Up in the Air

[Green Lantern]

Yawn. If you can't hear my phone, it shouldn't affect you. If it it does, it's because you're paying more attention to me than to the movie.

Ah yes, because when your screen lights up in the darkened theater, the magic of cinema prevents anyone else from being able to see it.

[Viking]

Not that was a believable movie!

It never pre-supposed itself to be believable.

[Viking]

Yawn. If you can't hear my phone, it shouldn't affect you. If it it does, it's because you're paying more attention to me than to the movie.

FTR, I was not texting throughout the movie. I received a couple, sent a couple responses, and then ignored the phone until the movie was over.

It's rude. Don't do it.

[MarkGrace]

It never pre-supposed itself to be believable.

Of course it didn't. It was a movie.

[New Mexican Disaster]

My wife and I saw this together last week. I thought it was really excellent and compelling, but I agree with most everyone else that it was really more style than substance. In a way it reminds me of [I]Lost in Translation[I] a movie that really hit a vein of modern ennui, but did not really expand upon it. I still liked both movies largely because of the magnetism of the star-Murray and CLooney are two of the most arresting actors out there.

Up in the Air tried to be a bit too much of a crowd pleaser. This is my problem with Jason Reitman-and the reason I despised Juno, and both film suffered a bit from overly pithy dialogue. But at least there was an excellent booty and underboob double in it. Kudos to that person.

On a second note, I am thrilled to see The Fantastic Mr. Fox getting love. It was the best Wes Anderson movie in a long time and one of the best children oriented movies I've seen.

[Green Lantern]

Of course it didn't. It was a movie.

This comment seems to betray a complete lack of understanding of the principle of "suspension of disbelief." Even a movie with the most fantastical premise endeavors to get the viewer to believe in what is happening on the screen.

[MarkGrace]

This comment seems to betray a complete lack of understanding of the principle of "suspension of disbelief." Even a movie with the most fantastical premise endeavors to get the viewer to believe in what is happening on the screen.

Not at all, I completely believe in the idea of "suspension of disbelief" and apply it every time I walk into a theater. Really it's the only way to enjoy a movie. On a second read of Viking's comments, I may have initially misinterpreted what he said.

This movie was not very believable. The "surprise" was implausible. It was entertaining but not deep nor worthy of awards

I read this to mean not very believable as in "wouldn't happen in real life." That is why I made my sarcastic comment about Inglorius (a movie I really liked, btw), as it is a clearly not a movie intended to convey what what would happen in "real life." And then made a second sarcastic comment about all movies being that way (i.e. are not necessarily reflective of what would happen in real life). Perhaps I just misread or misunderstood his comment, and he really meant what you said (i.e. not believable in the context of the movie).

However, thinking about it from that perspective, his second comment now how me confused:

It never pre-supposed itself to be believable.

If, as you say, even the most fantastical premise can be believable in the context of the story, then this second comment has me again thinking he meant believable as in "happen in real life." But again, I could just be entirely confused as to what Viking means.

[Green Lantern]

Not at all, I completely believe in the idea of "suspension of disbelief" and apply it every time I walk into a theater. Really it's the only way to enjoy a movie. On a second read of Viking's comments, I may have initially misinterpreted what he said.



I read this to mean not very believable as in "wouldn't happen in real life." That is why I made my sarcastic comment about Inglorius (a movie I really liked, btw), as it is a clearly not a movie intended to convey what what would happen in "real life." And then made a second sarcastic comment about all movies being that way (i.e. are not necessarily reflective of what would happen in real life). Perhaps I just misread or misunderstood his comment, and he really meant what you said (i.e. not believable in the context of the movie).

However, thinking about it from that perspective, his second comment now how me confused: If, as you say, even the most fantastical premise can be believable in the context of the story, then this second comment has me again thinking he meant believable as in "happen in real life." But again, I could just be entirely confused as to what Viking means.

Got it. Good points. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what Viking's comment meant either. To some extent, every movie wants you to believe. Maybe it was just that some movies purport to take place in the "real world" while others don't.

[woot]

Got it. Good points. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure what Viking's comment meant either. To some extent, every movie wants you to believe. Maybe it was just that some movies purport to take place in the "real world" while others don't.

I think it's just that once you have introduced your setting, however fanciful it is, it is important to remain consistent within that framework and to show your characters doing believable things in context. That's why I can accept light sabers in Star Wars but not midiclorians; I can accept the blue giants and crazy wildlife of Avatar, but not the cardboard cutout villain or the magical nipple-hiding necklaces.

[Green Lantern]

I think it's just that once you have introduced your setting, however fanciful it is, it is important to remain consistent within that framework and to show your characters doing believable things in context. That's why I can accept light sabers in Star Wars but not midiclorians; I can accept the blue giants and crazy wildlife of Avatar, but not the cardboard cutout villain or the magical nipple-hiding necklaces.

Great comment. If you lose that internal consistency, you can send your whole audience's suspension of disbelief down the tubes.

Stupid midichlorians.

[Donuthole]

No way was that her rear!

Confirmed.

I googled it after listening to Jason Reitman's podcast interview by Bill Simmons, in which Reitman said that Farmiga was only a few months post-partum when the movie was filmed.

BTW, Reitman says her insistence on doing the movie despite being a brand-new mom was one of the the things that reassured him that she was the right selection. In his words "That's exactly what Alex would have said."

[Coach McGuirk]

I watched this on a plane today. I enjoyed the film quite a bit. Way more than avatar. I haven't been that entertained by a movie that wasn't a straight up comedy or kids film in a long time.