It's a relatively run of the mill pot boiler elevated by Clooney's fasinating main character. He has a decent shot at an Oscar Nomination on this performance.

I'll have a review up tomorrow.

tomorrow?

fascinating

Its definitley a solid little thriller, if one that wont be all too memorable down the road.

What elevates it is that everyone involved with it is totally on their game, even excelling their game. Clooney, Wilkenson, Swinton, Pollack are all great here... Not just good, but great and at their finest. The first two could end up with Oscar attention if the film gets lucky. The script is very smart, the dialogues all fitting and intriguing. The direction is totally tight, this film knew exactly where it was going at all times, Gilroy was on the ball. Hell, even cinematography and lighting, it worked.

In fact, Id go as far to say that the people and individual strengths involved in this were probably too good for the plot and small thriller scope of the movie. I wish they got everyone who made this to come together and make something more ambitious, because they could pull off anything with the tight execution they had here. Ill be watching Gilroy in the future.

B+

Michael Clayton, one of the best movies of the year so far, is a fascinating, quiet, extremely intelligent film. It develops gradually and never succumbs to cliches other drama-thrillers do. George Clooney is outstanding, topping his Oscar-winning performance in Syriana. Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton are wonderful in supporting roles, and Sydney Pollack also delivers capable support. This is a film that demands patience from its audience, but ends up rewarding them extensively by the end. A-

I can't figure out whether I want to see this or not. The trailer is intriguing but I'm not the patient type (see my hate for The Good Shepherd).

If the thought of a "thriller" with only one scene of (very) minor violence turns you off, don't see it.

If you want to see an excellent movie, then see it.

Plus, it's nearly an hour shorter than The Good Shepherd.

I don't really care if it's not a "thriller," I like a good drama, as long as it keeps me intrigued. Your "this is a film that requires patience from the audience" statement has me rethinking it. Heh.

Oh I think youd be into it Zing, its entertaining and fast-paced fun if nothing else, and I recall you saying once before you liked these law and case films.

Its nothing like TGS btw.

I'm an impatient bastard and I had no problems with this film. No offense to Libs but thats not a very accurate comment IMO.

I reckon you'd enjoy this Zing.

It requires patience because it doesn't lay everything out with a hammer, and you'll probably end up beng confused/lost by what's going on if you don't pay attention. The narrative structure is that of the wrap-around variety, for instance.

Ah, I see.

I'm seeing We Own the Night tonight but perhaps I'll see this tomorrow.

This movie is fucking aces.

Unbelievably slick and fast paced, it is the exact opposite of what we have come to expect from our "serious" movies thanks to likes of Paul Haggis. This is incredibly intelligent movie making that never panders to its audience and always assumes we can keep up with the bare minimum of information laid on the table. By not weighing down the narrative and structure with useless and obtuse information, or giving the actors inane dialogue to clarify their positions and feelings, the film is allowed to breath and flow. A perfect example of this is the hotel scene late in the movie, where Michael goes to visit Anna who has flown into New York to meet up with Arthur. Instead of pounding us over the head with expository ramblings, Tony Gilroy lets his actors act. When Anna responds to Michael's amazement that she hasn't told anyone anything Arthur has told her with a simple "I promised I wouldn't", that's all we need to know about the situation and her character. In the hands of a less competent filmmaker, she would proceed to enter into a five minute monologue about the virtues of Midwestern life, and how a promise is a promise where she comes from. This spills over into every character in the movie, as no one is a caricature or archetype, and no one is short changed. The "good guys" are barely good (Michael Clayton himself is nothing more than an easily bought addict), and the "bad guys" are all relatable and have moments of gravity. Fantastic screenplay aside, Gilroy also demonstrates incredible restraint and subtlety as a filmmaker. He knows what he has and has tremendous faith in it, so there is no pressure for virtuoso camera work to carry the day. When you have gotten your entire cast to give searing, manically intense career best performances, it becomes okay to let your foot off the gas pedal a bit from a strictly aesthetic standpoint. This isn't to discount the myriad of strong compositions throughout the movie, though, as Gilroy clearly does have "the eye" and displays it numerous times, including an exquisitely framed final shot that has a haunting quality to it.

Michael Clayton is the kind of movie that leaves you rushing with adrenaline. It has the same impact on the audience as any great action movie might, but there is only one explosion and one death by this reviewers count. Movies aren't made with this kind of skill and precision very often.

Oh, and Sydney Pollack, who plays the exact same character in every movie he is in, continues to steal every scene he is in despite that. The presence and masculinity he oozes is enough to make guys like George Clooney and Tom Cruise (in Eyes Wide Shut) look like absolute pushovers. Incredible.

