Iron Man 2 comes at an interesting time for Superhero movies.  The first film was released at perhaps the best time possible for the film it was; it’s 2008 release was following the disappointing Spider-Man 3, Fantastic Four and its sequel and X-Men: The Last Stand and helped re-invigorate Marvel Comics as a film brand.  The film was seen as a breath of fresh air in the action genre, and paired suitably epic action scenes with a healthy amount of humor and self-deprecation.  It also had the good fortune of being released before Christopher Nolan’s operatic The Dark Knight, which set the bar for future superhero movies higher than it had ever been before.  Iron Man 2 is also the lead-in movie in Marvel’s ambitious Avenger’s film franchise that attempts to encompass the Iron Man, Thor, Incredible Hulk and Captain America films and eventually culminate in 2012’s The Avengers, to be directed by Joss Whedon.

Much has been made of how Hamilton is the new central location for artists in Ontario.  Few Hamiltonians believe this more passionately than Martinus Geleynse.

Martinus is the creative director of MG International and the director of the Hamilton 24 Festival, which kicks off on May 1st. The festival, as of this writing, is holding competitions in Film, Dance, Fashion and Music. All of the final products are conceived, created, and finished within 24 hours. Many enter, few sleep, and not all meet the challenge.

I heard about Hamilton 24 through the festival’s director, Martinus Geleynse. As luck would have it, Martinus and I go quite a ways back. (There’s no sense in pretending this is an objective piece.) We met in high school and became friends through a shared love of music. In high school his ambition was hard to miss: he was voted “Most Likely to become Prime Minister”. His passion for the arts was also obvious; it wasn’t uncommon to see him playing guitar in the halls or onstage in any number of capacities.

Martinus’ passion for creating remains. He’s still making music and actively involved in producing media through MG International, which has a broad focus ranging from press kits to corporate media and short films. Still, the Hamilton 24-hour Film Festival gives a great deal of exposure to the creativity of others. And he’d have it no other way. Every bit of the festival is intended to be a showcase for Hamilton’s expanding arts community.

The festival began life in 2008 as the Hamilton 24-Hour Film Festival. The decision to expand, Martinus explains, was sort of a “well, why not?” decision. Already the largest 24-hour film festival in Canada after only two years (following the Toronto 24-hour film festival’s closure), simply expanding the film content would have been an easier option; but limiting the festival to just film was, well, limiting.

Other 24-hour film festivals closed down; even Apple Inc’s Insomnia film festival has been out of commission for two years (ironic, given that many of Apple’s innovations in bringing media creation software to the masses plays a huge role in the very existence of these festivals). According to Martinus, the difference between 24 hour festivals hosted in Hamilton and those in Toronto’s comes down to the passion for the festival.

So the festival grew into the Hamilton 24, with the focus expanded towards music, dance, fashion and a seemingly endless list of directions still to be added. As he explains it, “We want to add categories every year from here on in” to prove that you can make a living in the arts in Hamilton.

“This is the Wild West. Anyone can be anything, anywhere, anytime. You can make yourself here. You can carve a niche in this frontier town. The new economy is emerging, and it has yet to pick it’s leaders. Any idea can float if you push it hard enough,” says Martinus.

Hamilton 24 is itself carving a strange niche in Hamilton’s Wild West. I asked him if he sees the Hamilton 24 growing into something closer to Austin’s SXSW (South by South West) where it’s equal parts film festival and music festival; he has something else in mind. Rather than Hamilton 24 be a festival that celebrates creativity in the arts, Martinus wants the festival to celebrate the act of creating art. Making a permanent “Cultural Olympics” in Hamilton is the long-term goal –an event that would draw even more artists to Hamilton.

If I come off as though I’m trying to sell the festival, that’s probably because I am. My friendship with Martinus aside, the festival is something I find easy to promote. I’m looking forward to producing my third film in the 24-hour film competition, but also excited to see what else Hamilton can come up with this year.

