Page 1 of 1

Michael Clayton (Spoilers)

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:18 am
by Zarles
Anyone seen this yet? I didn't see a thread for it anywhere, but I've been blind before.

Saw it last night, damn good stuff. If Tom Wilkinson isn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor, there's just something wrong out there.

Back in a bit with more...

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:14 pm
by Zarles
So anyway, despite the fact that the middle of this movie seemed a little slow and muddled, I really enjoyed 'Michael Clayton'. If anyone thought that George Clooney had fallen back on the success of his more novelty films like the Ocean's series, they really need to check out his Michael Clayton character and see what I think is George at his finest thus far. His character is a truly troubled and flawed person at heart, and it is an incredibly well-defined and believable part.

Tony Gilroy, writer of the three Bourne movies, makes his directorial debut with this flick, and it's like he's been doing it all along. Like Mori said out on the main page, it's not the most important or meaningful film, but it's slick as hell, and a great ride to boot. All the acting is top-notch - George, Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack, and perhaps most importantly, Tom Wilkinson in what I think is his best performance to date. Like I said, if he doesn't at least get a Golden Globe out of this, then there's just something wrong somewhere. He's absolutely MANIC in his role as a depressed, over-medicated corporate lawyer who is finally starting to see the downside of defending a giant corporate entity. The scene where he strips down to nothing but his socks during a deposition is unintentionally hilarious, but at the same time, it's shocking as hell. Tom truly shows how much his character has been broken by the pressure that his employers put on him, and it's thrilling just to watch the man work. Hands down one of my favorite dramatic performances of the year so far.

Put simply, this movie is the real deal. There's no distracting love interest to muddy up the narrative of the story, and despite the fact that Michael Clayton's son does play a part in the overall telling of the story, he's not precocious or cute or overly sentimental in the slightest. If you liked the directness and blunt honesty of the Bourne films, you'll like the tone of this one, as well. The finale is fantastic, and I'd be an idiot if I even thought about spoiling it for anyone. You'll really have to see it for yourself.

Well worth a full-price ticket just for the acting performances alone, but it's a really worthwhile film as a whole, too. People like George Clooney and Tony Gilroy actually seem to give a shit about movies. They're obviously not just a paycheck to them so they can go make their next coke score, and for one, I really appreciate that. As I mentioned, I think a few minutes here and there could've been chopped for the sake of clarity and length, and that's why I give it an 8 out of 10.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:50 pm
by Maui
Gonna go see this today.

I saw the trailer twice last weekend and it certainly seems captivating.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:42 pm
by Zarles
You will to be enjoying! :)

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:01 am
by Zarles
Bueller?

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:08 am
by Pacino86845
Thanks for chiming in on this film Zarles, I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it once it hits cinemas over here... I think Clooney's a fine actor, and makes an impressive director as well, despite what I think of his real-life character. He always came across as smug, though I thought the Nespresso commercial he did was hilarious.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:19 am
by Zarles
I like George a lot, and I'm not sure why you think of him as smug. I think he's the most normal of a lot of movie stars out there today, actually.

Anyway, ya'll should check this movie out, it's awesome. Capone just posted an interview with Tony Gilroy out on the main site, too.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:22 am
by Pacino86845
Zarles wrote:I like George a lot, and I'm not sure why you think of him as smug.


Behind the scenes videos I'd seen of him working on different films... his "pretend arrogant asshole" routine doesn't feel like pretend all the time.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:22 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
I always thought the guy was pretty down to earth Mr Nice Humble Guy in what I've seen of him, thought his self referencing joke at the Oscars on stage commenting on how many awards he thought he was gonna get, while maybe appearing to be 'I poke fun at me as I am not making a big deal about it' also struck me as a little questionable or maybe smug and arrogant wether accidental or trying to disguise it? I dunno for sure.


