(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fmichael_clayton%2F_group_photos%2Ftom_wilkinson1.jpg&hash=09e74fe015aca1f16f03b0a728afb9f48a7dd814)
Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBB3teXsOFw)
Release Date: September 28th, 2007 (wide)
Starring: George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack, Pamela Gray
Directed by: Tony Gilroy
Premise: An elite New York attorney experiences the four worst days of his career. He is known among his colleagues as "The Janitor" because for 15 years he's worked behind the scenes to clean up his high-profile clients' messy personal problems.
Bill Harford.
..with balls.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmoviesmedia.ign.com%2Fmovies%2Fimage%2Farticle%2F813%2F813123%2FMICHAELCLAYTON_AdvRtdOS_1187215339.jpg&hash=7a16703efd7fd120a33029e96634376d337a6abe)
so can focus.
oh i get it.
do we care to start imagining the dvd cover?
Quote from: Pubrick on May 30, 2007, 07:26:20 AM
Bill Harford.
..with balls.
You are completely right about this.......and that character fits perfectly for the plot. It's the first time in a long time that I saw a extremely smart thriller that didn't dumb anything down for the audience. Really rivieting stuff and George as always is superb. Check it out people in LA and New york.
There isn't anything that isn't revealed by the middle of the film. And there isn't anything revealed at any point that isn't expected as required material for a crime thriller. Which is what Michael Clayton is: a tedious, uptown crime thriller.
Which is why the film worked in reverse for me.
Spoilers
I see Clooney, an esteemed actor who is selective about material, driving in an S class Mercedes and doing morally ambiguous chores for a law firm. I think corruption, I think betrayal, I think cover-up. It's all set-up in the first five minutes. Then as the characters are revealed as these things, slowly and convincingly (realistically), as the veil is lifted from the characters so too is the intention of the film revealed to me. And as the characters who might appear to some spectator near the situation as goal-driven hard-working law firm employees who couldn't be merciless are exposed as merciless (the obvious assumption from the audience) the film turns into the same kind of soulless regurgitated crime thriller that bores the pants off of everybody now adays. If the film wasn't occupied by law firm types we'd see this more clearly, and because the film is loosely a criticism of environmental crimes I suppose someone might be confused to think it's a cleverly or intelligently crafted model of corporate corruption. But the obnoxious, plot-oriented conclusion should settle all arguments here.
What a bore fest.
I hate these kinds of movies. The ones that feel they are based on a Grisham novel, I mean book.
The audience for these types of movies are either all dead or blind. Give it up.
I wasn't too impressed either but I certainly didn't find it boring nor I "hated" it. Clooney glues this whole thing together with his carefully conceived, constructed and executed performance. Easily my favorite of his after Oh Brother.
I don't think it really is a message movie. It's a character study with thriller aspects to it and yes, I also felt the conclusion was kind of too hollywoodish, but it also made sense to the story of this particular guy. So it's worth a ticket and then some.
I thought it was great. What a solid thriller. Plus lots of armpit sweat and its tone is very entrancing. And that final scene plus the credits, what great filmmaking.
For all of my Dallas friends out there...Michael Clayton will be getting re-released this Friday at the Inwood. If you missed it before, now is your chance. I still can't believe more people on this board didn't see this, or at least didn't write about seeing it.
Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson are great in this too. I think the acting is what makes this film enjoyable. However, the Oscar love is mainly Hollywood kissing Clooney's ass.
I missed this when it first came out, but I will be seeing it this weekend. (Though not at the Inwood - thanks anyways though Cinemanarchist). For some reason I have a suspicion this will win best picture.
The sudden upswell of acclaim for this movie has caught me totally off-guard. If anyone had given a crap about it back when it came out, I probably would have gone and seen the damn thing. Seriously, when this movie opened, was there a single person out there saying, "This is a Best Picture contender"? What's different between then and now?
Boring Academy members.
It's a good movie, don't get me wrong. But I haven't thought about it since. The actors are great, the story's very monochrome.
Quote from: polkablues on January 23, 2008, 06:06:00 PM
The sudden upswell of acclaim for this movie has caught me totally off-guard. If anyone had given a crap about it back when it came out, I probably would have gone and seen the damn thing. Seriously, when this movie opened, was there a single person out there saying, "This is a Best Picture contender"? What's different between then and now?
It's all about Clooney's star power. If he had been the lead in Zodiac, that one would have 18 nominations now.
although it doesn't deserve all the oscar acclaim and is easily the 2nd most overrated of the best picture nominees, this is a good movie. clooney was great but the real powerhouse in this film was TOM WILKINSON. he stole every scene he was in.
I still can't quite figure out the Michael Clayton hate (or at least indifference) on here. Perhaps it's because my name is Clayton and I'm just happy to finally get some Oscar name recognition...but I saw this for a second time on Friday and it played even better and I loved it the first time. The score, cinematography and writing are really incredible and if this wasn't such a great year for movies this could have easily been in my top 3. Mark my words, 2008 will be the year of Clayton.
i don't remember anything about this movie. i remember thinking the music was really silly (was it?) and that the movie was uninteresting and a waste of time. i wish i could say more. but i think that this means that i don't think its very good.