Environmentalism has become much more mainstream over the last decade.  How much of that do you feel is thanks to the increasing prominence of environmental themes in blockbuster films like Avatar and Wall-E as well as documentaries like An Inconvenient Truth?

David Suzuki said, "Nothing could be more important than the potential educational value of environmental film." The films you mentioned have become household names and reference points in popular culture. Younger generations especially are open to the environmental message and are greatly influenced by popular culture.

The documentaries selected represent a fairly broad range of issues, but there are two dedicated to issues surrounding where we get our food from (Food Fight and The End of the Line).  Why have food issues become so important in recent years?

People are becoming increasingly aware of the environmental impact of food choices, in part because organic foods are more readily available in supermarkets, and because corporations see value in mass marketing organic labels. And each time there is a widespread illness that results from eating tainted meat or vegetables, people pay closer attention to the source of their food. As well, there's an increasing awareness that fish stocks and other food supplies will not last forever if we continue to deplete the supply. Consumers are more aware of sustainability than they were five years ago.

Of the nine films being screened, only two (The Horse Boy and Avatar) are narrative films.  Do you feel that environmental themes are better suited towards documentaries?

Environmental documentaries are often exposés of environmental neglect or abuse and the potentially catastrophic consquences to our planet and to human health. Documentarians become the investigative journalists that reveal these injustices to the world. It's exciting to see student filmmakers take on the role of documentarian; filmmaking opens their eyes to the lasting impact that our actions have on our environment and allows them to share their work with a global audience through the Internet.

Why is it important for Hamilton in particular to be home to an Environmental Film and Arts festival?

Hamilton has a strong arts movement that is seeing a great resurgance. And we also have some of the most beautiful natural environments anywhere. The escarpment, countless hiking trails and more than 100 waterfalls have given us a great appreciation for the natural beauty that is so much a part of our community. One of the festival's goals is to encourage people to see Hamilton as the centre for 'green filmmaking' - the arts and environment communities working together to inspire change.

When it comes to the selection of films, speakers and events, what criteria comes into play?

Regarding the films, there are so many important environmental topics that need to be addressed - food, water, wildlife, conservation - so we have tried to be as diverse as we could. The ECO Expo allows people to attend workshops on some of the most important environmental topics, including the impact of food choices, clean energy, sustainable design and ethical investing. We're trying to appeal to a broad audience; students are a huge part of this year's festival, but we're trying to reach people of every age.

What sorts of challenges has the festival faced in the last three years as far as keeping the festival as green as possible?  What breakthroughs have been made?

The festival has always tried to keep things as green as possible throughout the last three years. Perhaps our number one challenge is how to promote the festival throughout the entire community and use as little paper as possible to achieve this. We do as much email, online and word-of-mouth promotion as possible, but we still need to do some printing. I think the ECO Expo may be our biggest breakthrough. To do a large community event that promotes eco-friendly eating (vegan, local, organic, raw food, slow food) and produces very little waste -that's our greatest green achievement.

Was selecting The Cove as the main event an easy decision to make?

Yes. We decided to make The Cove our special Earth Day feature when we confirmed that Simon Hutchins, the expedition director, would be attending our festival to speak with the audience. Being able to ask the filmmakers direct questions always adds an extra dimension for the audience. It was a wonderful bonus when The Cove won the 2010 Academy Award!

How important is it to have the filmmakers, artists and activists on hand for Q&A sessions during the festival?

It definitely allows the audience to become more engaged in the film or art. Audience members gain a greater appreciation for the film when they understand the months and often years of hard work that are required to plan, finance, produce, promote and distribute each film. There are usually some very exciting and amuzing behind-the-scenes stories that filmmakers share with the audience.

Environmentalism is more mainstream than before, but many are skeptical of or cynical towards it all the same.  What do you feel the ECO Film and Arts Festival offers to those who fall in the skeptic or cynic camp?