Having said that, I do think the guy is one of the more integrity filled and driven Hollywood stars at the moment with the Good Luck and SillyAnna movie what not - and especially with Michael Claymore too!! I saw it last week on my friend's recommendation. I WILL post a little comment on it later on though. But this thread does need more life in it though, the film deserves more viewers and respect.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:00 pm
by MasterWhedon
I thought this movie was fucking brilliant, top to bottom. Restrained, exacting, cynical-yet-not--this film is a master class in building strong, three-dimensional characters, and in creating suspense when the audience isn't looking. To steal a quote from Robert Wolonsky (guest host on Ebert & Roeper), it's "the best John Grisham movie John Grisham never wrote."

This will be a MAJOR player come Oscar time.

10/10

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:08 pm
by Hermanator X
Its on my must see list but god knows when I will get the opportunity to see it.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:54 pm
by Maui
Zarles wrote:You will to be enjoying! :)



Didn't get a chance to see it Z. This coming weekend for sure. I see other's enjoyed it as well - good news!!!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:57 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
If only a Sydney Pollack film could be as exciting as a Sydney Pollack performance. Everytime, that guy is electrifying!!

PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:14 pm
by tapehead
Pacino86845 wrote:He always came across as smug, though I thought the Nespresso commercial he did was hilarious.


It's not especially evident, but Michel Gondry directed those spots. Clooney also did a tour of Darfur with his dad and family, shot the whole thing himself and released to the media to highlight the situation there last year. He does seem smug, but it also seems like the guy is pretty committed to his ideals.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:05 am
by Zarles
MasterWhedon wrote:I thought this movie was fucking brilliant, top to bottom. Restrained, exacting, cynical-yet-not--this film is a master class in building strong, three-dimensional characters, and in creating suspense when the audience isn't looking. To steal a quote from Robert Wolonsky (guest host on Ebert & Roeper), it's "the best John Grisham movie John Grisham never wrote."

This will be a MAJOR player come Oscar time.

10/10


Thank you! The person I saw it with refused to believe me when I said the same thing. I'm thinking Best Picture, (at least a nom, not sure if it will win) Best Supporting for Tom 'Madman' Wilkinson, MAYBE a Best Actor for George, and a Best Screenplay nom for Gilroy.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who dug it this much. Hurry up, Maui! :)

p.s. Who gave it a 1 on the poll? :evil:

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:09 am
by Pacino86845
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote: thought his self referencing joke at the Oscars on stage commenting on how many awards he thought he was gonna get, while maybe appearing to be 'I poke fun at me as I am not making a big deal about it' also struck me as a little questionable or maybe smug and arrogant wether accidental or trying to disguise it? I dunno for sure.


Well that's exactly the sort of thing I'm referring to 'cause he's been pulling that schtick for YEARS!!

Had no idea Gondry did the Nespresso spots... fuckin' brilliant!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:53 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
Pacino86845 wrote:
Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote: thought his self referencing joke at the Oscars on stage commenting on how many awards he thought he was gonna get, while maybe appearing to be 'I poke fun at me as I am not making a big deal about it' also struck me as a little questionable or maybe smug and arrogant wether accidental or trying to disguise it? I dunno for sure.


Well that's exactly the sort of thing I'm referring to 'cause he's been pulling that schtick for YEARS!!


I don't get what you mean.

I dunno about being an Oscar contender though. Wilkinson should be nommeed, dunno about Clooney. He's shown himself here to be a much better actor than I gave him credit for, but I don't think he's the best thing in this film for starters, I don't think he can challenge other best actor candidates, but heh, it's Oscars, I really don't care. He was brilliant to watch in this film and that's all that needs to be witnessed.

Although, I STILL don't have that clear an idea what it was that he actually did! Also, is this film a true story in any way?

Heh, what makes me give Clooney a bit of cred as a person, is that HE and BILL MURRAY were driving the gold cart drunk around the corridors of the Hotel that they were staying in.

BANTHA as the inside scooper on that.

I MA OGNNA ILLK UYO LZUG!!!!!!!!!!

PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:01 am
by Nordling
Now that it's been nominated for Best Picture, I thought I'd see this so I can say I saw all the nominees.

Wow. This one absolutely deserves to be nominated. It's like the smartest, best John Grisham story he never wrote.

