Movie Review: "Up in the Air" starring George Clooney
Clooney works for a firm specializing in outplacing/firing people through face to face, one on one meetings. He travels constantly, 322 days/year and doesn’t even keep an apartment any more. At home in Omaha, he stays in a hotel on points.
He meets one woman at a bar, who, it turns out, travels a great deal also (Vera Farmiga). They have casual sex several times in various motels where their flight schedules intersect. After several sessions, the woman says to Clooney, Think of me as your soul mate with a vagina.
In the meantime, a younger woman, new at Clooney's firm (Anna Kendrick), broaches the concept of firing by teleconference, thus saving much travel time and money. Clooney's boss wants to experiment with this approach. In one teleconference, the woman who's just been fired says casually to Clooney and Kendrick she will now kill herself. Clooney's young associate brushes this comment off.
At a subsequent airport conversation, in between flights, Kendrick seeks conversation with Clooney and Farmiga. The latter tells the younger woman, as you get on in life, you settle for less in a mate. You just hope, though, that you're compatible. The look she gives Clooney at this point could easily be interpreted as her thinking longingly of him as the one for her.
The problem with the Farmiga character's evident world view is that a soul mate really means one who shares your fundamental, deepest values. If words have meaning, then casual sex, even on a repeated basis, is not the same as a soul mate.
At this point, Clooney has been invited to his niece's wedding. He's never been close to his sister or any portion of his family. His niece surprises him by asking him to give her away.
Clooney has a rendezvous with Farmiga and asks her to accompany him to the wedding. She asks, surprised,You mean, like a date? but agrees. Then, right before the wedding, the bridegroom is getting cold feet. Clooney, the confirmed bachelor, after an urgent request, talks to him about the need to avoid long term loneliness. Somehow, he convinces him to follow through with the ceremony.
Clooney's boss is in a mild panic. The woman who had originally threatened suicide has actually killed herself. Possibly, their firm faces legal action. In any event, the teleconference experiment is over for now and full blown travel to corporate sites and individual firings will resume.
Clooney defends Kendrick and says neither one of them had any inkling that the employee really meant suicide. This incident has caused his associate to quit. Clooney writes a glowing recommendation letter for Kendrick, which enables her to get a new job.
Before resuming his arduous schedule, Clooney decides to do what he has always avoided and embark on a chase. He knows Farmiga lives in Chicago and he finds her home address. He knocks on her door and is shocked to find she is not happy to see him and tells him to leave.
As he goes back to O’Hare, she calls him on his cellphone. He doesn't answer, but hears her message. Farmiga's indignant and asks, Didn’t he realize he was always a “parenthesis? Clooney doesn't bother to return her call.
So he resumes his travel schedule and, presumably, has been influenced by his exposure to family affairs and his talk with the bridegroom. Does he reject Farmiga's argument that casual sex with someone is synonymous with a soulmate? Will he make an effort to find a different kind of soul mate and adjust his travel demands on some basis?
Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists
Labels: movie reviews, Movies, Norm's Thoughts, norman e hill
posted by Norm 7:00 AM
|
 |
|
0 Comments
Movie Review: "It's Complicated"
It's Complicated, stars Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, and Steve Martin.
Meryl Streep is divorced, with 3 grown children, the youngest just graduating from college. She has her own catering business, which seems to be doing well.
At a chance meeting at a party, she gets involved again with her ex-husband, Alec Baldwin. He's remarried, with a much younger wife and stepson, and this wife wants to have another child. He says to Streep that he's not happy in his second marriage. This results in unexpected sex and Streep enjoys it very much.
At the same time, Streep has become attracted to Steve Martin, her architect, who is helping her design an addition to her post-divorce home.
The movie explores some serious themes:
- If Streep is still attracted to Baldwin, but she had divorced him because of his cheating, are there enough values there to warrant a reconciliation?
- If he cheated on her originally and now he cheats on his second wife, will he one day cheat on her again?
- If they had grown apart before the divorce, was this the real cause of the separation, not his cheating?
- Although, in a way, Streep enjoys being the other woman, is this the basis for a serious relationship?
- Is Streep's potential new relationship with Martin worth casting aside for an ex-husband?
The script is well-written, including several portions of low-key comedy. Once, when Streep goes from her kitchen to confront Baldwin, her daughter's fiance removes a carving knife still in her hand.
Baldwin's amorous attempts seem to have ended Streep's possible relationship with Martin, who says she needs a new architect to complete the project.
These are the conflicts faced by Streep’s character. The plot of It’s Complicated ends on a hopeful, heartwarming basis.
Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists
Labels: It's Complicated, movie reviews, Movies, Norm's Thoughts, norman e hill
posted by Norm 6:00 AM
|
|
|
0 Comments
Movie Review - Phantom of the Opera
I enjoyed this movie, considerably more than the Broadway and theater versions. Somehow, from the movie, I understood in a deeper sense the plot of the play.
