Reviews

If I saw this and "Landscape in the Mist" a year ago or so, I'm not sure if I would like them or even be able to finish them. Brought to my attention by the tragic passing of this great director, I feel like these films are hitting me at the right time. Because while I can perhaps understand that some may find something like "Eternity and a Day" to be boring, self- indulgent, or the most notorious pretentious -- on the other hand, it is for me something enchantingly beautiful and unlike few if any movies I have seen before.

The angle I'm going to use to approach this one might be far-reaching and/or random, but bear with me and realize I usually tend to mentally tie-in what I have just watched into what I have watched previous. But in this case, it is what I have just read. I couldn't help but think of the character of this film as the Stephen Dedalus character from Joyce's "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man", but now 40 years or so into the future, on his death-bed and in despair. The protagonist here, likewise a poet, has lived a detached isolated existence from his wife and family. It is what Stephen would have wanted, so as to express himself freely as possible, but now in the waning years of his life the detachment has left him with an emptiness, a void he is trying to somehow fill (again, harking back to the oppressive emptiness felt in "Landscape in the Mist"). Angelopoulos incorporates letters from the characters' wife, narrated by her in poignant fashion, and often seamlessly transitions into flash-backs.

This is again something intimate, yet suddenly sprawling. While initially one is enveloped in a natural setting, Angelopoulos then soon drifts into the fantastical and dream-like. Like with "Landscape in the Mist", it all shouldn't be taken so literal. I believe to derive the greatest pleasure from this one should just sit back and let Angelopoulos take you where he wishes, for even if some stretches may not fully register, the high-points so totally make up for it. And once again, the visual compositions are just astounding and at the very least continuously interesting, with here the often long takes aren't even as noticeable straight away and once I realized them, I was then amazed in some scenes. There is this purity in the visuals which few directors works have been able to match and none surpass. Purity is probably the best and only way I can describe it.

This one is known by many to be a 'warm-up' to "Ran". Perhaps that should have been a warning, as I wasn't a huge fan of that film. But still, I remained interested in this one and it looked good. But lordy did I find this one a big, beautiful, empty bore. I mean, sure, the visuals are crazy good at times, lovely colors, and it is just in general a great looking movie. Excellent design and all. But at the same time I sort of feel that's all that was to it.

The performances here aren't nearly as stilted or obnoxious as some in "Ran", and in fact I really like Tatsuya Nakadai in this. The problem here is that I don't think anyone involved was given much interesting material to work with. It isn't that I don't think there is an interesting story to be told here, but I sort of see this movie as a missed opportunity. Instead of focusing more on developing the character of the impersonator, too much time is spent on scenes of rival sides scheming and questioning if Shingen is alive or dead. Things seem to only be addressed on the surface and the character interactions are never given enough time to breath. More importantly, this might not be as much of a problem if the film didn't move at such an excruciating pace. Some films are deliberately paced a certain way and some films are slow-burning, but this one just feels slow, period, and without much of a purpose most of the time.

Additionally, I often found that scenes and drama were laboriously set-up within the story, then those scenes slowly unfolded, and then there is little actual pay-off. Take for instance the section of the story where the one Clan leader decides to send a priest carrying medicine as a supposed "gift" to Shingen, but really they want to find out if Shingen is actually alive or not. This is thoroughly explained by the Clan leader. Then when the priest arrives, Shingen (or the impersonator) and his fellow leaders discuss how they KNOW what the other Clan leader is up to, and how they must hide it! Then when the scene actually HAPPENS there ends up being little to no tension and nothing actually comes of it. It's just completely frustrating to watch! Scenes go on forever and sometimes the film just feels dead. All of a sudden then we'll cut to a scene of rousing music as men on horse-back prepare for battle. It felt like it all had no real flow at all. Even the battle scenes were really disappointing -- the ones at night were very hard to follow.

I will admit that the movie can be a stunner at times. That ending is really something, but even then it feels like the film is shouting "LOOK HOW EPIC AND TRAGIC I AM!!!!" Sort of like "Ran", really. But in retrospect, this film makes me appreciate "Ran" even more, for where that movie sort of falls apart for me in its later stages, at least it had a little umpf to it. "Kagemusha" feels like it never actually gets off the ground. Kurosawa is a great filmmaker, but I can't get behind this one.

