Michael Clayton

7

BillyS.Oct 24, 2007

O.K. it's very good, but I don't see it being a classic thriller. The story is really overloaded with a lot of sub-plots that weigh it down but all the actors do a tremendous job of pulling them all together resulting in a killer O.K. it's very good, but I don't see it being a classic thriller. The story is really overloaded with a lot of sub-plots that weigh it down but all the actors do a tremendous job of pulling them all together resulting in a killer ending. Clooney, Wilkinson, Pollock and Swinton are excellent but the whole thing reminded me of The Rainmaker. I think the critics are a little eager to say Oscar nomination on this one probably because its the "serious" Clooney. It's good, but come on, a masterpiece?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MichaelE.Feb 12, 2008

No classic, but if every Hollywood movie turned out like this (and they all should), then I would be a much happier man. I absolutely have a crush on Tilda Swinton.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JayH.Feb 13, 2008

Complex and intense thriller, excellent acting, especially by Tom Wilkinson. Nice pacing and tense. Well directed, great score and editing. A solid piece of filmmaking.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

davenbettridgeNov 16, 2011

Although this movie is a little dry at times and the exact thing that the film makers are trying to say seems unclear to me, Michael Clayton is a solid movie with some good themes, relatable characters and some real good performances. ClooneyAlthough this movie is a little dry at times and the exact thing that the film makers are trying to say seems unclear to me, Michael Clayton is a solid movie with some good themes, relatable characters and some real good performances. Clooney is good throughout and his performance in the last scene is FANTASTIC and a must see. Recommended.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

imthenoobApr 13, 2012

Very solid performances by the cast. The flaw of this though is that it's a little confusing at times and it never really peaks until the end of the film (around the last 20 minutes of the film). Its still a good movie though, I enjoyed watching it.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

The3AcademySinsNov 6, 2017

Michael Clayton is an incredibly strong character study that tries a little too hard at times to be a gripping thriller. George Clooney and Tilda Swinton have amazing acting arcs, and Clooney especially drives the action.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

amheretojudgeMay 7, 2018

i know it's a long way..

Michael Clayton As much as detailed it is, the feature wanders off onto surface where even though character has offered enough range and room to fill in, it still feels disconnected somewhat. The writing is wittyi know it's a long way..

Michael Clayton

As much as detailed it is, the feature wanders off onto surface where even though character has offered enough range and room to fill in, it still feels disconnected somewhat. The writing is witty especially on the protagonist for it is portrayed to have potential and superior than any other characters and still it goes into its desperate and vulnerable zone that helps ground the feature. Tony Gilroy; the writer-director, has done some appreciative research and work in this project which pays off well in here. George Clooney has done a decent work in it and is supported with a great cast like Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson. Michael Clayton peeps into the whole "law" world and manages to make it more from it and if it had gripping screenplay, the feature would have easily entered major league.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

FilipeNetoDec 12, 2020

This film is one of those I saw out of curiosity, seduced by a short summary of its script and also by the luxurious cast, which includes George Clooney and Tilda Swinton (in my perspective one of those actresses somewhat overlooked, but whoThis film is one of those I saw out of curiosity, seduced by a short summary of its script and also by the luxurious cast, which includes George Clooney and Tilda Swinton (in my perspective one of those actresses somewhat overlooked, but who has a talent that we can't help but recognize). I'm glad I did, the film really deserves attention, even though it has been a little out of the public's attention.

The film weaves a pleasant thriller around a large law firm committed to the defense of an indigestible client: a chemical corporation, as guilty as sin in a class action filed by several plaintiffs, who accuse it of poisoning. When the lawyer leading the case, one of the most experienced in the firm, finds out the truth, has a nervous breakdown and is so possessed by his own guilt that he starts doing everything he can to report what he knows, even if it is highly damaging for the law firm that, desperate to contain damage, mobilizes a collaborator whose specialty is managing crises and dealing with difficult situations, a highly indebted man, with a life full of problems and who is adept at putting the truth into perspective. However, this situation will test his skills as well as his morality. I believe that no lawyer likes to defend unscrupulous clients that he knows they are guilty, but for the good lawyer even the Devil has the right to defense, and it is up to the lawyer to protect his client's interests as much as possible, no matter how bad he is. This thriller uses the theme of inner guilt well to question the extent to which a lawyer can dissociate himself from what he has to do professionally.

