|
Directed by: Tony Gilroy Starring: George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, Tom Wilkinson, Sydney Pollack The obvious assertion that has to be made by anyone beginning a defense of this movie is that it's about what the title indicates: a guy named Michael Clayton, played by George Clooney. It's not about the legal case he becomes connected with. If you want to see a legal drama, go see some other movie. It's about who Michael Clayton is, and why, and how that changes over the five days or so that the movie shows us. And yet, he's completely absent for the first two things that captured me about the movie. The first is a crazed, desperate monologue delivered by an offscreen Tom Wilkinson over the opening credits. It is bizarre and fascinating and gripping. We don't know who the gently caress he is or what the gently caress he's talking about, but we'll find out later. The second is an extended shot of Tilda Swinton in a bathroom stall, looking like she's about to hyperventilate, her tailored shirt soaked with sweat. We don't know who the gently caress she is or what the gently caress she's so freaked out about, but we'll find out later. (And the next time we come back to her will be a wonderfully written, acted and edited sequence that I'll love even more.) Not knowing who the gently caress people are or what's going on is a theme for quite awhile at the beginning of the movie, maybe too long. I liked the process of piecing together the story in my head, but in retrospect, I think the tangle of people and plot points may have been more complicated than it needed to be, because some parts of it don't seem to have had much purpose in the end. Maybe I just missed what the purpose was, though--I know I missed some stuff, and I don't think it would be possible for someone to watch this movie and catch every thread on the first viewing. Anyway. I'm deliberately avoiding describing much of the plot because it would gently caress the whole thing up if you went into the movie and could place everything into context immediately because I told you what was going on. But, good stuff about this movie: wonderful writing, acting, characterization, editing and cinematography. I loved the cinematography before I could process that it was cinematography I was loving; I just knew that my eyes were arrested by the images on screen, even when their subject wasn't particularly notable. Bad stuff: I actually thought the ending twist was kind of lame. I think there were a couple of Saved by the Bell episodes that used the same device. 4.5/5, rounded to a 4 because I just can't give it a 5. It's better than a 4, though. Propaniac fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Oct 22, 2007 |
#
?
Oct 22, 2007 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
I am really just astonished that this movie has gotten such good reviews. I thought it was just awful. It was just plain boring: boring characters, boring plot, boring and extremely predictable "twists". The whole thing was unoriginal and predictable, which would not even be a complaint if the characters were interesting in some way, but that was simply not the case. I'll admit that the acting was good (particularly Tilda Swinton, though I wasn't too impressed by George Clooney) but that's nearly not enough to redeem it. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2007 21:23
|
|
|
I'm trying hard to put my finger on what exactly I enjoyed about this movie... and coming to the realization that there's nothing especially outstanding. It's just that all the constituent pieces are well executed. It's a good movie, even a very good movie, but not a great one. Very solid performances from all the main characters - Clooney is great as Clayton, (but then again, he's playing pretty much the same character he always plays in every movie - with the possible exception of O Brother). Nothing is handed to you on a plate in this movie - you're required to infer an awful lot. Even the main character isn't terribly well fleshed out, and this can make it a little difficult to empathize with anyone. Overall, I give it a 4. Worth a look.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2007 06:51
|
|
|
I thought everything about this movie was great, except, unfortunately, the ending. Well worth seeing, but ugh, what a simple, cliche way to wrap up such a good plot. 4
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2007 20:12
|
|
|
Definitely an enjoyable film for those able to follow a plot involving corporate malfeasance, under-the-table favors, and lots of loosely related characters doing their small part in a bigger story. Clooney holds it all together and garnered quite a few chuckles with the pseudo-twist at the end when it looked like the souless conglomerate had swept up all the pieces. It did feel like Syriana with an agro-chemical firm, but then again I liked Syriana. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2007 01:01
|
|
|
Film was far too smart for its own good. If you're smart enough to be able to follow the never ending stream of new characters and gratuitous twists that make up the first 45 minutes of the movie, you're smart enough to know the ending by the halfway mark. The rest was just a tedious exercise. I disagree with anyone who calls the end a twist. A twist is Arthur's still alive; this was telegraphed. 3/5 on the strength of good performances and good cinematography, but this was pretty standard fare otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2008 20:35
|
|
|
-
Serious Sam fucked around with this message at 08:23 on May 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2008 19:40
|
|
|