I thought the music really added to the dark and "blue" atmosphere of the film. This and TWBB are the only two scores I've actually wanted to own this year. Well it's certainly not an edge of your seat thriller but I found the writing to be very sharp and it was a great paranoid corporate 70's throwback. It's far from the genius levels of No Country or TWBB but I'm not at all insulted to see it nominated for so many Oscars.
I was really impressed after watching this several months ago.
Because this was playing at my local movie multiplex
I thought it would be way more mainstream, also because of clooney and bourne connectios.
But no, it wasn't, it had a very mature script and terrific supporting roles.
I don't think the academy loved this because of clooney. although his best actor nod was maybe too much.
Everything just felt right with this one. I'm glad the academy recognized it for its plusses (supporting roles, score, script).
After TWBB and NO COUNTRY this film is #3 on my list.
(go ELSWIT! thank god u recovered after American Dreamz (worst movie of last year no doubt) )
This is a very good little movie and I'm pleasantly surprised it's being recognized at the Oscars. I have never been a fan of George Clooney but this performance has caused me to reconsider his talent as an actor. His personality was a perfect meshing with this character. Tom Wilkonsin and Tilda Swinton are always good, of course.
The film has a fairly slow pacing that allows the story to take it's time unfolding. There is little trickery or standard plot devices beyond a time-shifting structure. Some people have compared it to the work of John Grisham, but I don't remember his work being this patient or intellegent. Give me "Michael Clayton" instead.
Quote from: Tommy Both on February 05, 2008, 08:47:16 AM
I don't think the academy loved this because of clooney. )
Let's say instead of Clooney there was Bill Macey or Steve Buscemi or even John Turturro...in any of those cases, Michael Clayton would have fallen in oblivion with the oscars. At least that's what I think.
I need to see this a second time. I definitely didn't hate it but there's still an aftertaste in my mouth. It's like Tony Gilroy pulled a Funny Games, only with lawyer movie devices.
The first 45 minutes were solid. I kept saying, "Why the hell didn't I see this the first time around?" But into the second hour, it never commits to being an Erin Brockovich-type treatise on corruption in corporate America or a Grisham-esque lawyer thriller or a lawyer-needs-to-be-better-to-his-family drama, all of which it was at one point. And it ends up feeling very superficial in regards to all the subplots, like they're all just macguffins and the real story hasn't revealed itself yet. By the time the end rolls around, you get a "maybe I missed something" feel because you'd swear that the movie was about something else.
However, the dialogue is sharp, there are some good moments and great performances (Tom Wilkinson in particular). He does a raving lunatic like no one since Peter Finch in Network. It just doesn't add up to enough though. Or maybe it adds up to too much? I don't know; that's why I need to see it again.
Quote from: Alexandro on February 05, 2008, 10:46:08 AM
Quote from: Tommy Both on February 05, 2008, 08:47:16 AM
I don't think the academy loved this because of clooney. )
Let's say instead of Clooney there was Bill Macey or Steve Buscemi or even John Turturro...in any of those cases, Michael Clayton would have fallen in oblivion with the oscars. At least that's what I think.
So true.....Still waiting for mac's review.
Quote from: SiliasRuby on February 22, 2008, 09:43:02 PMStill waiting for mac's review.
I thought it was an acting Tour De Force across the board. It may be described as a thriller, but this is more a character study, and I would put it along the likes of The Verdict in that respect. Because, like Newman's character, Clooney's low-man-on-the-totum-pole "janitor" is finally given his date in court (figuratively speaking). I'm glad Clooney was recognized for his acting here, because it may seem understated, but you can see his character thinking. It's in his eyes, and that's what makes his performance great and a nice balance to Wilkenson's character.
I just rewatched this (along with every other best picture nominee at an AMC) and I have to say it will definitely make my top ten. I agree with mac's assertion that it's more of a character study than a genre piece. Clooney is very very good in this, and the writing is extremely solid and even though I knew what was coming, it still kept me on my toes.
I finally saw this yesterday (missed the first 15 minutes due to a jobsworth manager at AMC who hadn't seen a press pass before, but even so...) I wasn't totally sure what to expect having read everyone else's reactions here, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Great acting everywhere. I thought the film had a good balance - definitely not a family drama, and not really a genre film either. The quick ending really took me by surprise. It was a good, tight film. Not a masterpiece, but definitely very good. Now that I've seen it, I'm going to renew my prediction for this to win Best Picture tonight. It's the safe choice for academy members who weren't taken by NCFOM, and let's face it - nothing else has got a realistic change of snapping up the little golden dude. And I'd be perfectly fine if this did win, to be honest. I think this year every big film is going to be rewarded in some way. Nothing is going to sweep the board.
SPOILERS
I'm sorry, but that was one of the best payoffs ever. Seriously. I'm going to have to let it fade before I decide what I actually think of the movie.