I thought this was interesting, even if I didn't really love it and I certainly don't think it is any kind of masterpiece. But interesting, sure. It reminded me of "Black Narcissus" (especially when you think of the final 20 minutes of that film!) in how it brings the artificial to life cinematically. Although here, in line with Kobayashi's style, this is a much more quiet and subdued film and its artificialness is played much more self-aware. I imagine viewers who are really interested in audacious and elaborate sets will go bonkers over this.

Made up of four short stories, this is a film more of atmosphere and mood, images and sounds. The stories themselves are pretty simplistic, like Japanese folk-lore passed down from generation to generation, so you aren't going to get any complex story-telling out of this. But the filmmaking on display is rather grand. Kobayashi seems to know how to bring things to life, even in the most quiet ways. The slowly moving and zooming camera, the often changing lighting, the extremely minimal but very effective use of music and sound. The dialog is sparse and aside from the occasional narration, it's a work of images and sound blending together.

I wasn't a big fan of the last section (although the ending was interesting), but I liked the other sections just fine. Kobayashi's films are usually deliberately paced, but this one is rather glacial, so let that be a warning. There is very little emphasis placed on character or even story. That said it remains quite intriguing for most of the time. I wouldn't say I would was ever scared, but definitely eerie at times. The sharp cracking noises as the camera slowly follows the samurai through the house in the first story. The howling wind and chilling lighting and atmosphere of the second story. The third one was the most drawn out, and really not scary at all, but I thought it had some great sequences -- in particular I loved the visualization of the painting, which was weird but mesmerizing at the same time.

All in all, it's a bit of a mixed bag -- at times quite eerie and effective, at times a bit too artificial, and at times a bit dull -- but mostly it is an interesting viewing experience, with tremendous design and style. Long in the tooth, but worth it for one viewing at least. Given that it is told in 4 separate stories, you can even break it up, if you want.

This is a problematic western, although still very much so enjoyable in parts. In fact, to be fair, for most of the way it is quite an enjoyable film. John Wayne is strong in the lead, and I really liked Ben Johnson's presence here as his buddy side-kick. The love triangle is a bit silly, but amusing enough. The story is slight, but it is an extremely beautiful film, equaling "The Searchers" in its stunning Technicolor cinematography of Monument Valley. It moves at a good enough pace for the bulk of the running time, and it's a good film to sit back and enjoy the journey the film takes you on. Its story about coming of age between the characters, both passing on responsibility and accepting responsibility, is actually well done and the film is at times pleasantly sentimental.

However, it is in the latter stages of the film where I really feel it faulters. Actually, to say it faulters is probably an understatement, as it almost absolutely tanks. First off, there is the horrendous, inexplicable bar brawl. Absolutely no excuse. I can forgive a similar road-block found in "The Searchers" because there the rest of the film is so strong that it makes up for it, and also the fight scene isn't as terrible as it is here. At this point of the film, there was actually quite an effective melancholy tone to the story, and the bar brawl involving McLaglen just brings the entire film to a screeching halt. It comes completely out of left field, and it is not funny at all -- it is embarrassingly stupid and goes on far too long, destroying tone and pace of the film. Because of this, the movie begins to drag.

Secondly, the rest of the ending is questionable to me and makes little to no sense. Brittles last hurrah and redemption is one thing, although the way they miraculously defeat the Indian tribe seemed absurd, if not completely implausible. However, worse is the seemingly tacked on happy ending of Wayne's character literally shown riding out into the sunset, and then literally a moment later with the narrator claiming, "But the army wasn't done with him yet", and then showing him riding back in. WHAT??? Good lord, it just feels so cheap. The hokey narration doesn't help any either, and Ford's usual populist sentiments seem to drift into jingoistic ones, which is never a good thing for me.

Ford did much better in "Fort Apache" -- a far more polished and satisfying cavalry film as a whole. This is a lesser movie, but it is worth seeing.

This is stunning film.

Although perhaps it would have had more impact seeing the film right when initially released, when the conflict in Iraq was near its peak of violence, the documentary still offers a highly unique look into the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd conflicts. This is the ultimate slice of life documentary that delves straight into the everyday lives of Iraqis. Its goal isn't to offer some kind captivating narrative, nor to offer any kind of political commentary. It moves at a slow, tranquil pace, loosely structured in three chapters. The filmmaker, James Longley, stays as detached and neutral as possible, yet his camera is always strikingly up close and intimate with his subjects. There is no narration, allowing the people being filmed to fully tell their stories. The craft on display comes from the editing, which is highly stylized -- however, save for a few moments where it was overly jerky, the editing is in my opinion masterful and gives the film such a unique feel and rhythm that I haven't found in any other documentary. This might be a stretch, but at times while watching I felt like this is the kind of documentary that Terrence Malick would make. It's that cinematic! Needless to say, I also thought it was visually stunning.