We ask people who are skepical or cynical to keep an open mind when learning about environmental issues. We encourage people to attend the festival and learn about some of the most important environmental issues that we face, locally and globally. And we hope that people will be inspired by what they've seen and by the people they've met, and will want to learn more and do more once they've returned home.

The Hamilton ECO Film & Arts Festival enters its third installment this April. The event kicks off with a photography exhibit and live music at the Art Gallery of Hamilton on April 7th, and hosts special Green exhibits along the James North Art Crawl on April 9th. The Festival's film screenings take place at Westdale Secondary School and the Jackson Square theatres, and explore a variety of environmental issues.

The Eco Expo takes place on April 10th at Westdale Secondary, and culminates with a vegetarian dinner and a screening of James Cameron's mega-blockbuster Avatar to benefit the David Suzuki Foundation.

This year, the Festival brings a slew of both Canadian and international environmental documentaries, including the winner of the Best Documentary Academy Award The Cove, an eye-opening look at Japan’s dolphin hunt. The Cove is screening on April 22nd and will include a Q&A session with the director of the film's expedition, Simon Hutchins.

The movie Food Fight covers much of the same territory as the film Food Inc.—both feature insights by author and food activist Michael Pollan; the difference is that director Christopher Taylor turns his focus to the local Organic food movement in California which fought back against industrialized agriculture. It is screening on April 15th.

The environmental impact of our food choices is also addressed in The End of the Line, screening April 23rd, which explores the fisheries industry and its impact on the oceans.

The theme of water continues in the movie Tapped, which explores our use of drinking water (the environmental impact of bottled water in particular), and screens on April 14th.

The Great Lakes are the focus of Canadian Kevin McMahon's film Waterlife, screening on April 15th (McMahon will also be in attendance for an audience Q&A session). Sharkwater uses our fascination (and misinformation) about sharks as a means to explore the damage humans have done to our oceans. Sharkwater screens on April 20th.

Other films screening include Crude, which delves into the "Amazon Chernobyl" case, exploring the impact (both on people and the environment) of Chevron's oil exploration in the Amazon. (Crude screens on April 16th at the Jackson Square theatre).

Finally, there is The Horse Boy, which tells the true story of a family from Texas who travel to Mongolia to help find healing for their autistic son among horses (the film plays at Jackson Square on April 21st).

Other notable events include a Q&A session with Native Canadian filmmaker Alanis Obomsawin at the Art Gallery of Hamilton on April 17th. There is also a 5km Earth Day walk sponsored by the City of Hamilton and City of Burlington.

More details, including a schedule of events and tickets, can be found at www.ecofilmartsfestival.com

    The age of stupid was released in 2008 and was subject to controversy from the get go. It was limited to festival and "indie" screenings at like minded organizations and schools.The  movie was also responsible in part for the 10:10 initiative, the campaign to cut emissions 10% by the year 2010 ( which has gone from "cutting by 2010" to "cutting in 2010" )

    It is a film that deals with the climate crisis , focusing on the oil industry and what western civilizations need to destroy the planet has done to the rest of the world. But it also conveys another message. A far more subtle message about human nature, the idea that we are both insignificant and too important in that our needs must be met but when facing up the the idea that it all our fault we are able to shrink, powerless to change anything.
    
   The story is simple: an archivist living in the post-enviropocalypse year 2055 looks back on the major climate events that have lead to the devestation that mainstream scientific projections suggest our world will become and asks "Why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?"

   And yet, unlike other films dealing with climate change, "The Age Of Stupid" is not preachy. Director Franny Armstrong (Drowned Out) uses a combination of drama, documentary footage and animation to convey the disasterous direction the planet seems to be heading.

   The premise behind the whole docu-anime-drama is that the aforementioned "Archivist" , played by Peter Posletwaite (The Constant Gardener ), is compiling a message on his Minority Report, Tom Cruise esque computer detailing exactally what went wrong, so that other generations (If there are any) will know what went wrong and what not to do.