It doesn't coddle you. If you can't keep up, it'll pass your ass in a ditch on the side of the road. It's for audiences who like to be challenged and it's filled with terrific performances. Highly recommended.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:12 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Holy crappa... Clooney's inna this? For a the longest time, I thought it was a that picture with a the Liam Neeson as a that Irish putz... I was alla like "Dinna this alla'ready come out back inna the 90s?"

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:11 pm
by Pacino86845
I watched this not too long ago, and it was a darned fine film!

The film, much like the titular character, doesn't reach for much, is understated for the most part, straightforward, discreet, and yet intelligent, elegant, and rich with character (do I ever wish Realm & Conquest was a real book!!).

A quiet, contemplative film for the most part, Michael Clayton still enjoys a tight pacing that every character drama hopes to achieve. Clooney and Wilkinson deliver standout performances, and although Tilda Swinton is only serviceable at best, her role is small enough (and perhaps a tad underwritten) for it not to matter.

8/10 (Very good - excellent)

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:23 pm
by bluebottle
my girlfriend brought this home last night, and I DID NOT WANT.

the trailers made it look so lame and boring... but holy shit, what a fucking FANTASTIC film.

i loved it. one of the best films of the last 5 years, easily.

what the hell happened? why was this film not more successful? was it the advertising campaign?

i mean, how would you sell a film like this?

if you haven't seen it, see it...

PostPosted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:32 pm
by Vegeta
It's in the netflix que, hopefully will have a review in a week or so.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:23 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
i'm not exactly looking to pick some internet fisticuffs up over MICHAEL CLAYTON, as the flick has quite a lot going for it...

Michael. Dear Michael. Of course it's you, who else could they send, who else could be trusted? I... I know it's a long way and you're ready to go to work... all I'm saying is just wait, just... just wait and please just hear me out because this is not an episode, relapse, fuck-up, it's... I'm begging you Michael. I'm begging you. Try to make believe this is not just madness because this is not just madness. Two weeks ago I came out of the building ok, I'm running across 6th avenue there's a car waiting, I've got exactly 38 minutes to get to the airport and I'm dictating. There's this panicked associate sprinting along beside me, scribbling in a notepad, and suddenly she starts screaming, and I realize we're standing in the middle of the street, the light's changed, there's this wall of traffic, serious traffic speeding towards us, and I... I freeze, I can't move, and I'm suddenly consumed with the overwhelming sensation that I'm covered in some sort of film. It's in my hair, my face... it's like a glaze... a coating, and... at first I thought, oh my god, I know what this is, this is some sort of amniotic - embryonic - fluid. I'm drenched in afterbirth, I've breached the chrysalis, I've been reborn. But then the traffic, the stampede, the cars, the trucks, the horns, the screaming and I'm thinking no-no-no, reset, this is not rebirth, this is some kind of giddy illusion of renewal that happens in the final moment before death. And then I realize no-no-no, this is completely wrong because I look back at the building and I had the most stunning moment of clarity. I... I... I realized Michael, that I had emerged not from the doors of Kenner, Bach, and Odeen, not through the portals of our vast and powerful law firm, but from the asshole of an organism who's sole function is to excrete the... the... the poison, the ammo, the defoliant necessary for other, larger, more powerful organisms to destroy the miracle of humanity. And that I had been coated in this patina of shit for the best part of my life. The stench of it and the sting of it would in all likelihood take the rest of my life to undue. And you know what I did? I took a deep cleansing breath and I put that notion aside. I tabled it. I said to myself as clear as this may be, as potent a feeling as this is, as true a thing as I believe I witnessed today, it must wait. It must stand the test of time, and Michael, the time is now.