I imagine many will be turned off by Longley's technique here, but I think if you're in a mellow mood, the film can slowly take hold of you and let you become immersed in the setting and the people's lives. The film offers nothing more than a look into the struggling lives of Iraqi citizens, dealing with foreign occupiers, adjusting after years of oppression, and trying to survive in an intense civil/religious war among each other. We witness their every day lives, the mundane and constant struggle of it all. We listen in on their conversations and interactions. We see them in both happy and sad moments. Ones of despair and chaos. We see brutality and bloodshed. Some have called this film boring, but I found it a very unique, at times fascinating, and always intimate portrait of a great human struggle.

This is an essential film for people interested in the conflict or documentaries as an art-form.

These days, as opposed to a few years back when I was far more invested in political discussion, I now am fairly apathetic in political discourse, which is ironic since now I can actually vote. But if there are two issues which I really try not to talk about it is 1) abortion, which is the same old round-about "conversation" which never, ever goes anywhere, and 2) the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. I try to avoid talking about the latter because, seemingly more than any other issue, it feels almost impossible for me to find any kind of coherent truth about this bleak and terrible conflict. My heart lies with the Palestinians, but it seems depending on who I talk to on a certain day, my position could change instantaneously. Obviously, it would help if I actually properly researched the situation, but admittedly it's much easier to just say, screw it, let them kill each other!

Anyway, I had previously watched James Longley's "Iraq in Fragments", his Malick-esque, slice of life look at the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd civil war in the after-math of the US invasion, a beautifully stunning documentary, which merely allows the every-day people of the country to speak, and it helps paint a picture of the true heart of the conflict. I don't look at his previous film, "Gaza Strip", as some kind of educational tool to teach me the "truth" of the nasty, bitter conflict in Israel, and I think the mistake by many is viewing the film in such a context because I don't think that's the goal of the film. What you get here is an arresting account of the conflict in the streets of Gaza with the Palestinian people, following the children as they get shot at by Israeli soldiers, and listening them speak their minds about their life and dreams in a hopeless situation seemingly only filled with horror stories.

Like "Iraq in Fragments", Longley is wise to keep his presence at a distance, with no narration or studio interviews. All the action is told in the heat of the moment, the camera rushes into danger and stays close for the intimate moments. I would probably call this a more urgent film than "Iraq in Fragments", as it doesn't carry with it the same slow, tranquil rhythm, but it still has its moments of being rather hypnotic, and it is overall a well-made film. It's a bit one-note and if you come to this film wanting to see a picture of both-sides, something which I perhaps would have liked, then you will be disappointed. "Gaza Strip" simply offers a unique, up close and personal account of the conflict from the Palestinian side.

It's a good film, but a more full picture of the conflict could have made it a great one

Remaining in obscurity, this is another Union strike documentary from director Barbara Kopple, the brilliant filmmaker who brought us the landmark masterpiece documentary "Harlan County, USA", this time chronicling a strike of meat-packers in Austin, Minnesota -- around the time where Reagan put the clamp down on Unions, with his decision to fire the striking air-traffic controllers. Is it as great as "Harlan County, USA"? No. Is it worth seeing? Most definitely, especially for those who were fans of the previously mentioned film, for while it is not on the same level, American Dream is a very fine film in its own right, bringing some more interesting things to the table.

It starts a little slow, and I am not sure how relevant the film remains today, but it slowly becomes more and more absorbing. If Kopple's previous film, 14 years earlier, was a profound documentation of the power of the working class and the success of the Unions and people working together -- then "American Dream" is a documentary about the FAILURE of the Unions. This is a rather bleak film, augmented by the shots of the snow-covered, frozen land of Minnesota winter, giving the film at times a very cold mood. I would say that this film, although obviously taking sides with the strikers, is fairly even-handed. More importantly, however, it shows the major divisions in the Unions in how to achieve their goals and how to avoid the worst outcome, which is everyone losing their jobs and in essence being crushed by the companies.