In addition to the appealing theme, the film has a truly seductive cast of actors. George Clooney is one of those actors who almost always does well in everything and has an almost bulletproof talent. Here, he gives life to an unpleasant character, someone I would not want for a friend and much less an enemy, an experienced, artful lawyer, skilled in handling facts and for whom the truth is a matter of perspective. But the actor does it in a way that it is impossible not to sympathize with the character and to realize how frustrated he is for what he does and little appreciated by the bosses themselves, despite basically doing their dirty work! Another actress worth mentioning is Tilda Swinton, who gave life to one of the directors of the chemical firm. She is a woman of few scruples and whose concern is to save the face of the firm even if it means lying unabashedly. She reminded me of those individuals who take a roasted chicken bone, wash it and try to sell it as a saint relic. The actress's performance was good enough to earn her the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, and I think it contributed a lot to how she transformed the character into someone on the verge of a nervous or mental breakdown. But even more striking, for me, was Tom Wilkinson's performance, in a deeply tragic character.

I think the film is quite lukewarm on technical issues. There is no cinematography that stands out in any way, and the sets and costumes are basically the ones we could hope to find. In addition, we also have the fact that the film takes its time to attract our attention and to truly engage. One thing that I really liked was the way the film starts, with a whole brutal monologue about the law firm, able to take us immediately to the topic and put us right on the spotlight of the film. The scene of the car explosion was also well done and it is the moment where the special effects were able to participate more visibly.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3

LewisP.Oct 14, 2007

One of the most overrated films of the year. For the first hour it's incredibly difficult to know what's happening. And what was all that BS about Clayton's son's book and why Wilkinson's character was so enamored One of the most overrated films of the year. For the first hour it's incredibly difficult to know what's happening. And what was all that BS about Clayton's son's book and why Wilkinson's character was so enamored with it? Couldn't figure that one out. The worst part of the film were the antagonists. Have you ever seen such a bunch of humorless, boring villains before in a movie? The antagnoists are so dull that this film could be mistaken for a horror flick about a bunch of zombies! Have you ever heard of a "fixer" in a modern day law firm? More Hollywood BS! And of course, Mr. Trendy George Clooney is more than happy to lend his 'good' name to another inane plot about corporate greed and ludicrous conspiracy theories. I give it a '3' since at least the story followed a three act structure. But beyond that, the characters were totally one-dimensional for those who like their stories told without a shade of gray! Shame on all of you who gave this flick over a '5'.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

ChristopherS.Feb 20, 2008

This movie spent a lot of time showing us how flawed and difficult Michael Clayton's life is, he gambles, he's divorced, his restaurant is being sold off, his father is hooked up to oxygen his brother is an alcoholic loser and This movie spent a lot of time showing us how flawed and difficult Michael Clayton's life is, he gambles, he's divorced, his restaurant is being sold off, his father is hooked up to oxygen his brother is an alcoholic loser and he's in debt to who? Mobsters? And he has till Friday to pay them off? If he doesn't then what?. So What!! I suppose to serve as a contrast to his great abilities as "fixer". But the one scene where the best "fixer" in the business shows his stuff is at the very beginning when he is called upon to help a client with a sticky hit and run problem. What does he offer this desperate man as a solution? The name of a good trial attorney! The client was understandably unimpressed, so was I. The rest of the movie he's nothing more then a glorified baby-sitter and he screws that up pretty badly. The scene in the field with the horses falls flat simply because Clooney is incapable of letting himself go emotionally. As a result it comes off as an awkward contrivance created simply to get the character out of the car. As a hero Michael Clayton is unimpressive and unimposing. As a villain, Karen Crowder is laughable. This underwritten nebbish of a character is all that stands in Michael's way? Give me a break. The climactic confrontation at the end is a joke. I felt sorry for Crowder and thought Clayton looked more like a classroom bully who gets his kicks picking on little girls then an avenging hero standing up for truth and justice. Totally unimpressive.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

3

NancyZ.Mar 2, 2008

Film went off in hundred directions and never quite developed anything. Clooney just broods. I can not see the hipe in this film. What a mess.

