Michael Clayton
Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: October 5, 2007
7.6
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 405 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
313
Mixed:
58
Negative:
34
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
6
Trev29Apr 2, 2012
I was pretty confused right off the back. It was over acted( like that is a surprise.) Still it wasn't that bad, but it wasn't very interesting. The ending picked up when everything began to connect.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
ryancarroll88Aug 27, 2010
I applaud the first-time director Tony Gilroy for tackling a corporate suspense thriller with such level-headed decidedness, but the obfuscated dialogue and screenplay dulls the experience, and I didn't find the main character, MichaelI applaud the first-time director Tony Gilroy for tackling a corporate suspense thriller with such level-headed decidedness, but the obfuscated dialogue and screenplay dulls the experience, and I didn't find the main character, Michael Clayton, affecting enough to hold a vested interest in. However, to the movie's benefit, he cast is well-played, especially Tilda Swinton as the fragile corporate hound-dog.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
TheGorillaAug 26, 2011
The movie looked so promising, but it was all lost, I don't know where and I don't know why? The movie went in different directions, and left me without answers and with many questions. It was disconnected, and I don't understand why theThe movie looked so promising, but it was all lost, I don't know where and I don't know why? The movie went in different directions, and left me without answers and with many questions. It was disconnected, and I don't understand why the little guy told Michael (George Clooney) the story from the book, and what about his uncle, and the story behind their relationship? The plot is really weak, and I don't know why the critics supported this movie. But, I was blown away with Tom Wilkinson's performance, he did a great job with Arthur. He gave the character a dimension. Clooney, on the other hand, acted himself, as usual. I believe that Clooney is the most boring actor I've ever seen.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
jp992751Jan 26, 2011
Just an ok film. Nothing special. Not sure why it got an Academy nomination for best movie, I can understand the acting as it was great and even the direction was top notch but the story was just really mundane. Not that it was bad, justJust an ok film. Nothing special. Not sure why it got an Academy nomination for best movie, I can understand the acting as it was great and even the direction was top notch but the story was just really mundane. Not that it was bad, just nothing original.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
drlowdonJun 7, 2013
Lawyer Michael Clayton cleans up tricky legal problems for his companies wealthiest clients. After years on the job he’s had enough of, he’s middle-aged, divorced and realizes that his career is going nowhere but remains dependent on theLawyer Michael Clayton cleans up tricky legal problems for his companies wealthiest clients. After years on the job he’s had enough of, he’s middle-aged, divorced and realizes that his career is going nowhere but remains dependent on the company thanks to his gambling troubles and a failed attempt at opening a bar. When one of the companies partners goes AWOL after working on a case for six years Clayton is sent to get him back on the job but soon begins to unravel an uncomfortable truth about the case.

The movie forgoes action for the most part, instead choosing to let the truth behind the case gradually unravel through glimpses at legal documents and out of context conversations that really require the viewer to concentrate. Each of the major characters comes across as well rounded with some good performance throughout but the movie is held together by George Clooney, who remains a terrific screen presence and his characters gradual development plays a huge part in the movies overall success.

I have heard Michael Clayton described as a thriller, and that is perhaps the wrong word to use, but it is certainly an interesting movie and well worth investing two hours of your time.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
FrenchToastNov 7, 2018
This is one of those movies that you're sure people are saying good things about but you don't know why. I watched it and could tell the plot and acting would be well received but I never really knew what I was watching. I felt like it wasThis is one of those movies that you're sure people are saying good things about but you don't know why. I watched it and could tell the plot and acting would be well received but I never really knew what I was watching. I felt like it was hard to understand why characters were doing certain things.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
grandpajoe6191Jan 8, 2016
George Clooney's "Michael Clayton" does not deliver; despite some solid acting from veteran actor George Clooney, the movie itself is a heap of muddled mess with some really complicated dialogue and story threads that lead nowhere. WhatGeorge Clooney's "Michael Clayton" does not deliver; despite some solid acting from veteran actor George Clooney, the movie itself is a heap of muddled mess with some really complicated dialogue and story threads that lead nowhere. What exactly is the theme? Environment for the win?? Didn't really buy me off.… Expand
4 of 12 users found this helpful48
All this user's reviews
5
d.michelleMar 6, 2008
Entertaining with no basis in fact. Companies do bad things, but they are entitled to legal defense. Should the company have taken out a full page ad in WSJ announcing thier wrongdoing? Maybe they should settle with the people that were Entertaining with no basis in fact. Companies do bad things, but they are entitled to legal defense. Should the company have taken out a full page ad in WSJ announcing thier wrongdoing? Maybe they should settle with the people that were harmed? Oh wait... that happened. A GC that hires hitmen is about as plausible as one that uses her magic wand to curse opposing counsel.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JohnN.May 6, 2008
Very slow and predictable. Characters had the potential, but the plot was weak.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
JamesF.Mar 12, 2008
Nothing special here. This story should have been a hour crime solving TV show. Overhyped, I was disappointed.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