As in "Harlan County, USA", the film is at its best when dealing with individual dramas and human moments between the people. While Kopple does offer some occasional narration and an added musical score, her presence is often unseen, allowing the people to tell the story, with the drama ultimately being created by the film's editing. We essentially see how the people of the Union, from the top down, are basically torn apart as their cause becomes more and more hopeless. How people of the community have to pick between crossing the picket line and reviving their job, or keeping their promises and integrity to the Union and to the community. We see people in heated arguments, we see people in brawls, best friends against best friends, brothers against brothers. There are some fantastic moments of drama. Like in "Harlan County, USA" where we feel the overwhelming feeling of a people united, standing up against the powers that be, here we see it all crumbling and falling down. For this alone it, it makes "American Dream" very much so worth seeing, as it is works as a very interesting continuation of Kopple's previous film, only 14 years later, and this time the vision of the American worker and the community it creates is only ever more bleak.

Think of a time where you are sitting alone in the late hours of the night, preferably in an old house. You sit there quietly in the silent darkness before you start to hear unexplained creeks around the house, rustling of the tress in the wind outside, and all of a sudden, without any reason whatsoever, the tension inside you starts to build up, your mind at times causing your imagination to run wild. There is indeed a distinct level of creepiness that can occur being isolated in the quiet hours of night, and this is even amplified when outside, something which the characters of the ground-breaking horror film "The Blair Witch Project" have to face. And you face this creepiness, among other forms of terror, with them as you experience the film.

Much has been made about the controversy of how people were literally duped into believing that these tapes were real footage, partially because the filmmakers apparently advertised it as being "real." It's also fairly understandable (although obviously unlikely under a critical light) to have possibly believed this because the production, despite the minuscule budget, is quite remarkable in how believable and convincing it is. Sure, the characters can be a bit obnoxious and heavy-handed at times, but the performances are very good. However, the main reason that the film works is that it takes a bit of an unconventional and refreshing approach in its attempt to scare its audience. "The Blair Witch Project" doesn't merely work on just realism to achieve its horror -- it is, in fact, most impressive in how it utilizes its setting to ultimate effect to create a subtly overbearing atmosphere that just continues to creep into the film.

Part of the setting's effectiveness is that I deeply identify with the actual setting. Living in the United States and on the Pennsylvania/Maryland boundary line, I am extremely familiar with the type of woods the characters traverse. In fact, anyone who has lived in rural, forrest areas or who perhaps has experienced camping in the woods can probably relate. Additionally, I love films set in the wilderness, especially ones which heavily emphasize their environment in order to tell the story. This film is a perfect example. The cold and desolate nature of the forests help supplement the feeling of dread within the film. People have criticized this film as boring and that nothing happens. Ironically, a lot of the intrigue I find in the film is when supposedly nothing (visually) is happening. Visually, the film at times reaches the level of being entrancing. The endless shots staring into the woods -- staring into the darkness. What is heard, but what isn't seen. The silences. Yes, according to traditional narrative standards, barring a few encounters and events along the way, little to nothing (on the surface) actually happens. It's a film which works in tremendous restraint in showing very little, and instead allowing the audiences' own imagination to do the scaring. It's not horror that works on gore or masked murderers. It doesn't even work on being afraid of ghosts or monsters or the supernatural. It's the tremendous feeling of isolation and vulnerability in the cold, desolate forest. The feeling of being alone and lost and stalked.

Consequently, because of the pseudo-documentary technique of telling the story (which some dismiss as being merely a gimmick), the film actually invites us to become more involved in the setting and immersed in the characters' immense frustration, panic, and terror in being lost, starving, and hunted. Not only is this despair felt psychologically within the conflict between the characters, but we also can share the characters' experiences just as they are. The film works on an interesting dynamic of putting the viewer as a central observer of the action, due to the filmmaking technique being used. Whenever the camera stares off into the distance, we stare with it. Whenever the characters become silent in order to listen, we listen with them. A brilliant sequence deep into the film has the characters stumble across these bizarre stick figures hanging from trees. On its own the images are quite eerie in the way they are photographed, but what makes the scene most disturbing is the characters' reaction to these stick figures. There isn't anything too inherently scary or disturbing about this scene if witnessed on its own. However, at this point of the film, the characters' and audience has already witnessed some creepy occurrences, and as an audience member you can connect with the feeling that the characters have of being lost and completely disoriented. So, furthermore, when the already growing insane characters' freak out over these relatively harmless stick figures, this allows the opportunity for the audience to become freaked out. After-all, sometimes there is nothing more unsettling then seeing other people freaked out. Here, the characters and audience feed off each other and experience things together. This is the ultimate goal of filmmaking, and it is achieved here so simply but at the same time so brilliantly. The scares are not created artificially, but come with context, and they are slowly built up through the setting, the atmosphere it creates, and the tension and emotions of the characters. The end result is at times intensely disturbing, exhausting, and mostly quite convincing.