1 of 4 users found this helpful

3

StuartC.Feb 17, 2008

This is an anti capitalist diatribe worthy of a left wing zealot like Clooney. And by the way don't you require a body to make sure someone is dead?

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

JoeT.Feb 25, 2008

The Western elite are flawed and morally bankrupt, I get it. ...Impeccably shot though.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

OrsonNov 11, 2007

I laughed a lot, then walked out 90 minutes later in the face of this dreck. "Clayton" is a noir version of "Erin Brockovich," but instead of telling us from the plaintif's side, we see the defendants view. The story hinges on believing I laughed a lot, then walked out 90 minutes later in the face of this dreck. "Clayton" is a noir version of "Erin Brockovich," but instead of telling us from the plaintif's side, we see the defendants view. The story hinges on believing in a conspiracy of 11 people knowing The Truth - except that at least a few dozen more know it. The story's body count is only a fraction of what was needed to keep a lip on this! Hence, my laughter at its predictability. PEOPLE! Didn't Watergate, or at least "All The President's Men," not teach us that beyond 6-12 in the loop, The Truth will out? Yes. At least most films violating this tule distract the audience with action ACTION A-C-T-I-O-N! This one's a ponderous, pretentious bore, redeemed only by fine acting and production values - but an unbelievable script.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

blondevixenDec 21, 2011

Extremely boring....I could hardly stay awake enough to pay attention. Do not see this late at night or after more than one drink....you will soon be sound asleep.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

richardf.Oct 31, 2007

Highly overrated. Clooney for an Oscar? please.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

MichaelPJan 27, 2008

I only give this a one because of a couple of decent scenes, one being at the very end. Otherwise, as many users said here, the most overrated film of the year. Much adieu about nothing, plot-wise. Structuring the whole movie as one long I only give this a one because of a couple of decent scenes, one being at the very end. Otherwise, as many users said here, the most overrated film of the year. Much adieu about nothing, plot-wise. Structuring the whole movie as one long flashback--by giving away a key ending scene--blew all the suspense for what might have been a very good part of the film. Overall, this felt contrived, like the filmmakers were trying too hard to be artsy and not hard enough simply to tell a good, gripping story. Your money is better spent on other films that are out right now.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

NickGAug 2, 2009

I've had to force myself to watch this film on more than on occasion and I have to say that I still haven't quite caught on to the unnecessarily complicated plot.The performance of the actors, I have to say was quite I've had to force myself to watch this film on more than on occasion and I have to say that I still haven't quite caught on to the unnecessarily complicated plot.The performance of the actors, I have to say was quite convincing...But it still was enough for me to enjoy the film.It is baffling to see the acclaim this movie got-I doubt most of the reviewers understood this movie 100%.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

R.D.Oct 27, 2007

This might be the most overrated movie in years. It was slow, attempted to be too dramatic, and down right boring.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

JamesqRudolphOct 12, 2007

I cannot figure out what all the fuss is about. SOLARIS was a better film and that is not saying much

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

PJOct 14, 2007

Flat, uninspired direction. Obviously, trying to emulate the character driven films of the 70's, but the less than engaging plot falls short. All stuff we've seen before, including the predictable "suprise" at the end. People were Flat, uninspired direction. Obviously, trying to emulate the character driven films of the 70's, but the less than engaging plot falls short. All stuff we've seen before, including the predictable "suprise" at the end. People were actually walking out before it was over. Stick to screenwriting Mr. Gilroy. No more 1st time directors for you Mr. Clooney.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