I could emphasize with the Phantom, the poor disfigured creature and his hopeless love for the young Christine Daae. I could say, "Poor Phantom", while still not wanting him to get the girl.
Emmy Rossum, actually about 18 years old herself, played the 16 year old Christine beautifully, both in terms of acting and operatic voice.
The climax of the film was touching indeed. Her terminally ill husband lays flowers on her grave. He is struck by the flowers and ring, obviously deposited by the Phantom, still alive and still grieving himself for his lost love, Christine.
Although Phantom has been acclaimed for its music, I found the score so-so. It was the depth of the plot that got me. In another film, Billy Crystal expressed his disdain for the Phantom's live theater musical version, paraphrasing as follows: "This guy has a mask, covering his pizza for a face. The main melody of the play is a copycat version of 'School Days, School Days.'" Maybe it was plagiarized, but in the film version, I didn't mind one bit.
Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists
Labels: movie reviews, Movies, norm thoughts, norman e hill, phantom, phantom of the opera
posted by Norm 1:09 PM
|
|
|
0 Comments
Movie Review - Brothers - War--Literaly Kill or Be Killed
This was a grim movie, but I'm glad we went to see it. The plot covers an all-too common problem with US military endeavors after WWII. We've let ourselves be bound by Geneva Convention rules, while fighting undeclared wars against savages and thugs who only value death, not life. In particular, American prisoners of war are routinely tortured into making taped denunciations of their country. The plot of Brothers carried these atrocities one step further, showing one Marine forced to kill another Marine, when the choice was clearly, kill or be killed.
To add to the complexity of the plot, when the primary character is rescued from his Taliban prison, a flaming video camera is shown in one shot. If this video camera had been preserved, the full force of US military rules would have been brought against the surviving Captain and also the Marine he killed. The Captain would have been prosecuted for murder, although he killed only under duress and an either-or lifeboat type situation. His dead companion had previously made a statement, also under duress, denouncing the US. He would have been prosecuted, perhaps for violating the longstanding military rule that prisoners can only give name, rank, and serial number.
I've always held that the US should state as policy that it rejects in advance any statements or activities of US prisoners of war that were clearly made under enemy duress and torture.
Related portions of the plot involved the returning Captain (Toby McGuire), as he is torn by normal stress of captivity, but even more by what he did to save his own life. Although he has a breakdown and is confined in a mental hospital, the plot still ends hopefully. He apparently tells his wife what really happened during his captivity. Together, the two of them can work together for his healing. It dawned on me that, if any punishment for the Captain is considered proper, he must go through life providing moral support for the widow and young son of the Marine he killed. They regard him as a hero and he must live up to their expectations.
Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists
Labels: brothers, movie reviews, Movies, norm thoughts, norman e hill
posted by Norm 1:05 PM
|
|
|
0 Comments
Invictus - Sports and National Reconciliation
Rugby has never been well publicized in the US. Soccer, although not a ranking sport, receives far more publicity. Therefore, it was knowledge-expanding and stirring to observe the underdog South Africa team’s road to a 1995 Rugby cup victory.
The accompanying plot, of course, was the work of Nelson Mandela in using this victory and its team preparation to try to unify South Africa. From our own trip in 1994, when the country was just opening up, we had an idea that there was much unrest and volatility. The nation was still racially divided, although the Apartheid enforced by a distinct white minority had just ended.
Mandela has never received credit for the job he did in keeping South Africa’s peace, while trying to encourage foreign investment. He saw that merely seizing white-owned businesses and infrastructure would only be looting of a fixed amount of wealth. No growth could result from the types of activities that were occurring in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, where white minorities had been ousted from power.
As the new President of South Africa, representing an overwhelming black majority, Mandela took a long term view of what was needed. He alienated a considerable portion of his own party to implement his program of racial reconciliation.
The movie provides an exceptional, well integrated blend of sports and far-seeing political strategy.
Some critics have heaped praise on Invictus, claiming that this represents director Clint Eastwood’s work “at the top of his game.” Other critics have carped about what they see as “trite” dialog. Perhaps if Mandela had been ranting against his racist predecessors and, even more, against the US, they would have enjoyed the dialog more. One critic claimed that too much artistic license was taken in portraying actual events of Mandela’s interaction with the rugby team and its captain. These objections seem trivial.
Others have predicted that Morgan Freeman, in his role of Mandela, is a strong Oscar candidate. I hope that Invictus receives a potful of other rewards as well.
With all the negative, tragic outcomes of recent history and, of course, today’s events, it was refreshing and stirring to see the rugby success of the South Africa team. More to the point, it represented a hopeful outcome for the nation as a whole.