   The rate at which he flicks through footage, be it disaster montages, news casts or cartoon interpretations of the "Resource Curse"  is a tad nauseating but it's those quick transitions that force you to pay attention.

   The documentaries were compiled over the course of 3 years and spans multiple continents. the portions of the film that follow people affected by climate change, such as the tour guide of a receding glacier and the Katrina victims, and the people who affect climate change both negatively  and positively are what really stands out. They throw humanity into the mix so the viewer feels something and isn't over burdened with more facts and statistics.

   I'm personally a big fan of this strange drama documentary animation hybrid. It allows for an indepth analysis and presentation of the subject without the obviousness of your classic documentary format, there is no monotoned voice over or stiff interviews with meaningless people to put you to sleep.

   At it's core it is just one another in a long slew of documentaries about climate change, but it is really so much more then that. It is a film with a heartbeat, a soul and the message that we need to do something fast because it is already too late.

    You can "pay-per-view" or download the film at www.ageofstupid.net for a small sum or you can disappoint the polar bears and download the torrent. Join 10:10 to help the cause. And send e-mails here: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it to push for Canadian and global distribution.

I was going to entitle this essay, ‘Global Affairs Goes to the Oscars’, but truth to tell, I rather doubt I would ever actually attend the Academy Awards even in the unlikely event I was ever nominated for one. I am, after all, chastened in this regard by Guy Debord’s withering critique of the ‘celebrity’, or as he termed them, ‘agents of the spectacle’:
 
“The agent…placed on stage as a star is the opposite of the individual, the enemy of the individual in himself as well as in others. Passing into the spectacle as a model for identification the agent renounces all autonomous qualities in order to identify himself with the general law of obedience to the course of things.”
 
Ouch.
 
Still, who knows? In the movie Papillion the character ‘Dega’ (played by Dustin Hoffman) remarks poignantly and admiringly to a self-sacrificing ‘Pappy’ (Steve McQueen), “They say that temptation to resistance is the true measure of character.” Too true, and who then can guarantee their conduct when confronted in a dark alley with a bona fide temptation? But let me have my fantasy. I am nominated, I win, I refuse the award and retreat to my island redoubt to contemplate in world-weary solitude the politics and poetry of the cinema.
 
Stop, cut, fade to black….No I don’t. That’s not my fantasy. Instead, I storm up onto stage, take the damn award, move menacingly towards the microphone and intone softly if gravely, “Remember, remember the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why the Academy’s members should not all be bound and shot.”
 
Ah, V for Vendetta. What member of the cultural and political resistance can fail to warm to the memory of this poem to revolution. Who did not feel a forbidden thrill of excitement course through their veins when the Old Bailey was blown to smithereens? That the film was, to boot, beautifully crafted, scripted and acted and yet failed to win even a nomination let alone an award is, of course, testament to the tawdry fact that any film, book, magazine, individual, or issue truly threatening to the status quo is routinely and inevitably given the kiss of mass media death, the death of silence. (By the by, does anyone remember the best pic that year, i.e. 2006? It was ‘Crash’. Totally forgettable.)
 
There are some, naturally, who will say that ‘V’ was merely a ‘cartoon’ representative of some futuristic dystopian fantasy scenario, with but passing relevance to modern Western society. These, however, are likely cut from the same cloth as those who have also for decades claimed that Orwell’s 1984 is passé, no longer relevant; who seem, in short, incapable of grasping the essence of satire, parody and allegory. But then, deliberately failing to see the truth within the literature, the substance behind the caricature, is merely part and parcel of the diseased case history of the appropriately house-broken literary and cinema pundit. Not to worry, we hold our own awards in our hearts.
 
The ‘political movie’ has, of course, a long and illustrious – if highly episodic – pedigree. Some, such as Oliver Stone’s Salvador and JFK are brazenly critical of official realities. Yet others, including Stone’s Platoon, with its glorification of the heroism of the American foot soldier (remember the massacres counter-posed by babies in arms, the Christ-like posture of William Defoe’s character in death, etc), its rendering of the enemy as mere faceless demons (‘gooks’), and its promotion of the myth of Vietnam as ‘error and aberration’ of US foreign policy, are merely closet propaganda films – even if, as in the case of Platoon, damn fine ones.
 