Anthony Mann is a treasure of classic films and the Western genre. A craftsman who works in relative simplicity but manages to infuse his work with dark, psychological edges and bleakness, making for highly compelling cinema. "Devil's Doorway" is perhaps his greatest western -- I haven't managed to see them all yet. It's inexplicably under-seen, but it's one of the most cynical, gritty, violent, and largely un-sentimental westerns I have ever seen, a bitter indictment of the disgraceful treatment of the American Indian. The drama here is remarkably well-played in an often complex manner. The fact that this film was made in 1950 surely shows how ahead of its time it is as a socially progressive piece of work. Mann's outlook on injustice and humanity never being bleaker. There is no redemption to be found here -- no happy ending could ever come about.

Robert Taylor gives a strong, stirring, and impassioned performance here of an honorable man, betrayed and brutalized by the people around him and the country he distinguishably served. The script is absolutely dynamite, and I think here Mann has unequivocally showcased to me that he is cinematic master. Wonderful use of on location shooting, beautiful black and white, a great eye for composition that creates some powerful shots. His use of close-ups here is fantastic. There is even a brief but highly effective tracking shot at the end of the movie, where the camera follows Taylor's character from behind as he emerges out of the doorway and into the blazing gunfire. Just exquisite.

This is the best film I have seen from Mann yet, topping all 5 of the James Stewart westerns. Absolutely one of the great revisionist westerns. A masterpiece and in my top 5 westerns.

Quite a filmmaker this Chukhrai was. Not much available from him, but I am happy to have seen two of his movies. "The Forty-first" perhaps wasn't as great as the wonderful "Ballad of a Soldier", but this is still quite an interesting film. Both of these films are war films, but contrary to what one might expect these films are told in a rather romantic, light-hearted, Hollywood style. Both films do have tragic elements which present themselves as the films progress, but they are largely rather light and enjoyable, even charming romance pictures of loved ones being torn apart and doomed by war. This story was started here with "The Forty-first" and would be perfected in "Ballad of a Soldier".

The script isn't particularly strong here, but where this film really stands out is in its visuals. An utterly stunning visual work from Chukhrai. I'm not sure I have seen a color film look like this one before! You have to see it to understand. Additionally, it's just constantly a visually dynamic film in Chukhrai's camera-movement and use of close-ups. The film is at the very least continually visually interesting and at its peak just stunning to look at. There's a really rich, dreamy atmosphere that develops by the end of the movie, and it makes for a quite unique viewing experience.

The ending is both quite outlandish but also tragic. Not too sure what to completely make of it. Then again, this was never a film which really strived for any kind of realism, so its over the top nature isn't too jarring with the rest. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it.

This is the third of five westerns in director Anthony Mann's pairing with the legendary James Stewart, and it is simply a terrific film. Like with perhaps his most famous film, Winchester 73, Mann takes to the Western genre to tell stories of men struggling to maintain morality in a lawless region of the world. This theme continues here with this film. It is simple and straight-forward story-telling, but done very effectively.

In The Naked Spur, Stewart's character, Howard Kemp, is a bounty hunter who is tracking down a wanted murderer, deep in the Colorado Rockies and wilderness. The film opens with an outstanding action set-piece -- Kemp, by the help of two men whom he stumbled across along the trail, attempt to capture the wanted killer who has himself held up atop a cliff. The sequence is remarkable in how effective it is in its simplicity, slowly building suspense and portraying a genuine feeling of danger, all with epic shots of the Colorado Rocky mountains in the background. It's one of the best scenes in any Western I have ever seen, and it is arguable that the film may actually peak at this point, but luckily the rest is a largely satisfying experience.

Furthermore, upon capturing the wanted criminal -- played by the deliciously sleazy Roberty Ryan -- and his girlfriend Lina, Kemp now needs to transport the two out of the mountains. However, the two men who helped Kemp, a gold prospector and discharged military soldier, are not willing to leave so easily. And once they come into knowledge that Kemp is not a Sheriff but instead a bounty hunter and that there is a considerable reward for the criminal, then the real conflict of the story presents itself, as the two men demand that they come along to transport the wanted murderer and thus get a fair share of the reward. Trudging through the wilderness on horse-back, Ryan's character begins to manipulate the three men against each other so as to scheme and plan for his escape.

