he is a nothingness that, legend has it, caused much of the devastation shown in the film. But it’s dishonest to eliminate him entirely (except for the 8 seconds). I found the whole film rather dishonest. And Each One Teach One seemed very mannered.
Jake G. says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 3:22pm
“I describe, for example, the 8 second phantom existence of the father as an “almost mordantly psychiatric elision” – he is a nothingness that, legend has it, caused much of the devastation shown in the film. But it’s dishonest to eliminate him entirely (except for the 8 seconds). I found the whole film rather dishonest.”
Also very handy how Precious’ momma says “brb” and steps around the corner to pull the autistic grandchild out of a hat. I guess the kid was interning in another cubicle.
And that was an excellent social worker reaction to the recurrent rape story. Mariah Carey rocks casually in her chair, “Oh rilly? My goodness.” instead of, like, I dunno, “Hang on just a sec while I call the cops.”
Capped off by Precious announcing, “Well, ta! I’m off to college now!”
lovespike says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 4:15pm
Reality in movies is relative, Precious spoke truthfully to experiences of the abused and mentally ill imo. I don’t know what other technique he could of used to depict forays into fantasy but it is again very true to that experience, escapism. Mo’nique was the most interesting character. She was The id manifested in the flesh. Precious was just simultaneously a roadblock and a cash cowto her. Mary’s goal wasn’t to abuse Precious but to satisfy her needs, in her world violence and molestation are pawns not events. Mo’nique’s characterization of her was brilliant. The movie was about Precious not her father, how would her father had worked in the plot? where do you suppose he could have used a few lines. I propose that he shouldn’t have been in the movie at all, they shouldn’t have had that scene. Precious is not perfect but one thing it isn’t is the safest movie this year, I like that about it. Also the performances are great even when the movie dips. I think though while it so loved by a lot of people it is one of the most hated.
Pete says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 4:28pm
Hey, I used to say “home skillet”, in the 80′s.
I actually liked the last part of Juno. It was less glib and jokey than the rest of the film, and there were some nice plot choices that weren’t the usual fare.
Dan says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 4:37pm
I didn’t hate it – but I despair over the undeserved acclaim. I gave it 4 out of 10 for the acting. I didn’t like the script at all, it was juvenile, especially the alternative school scenes, the camerawork was wonky and distracting, and the whole point of the movie eluded me, unless it was that cliche-ridden afternoons in sanctioned alternative schools and similar meetings with sympathetic social workers DO achieve important goals. Which is hardly earth-shaking stuff.
lovespike says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 4:57pm
Did u mean the way it was filmed was juvenile? They are juveniles, that is how some inner city youth talk, the lingo, the colorful personalities those were some of my favorite scenes. I will say this aside from Sidibe and Mo’nique the acting is kind of shaky. I do think Mariah Carey’s praise is undeserved and Paula Patton is just ok as Blu Rain. But I loved the screenplay simply because it was so unpretentious and minimalist. Fletcher let the characters speak not his pen imo.
Craig Kennedy says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 5:18pm
Pete, the thing for me about the end of Juno was it seemed like they were attempting a last minute rescue from glibness and it felt unearned and dishonest. I never went back and saw the movie again and I’ll allow I might be judging it too harshly, but that was my gut response at the time. I understand it’s a minority opinion.
FromChelseaManhattan says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 5:23pm
Precious is not a bad movie, but i dont think it is the best movie of the year! Story is quite powerful and emotional and it is easy why people get carried away but it is not the best movie in terms of moviemaking (in my humble opinion).
Monique and Sidibe definetely deserve nominations. However, I believe Mariah’s performance is overrated. She didnt do much anyway unless you count sitting on a desk and looking ugly (natural!). I dont think having no make up qualifies for Oscar nomination.
Ryan Adams says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 5:28pm
A better way to have ended Juno would’ve been a bookend shot, another rubberless screwing, because the first bareback bonking worked out so smoothly and painlessly for everybody. Sets up the sequel. Juno II: Meet the Bleekers. 100% Bleakness Free.