I must admit to holding anti-war films in very high esteem. War is, after all, the ultimate expression of the working man and woman’s tragic and useless sacrifice to interests no where their own. The pinnacle of ruling class exploitation. Cinema that attempts to break the thrall of this age-old mystification gets my vote every time. Here again, though, one has to be on guard for the counterfeit. All Quiet On The Western Front, Gallipoli, Born On The Fourth of July, and Brain De Palma’s Redacted bear the stamp of authenticity. Passchendaele, the Canadian film industry’s recent love-in with the First World War, on the other hand, does not.
 
Needless to say, pure propaganda pieces abound. One of the most egregious that comes to mind is Hotel Rwanda, a film whose message was bought hook, line and sinker both by the media, the wider viewing audience and most of the ‘left’. This despite the fact (amongst a host of others) that the real life hero of the movie, Paul Rusesabgina, completely contradicted the import of the film by stating in an interview with Keith Harmon Snow that the Rwandan ‘genocide’ was, in truth, the result of an invasion by Paul Kagame and his Tutsi forces from Uganda, (backed by the US, and aided and abetted by Canada), and that it was they who did most of the killing. In short, the so-called ‘Rwandan genocide’ of 1994, far from being some more or less random outbreak of African tribal irrationalism, was instead a very calculated Western inspired invasion and coup; a coup whose rationale was the continued fractionation and conquest of the mineral rich Congo region. [See, ‘Hotel Propaganda’, Mayday, Issue #10]. It seems that the victors not only write the histories, they write the films too.
 
There are, naturally, many war films that are neither pure propaganda pieces nor pure anti-war flics. Classics like Bridge On The River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, and Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence at least attempt to humanize the ‘enemy’ to some degree. Occasionally, there are even those films that, like the Scarlet Pimpernel through France, slip seemingly undetected by any ‘category’ filter at all. Sam Peckinpah’s Cross of Iron, for instance, presents on the surface as just another sensationalist and violent war movie. But look closer and you’ll notice that the script is permeated throughout by piercing and subversive class-warfare style dialogue. Who would have thunk?
 
Indeed, though the overtly political movie is, well, if not legion, then numerous (think of The Candidate, Norma Rae, Wag the Dog, Reds, Malcolm X, etc) my affection extends especially to those big Hollywood flics that manage the art of embracing excellent film-making and good story-telling whilst expressing powerful and barely veiled social critiques as well. Can you think of one? How about The Truman Show?
 
In this ostensibly absurdist drama the hero (played by a delicately anarchic Jim Carey) is raised from birth literally in a gigantic bubble where his every action is filmed and broadcast to a waiting world eager to digest the soap opera life of a ‘real’ person. His wife, his friends, his work, his entire social world is a complete fraud concocted to keep him happy, docile and ignorant.
 
Ask a hundred people – or a dozen film critics – what The Truman Show was about, and that’s pretty much what you’ll get as a response. I know, I’ve done the experiment. But, of course, the Truman Show was nothing of the sort. It was, in fact, a self-conscious allegory of Western society; a metaphor for a media-constructed reality in which everyman is Truman, and where we are all more or less deceived by the official communications institutions – indeed, by all the establishment institutions period – as to the actual goings-on in the world. We live, thus, in a fake informational world where black is white and down is up. The beauty of this film lay in its delightful rendering of an otherwise ridiculous story, combined with the sheer transparency – and profundity - of its meaning and message. A meaning and message, however, which precisely because of its profundity was, for our well-trained media pundits, quite obviously not transparent enough.
 
Actually, what is probably more accurate to say is not so much how few got The Truman Show’s message, as how strenuous was the official media’s efforts to downplay and silence that message. Which brings us to the 2010 Academy Awards ceremony. May I have the envelope please.
 
