Movie Review -- Up in the Air

Up in the Air is the story of Ryan Bingham, who is hired to travel all over the country to fire people. Before getting to the review, I wondered if it was even possible to outsource this service. A search resulted in this place, but I'm not sure it is quite the same service as in the movie. Anyway, the premise of the movie starts like that of Fight Club, about characters who spend a great deal of time flying. However, unlike the character in Fight Club, Ryan Bingham prefers it to the alternative of standing still.

The movie shows Ryan to be great at what he does. George Clooney is just as adept at playing Ryan. Normally I'm not a big George Clooney fan, finding him to be too polished and smiley, but I have to say he was born to play this part. The primary goal in Ryan's life is to achieve the ten-million mile club at American Airlines. Meanwhile he turns life on the road into a science. If you get nothing else out of the movie, you should at least get a few pointers in that area. However, fans of the Luxor may not agree with everything he says.

Two female characters enter the movie. A young new-hire to his company who he is to show the ropes to. The second is a woman he meets in a hotel bar, who seems to share in the joy of his lifestyle. However, at his sister's wedding he begins to question his philosophy of fitting everything he owns in a small suitcase. That is about as far as I should take it, without blowing anything.

The plot of the movie is not the central point of the movie. It is character driven, with long conversations and scenes. I hope the movie will go down as a good period piece of the late zeros (for lack of a better term for this decade). While it is easy to give the movie lots of compliments, it isn't the kind of movie I'd enjoy watching several times, as I can of others. The ending also left me feeling shortchanged. All things considered, on a 0 to 10 scale, Up in the Air gets a 7 from me.

I have nothing to add to your movie review, but as for the decade reference, last century they called it the "oughts", but that seems to have gone out of fashion. I wonder if this decade's 20's will be roaring.

I've heard a couple of people call it "the zips." I call it the nameless decade. And the next one won't be any better.

Nobody says "ought" any more. For the same reason they called the 1900's the oughts I think the "zeros" is the most appropriate term. I think we'll have to wait until VH-1 does a retrospective on the decade for clarity on this issue. I could also ask the question about the next decade. I could see calling 2013-2019 the "teens," but that will leave 2010-2012 without a group of years to belong to.

I once heard a radio station claiming to play "the best music from the 80's, the 90's, and...whatever", with the "whatever" corresponding to music from the current decade.

the 'Noughties'.

a) it rhymes with other recent decades
b) nought is math nerd speak for 0
c) calling the decade something that sounds like naughty is just... naughty good fun.

Since we continue to "hijack" this thread (haha), I also find it interesting how people have been calling all of the individual years "two thousand and five...two thousand and eight" yet now people are saying "twenty - oh nine, twenty - ten" etc. I'm even noticing it being done revisionally, like "back in twenty - oh three".

Even though it would be confusing, inaccurate, and I don't support it, I could see people refering to 2000-2009 as "the two thousands" because of this.

I must admit that when I refer to a date since 1/1/2000, I'll say the whole year. To do otherwise might confuse the listener. For example, saying zero-seven could refer to a day, month, or year.

As long as this thread has gone completely off topic, what is with calling dates before 0 "BCE"? For those unfamiliar with the term, it means Before Current Era. As I understand it, the main reasons are:

1. The BC/AD notation mixes two languages, English and Latin.
2. When the modern calendar dating years from Jesus' birth got started around the year 500, the monks got the starting point wrong by a few years.
3. It smacks of religion.

My counterpoints are:

1. Big deal. A lot of foreign words and expressions have become mainstream in English. For example, the English "house" comes from the German "haus."
2. Doesn't the BCE system have the same error? You don't make any conversion going from one to the other, except adding the E, or changing AD to CE.
3. Who cares. Like it or not religion has shaped everyday life in ways we don't even stop to think about any more. For example, isn't the seven-day week based on the seven days god allegedly took to make everything? Nobody ever suggests changing the number of days in a week.

I remember the first time I heard of BCE was from a teacher who wrote it on the board and said that it meant "Before the Christian Era"...either she was wrong or they continued to de-religion it over the years. I do think that it was/is just another attempt to cater to those that don't want to hear about Christ in any official matter whatsoever. I'm not taking a position on this change, but it is noticable.

Quote: Wizard

I must admit that when I refer to a date since 1/1/2000, I'll say the whole year. To do otherwise might confuse the listener. For example, saying zero-seven could refer to a day, month, or year.

As long as this thread has gone completely off topic, what is with calling dates before 0 "BCE"? For those unfamiliar with the term, it means Before Current Era. As I understand it, the main reasons are:

1. The BC/AD notation mixes two languages, English and Latin.
2. When the modern calendar dating years from Jesus' birth got started around the year 500, the monks got the starting point wrong by a few years.
3. It smacks of religion.

My counterpoints are:

1. Big deal. A lot of foreign words and expressions have become mainstream in English. For example, the English "house" comes from the German "haus."
2. Doesn't the BCE system have the same error? You don't make any conversion going from one to the other, except adding the E, or changing AD to CE.
3. Who cares. Like it or not religion has shaped everyday life in ways we don't even stop to think about any more. For example, isn't the seven-day week based on the seven days god allegedly took to make everything? Nobody ever suggests changing the number of days in a week.

I agree with your points.

I have slowly come to realize that different cultures have different starting points anyway for their calenders. Stupidly, for a long time I thought we were all 'on the same page'. But evidently if you are an Israeli, a Pakistani, or any other culturally different society, you have your own deal (I'm pretty sure). Considering that, it just seems too PC for me to have these changes advocated.

Quote: odiousgambit

I have slowly come to realize that different cultures have different starting points anyway for their calenders. Stupidly, for a long time I thought we were all 'on the same page'. But evidently if you are an Israeli, a Pakistani, or any other culturally different society, you have your own deal (I'm pretty sure). Considering that, it just seems too PC for me to have these changes advocated.

I thought everybody was on the same page. Out of curiosity, I went to the web site for the Jerusalem Post, and they indicate both the conventional and Jewish calendar date. If you got to the web site for the David Citadel hotel in Jerusalem, the form for making a reservation is the conventional calendar, including if you click on Hebrew for the language.

Having been to China five times, I can tell you that the only time anybody mentions the Chinese calendar over there would be around Chinese new year. I don't think it is even common knowledge what the current Chinese year is (as a number, not an animal).

I'm all ears as to what other cultures do.

Let's just all confuse ourselves into submission by switching to Before Present