I recently read an article on people who stand in line for hours to purchase the new Apple Ipad…only so that they can destroy it. They claim to be making a statement but, by paying for the product, are those customers really rebelling against the system? The idea of fighting against consumerism is at the heart of Derrick Borte’s The Joneses.
The arrival of Kate (Demi Moore) and Mike Jones (David Duchovny), along with their kids Jenn (Amber Heard) and Mick (Ben Hollingsworth), in an upscale suburban neighborhood causes quite a stir amongst the residents. Living in a lavish house, with all the cutting edge clothing and gadgets, it is easy to see why The Joneses quickly become the toast of the town. It seems everyone, especially neighbors Larry (Gary Cole) and Summer (Glenne Headley), want to emulate Joneses lifestyle. Despite their seemingly perfect exterior, the Joneses may not be the ideal family they appear to be.
The Joneses is one of those films that work best if you go in not knowing too much. While writer/director Derrick Borte creates a brilliant premise, he unfortunately fumbles with the overall delivery. The film wants to be both a satire on consumerism and a romantic comedy, the latter of which is what ultimately hurts the film.
Since Borte must continually keep the romantic subtext flowing, The Joneses never reaches the biting satirical level that it really should. This is a shame since both Cole and Headley steal every scene they are in. The odd thing about The Joneses is that the film itself plays like one long product placement commercial. Maybe this is Borte’s way of emphasizing how easily it is for us to be swayed by marketing. Still, it is tough to take Duchovny’s speech, on our constant obsession with things, seriously when every other moment you are being shown the latest Audi vehicles.
I will say that The Joneses is one of those moves, similar to Up in the Air, that will benefit greatly from its timely release. The world is still trying to get out of the recession and, now more than ever, companies are trying their best to get ever last consumer dollar. If Borte had gone for a more cutting satire The Joneses could have easily been one of the better films of the year. As it stands, you will leave The Joneses slightly disappointed and with a desire to buy something.
The massive success of Avatar only cements that 3D films are here to stay. So the question now becomes what requirements does a movie need to warrant this technology? Would Inglourious Basterds or Up in the Air be better or worse if they were done in 3D?
Robert Zemeckis follows up his Old English 3D epic, Beowulf, by revisiting the holiday terrain he first ventured to with his 3D movie, The Polar Express. A Christmas Carol finds Zemeckis tackling Charles Dickens classic tale of Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) who is visited by three ghosts (all Carrey) on the eve of Christmas. The three ghosts will not only show Scrooge the errors of his past and present, but how Scrooge's decisions may lead towards an unsettling future.
Zemeckis has been one of the prominent filmmakers who has been championing the 3D movement for that past 5 years now. While the animation in Zemeckis's 3D films keeps improving, the 3D technology continues to thwart his overall storytelling. A Christmas Carol follows a ever growing number of films that serves no real purpose in 3D format at all. The flow of each ghosts' segment is constantly interrupted for no other purpose than to justify the extra price of admission. As a result we are provided with 3D scenes of Scrooge being shot into space, speeding down the street on a soda bottle, etc. Sure these scenes may please the really young kids in attendance, whose attention spans are small to being with, but for the rest of us this is just plain annoying.
The need to justify the 3D format hurts the one element of the film where Zemeckis actually got it right, the story. Although the tale of Ebenezer Scrooge has been interpreted numerous times, it was actually refreshing to see how close Zemeckis stayed to Charles Dickens' original story. While many incarnations of A Christmas Carol have glossed over, or simply left out, the religious element of the text; Zemeckis does not shy away from it at all. Robert Zemeckis even goes as far as making the ghost of Christmas-present God himself. There is even a great scene where the ghost of Christmas-present, after being questioned by Scrooge, chastises those who use his name as grounds for conducting evil deeds. It is moments like this, and not the 3D snowflakes, where A Christmas Carol really connects with the audience.
Another thing connects, but ultimately gets lost in Zemeckis' 3D excess, is Jim Carrey's performance. Carrey actually does a really good job not only as Scrooge but the three ghosts as well. As Scrooge, Carrey finds the right balance where we believe him as botha crotchety old-man and a misguided soul who just wants one last shot at redemption. In A Christmas Carol, Carrey is actually the best he has been since his 2004 combo of Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind and Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. It is just too bad that Zemeckis inadvertently overshadows Carrey's work with his need to have objects flying off the screen. If A Christmas Carol had just played it straight, it might actually be worth recommending. Unfortunately Zemeckis tries too hard to create a 3D experience for a picture that should not have been in 3D in the first place.