TonyB.Apr 2, 2008
Extremely well-acted but too slowly paced, it treads familiar ground; there is nothing new here. The three horses on the hill scene is pretentious and obvious, and the extended close-up of Clooney in the taxi at the end has "I'm the Extremely well-acted but too slowly paced, it treads familiar ground; there is nothing new here. The three horses on the hill scene is pretentious and obvious, and the extended close-up of Clooney in the taxi at the end has "I'm the star" written all over it.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
SamuelG.Feb 24, 2008
All movies of this sort delight in loose ends, so I'll not dwell on those. Instead, something about the movie's paradoxes. A self-consciously slick Hollywood product that adopts all of the fetishizing gimmicks of the advertising All movies of this sort delight in loose ends, so I'll not dwell on those. Instead, something about the movie's paradoxes. A self-consciously slick Hollywood product that adopts all of the fetishizing gimmicks of the advertising used by the story's evil company? A paean to seeing the world clearly, to taking a fearless moral stand, that treats humans like cartoons and suggests an equation between ethical status and real estate values? And yet again Tilda Swinton wins praise for impersonating a robot… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
D.LebowskiMar 26, 2008
Hopefully people call this intellectual only because they had plenty of time while the movie was droning on to think about more interesting topics or daydream. The choices the characters have to make are ridiculous and seem contrived to Hopefully people call this intellectual only because they had plenty of time while the movie was droning on to think about more interesting topics or daydream. The choices the characters have to make are ridiculous and seem contrived to serve the weakly themed plot. Acting and direction were good, could have used an editing floor renovation.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
JoshD.Mar 30, 2008
I really wanted to enjoy this movie but found it a little irritating... I know it is directed at a certain audience, and I also like to think I am in that audience but this movie just meandered along... George Clooney nearly looked like he I really wanted to enjoy this movie but found it a little irritating... I know it is directed at a certain audience, and I also like to think I am in that audience but this movie just meandered along... George Clooney nearly looked like he didn't know what was going on as well !… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
GeorgeMovieJan 22, 2008
Both my wife and I thought this was a ZZZZZZZZ. It was a SO WHAT movie. Based on the people in the audience. they didn't think much of this talky either. Maybe it's the Liberal George Cloony? Its a rental on a Nothings on Tv night.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
LindaL.Jan 27, 2008
Wow, considering the reviews & rankings this film got, I really was disappointed that it was not more suspenseful. Not one detail in it startled me, unnerved me or surprised me. Clooney looked and seemed exactly the same throughout. (For a Wow, considering the reviews & rankings this film got, I really was disappointed that it was not more suspenseful. Not one detail in it startled me, unnerved me or surprised me. Clooney looked and seemed exactly the same throughout. (For a brilliantly portrayed white-collar guy who's gradually consumed by the angst of a stressful situation, please see Russell Crowe in "The Insider.") Good acting by all, but the plot is less exciting than than a typical episode of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent." I would guess that critics' and the Academy's love for Clooney must account for this film being judged so stupendously superior to others that are much more engrossing and suspenseful . . . "Eastern Promises" comes to mind (also with good acting, and a lot more actually happens).… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
XavierL.Feb 25, 2008
Reminds me of The Firm, but worse. Of course, because it's handsome George staring, and since he's determined to be recognized as an actor, this pseudo-artistic faux-70ies thriller is pleasing the critics, but not the Reminds me of The Firm, but worse. Of course, because it's handsome George staring, and since he's determined to be recognized as an actor, this pseudo-artistic faux-70ies thriller is pleasing the critics, but not the discriminating viewer who enjoys a well-made movie, i.e. don't pretend to make one if your cliche's are...so cliche'! when it pretends to be one.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
AlecE.Mar 14, 2008
the acting is good but its just clooney playing himself, youve seen it before. the story is good but its nothing you havent seen before in a thousand michael crichton stories. old hat.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
PaulaC.Feb 23, 2008
So So. Interesting portrayal by Tilda Swinton and I loved Tom Wilkinson. The scene with the horses was contrived and empty. George Clooney was good but not Oscar good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
normdepalmaOct 11, 2007
inaccurate on almost every legal level and completely unsuspenseful---only positive points are a unique murder and clooney bringing gray hair in vogue---he is cary grant.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
KenGNov 18, 2007
The acting is good, and I could see and appreciate the attempt to make a "grown-up" movie, but all that doesn't make up for a script that takes a long time to get started, too often drags, and has too many unecessary scenes, that add The acting is good, and I could see and appreciate the attempt to make a "grown-up" movie, but all that doesn't make up for a script that takes a long time to get started, too often drags, and has too many unecessary scenes, that add nothing to the film, bogg down the story's forward momentum, and would have been better left on the editing room's floor. Also Swinton's pivitol character was seriously underwritten. In short, the performances were clearly better than the script. And no, I don't need explosions, car chases, and a lot of action to enjoy a movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DWillyOct 14, 2007