MICHAEL CLAYTON

I thought this was a slow moving picture. It took it's time with almost every detail it seems and that can be a good thing but I thought the picture was slowed down by all the information. It took about 15-20 minutes just to point out where the story was going in regards to the attorney working against the people he was defending.

The acting was pretty good to me. Tilda and Clooney were on their A game I thought. The mental attorney was a bit to over the top for me at times.

The story was interesting somewhat overall but still a bit boring since it ended up just being a lawyer vs a big bad company type film in the end. I actually felt sorry that Tilda ended up getting taken down in the end for some reason. Maybe her acting had me convinced.

Grade - b

That's all I need from makeshift.

I mean, we hardly ever agree but it at least should be a love/hate thing.

Is this true? Do we really rarely agree?

But yeah, you should see it.

Really good. I didn't love it because, well, I didn't find myself as involved in the story as I wanted to be. But the performances kept the film moving and the ending is excellent. George Clooney gives one of his best performances yet, definitely. Supporting cast is also great. Surprisingly, I didn't find it slow it all (I can't say the same for the friends I went with, though). It just needed a little...more. I don't know. It was a satisfying film, but it didn't really exceed my expectations. It was just good.

B

I only didn't like one thing, it being reported that Michael was dead, I mean... no body. Or did they assume it just totally burned up. Also I thought the bad guys wouldn't blow it up when the car wasn't moving, usually you get out of a car when it stops.

Fascinating film. I thought every character was interesting (perhaps due to the excellent performances) and was often surprised by the plot twists and turns. The best legal drama in ages and one of the best films of the year.

A

I assumed the police (as part of the sting operation against U/North) purposefully released the erroneous information of Clayton dying in the bombed car, to give the company and its assassins a false sense of success and security.

Seems like the best explanation yeah, though a line or two could've been dropped in the movie to confirm it, or just not show the tv report at all

This movie was almost too darned smart for me.

Yikes! Am I getting so I look to movies just for relaxation?!? Just for laughs and escape?!?!?

Michael Clayton is a very brainy story, that I'm sure will reward analysis, after repeated viewings. But in realtime, it's kinda freakin' demandin', ya knows?

Acting is superb - - C'mon! - - Tilda Swinton, if anything is underused here; but then again, how many films could ever use an actress of her voltage to her true limits? George Clooney comes up all aces, as usual. And of course, a rare opportunity to see Sydney Pollack acting - - the guy is great - - a shame he got so distracted by directing for so long.

A very good movie. Great, as a matter of fact.





Michael Clayton is GREAT.







[Oh, and don't forget, you heard these six words in this sequence here first: Michael Clayton Michael Collins Double Bill - - that's gonna be a hot ticket by 2045 for future generations wanting to understand western civilization on circa twentieth century Earth...]

Michael Clayton...it's a well-crafted thriller, rather engaging & entertaining but never reaches its full potential. The poor thing. I enjoyed it a lot, but the storyline was a bit too simplistic and obvious. The acting is terrific but some of the characters aren't given enough depth, and by the end it sorta leaves you cold. Maybe not the best word, but I didn't really get as emotionally invested as I would have liked.

Clooney is very good, but we've seen him play this same type of persona before, so nothing too revelatory. Wilkinson is suprisingly the standout, bringing believability and stirring compassion for a character that could have very easily became a laughable cartoon (and it did get close at times). Swinton is unfortunately under-used...she does well with what she has, but wasn't given enough to chew on here. Pollack is Pollack, and I still hate him for that cell phone commercial he did that was replayed at least 500 times in front of movies I have seen. I will get over it but not for a few years. I wish we had more than two scenes with Swinton & Clooney, their chemistry really crackled and made their bits intense.

Overall I give it a B+ Critics went a tad overboard, but weren't entirely off. Aside from Wilkinson I'd ignore the film at Oscar time...and I really wanted Swinton to be in contention, but ain't gonna happen.

Also there are two scenes that bug me because I'm entirely strange.

1) Tilda Swinton sweating profusely in the bathroom stall. This easily could have gone over my head, but it seemed to me like she suddenly contracted a severe form of diarrhea, and that we should have applauded that since she is the bad lady. HOORAY the baddie got the runs!

2) Clooney and the horses. Didn't they already make a documentary about man/horse love? I didn't get it. I couldn't help but compare it to the scene in The Queen where Mirren is all having a moment with a horse (oh shit or was it a deer? whatever). It was just odd. Clooney & the horses should have gotten a room. Or the horses should have gotten a restraining order, they looked a little weirded out.

Great movie which is just what I thought it would be. Clooney is on his A game as usual to the point that I didnt want the movie to end. His character was just so damn fascinating. I agree with you guys here. This is an A+ movie if one ever was.



I didn't understand the sweating scene either. Was she nervous or shitting?