Pete says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 5:47pm
26. Fair opinion. I don’t know if the ending was “dishonest” in that sense. A lot of indie-film archetypes were paraded out in the first two thirds of the movie, and the cliched nature of the characters were sort of turned on their head in the last third.
Was it a perfect movie or a perfect screenplay? Was the wheel reinvented? Goodness, no. However, I have literally never understood the level of vitriol hurled at the film over the last couple of years. You’d swear Ms. Cody had written Birth of a Nation the way people hurled daggers at her.
Craig Kennedy says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 6:02pm
Pete your first point about turning the cliche’s on their heads is why I think it might be a good idea to see it again now that all the fuss and hype has blown over. As I said, I might have misjudged it.
Ryan Adams says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 7:06pm
As excited as I am for Up in the Air and all involved, is it worth noting that it’s standing at 82 on metacritic right now, with 29 reviews tabulated? That’s a fine score, by any standard. But you know, it’s only one point higher than Bright Star at 81.
I don’t bring this up in order to chip away at any Up in the Air enthusiasm — far from it. I’m saying that maybe we shouldn’t entirely disregard Bright Star’s chances in several categories, even BP. A few more critics groups weighing in and some precursor love… who knows?
I think Bright Star is a very good size and shape to play on screeners too.
Mike says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 8:20pm
If UITA isn’t the best movie of the year than what is?
Ryan Adams says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 8:51pm
“If UITA isn’t the best movie of the year than what is?”
Probably one of these:
The Hurt Locker
A Prophet
Invictus
The White Ribbon
35 Shots of Rum
Avatar
Precious
Mother
An Education
Bright Star
A Single Man
Inglourious Basterds
The Road
Nine
or 6 other movies.
If Up in the Air were better than every one of those, then it would be an epic masterpiece and I’d be thrilled.
But if Up in the Air sweeps all the awards groups as best movie of the year, I might have to start doing more drugs.
carol says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 9:41pm
This is a really nice review. I’m looking forward to seeing the film. I’ve heard from others that the ending is strong and from a couple who didn’t think so at all. Maybe it will divide everyone like No Country did.
The Natural says:
Friday, December 4, 2009 at 9:43pm
“but it’s too smooth by half and it runs a real danger of becoming bland. It has the phony swagger of a film that knows what it’s doing, but lacks the confidence to take any real chances. It is watchable without being remarkable.”
Sounds like An Education. Seriously.
Craig Kennedy says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 12:03am
Natural. The difference is a better ending.
Ryan. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Bright Star sneak up on people. The Progn-Oscar-Cators seem to have it mostly written off. It’s such a delicate, lovely film it gets buried in all the fuss and bother over the front runners. That doesn’t mean it isn’t great.
Mike. Summer Hours.
fred says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 12:12am
We have a very funny situation at the moment.
Apparently, American bloggers and critics do not know which one of all theses craps they are going to promote, as they are trying like crazy to stop the unstopable.
Precious ? Well, it is not so good, you know.
Invictus ? Well, , it is not so good.
An Education ? Well, it is not so….
J§J ? Well, not…
Up in the Air ? Well…
OK, OK, let’s give an Oscar to George Clooney.
The Natural says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 12:12am
“The difference is a better ending.”
Oh, I’m sure. Education’s ending didn’t work at all.
Nick Ray says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 12:16am
@ fred
What movie is it you think is the unstoppable one?
fred says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 12:49am
Nick :
Best Picture : Nine
Best Actor : George Clooney (or Friedman, if Monique is kicked out at the last minute)
Best Actress : Streep (or Bullock if the Academy does have balls)
Best S Actor : Waltz
Best S Actress : Monique
I think Day-Lewis, Cruz, and Cotillard will only have nominations this year, which is fair enough, as they are all recent winners.
jennybee says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 8:00am
One thing you can always count on at Awards Daily is that the wordsmithing’s going to be first-rate, whether it’s Sasha, Ryan, John or one of the other occasional contributors flashing their writerly & analytical prowess. So on that account, Craig’s a natural fit over here. I hope he does more. Just as long as his own terrific blog (http://www.livingincinema.com) doesn’t get neglected.