Norman E. Hill, FSA, MAAA, Member AICPA, ASCPA
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills"Winner and Final Chairman"
Member: IFWTWA.Org
Member: Society of Professional Journalists
Labels: Eastwood, Invictus, Mandela, movie reviews, Movies, norm thoughts, norman e hill
posted by Norm 12:56 PM
|
|
|
0 Comments
Movie Review - "Tell No One"
The French mystery thriller "Tell No One" keeps you on the edge of your seat-and your brain. Its integrated, intricate plot demands the utmost concentration for keeping up with a host of twists and turns. All mysteries are cleared up and resolved at the end, when the protagonist finally figures out what actually happened to his murdered wife some years before.
"Tell No One" has its share of evil participants, both actual criminals and law enforcement personnel completely corrupted. Villains are not raging psychos, but usually low-key wretches who describe their deeds and intentions matter-of-factly. In the same way, fanatical parental love is presented as a means for complicating matters further.
A complex movie like this easily calls for a second viewing to study its lines, body language, and subtleties again. Such a repeat showing should be just as enjoyable as the first.
Norman E. Hill
NoraLyn Ltd
Books By HillsLabels: movie reviews, Movies
posted by Norm 2:22 PM
|
|
|
0 Comments
Thoughts on Charlie Wilson's War and the Cold War in General
General Review
First, as a movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Hanks and Hoffman, in particular, gave outstanding performances. Their real life counterparts deserve credit for working hard and, on a required behind the scenes basis, to start a counteroffensive against the Communist thugs.
Some broad implications can and already have been drawn from the movie. To do these justice, some moral points and historical analysis are both necessary.
Primary Moral Point
The forthright, honorable US approach in Afghanistan would have been our open, direct military aid (no troops, except possibly some advisors) to the rebels. Of course, this would have "provoked" the Soviets. But, it would have been a welcome contrast to the convoluted, clandestine way in which arms were shipped to the Afghans. Apparently, there was some sucking up to the Saudis, to enlist their cooperation with the Israelis.
The Soviets were completely open about their overthrow of the existing government and invasion. They were equally open about using Castro's troops for Angola and other military operations. If our government was morally armed, there would have been no qualms about direct US military aid, which would have been in our self interest.
Other Moral Points
Once the Soviets pulled out of the country, it was also in our interest to push for formation of a pro US government. It may have been an autocratic one, since, before the Communist invasion, a monarchy was in place. This type of government could have been acceptable to us, as long as it did not seek overthrows of other governments.
Therefore, some limited aid to Afghanistan, to help it rebuild, would have been in our self interest. The political alternative was not the Soviets or the Taliban.
If the US turned its back on the country, as the movie claims, it was a mistake.
Historical Analysis
By any measure, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, while important and morally uplifting, could not possibly have caused the fall of the Berlin wall, the freeing of the satellite nations of Europe, or the apparent implosion of the Soviet government over to the Yeltsin regime. Other causes had to have played a role.
In many quarters today, Reagan is given credit for ending the Cold War. Supposedly, he forced the Soviets into a competitive military buildup with us for which they lacked the funds to sustain. By trying to keep up with the US, they supposedly bankrupted themselves and their government with all its totalitarian apparatus collapsed.
This arms race probably played a role here, more than Afghanistan. However, in an arms race, supposedly, the Soviets and their satellites would rely on their own factories (plus whatever technology they could steal from the West). If the goal was to produce more or to divert more workers from, say, agriculture, the government could have done so by force. Since workers in the Soviet Union were apparently paid some wages, the government could print more money, if gold funds were short. Even with the low Soviet standard of living, unless the population was starving, the KGB seemed able to enforce order for some years.
In short, I believe still other factors had to have played a role in the Soviet implosion. The country had a sizable nuclear arsenal, albeit probably not as much as reported (while the US media positively relished stories about the Soviet’s achieving nuclear superiority over us, I always had considerable skepticism about this). One possibility is that, somehow, their delivery system ie the apparatus for loading and firing all their ballistic nuclear-armed missiles could have been dismantled or thrown off kilter. Maybe, for once, the CIA pulled off an espionage coup. We’ll probably never know.
My point is Reagan may not deserve much credit here. Alternatively, he may deserve credit in a way not publicized that served to overthrow the Soviet regime.
When Reagan took office in 1980, he inherited the Carter mess. No doubt, he was concentrating on an overall US arms buildup. Even so, he had to have known about the military aid program, already underway, for the Afghan rebels. He could have killed it if he chose. Much more likely, he gave it his support.
It would be interesting to see what the mind of Congress was at this point. Since it was so committed to US preclusion from aiding anti-Ortega forces in Nicaragua, Congress probably would not have wanted to go “overboard” in allowing an anti-Communist pro US alternative in Afghanistan.
Liberals, of course, would like to reap the credit for winning the Cold War and for Reagan to receive absolutely no credit. As long as the limited scope of the Afghanistan victory is understood, this movie won’t do it for them.Labels: Cold War, Movies, Objectivism
posted by Norm 10:57 AM
|
|
|
0 Comments