Like a well made shoehorn... who really cares? This movie holds the attention and might sucker the easily impressed, and Tilda Swinton is amazing, but it would take a presence far more dazzling unto itself in the lead than the bland Mr. Like a well made shoehorn... who really cares? This movie holds the attention and might sucker the easily impressed, and Tilda Swinton is amazing, but it would take a presence far more dazzling unto itself in the lead than the bland Mr. Clooney to get this thing truly airborn. And, by the way, once and for all: nothing in Canada, not the cities or the actors, pass for cities and people in the US. They'd have a hard enough time passing for things Canadian.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BillOct 20, 2007
I'm a big Soderbergh/Clooney fan and so was looking forward to this one. While you're in the theater it's fun. But afterwards it feels like a bit of candy. The script is fundamentally ludicrous. It's based on I'm a big Soderbergh/Clooney fan and so was looking forward to this one. While you're in the theater it's fun. But afterwards it feels like a bit of candy. The script is fundamentally ludicrous. It's based on Clayton's money troubles, lack of status as an equity partner in the firm, and on the premise that suddenly after doing this work for 10-15 years he realizes the firm may handle unsavory cases. Such a successful "fixer" such as Clayton would never be a desperate man on the verge of getting hung out to dry. He would be a full equity partner of this law firm; otherwise he could take his Rolodex and go elsewhere to the highest bidder. And, by the way, spill the beans on where the bodies are buried because his job is disposing of all the unsavory messes into which the firm gets itself. So the crux of the plot is ridiculous. However, the acting is fantastic. Tilda Swinton is marvelous as a cyborg chief corporate counsel completely divorced form humanity; Tom Wilkinson has a fun turn as a brilliant bi-polar litigator. And Clooney once again plays the cool, haunted man who realizes his best days are behind him and he has little to show for it. (A similar character as the one he played in "Out Of Sight.") Except that he holds all the cards in reality, contrary to what the script attempts to sell us. Ultimately this is an ephemeral confection of a film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RichardG.Oct 6, 2007
Dull... Predictable... Disappointing... I was psyched to like this film but it turned out to be a pale imitation of the real thing. Sidney Lumet wannabe.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DevonC.Oct 7, 2007
I watched the trailer on Youtube and I felt totally engaged and couldn't wait to watch it. But, George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sean Cullen, Michael O'Keefe, and Sydney Pollack took the risk of a huge downfall. A I watched the trailer on Youtube and I felt totally engaged and couldn't wait to watch it. But, George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sean Cullen, Michael O'Keefe, and Sydney Pollack took the risk of a huge downfall. A total disaster zone. This is definitely the wrong road for Tony Gilroy as a Director. Just continue writing films because you did an amazing job on The Bourne Ultimatum.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
WillOct 10, 2007
"Its such a perfect ending". Yeah if you like cliche endings to law firm movies. The first half was spectacular, the second lost steam (why make something intense if you already told the outcome in the beginning?) and the ending ruined the "Its such a perfect ending". Yeah if you like cliche endings to law firm movies. The first half was spectacular, the second lost steam (why make something intense if you already told the outcome in the beginning?) and the ending ruined the movie by making it something smaller than what it could of been. Tom Wilkinson gave a stellar performance, which deserves an oscar nomination at the very least. The rest of the cast, not so much. Clooney feels better at playing at playing the part he always has by adding a little more depth to that character. He is George Clooney playing Michael Clayton, he isn't Michael Clayton. Tilda Swinton gave a slightly better performance, but was not given enough screen time to display a lot of her talent. Sydney Pollack was just used for just saying things that were relevant, only used as a plot device. The script, had great dialogue, however, I think the story and the arc could have been executed a lot better. Perhaps a not so predictable ending? The script was shaky to say the least. The score and was absolutely fantastic and so was the editing. To conclude, it had such potential to be great, but failed to execute in the last half.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MattS.Oct 16, 2007
This movie succeeded at keeping you in the dark, although I think it carried this out for too long and this compromised the characters and the talents of the actors. These characters just filled the roles necessary to have in the formulaic This movie succeeded at keeping you in the dark, although I think it carried this out for too long and this compromised the characters and the talents of the actors. These characters just filled the roles necessary to have in the formulaic corporate crime drama that this film is. I didn't hear intelligent dialogue at all, did you? Wilkinson's character was not allowed to do much more than rant and that is a shame because he is good. The best thing about the film was that all the characters were very morally ambiguous, (at least for a while) thus it was suspenseful. But i was only involved in the story to the extent that I wanted to see what was going to happen. Clayton should have bribed her and taken the money. Then the moral would have been that this isn't a just world we live in, which is true.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MirandaP.Oct 17, 2007
I know it's supposed to be this great movie, but I was pretty bored. Good performances, not much of a story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JosephAOct 20, 2007
Overrated. Completely unfocused with no direction.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JoelVOct 28, 2007
Overrated, George Clooney didn't really impress me, good acting but wasn't able to capture the drama to my opinion.. the end not that good either.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
LizNov 1, 2007
I was expecting so much more from this film than it delivered., due to the many great reviews it received. I enjoyed Clooneys' performance. This film was O.K, but over hyped and over rated.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
CydneyB.Oct 13, 2007
Wished we'd waited for the DVD. Then we could have done other things while we watched at it. Moves too slowly and not very engaging. Clooney and rest of cast is wonderful, though. Just needed more "oomph".