'cuz let me make clear, a movie that kicks off with that thought provoking, jaw dropping, ass-firmly-planted-to-my-couch-while-listening-in- awe voice-over from the ho-hum, awesome as always Tom Wilkinson is not a movie one can hoist up on it's own petard and not expect some serious objections from the peanut gallery.
Tony Gilroy's directorial debut doesn't dumb it down for the dullards, it's somewhat uplifting ending felt earned, the performances are across the board top-notch, the framing and shots are serviceable enough...

but did no one else feel God was not only out of the machine, but beating up snot nosed kids for their quarters?

consider Wilkinson's revelation, and the fact that those who've received similar epiphanies over the course of time have been branded insane, have been housed in your Bedlam's, your Arkham's - so we're led to believe Arthur's epiphany is him not taking his manic/depressive meds, right?
But, clearly, he's not insane - in fact, what he's doing may be the sanest thing one could do in his clearly insane situation. He's getting the girl (sure, a creepy substitute for his estranged daughter, but still...), his action in fleeing Milwaukee is just to get to NY where, as Arthur points out, they can't put him away for insanity. I couldn't help but think he has a pretty rational reaction to his awakening, his "rebirth"; I mean, he gave it a couple weeks to see if it stood the test of time, no?
So, sure, it's a bit of a stretch, but that's epiphany/revelation/divine intervention #1.

The second, well, that would be Clooney ditching his ride in bafflement over the 3 (trinity? Three is a very religious number) horses chilling on the hill above him.
Espying those curiously free range for Westchester County horses saves his life, and is, importantly, the one and only thing that compels him to finally do the right thing.

No character really has an arc to speak of, 'cept arguably Arthur, and we know what happened to him. That's fine, that's not a deal breaker for me, I find character development to be mostly hokey and patently untrue to life as I know of it - but, in terms of overall plot mechanics, the flick really hinges on one (most definitely) and possibly two acts of divine will.

Am I that wrong on that? 'Cuz I thought the film was pretty damn solid otherwise..

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:30 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
MasterWhedon wrote:To steal a quote from Robert Wolonsky (guest host on Ebert & Roeper), it's "the best John Grisham movie John Grisham never wrote."


Nordling wrote:Wow. This one absolutely deserves to be nominated. It's like the smartest, best John Grisham story he never wrote.


stealing lines makes baby jesus cry...

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:41 am
by Pacino86845
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:The second, well, that would be Clooney ditching his ride in bafflement over the 3 (trinity? Three is a very religious number) horses chilling on the hill above him.
Espying those curiously free range for Westchester County horses saves his life, and is, importantly, the one and only thing that compels him to finally do the right thing.


This reminded me of something... I hadn't noticed myself, but I discussed this film with a friend of mine, and he said that when Clooney was flipping through Realm & Conquest there'd been an illustration of three (?) horses, and it was because of that that he stopped the car. Does that seem familar?

Otherwise, very thoughtful review Keepcool, don't have any answers for you though. :)

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:59 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
Pacino86845 wrote:This reminded me of something... I hadn't noticed myself, but I discussed this film with a friend of mine, and he said that when Clooney was flipping through Realm & Conquest there'd been an illustration of three (?) horses, and it was because of that that he stopped the car. Does that seem familar?


i could buy that...Arthur's copy of the book, which did contain the receipt for all the copies of the damning report he had printed, the book which sorta serves as a harbinger of what's going on in the film...

but then I come back to three's - Arthur, Clayton, Clayton's son. Three horses. Father, son, holy spirit.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:16 am
by Pacino86845
Certainly the number doesn't lose its religious implications, I was just wondering if anyone else noted the connection to Realm & Conquest, which sort of brings things around full circle, I guess.

But I also wonder how the number 3 may be tied into the "Navajo religion" that seems to be referenced by Realm & Conquest. Also, what do horses symbolize? Horses weren't native to the Americas, am I correct about this? Were they not brought over with the colonials? Just some random thoughts there...

PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:17 am
by Maui
Pacino86845 wrote:I was just wondering if anyone else noted the connection to Realm & Conquest, which sort of brings things around full circle, I guess.


It has everything to do with the book. We have Arthur and Clayton's son discussing the book, we have Clayton's son trying to get his Dad to read the book, we have Clayton finding the book in Arthur's apartment after Arthur's murder. It's key, imo.