I didn't find this movie confusing at all. I found it incredibly well-acted, well-scored, and beautifully shot. The writing was good, and I agree with the above mention that this was not a legal thriller but more about a man and just a snapshot of his life. (Hence the title.) I don't consider myself a movie-analyzing afficionado, but I wasn't confused by any part of the movie at any time. I think the ending was fairly obvious but not in a "Called it!' sorta way. Just seemed like it was the natural way that story should end. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2008 17:36
|
|
|
I came into the movie with high hopes as I had seen on Wiki and RottenTomatoes that the film had over a 90% review rating. As usual with good drama films, the beginning was crazy and I had no idea what the gently caress was happening. The problem is, however, that this went on until just about the end of the movie. Now I tried hard to piece all of it together and I was trying to ignore all of the big legal mumbo jumbo that was thrown in there and the 408 characters that I was supposed to be able to remember, but I think this film was too much. After a while, I would just kinda phase out and pay attention to random poo poo in the background and look for continuity errors in the filming or something. I think all in all, this film was a lot like Hero in that it was a very pretty and well acted (is that a word?) film, but I seriously had no idea what the gently caress was going on at all. At least in Hero there were cool fight scenes. It could be that I'm retarded and can't piece a complex plot together. 3.0 / 5.0
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2008 08:13
|
|
|
You will be lost as to what exactly is goin on for much of the movie, but it is entirely intentional and the characters and mystery will make you stick with it till the end. Not a great movie, but a very good one. 4
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2008 01:10
|
|
|
There are few things I hate more than when people rate a film based on or against what everyone else thinks. I try not to fall into that trap. I do my best to watch a film with little or no background at all. That said, when Michael Clayton came out, I thought 'Average legal thriller, nothing to see here.' Then the Oscar buzz started up and I decided I should at least take a look. I had literally no idea what it was about until I read the netflix label. I watched it last night and I have to say it is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Granted, I am just some guy on the internet. You don't know me or what I like and you probably think 'Disgruntled teenaged attention whore.' I'm not. Really, I'm not. I'm a bit older, hopefully a bit wiser. I have worked for major law firms and seen a lot of legal thrillers that I liked. I like George Clooney. I like The Bourne Movies (which Tony Gilroy, the director of this monstrocity wrote). This film is a failure on all fronts. I had to write about it somewhere in the hopes that I could change someone's mind about watching it. NOTE: SPOILERS AHEAD. I am going to do my best to tag spoilers, but my problems with the film revolve around some pretty major plot points, so I might sneak in some stuff. That said, do not watch this movie if you haven't already. Since you are only going to read this if you have seen it, spoilers aren't that big of a deal, are they. Quick synopsis: Michael Clayton is a 'fixer' for a major law firm. He sorts out problems for high-profile clients. You need to get a shady someone a green card? MC is on the job. You need to get your son out of a DUI? Ditto. This firm is representing U-North, a chemical company in a class action lawsuit. The head litigator assigned to the case goes crazy on camera at a deposition. It turns out this litigator may have information about the case that causes him to question whether or not he is doing the right thing. MC is sent in to fix the problem. Problem #1: Michael Clayton is awful at his job. The film opens with MC going to Westchester NY from the city to help a client that hit a jogger on the way home. What does MC say? 'Call a good criminal attorney.' Now, while that is probably the best advice in this case, why show this as the example of what he does best? I could have loving said that. A 10 year old could have come up with that answer. Why not show him doing some serious legal wrangling, or digging a hole somewhere? Everyone in the movie seems to think that he is some bad-rear end 'guy behind the guy' and we see him tell a major client to get a good criminal attorney? It only gets worse from there. His job is to corral a litigator that went coo-coo. How does he try to do this? Talking to him. Yes, the corporate hit-man for one of the best law firms in the world tries to out argue an insane litigator. That is the best he can come up with. This same litigator is being shadowed by bag men hired by U-north to keep tabs on the situation. Not only does MC not recognize the surveilance, he doesn't even assume that U-North would stoop to such tactics. In short, it is impossible that this guy is good at his job. This wouldn't be a big deal if that is what the film was about. If they wanted to throw a young attorney to the proverbial dogs in order to protect a secret, great. That would be a far better film. But he is supposed to be amazing, and at one point in the movie.... Problem #2:An act of God saves MC's life After offering the lamest bag-man advice ever, MC is seen racing through the upstate countryside. On a whim, he gets out of the car to look at some horses. Yes, three horses on a hill. While having his moment there, his car explodes. This happens less than 10 minutes in. On screen: four days earlier. Sweet, lets figure out how this happened. Here is the real spoiler: THERE IS NO loving EXPLANATION AT ALL AS TO WHY MC GOT OUT OF HIS CAR. Period. Let's say he was spooked. (After all, the litigator had died a suspicious death and had a van parked in front of his house for days at least.) If MC was spooked, it seems pretty loving convenient that he gets out of the car literally seconds before these same hit men detonate a car bomb. No warning, no phone call, nothing. Wait, I'm sorry. His GPS was flickering. I know when I have electronic problems in my car, I think 'car bomb' but that is because I am secretly a CIA-trained ninja. At this point in the film, it has been established that MC is at the very best distraut by poo poo going on his family, at the worst (and in my opinion) not very good at his job. Given that, there are no signs at all, nothing to point to how he gets this sixth-sense at the last moment and gets out of the vehicle. To make matters SOMEHOW worse, he runs back down the hill and throws his watch, cell phone and IDs into the vehicle. Cut to his law office. 