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AaronMOct 15, 2007
This movie isn't as clever as it thinks it is! Good cast though, which is always a good icing on the cake for movies these days.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BattleOct 23, 2007
Overrated... it tried to be way more complex than it end being. acting was good but I was left very unsatisfied at the end. flashback horse thing was extremely weak. anticlimactic... would not recommend even for a rental.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ET.Oct 26, 2007
Over rated! A good DVD flick but not worth all the hype.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
twall3Aug 19, 2020
I really respect Tony Gilroy as a screen writer, and I could see his intelligence in the dialogue spoken. That said, most of the movie felt like random scenes and confusing developments. My wife said it well: "I don't like movies where it'sI really respect Tony Gilroy as a screen writer, and I could see his intelligence in the dialogue spoken. That said, most of the movie felt like random scenes and confusing developments. My wife said it well: "I don't like movies where it's confusing and unenjoyable until the last 5 minutes, and then it all makes sense". For us, Mr. Gilroy was too smart for his own good. George Clooney did a great job acting, but when the scenes he's working through are confusing, it's still not fun to watch. Seem to contain unnecessary rabbit trails. Crude dialogue about 2 prostitutes going down on a guy, and for no help to the story. The next day I listened to the the commentary featuring the Gilroy brothers, and it made me appreciate the film a lot more. Tony even mentioned he realized he was asking a lot of the audience to keep watching when things didn't necessarily seem to make sense. Post-commentary I would give it a higher score, but for first time viewers you may not love it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
KenRDec 22, 2021
Michael Clayton – The Cleaver film you have when you’re maybe not having a Cleaver Film

In Australia there was an ad for a drink called Claytons Tonic, it was ‘sold’ as the ‘Drink you have when you’re not Drinking’. Curiously, this scriptMichael Clayton – The Cleaver film you have when you’re maybe not having a Cleaver Film

In Australia there was an ad for a drink called Claytons Tonic, it was ‘sold’ as the ‘Drink you have when you’re not Drinking’. Curiously, this script for me played out much like that ad; It looked interestingly like the real thing...very polished and almost convincing but had something manufactured or fake about it. When writers take you backward and forwards in their narrative, I get the feeling they may be concealing something - this could be just so for this story. It’s savvy, strongly cast, and handsomely mounted but, do all the plot devices add up to a completely convincing story? Either I was not concentrating enough or perhaps there were details in Tony Gilroy’s script shrouded in unrealized potential? IE; Why give the hit-run driver such an integral role early in the piece, especially if this was only intended to introduce us to the grubby side of Clooney’s ‘prostitute’-type attorney’s character? Why did George erratically drive off into the country after leaving the hit-run-driver and stop to check out three horses on a hill (this had more of an air of fantasy about it) Why was Wilkinson’s attorney character secretly ringing Clooney’s young son to discuss a Sci-Fi book and highlighting sections of its pages? We know Wilkinson’s character was on the verge of a breakdown as a result of his realization of malpractice but did we need so many unnecessary details, of his outlandishly sordid actions? Why did the super professional hitmen risk planting a complicated bomb in Clooney’s car when they could have taken him out so much easier? Perhaps all these plot devices (and more) could have been introduced to us earlier or in a far clearer manner – this picture had ‘Oscar bait’ written all over it. While in some respects it might be better than some, it also seems somewhat pretentiously overwritten in its claims to fame. Parental warning; Potty-mouthed dialog and F-Bombs throughout.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

82 Critic Reviews

7.6 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL