up in the air.

this is sort of a review. and i said "sort of" because i know i am not a cinema critic or anything alike. i just enjoy movies. mind you, good movies. so i will just try to explain with my own words, more used to the literary field and, that for sure, the spanish language, why the last movie i saw atthe cinema let me with a sour taste in my mouth.

do not worry those of you who have not seen it yet. i will not spoil anything for you. i will just say that, once again, the director of "Juno" Reitman, disapointed me. why? very easy:

some american movies, and the same type of american people, in general, the ones that try to seem alternative, countercultural, more progresive and so on, fail to do so. the very sma ething happens not only with juno but also with up in the air.

it is true that the former was a much more originally filmed and entertaining movie (thanks partly to the soundtrack and the amazing actors featuring in it) but this one does not even suck the handsome and brilliant clooney's performance as much as it could have done. it is, rather, as one friend of mine described it, "simplistic". she was right, everyone knows that we are all better surrounded by people and not living an altrusitic life.

however, the way we decide to couple our selves, to share our time does not need to be the traditional one. it could be. but that is just one possibility out of thousands we cannot even think of thanks to, partly, movies like reitman's, that, under a veil of innovation and left-alternative option, conveys just the same mild and sugarynostalgia for the american dream. too afraid to take any risk beyond what it is used to see, hear and do.

and again, i know it is just my barely elaborated impression. anyone could disagree. am open to agree to disagree or otherwise. i just love that expression!

however, it is a easy movie. and it contains parts of saint louis, which is not that bad of a city.