'OMG, MC is dead. Car bomb, upstate.' I have seen car fires, car accidents, etc. The damage to that vehicle was not enough to completely destroy a body. Only the loving keystone cops could say 'Yeah, he was in here. Look, his watch!!!' Why is this important? Problem #3: Because apparently, now that U-North has tied up all the loose ends, they decide -inexplicably- to settle. The only two people in the loving world that could break the case are dead, why settle? I'll tell you why: without the settlement agreement on the table, the final scene wouldn't have taken place. With MC believed dead, he returns to the settlement meeting between the U-North general counsel and board members. Surprise! He has the document that proves U-North was at fault. He gets the general counsel (Tilda Swinton, in three of her maybe 12 minutes of screen time. How did she get the nod for Best Supporting here?) to admit that she set up the hit on the litigator and MC. REDEMPTION. I wonder why it got all the buzz this year. Hmmm... Maybe because Warner didn't have anything else to offer up for the Oscars? After all, all of the major studios should be represented in the best picture category. That is the way this works right? Atonement: Universal Juno: Fox No Country for Old Men: Paramount There will be Blood: Disney Michael Clayton: Warner Bros Now you'll say 'OK, you didn't like it. How is it worse than 'Escape from LA?' First of all rear end in a top hat, it isn't. Escape from LA is the worst film ever put to celluloid, period. Challenge me on that at your own peril. What makes MC so loving bad, so loving frustrating is that it yearns to be much more than it is. George Clooney was able to ascend to his stature in a similar fashion. He muddled around on TV for a while, got a role on the hottest show, and was able to make the jump to big movies. Clooney has magnetism and I enjoy the films he does, but a duck is a duck: he is just a really good looking average actor that lucked out. The thing is, Clooney would even admit to that. Studios can't admit that so they just market the gently caress out of it. I am reminded of another shithole of a film 'For Your Consideration.' Even though nearly unwatchable, it makes a point about how buzz is generated. Get enough pundits and magazines to say 'Oscar' and suddenly it happens. People get bamboozled into believing that films like this have merit and then studios and critics start treating the film like it actually has merit. Michael Clayton defines everything wrong with the Hollywood machine. Take a sup-par story, an awful script, tack on eight (!!) producers, the 'it guy' director, a great cast and BOOSH you have a blockbuster. Throw in some Oscar Buzz, a weak year for awards (Atonement? For Best Picture? Seriously. Stop.) and a system that assumes because something looks good, it is good and you have this loving goose egg. Zero stars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2008 19:25
|
|
|
quote:Problem #2:An act of God saves MC's life I watched the movie and must say that I found it pretty entertaining. George Clooney did a decent job of acting. But then again I don't think the character is such a huge stretch for him. I was more impressed with Tilda Swinton. The scene in the bathroom where she is having her nervous break down is incredibly intense. The plot did get jumpy at some parts and required you to keep your attention locked into the screen. I think viewing it on DVD may have allowed me to catch more details. As for the question about the car and horses by flamingmuse, didn't the scene on the hill with the three horses match the picture in the book that his kid was reading and that the lawyer had become fascinated with as well? And that's what caused him to leave the car? In a sense he couldn't believe that the view in front of him was EXACTLY like it was in the book. Maybe he thought he was dreaming and had to walk up there to make sure. At least that's what I recall. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2008 23:53
|
|
|
Really convoluted and boring. The cinematography was as grim and pallid as a newly widowed man. It's unsurprising that George Clooney continues to appear in these serious, quasi-topical films, as they are the perfect showcase for his detached, expressionless acting. Why casting directors think we are interested in his monotone sermonizing, I'm not sure. He should be pimping Accutane or some Amway product on late night TV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2008 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
As I watched this movie, I kept thinking to myself that I had seen it before. After a while I realized it was just because there wasn't anything new or exciting going on. It seemed to be a little too full of itself, and it used George Clooney as a crutch to help it limp over the finish line. I was interested in it while it was running, but when it faded to the credits I felt cheated of my time and money. This could have been a hell of a lot better. I'm giving it a 1.49/5, rounding down to 1 because I didn't get anything out of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2008 06:07
|
|