Arthur reading the book, the son's interest in the book, Arthur's death, and Clayton finding the book in Arthur's apartment, flipping through the pages and seeing the 3 horses. It is a full circle. When Clayton sees the horses on the hill, it is that defining moment of the movie, not only does it save his life, but it brings everything into perspective for him, Arthur's case and making the right moral decisons, his relationship with his son. The 3 horses in Realm & Conquest are standing on that hill. It's a religious experience for Clayton, an awakening.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:30 am
by Peven
Pacino86845 wrote:Certainly the number doesn't lose its religious implications, I was just wondering if anyone else noted the connection to Realm & Conquest, which sort of brings things around full circle, I guess.

But I also wonder how the number 3 may be tied into the "Navajo religion" that seems to be referenced by Realm & Conquest. Also, what do horses symbolize? Horses weren't native to the Americas, am I correct about this? Were they not brought over with the colonials? Just some random thoughts there...


horses were first brought to the Americas by the Spanish conquistadors in the early 16th century. not sure of their significance in American Indian religion or mythology. to be honest, i can't recall an Indian tale involving a horse, and i have heard a couple in my time, but then i am most familiar with cultures east of the Mississippi.

PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:48 am
by magicmonkey
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:
Pacino86845 wrote:
This reminded me of something... I hadn't noticed myself, but I discussed this film with a friend of mine, and he said that when Clooney was flipping through Realm & Conquest there'd been an illustration of three (?) horses, and it was because of that that he stopped the car. Does that seem familar?


i could buy that...Arthur's copy of the book, which did contain the receipt for all the copies of the damning report he had printed, the book which sorta serves as a harbinger of what's going on in the film...

but then I come back to three's - Arthur, Clayton, Clayton's son. Three horses. Father, son, holy spirit.


Ok, just got finished watching this, as my tribute to Pollack. Wow, 9/10 fo sure. Riveting, ball grabbing tension throughout, cannot imagine seeing this intensity in a theatre with no escape! (cos you know, you'd look like a freak having to stand up in the middle).

As for the horses, I didn't notice the book tie in, although for me it paralelled that moment where he stops the car with his son and shares some real sit down shit with him about how his life will turn out ok. You know, one of those moments that you just have to do... but rarely do, kinda like standing up in a cinema... Plus the horses to me represent and are these trusting, chivalrous animals that serve their master on righteous causes, noble beasts who can be lied to and abused and that moment kinda symbolised his own bullshit to the people schtick, face to face.

Loved all the characters, there were no hereos, just flawed folk, leaving the viewer able to make up their own mind.

Ultimately it falls short of ten for me, by being ultimately an "Insider" like mood and soul piece, which is good in itself, but ultimately and paradoxically kinda empty unless of course your soul is transformed whilst watching, then all power to ya :) . Ah Sidney and your Midas (producer) touch.

PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 6:56 am
by Seppuku
Peven wrote:
Pacino86845 wrote:Certainly the number doesn't lose its religious implications, I was just wondering if anyone else noted the connection to Realm & Conquest, which sort of brings things around full circle, I guess.

But I also wonder how the number 3 may be tied into the "Navajo religion" that seems to be referenced by Realm & Conquest. Also, what do horses symbolize? Horses weren't native to the Americas, am I correct about this? Were they not brought over with the colonials? Just some random thoughts there...


horses were first brought to the Americas by the Spanish conquistadors in the early 16th century. not sure of their significance in American Indian religion or mythology. to be honest, i can't recall an Indian tale involving a horse, and i have heard a couple in my time, but then i am most familiar with cultures east of the Mississippi.


Didn't all the bareback riding a few of the tribes used to do fuck with their testosterone to such an extent that they lost their ability to grow facial and bodily hair? Maybe the horses were someone up there's opaque way of telling him to go ahead and castrate the Man?

The Lord works in mysterious ways (OK, not that mysterious).

PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 9:08 am
by Spandau Belly
Alright, I hate to be the rain on the parade, but a fair amount of time has passed and I feel I've really turned this film over in my mind and tried to understand the Oscarizing, but I just don't.