Now, I always associate together character pieces and nimble stories, as in a strong character film should result in an ending that comes directly from the protagonists who are unfolding along with the story, and the result, at its best, should be a conclusion that seems to be the desperate act of the main lead. Why I think Michael Clayton fails for me, and why it must succeed for others, is because his character is transparent from that first scene. What I see as a long slow and obvious burn out others see as a series of confrontations rising in dramatic relevance until that final payoff, and what I can relate to is an appreciation for the acting and an appreciation for the filmmaker whose intention was to successfully manipulate the audience, but why this whole movie is a failure for me is because I can see the hand moving the story, I can sense what is being hidden from me, all the way through, and in the end I discover not that I am a clever film viewer who has impressive foresight but that every element that was necessary to bring me to the final point was precisely what I thought it was. I'm saying the film has huge fucking road signs telling me where it's headed and that I don't think movies like that are any fun, I don't think they're very imaginative, and I certainly don't think they're lifelike. Why I don't think it's lifelike is because I don't think Clayton is a fully developed character (even if he is a strong character...which I also don't think he us, I think probably the characters around him are what make him seem strong) who is capable of making free choices within his story. So what's for me to take from this? The acting? I remember the old joke about how Stephen King's laundry list would become a best seller. Maybe George Clooney's would too. If he acted it.
One of the best films of last year. I can't believe I skipped it the two times it came to my theater. Originally I had little interest in the film, but it was fascinating and a lot of fun to watch. It's a great film that can stand with Alexander Revisited and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly as great works of the last year.
The plot matters very little. There are a few associations with John Grishman, but those associations are only the recognizable elements of story and plot we have come to know in legal films. The elements of right and wrong and also the matter of plot twist seem to act as understood and accepted parts of the film genre. Even if you can predict how the film will end I don't think it's that important. The film has little interest to play into those conventions. The film does not start to look like a thriller, the plot doesn't become convoluted, and the end isn't hinged on an unrealistic chase.
The greatness of the film is in how it maintains its realism through out. It is a character study of Michael Clayton. We do get a somewhat explanatory ending, but the film maintains its idea of character and story. Michael Haneke also plays with genre stories and combusts them to look like similar character studies. Haneke does so because he is interested in specific topics within the film. Tony Gilroy allows the greatness of his writing to work itself from within the story.
Unlike Haneke, he is more interested in the realism of the situation. The ideas of who Michael Clayton are and what he represents trickles through out the film. The analogy to differentiate both filmmakers is that Haneke represents a method actor's approach to the story. He starts out with his ideas of theme and allows the story to work around it. Gilroy represents classical British acting. He works from within the conventions of the story and allows the ideas to slowly come out.
Gilroy's directing is also excellent. I've noticed a lot of films have a very hard time trying to film dialogue driven stories. They don't understand whether to respect the actors and shoot the film like it was a performance or to take total liberty with all the performances. Gilroy understands his need is to separate the camera and the actors. His first job is to set up a compositional eye with his camera that will guide the rhythm and pace of the story. He allows a lot of the dialogue to be dubbed over well shots scenes of character interaction and scenery. It helps the realism in the film because we are privy to an investigative eye into the world of the characters. Then Gilroy is always logical when to bring the camera back to the actors and be quiet with the scenes.
When Lindsay Anderson made This Sporting Life, he also had a film that had large amounts of dialogue. He also had a film devoid of classical time structure. The great innovation he did is that he allowed the camera to be its own dictator of rhythm and movement. It allowed the audience to watch the film on a second level. People sometimes forget how the most interesting films of cinematography also have the most basic camera set ups in the world. It allows the audience to focus on the story and filmmaking on the same level of thinking because both predicate each other for dramatic punches.
Anderson and Gilroy allow the their filmmaking tones to be completely separate. The audience doesn't have the standard cues when to focus in on a scene. Doing this isn't always successful though either. Sometimes you run the risk of obscuring everything in the story like Paul Thomas Anderson did with There Will Be Blood, but Gilroy keeps the right balance in Michael Clayton.
yeah yeah yeah GT, we get it. You enjoyed it but will it beloved? J/k of course.
spoilers everywhere.
just saw this last night, was really tired so I saw the second half again when I woke up this morning just to keep track of the film. It had a good plot, but there were parts to the film that were pretty unconvincing. sometimes there were specific quotes that just sounded phony and out of place, but "lawyer thriller-esque".
I could recallr two off of the top of my head, the first one was about how lawyers think he's a cop and cops think he's a lawyer. the second one was something about the case reeks from day one, "do you need me to tell you how we pay rent around here" or something like that. and then the ending too, how he got the bad lady to say those words outloud, and then he showed his phone. it was a trick done 100 times and it was particularly unconvincing. I just don't believe a cunning lawyer would talk like that. I also didn't buy the kid. there were all these little thriller moments like that.
it was a good mystery, but felt pretty superficial. the weight was provided mainly by the great actors, but the script, while brilliant at connecting one discovery to the next, remained too self-contained (too concerned with delivering a good thriller) to really provide a convincing sketch of greed, desperation, temptation, or whatever other flahes that might be relevant that a Michael Mann or even a Billy Ray film would. the ending also depended too much on one happy coincidence for me to feel completely immersed. but I think I'm overtalking. the film did put me in one character's head through a very entertaining length.