A film that ask us to care not only about those who are being laid off but also the people doing the firing as well? Clearly this is a joke right? These were some of thoughts going through my head during the first twenty minutes of Jason Reitman's latest work, Up in the Air. I will fully admit that my early bias towards this film was due to the fact that it seemed to be making light of a subject matter that hit home personally for me. A mere two weeks prior to seeing Up in the Air, the company I work for had the tough task of cutting a lot of jobs. Not the best way to usher in the Christmas season to say the least. Though I was fortunate enough to survive the round of layoffs many people, including some good friends, were let go. It was a decision that greatly impacted those who were laid off, those who remained, and those that had the extremely tough task of deciding to let go people go. So what does this have to do with Up in the Air? Everything and nothing depending on your own perspective.
George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a corporate downsizer who spends most of his days firing people on behalf of companies too frightened to do it themselves. Ryan's work as a downsizer has him constantly travelling and living out of a suitcase for the majority of the year. While others may find this unbearable, Ryan relishes in it as he views it as the ultimate form of freedom. Yet the emergence of a young hotshot, Natalie (Anna Kendrick), threatens to permanently ground Ryan's highflying lifestyle. Natalie has created a business model that would allow the firm he works for to fire people via video conferencing. After witnessing people's reactions to being laid off first hand, Ryan believes that a face-to-face human element is needed to facilitate things smoothly. Especially if it is in the form of fake compassion, which Ryan has practically made an art-form. Ryan's boss (Jason Bateman) believes that Natalie's idea will save the company millions in travel expenses but decides to have Ryan take her out into the field as an experiment. This does not sit well with Ryan whose freewheeling traveling ways has now become rather cramped. To further complicate things, Ryan meets a fellow frequent flyer, Alex (Vera Farmiga), who might cause him to redefine all the things he considers important in life.
If Up in the Air had come out in another year, where it did not hit so close to home, there is a good chance I may not have loved it as much as I do. This is not to say that it is not a good film in its own right. It is just that, if I was not getting married in a few months myself, I would have probably found the wedding subplot unnecessary. The film really tries to cover a lot of different topics, maybe too many, in a rather short amount of time. Still, I must give credit to director Jason Reitman for keeping all the threads tightly woven. It is tough to make light of job loss in a way that will get the audience both laughing and reflecting. Yet this is exactly what the film achieves.
Ryan is a compelling character because his cutting cynical views on our unrealistic need for things (i.e. home, job, marriage, etc.) at times rings very true. Ryan views not being tied down to people and places as the ultimate freedom. Yet the freedom that Ryan enjoys so much is far more constricting than he knows. Ryan actually embodies everything that he normally preaches against in his "backpack" seminars. Instead of aspiring to have a family or owning material possessions such as a house, Ryan craves becoming one of only seven people in the world to achieve the highest frequent flyer miles status. He may not be able to tell you about what is going on in his siblings lives but he can rattle off all the best eateries and car rental places in every city. He keeps hotel room keys like a badge of honour.
The thing I liked about the way Reitman displays Ryan's many contradictions is how subtle it is at first. It only gradually show itself through several small, but key, moments with both Alex and Natalie. Speaking of Alex and Natalie, it must be noted that Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick give exceptional performances in this film. I would even go as far as saying that they literally steal the movie right out of Clooney's hands. Yes Clooney's work in Up in the Air is on par with his best performances in films such as Michael Clayton and Three Kings. Yet it is Farmiga and Kendrick that really make this picture shine.
On the surface Vera Farmiga's Alex is merely the female that might actually be able crack Ryan's cold exterior. As the film progresses we see that Vera's role is far more interesting, and complicated, than just the typical love interest. Farmiga gives the film such weight without ever having to overplay the role. There are so many subtle nuances in her performance that is really fascinating to watch. The same argument can be made for Kendrick who, despite having the flashier role, keeps her character grounded as she runs the gambit of emotions. Kendrick is required to be the shark, the comic relief, the conscience, and the hope in the picture. Natalie has the book smarts but her ambition blinds her to the fact that she is not the female Ryan. She is the person in your office who knows nothing about your day to day work, yet has all these great ideas to make your work easier. You hate her at first but eventually get to understand her and, dare I say, care about her on a certain level.
As I mentioned above, Up in the Air really connected with me as everything mentioned in this film hit extremely close to home on a personal level. It is a film that not only asks us to question what we want out life? But, more importantly, who do we want in the seat beside us while we are on this ongoing trip that life provides us. I did find that the film really struggled at times to reach the hopefully ending. If it was up to me, I would have ended the picture with the night shot of Ryan sitting on his bed looking aimlessly out of the hotel window after a key scene, which I will not spoil here, is revealed. Also in any other year I probably would have cut some of the stuff with the wedding as well. Who knows? Maybe I will reflect on this film again in a few years and see if I am still fond of the film. Yet as it stands today, Up in the Air connected with me in a way few other films have this year. Definitely one of the better films of this year.
I recently read an article on people who stand in line for hours to purchase the new Apple Ipad…only so that they can destroy it. They claim to be making a statement but, by paying for the product, are those customers really rebelling against the system? The idea of fighting against consumerism is at the heart of Derrick Borte’s The Joneses. 