“And now, for the film of the year whose clear and overwhelming meaning is destined to be totally silenced and / or ignored by the official media, the award goes to…… Avatar!” {Thunderous applause}.
 
 Avatar. A visual feast to be sure, but equally as important is the film’s clear and unequivocal anti-imperialist statement. It is not by accident, then, that director James Cameron chose to portray the military figures in the flic as quintessential US Marine types. There’s no mistaking these macho, super-chauvinist dudes, or the craftily embedded reference to fighting ‘terrorism’ by the chief antagonist. Indeed, for the savvy political theorist, the fact that these military folk work as private contractors for a futuristic mining firm in no way detracts from their association with US/NATO forces especially in light of the knowledge that much of the US military and its services have (as has the entire US government) already been hollowed out and privatized.
 
What also grabbed my attention was the movie’s fixation on sheer technological prowess and overwhelming firepower – especially air power – as deployed against an essentially helpless population. Substitute the people of Iraq or Afghanistan for the Navi of Pandora and the equation is pretty much complete. Throw in a little tinder, a little reminder such as the 27 Afghani civilians incinerated this past week by a NATO air strike and the whole ensemble jumps to life.
 
But fear not, Avatar will win the award for best picture. There will be much ado about the value of ‘art’ and such. Meanwhile the import of the movie will be quietly shelved along with the little golden idols it will have garnered. And like the two yobos who find themselves first buoyed, then merely bored by Truman’s freedom, we’ll simply turn the channel and ask, ‘Where’s the TV Guide?’

Before I review A Serious Man, I feel that I should disclose two important personal facts.  The first is that I'm a huge fan of the Coen brothers.  That's not too extraordinary; it's hard not to at least respect the Coens for the quality and originality of the bulk of their work. I've encountered few people who don't love at least one of their films.  I'd certainly argue they've made no less than three modern classics (Fargo, The Big Lebowski and No Country for Old Men), and even if they haven't, their reputation is, at least in my opinion, deserved. 

The second is that I'm not Jewish and have had very little interactions with Jewish culture. And while seeing A Serious Man may not necessarily require a working knowledge of contemporary Jewish culture, it certainly helps if you do.

A Serious Man is a dark comedy about the existential crisis of Professor Larry Gopnik (he is played by Michael Stuhlbarg, a veteran stage actor making his first major onscreen appearance).  Larry’s wife wants to leave him.  His son has started smoking pot.  His daughter is apathetic towards him at best.  He's facing a serious moral dilemma at work.  When he seeks religious guidance, he winds up with less comfort than he started with.  All in all, the early 1970's are a pretty bad time to be Larry.
 
And that's really just the tip of the iceberg.  The film piles on misery after misery in what should be one of the best weeks of Larry's life; his son is about to have his Bar Mitzvah and Larry appears to be in good position to gain tenure at his university.  From there, however, a number of mild inconveniences escalate and escalate.  Some of this might be Larry's fault, but we're never given quite enough information to know for sure. 

Is a rebellious child the fault of a parent? Is divorce the fault of an emotionally absentee partner? A Serious Man doesn’t show enough for the viewer to move beyond basic assumptions. Then there are events where Larry could not possibly be at fault; these, too, add to his plight.  Larry just has a lot of terrible things happen to him with no particular explanation why.

This is a common theme in the Coen's work, but it's presented differently here.  In their most beloved film, The Big Lebowski, few pleasant things happen to The Dude; yet this never seems too apparent because The Dude and his friends are engaging and likeable characters and the film leans quite heavily on the ridiculous. 

While objectively A Serious Man never really stretches plausibility, only a few characters seem truly amiable.  Larry, though certainly not a cruel man, is a far cry from the likeable everyman.  He has a few scenes where he's a doormat to a frustrating degree.  Still, I found myself growing sympathetic toward his fruitless search and ever-growing list of questions without answers.