I saw this movie about a month after I saw American Gangster, and both films had the same effect:

It didn't entertain me. It didn't move me. It didn't illectually challenge me. All it did was keep me interested.

Both Mike Clayton and Yank Gangster were movies that kept feeling like a good movie would start any second and in my opinion it never really did. I remained interested, but then it started winding down I was like "that was it?"

How a movie like this can get Oscar nomination for Best Picture over Zodiac or The Assassination of Jesse James is totally beyond me. This really just felt like a leftover from the John Grisham era to me.

Like I said, you've got to entertain me or move me or illectually challenge me, I think those are perfectly reasonable standards for success in filmmaking/storytelling and in my opinion Michael Clayton failed on all three.

PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 9:31 am
by travis-dane
I love the final stand off Clooney vs. Swinton!
I was very happy how Clooney finished her off!
And the Wilkinson killing was some cold shit!
Great movie...

PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:13 am
by Spandau Belly
travis-dane wrote:I love the final stand off Clooney vs. Swinton!
I was very happy how Clooney finished her off!
And the Wilkinson killing was some cold shit!
Great movie...


Yeah, I'd say the final standoff was the part of the movie I admired the most. I'm glad they didn't go for some over the top "You Can't Handle The Truth!" trail scene like they usually do in these types of movies.

Overall the acting was fine and so was the directing. But I still found it watching it a hollow expirience.

PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:46 am
by Maui
Spandau Belly wrote:
Yeah, I'd say the final standoff was the part of the movie I admired the most. I'm glad they didn't go for some over the top "You Can't Handle The Truth!" trail scene like they usually do in these types of movies.


Twas a cool scene. George just walks away and you can see in the background the authorities closing in on Swinton.

PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 11:03 am
by travis-dane
Maui wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:
Yeah, I'd say the final standoff was the part of the movie I admired the most. I'm glad they didn't go for some over the top "You Can't Handle The Truth!" trail scene like they usually do in these types of movies.


Twas a cool scene. George just walks away and you can see in the background the authorities closing in on Swinton.


DAMN!
That was really great,the look on Clooneys face was priceless,knowing HE did the RIGHT thing for the first time...

PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 6:04 pm
by Lady Sheridan
Spandau Belly wrote:Alright, I hate to be the rain on the parade, but a fair amount of time has passed and I feel I've really turned this film over in my mind and tried to understand the Oscarizing, but I just don't.

I saw this movie about a month after I saw American Gangster, and both films had the same effect:

It didn't entertain me. It didn't move me. It didn't illectually challenge me. All it did was keep me interested.

Both Mike Clayton and Yank Gangster were movies that kept feeling like a good movie would start any second and in my opinion it never really did. I remained interested, but then it started winding down I was like "that was it?"

How a movie like this can get Oscar nomination for Best Picture over Zodiac or The Assassination of Jesse James is totally beyond me. This really just felt like a leftover from the John Grisham era to me.

Like I said, you've got to entertain me or move me or illectually challenge me, I think those are perfectly reasonable standards for success in filmmaking/storytelling and in my opinion Michael Clayton failed on all three.



You know, I forgot I saw this movie...agreed on all counts.

The final scene between Swinton and Clooney was excellent, but then ... that's it?

Tom Wilkinson's show all the way, though. How Swinton got the Oscar and not him is beyond me. I guess the Academy was just enthralled with her accent and corporate America haircut.

Re: Michael Clayton (Spoilers)

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:41 pm
by WinslowLeach
I watched this the other night. It was kinda confusing for most of the movie. It was jumping all over the place, then it sort of came together in the last 40 minutes. I liked the face/off with Cloonster and Tilda. "Youre so fucked". lol!

Re: Michael Clayton (Spoilers)

PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:00 am
by hackett
I wouldn't say this movie was in my top ten from last year, but it was a tightly wooven story. I don't know how much was Clooney improv or going by the script but I really loved the writing involving side stories going on in Michael's life (his brother failing restaurant, his kid, gambling, his other brother). With all of the chaos going on it made Clooney's Michael feel real and not cookie cutter.

As for me, I still don't see how Bourne wasn't nominated.