There’s a great scene where Clooney reveals the wounded and vulnerable human being under Bingham’s protective shell. It’s effective in part because it runs counter to the smooth celebrity persona Clooney has cultivated over the years and it’s a reminder that the man has depths he’s not always given credit for.
I can see that. Didn’t Clooney say something to this effect in the early festival publicity? That because of his own well-established persona, he sort of felt he had to do this role, that it was a head trip getting inside this character who in so many ways was just like him? I remember some AD post to that effect.
Also love in the review how it ties talk of the film’s ending and the “endings” nature of Bingham’s business. Nice parallelism.
When does Up in the Air get the full wide release treatment? It can’t be too far away because it’s just started advertising in our local Arkansas market. I’m eager to see it and form an opinion of my own.
I suspect I’ll like it. I liked Reitman’s other films a lot, and usually like Clooney’s work. I know his similarly smooth fixer in Michael Clayton was divisive, but that movie worked for me.
An Education is all about Carey Mulligan, Oscarwise, I think. The direction was good, but the screenplay was problematic. Haven’t seen Precious yet, and I’m tired of talking about Juno.
There’s not much I wouldn’t do to see Bright Star at this point. I’m hoping it rallies in the Oscar race so it expands again and I can finally see it.
K. Bowen says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 9:28am
Craig, good to see you and good review. I’m not over the moon on it either, but as always, I respect your opinion and agree the ending gets better. Disagree on Kendrick. Kinda cliche and one note, I thought.
An Education takes no chances whatsoever. And it solves its thematic dilemma by putting fangs on Sarsgaard. It’s a cheap way out. The more I think about it, the more I’m headed to the wilderness on Precious, although I thought it was good, not great on first blush.
I’m leaning to Bright Star as my top film of the year, with a couple contenders still to see.
Craig Kennedy says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 11:03am
JB, I hadn’t heard/read anything that much that Clooney had said going in, but it makes a lot of sense. I sort of tuned out of jibber jabber about the movie once I’d determined I wanted to see it.
Up in the Air expands over the next couple of weeks I think then goes wide on 12/25.
I’m with you on Clayton but I won’t be surprised if Up in the Air proves similarly divisive. They’re movies that aim at a higher/smarter level than average but that opens them up to criticism from above…if that makes sense. It’s like being the smartest kid in high school then going to college with all the other smart kids from all the other high schools and you’re not so smart anymore. Ok, that doesn’t really fit, but it’s one of my favorite analogies so I have to drag it out from time to time. Also, if I don’t, Rumpelstiltskin will take my first born child.
Good to see you again KB. It sounds like we might be in a similar place with Up in the Air, but my Clooney man-crush put it up a notch or two.
I do disagree on Kendrick. I think she started with a cliche and filled it out nicely.
I’m leaning toward seeing Bright Star again today just to see if I warm up to it a bit. I found myself really liking it, but not loving it.
Ryan Adams says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 11:16am
“It’s like being the smartest kid in high school then going to college with all the other smart kids from all the other high schools and you’re not so smart anymore.”
Or maybe it’s like Charlie from Flowers for Algernon getting a scholarship to Harvard, and then the effects of the brain tampering wear off. His and ours both.
Craig Kennedy says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 12:05pm
Charlie’s, ours and apparently the 37 critics at Metacritic, only one of whom rated Clayton below a 70.
Ryan Adams says:
Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 1:14pm
oh, I thought we were talking about Reitman.
In my analogy, Algernon = Diablo
Craig Kennedy says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 3:08am
My head spins like Linda Blair. I knew you were anti-Diablo but Diablo didn’t write UitA or Clayton and you sound resolutely against both.
Ryan Adams says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 3:33am
ok, step by step.
We were joking that Reitman might be feeling a backlash from some intelleckshuals because he’s maybe not as deep as he thinks he is.
Your analogy was a high school valedictorian who finds himself in college surrounded by other valedictorians.
My analogy was Flowers for Algernon, in which a mouse and a slow guy get their intelligence artificially enhanced, and then find the effect wears off. I’m saying we might have seen early signs of the artificial enhancement in Juno.
jennybee says:
Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 10:58am
Flyovers for Algernon.