The characters in the film all come with a troubled or dirty history. Ryan's character is of course a wanted killer (although it is not known if he is actually guilty). The gold prospector is an older man who has never had any luck, yet he also makes a living ripping off Indians in unfair trades. The military officer was discharged with dishonor for reasons that are initially unknown. Lina has never lived a good life, and she clings to Ryan's character, always denying any accusations of him being a murderer. Then finally there is Kemp. Stewart gives an effectively conflicted and distraught performance of a man who is on a determined quest for redemption of a tragic past life, but yet has to battle with the idea of profiting from another man's death, one whose guiltiness is questionable. There is an ambiguity to it all which I really dig. And as the story progresses and the men reach closer to their destination, the tension increases. It isn't merely greed which drives this tension, but something even more powerful -- fear. The three men, unable to trust each other as they each know their questionable pasts, continually get egged on and manipulated by Ryan's character. The ultimate struggle for these characters is to survive while trying to maintain some kind of moral integrity in such a lawless, unforgiving wilderness.

And what a wilderness it is. Despite being a film which is largely built around character interactions, what makes The Naked Spur a unique film is that there is a large emphasis on landscape. The Technicolor is beautiful, and the on location, epic scenery of the Rock Mountains is at times staggering, which ultimately truly elevates the film as a whole. A landscape that is vast and menacing and lawless as it is beautiful. Order and sanity seems to hang by a thread. During the middle of the film, the group engages in a nasty fire-fight with a group of Native Americans. After the fight has subsided, there is a brief but subtly powerful shot of Stewart's character examining the carnage of the dead Indians lying on the ground, perhaps a simple, passing commentary on the violence against the Native Americans and just the barbarity of it all in the region.

Overall, The Naked Spur isn't a perfect film. There are some clunky pieces of expository dialog, which are at times really unnecessary (although at other times effective). Additionally, some of the romantic bits I found a bit cheesy. That said, I liked the ending much more this time, and even found it surprisingly moving, with the film effectively coming full circle. It's by and large a truly great film. Great acting, great character interactions and development, effectively intense, some outstanding set-pieces, and tremendous scenery. This is a classic, and one of the best westerns I have seen.

Director Jason Reitman's new film "Up in the Air" is a favorite for Oscars, and it is great film.

It stars George Clooney as Ryan Bingham, who works for a business firm where he is sent around the country to fire people from their jobs. His job is his life. He spends almost all the days of the year constantly travelling by plane. He has become so comfortable with traveling that he hates to be home at his apartment. His real home is up in the air in an airplane.

Bingham's job certainly is not for the faint of heart. He sits face to face with people he has never met and tells them that they no longer have a job. Bingham's job is not to provide sympathy for the person, but to provide some kind of hope so their process of leaving the company goes smoothly. Bingham is a master at his art, staying calm and smooth even when the people he is firing become hostile.

However, Bingham's own job becomes at stake when a young, vibrant Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a recent Cornell graduate, starts at the firm and introduces a new technology which would enable people like Bingham to fire people over the computer, making the already brutal job more impersonal but also more cost efficient. This now threaten's Bingham's life-style of travelling the country almost every day of the year. The thought of living at home makes him sick and uneasy. But before this new system is put into place, Bingham is forced to travel with Keener across the country, showing her the ropes of how to fire people.

It is a very funny, although also at times a very brutal film. Filled with cruel irony -- some funny, some sad. Reitman's film works not only as a character study, but also as a satire of America's poor economic state.

But the success of the film really does rely on George Clooney's wonderful, vulnerable performance playing the lonely, empty character of Bingham. Bingham discovers how truly empty and devoid of value his life really is. His job requires him to be emotionally cold, and with his constant travel and lack of any real relationships, his life is now emotionally cold and empty as well.

Along the way, Bingham also develops a relationship with a middle-aged, frequently travelling business woman named Alex (Vera Farmiga), both sharing the life of constant travel away from home. With Alex, Bingham finally starts to open up emotionally, as he seeks some kind of relationship that his life has been lacking.

Ultimately, "Up in the Air" is about finding value and strength through the relationships we form with people. It is a brutal world out there, and we need people with us to get through it sometimes.

Furthermore, I truly am a fan of Reitman now. "Thank You For Smoking" was a fantastic, hilarious satire and "Juno" was a very fun, sweet coming of age film. Neither quite reached greatness, but I think now with "Up in the Air" Reitman has made his first truly great film.

Now is this quite a masterpiece? No, not quite. I did have some problems with the ending and there were a few moments that I completely predicted near the end. In addition, some moments felt a little clichéd. However, overall this is a great film and should not be missed. It is undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.