EludiumQ36Oct 19, 2016

Awful, awful film. Here's an apropos riddle: what can put you to sleep in 30-mins and is about 10mg? "Michael Clayton", that's what, it has about 10mg of substance to it, the rest is a waste of your life. Seriously, I felt myself actually ageAwful, awful film. Here's an apropos riddle: what can put you to sleep in 30-mins and is about 10mg? "Michael Clayton", that's what, it has about 10mg of substance to it, the rest is a waste of your life. Seriously, I felt myself actually age as it plodded through its 2 hr run time. And yes, I FORCED myself to finish it so that I'd have no regret or caveat regarding this criticism. This film is easily on the Top 5 of anyone's list for films that will bore you to death. All's it is is a vanity vehicle for George, he's almost in every scene, and in close-up. He's just not all that and his acting range rivals that of Keanu Reeves in this, such a waste. Both he and his character are age 45 at the time of filming, and he's an old looking 45, most people that age these days look to be in their early 30s. As for all the positive reviews from the critics and so-called users here, just remember George is in Hollywood's Top 3 so there's nothing - including glowing reviews - that he cannot buy. I could go on and on but this film doesn't warrant any further waste of my time.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

0

AndrewD.Jan 29, 2008

A great film for people who are deeply moved by class action suits, lawyers droning endless legalese, and George Clooney's expressionless face. Corporate "thrillers" suck. Who wants to watch movies about this stuff? Workaholics? Save A great film for people who are deeply moved by class action suits, lawyers droning endless legalese, and George Clooney's expressionless face. Corporate "thrillers" suck. Who wants to watch movies about this stuff? Workaholics? Save yourself the expense and just work some overtime--you'll get the same thrill and make an extra buck or two in the process.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful

0

OhshiA.Nov 8, 2007

Very over-rated, this film didn't entice me from the start. It had a little bit of everything which added up to nothing. I guess I've seen one too many "lawyer" movies to think this film had anything new or significant to contribute.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

JoyceC.Oct 8, 2007

Just dumb and unactive, it explains things in the best of ways that seems like they exxagerate. The situation is big, but the movie is not. The story is just the situation, and now it has a plot problem.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JasonW.Jan 29, 2008

I didn't buy the premise of this movie. In real life, a lawyer off the rails like the one portrayed here would simply be replaced by his firm. The excuses for not doing this were flimsy. Furthermore, what's with this hackenyed I didn't buy the premise of this movie. In real life, a lawyer off the rails like the one portrayed here would simply be replaced by his firm. The excuses for not doing this were flimsy. Furthermore, what's with this hackenyed plot? Big, bad, greedy corporation is taken down by good-hearted hero. Please! This theme has been done to death. I don't understand what the critics see in this unoriginal work.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

DeanC.Mar 11, 2008

Way too slow.took too long to develop.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

KevinC.Jan 10, 2009

Horrible. Watched it with 5 intelligent, educated professionals, and 1 hour in to it, when it was obvious everyone wanted to quit watching it we still couldn't tell you what the movie was about. Possibly the most boring film I've Horrible. Watched it with 5 intelligent, educated professionals, and 1 hour in to it, when it was obvious everyone wanted to quit watching it we still couldn't tell you what the movie was about. Possibly the most boring film I've ever tried to endure. I truly can't believe the acclaim this steaming pile of boredom received...it completely baffles me. God, it was so bad.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

FrankS.Jan 27, 2008

Talking heads. Far too much dialogue. To the filmmakers: learn to use your medium. Less is more. Show, don't tell. A picture is worth a thousand words. And PLEASE don't have one character read the CV of another character aloud! Talking heads. Far too much dialogue. To the filmmakers: learn to use your medium. Less is more. Show, don't tell. A picture is worth a thousand words. And PLEASE don't have one character read the CV of another character aloud! Take a screenwriting course to learn how to avoid this. (How do millions get spent on a fundamentally bad movie...? And these critics--are they paid off by the studio or something?)… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

MiKEMay 31, 2008

Well acted. but who cares? This movie was a bore! I made myself watch the whole movie, waiting for clever twist. But it never came.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

TaylorC.Nov 26, 2007

Holy crap this blew! I agree with Olson or whatever.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

laladadaJan 14, 2008

I'd only give this movie a ten for the ten or so snores i heard in the unpacked theater screening. despite it being a free screening, i was quite upset that i lost two hours of precious time. actually, just an hour and a half...i got I'd only give this movie a ten for the ten or so snores i heard in the unpacked theater screening. despite it being a free screening, i was quite upset that i lost two hours of precious time. actually, just an hour and a half...i got some much needed sleep during the other 30 minutes. at least i left the theater somewhat rested.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

Michael Clayton

User Reviews