That said, I don't think the film blindsides it's audience with misery. When you know what sort of darkness to expect, it comes as less of a surprise.  I wasn't taken aback by the degree of suffering Larry endured during the film. At the same time, I was taken aback by the overall tone of the film: A Serious Man never revels in Larry's pain, it simply presents it.  While the Coen brothers have made films that make a few laughs at the expense of it's characters, I don’t think A Serious Man is one of them.

Ultimately, the Coen brothers have constructed a well-made film. They know their craft, and their writing is generally very sharp and the film is technically very good; they know how to get great performances out of their actors and the film is well-shot and well edited.  In particular, the film boasts a very strong performance by Michael Stuhlbarg, who to my surprise actually did not earn a Best Actor nomination for his work.

The question with A Serious Man isn't "is this good?", but "is this worth seeing?"  That's a vital distinction to make, and I'm actually not sure what side of the fence I fall on.  Philosophically, there's a fair bit to grapple with.  The film's central question is "why do bad things happen to good people?" and the film never really tries to answer the question.  Or rather, if they do, they give such vague responses as "it's all about perspective" or "just because, and who are we to question it?". 

Perhaps the journey the viewer takes is meant to mirror Larry's, but ultimately, it's a film that's easy to admire but hard to love.

Jason Reitman's third effort, Up in the Air is a deceptively complex film. And that's really no mean feat, all things considered. The film's declared subject matter is fairly weighty on it's own; it touches on themes of isolation, rebirth and change, while providing timely insight on the current economic state of North America.

George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a professional downsizer who spends over 300 days of the year on the road essentially firing people from companies that lacked the courage to do it themselves. He quite literally lives out of his suitcase, in hotels and on airplanes. And he likes it this way; it means he can sidestep the burdens of adulthood like car payments, home ownership, a committed relationship and most social obligations.

As he approaches his goal of 10 million miles with American Airlines, his company throws him a curve; new recruit Natalie (Anna Kendrick, who I'm told was in Twilight) has a plan that would allow the company to save the company nearly all of their (presumably astronomical) travel expenses. Ryan's personal life has also thrown him a curve in the form of Alex, a woman who appears to be his perfect match (played by Vera Farmiga). When Ryan takes Natalie under his wing, he's forced to re-examine his philosophy.

The story, as Reitman tells it, is character-centric. This is one of Reitman's greatest strengths as a director, and he's cast the film accordingly. Clooney, Kendrick, and Farmiga all deliver terrific performances. Much has already been said about how strong the chemistry between the three leads is, and I'm not sure enough can be. Maybe it's because I'm coming from the theatre world where cast chemistry is really all you have to work with, but I really was impressed with the performances in the film.

Reitman's two previous works -- 2006's Thank You For Smoking and 2007's Juno -- are both solid and character-driven. However, both these films tended to treat their characters as punchlines, whereas Up in the Air takes its characters more seriously.

The economical production design and script keeps the focus on the characters. Reitman never oversells a big moment, but never undersells the small ones, balancing darker themes with lighter comic elements quite well. All in all, it's a solid, performance-driven movie.

But what about this deceptive complexity? While the film is very much straight-forward in terms of how it's shot, paced and written, it's underlying themes run deep. Ryan is forced to reassess his entire identity when his lifestyle is challenged. He's forced to examine his philosophy of relationships. The film even goes as far as to suggest that he might be a lost cause; a victim of his chosen comforts. The film presents itself as the “George Clooney being charming yet vulnerable show”, but it's at it's best when it takes that form and steers it away from it's assumed course.

It's probably not a perfect movie, but I'm not sure that's all that important. I suppose it's not necessarily a risky or ambitious movie; Reitman doesn't use the film as a basis for experimentation. But it is entertaining, engaging and perhaps most importantly, one that I wanted to talk about after I saw. And in our world of movies about giant fighting robots (from outer space!), it's hard to not give a strong recommendation to an imperfect movie that's still and worth talking about.