I saw the movie Michael Clayton last night. I’m curious what other people thought of it.
I mean, I like movies. I’ve studied about movies, I read about movies, and I enjoy most movies. But personally, I didn’t like Michael Clayton much.
It was advertised as a tight, gripping thriller. That sounds more like one of the Bourne movies, or even something from John Grisham, given that it was technically a legal thriller, thought “thriller” is a term I might use loosely to describe it. Really, I felt like the film was as ponderous and plodding as a tour bus with transmission issues, and about as interesting. It also suffered the all-too-common Hollywood malady of being a bit self-serious.
Don’t get me wrong; it wasn’t a total mess by any means. The script had some good dialog, and I appreciated the style of exposition and some of the twists and turns, but the pacing was extremely slow. I certainly don’t need summer blockbuster-style editing at all, but the thing’s gotta move a bit. Take The Insider, for example — I loved it! Now that’s a tight, gripping legal thriller that manages to last for two and a half hours without moping along. I feel like Michael Clayton‘s two hours could have lost twenty or thirty minutes without sacrificing one scene, line of dialog, or meaningful glance from one character to another.
The acting was excellent, but there was very little life to the characters (given the plot, that’s the way it should be, I suppose, but it wasn’t very interesting). In the same way, there wasn’t much to connect me to the characters, either. I didn’t feel much of anything but apathy for them throughout the entire movie.
Anyway, for a film that’s gotten as much attention as this one has (seven Oscar nominations, including a win for Tilda Swinton for Best Supporting Actress), the movie just seemed very bland to me — from cinematography to score. Not bad, or poorly done, just…blah.
So…somebody who’s seen it, help me out. What am I missing?
Wow….I couldn’t agree with you more. I watched it recently myself and wondered what I was missing. I thought this was supposed to be a movie above the rest, but I couldn’t figure out which part of the movie fit that qualification. At least I know it wasn’t just me who thought this way.
This was my favorite film of 2007. I thought it had one of the best and most involving screenplays I’ve witnessed in any film for a long time. It played like a classic of the old age, with actors delivering their lines like they were made for them. Sorry you couldn’t find it in yourself to enjoy it. As far as it being slow, I didn’t think it was at all. It built up the tension and had me intrigued and unknowing of the fate of Mr. Clayton from beginning until the end, and oh, what an end. I think it is a classic among movies today. Nice review, I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
That’s funny… I was going to rent Michael Clayton last night but got Simpsons and Dan In Real Life instead.
To be honest, there’s nothing about MC that really draws me to want to see it besides the fact that it was nominated for a lot of Oscars. I think Clooney works best as a comedian and not the serious type roles. But maybe I’ll pick it up…
I saw it a few weekends ago and I was a little disappointed. I too was expecting more of a thriller. And looking back, I did lean over and ask Andy a whole bunch of times what was going on. There was a lot of slow scenes that I wasn’t following.
It was kind of like a slower version of Erin Brokovich.
Liz: I agree. I felt like I was missing something.
Ferguson: In a way, I can see how it was like one of the old classics. That’s a good comparison, but I still feel that compared to the old classics, it was missing something. Charm, perhaps, or a stylish flair that isn’t bound up in its own self-awareness. I feel that while Mr. Clooney is a good actor and did well in this film, there was a depth to his character that was missing in his portrayal somehow. I’m willing to believe that I saw the film on something of an off night, but I still feel that it wasn’t all it had been built up to be.
Drew: I’m not trying to discourage you from seeing it at all. In fact, I’d welcome other outside opinions. I’d love to hear more from people like Ferguson who can help me understand what I might have missed.
Kim: The complex plot was one of the things I did appreciate. The fact that I had to pay attention, and even play catchup if I didn’t understand something the first time around and had to glean that understanding from later context. I appreciated that the exposition wasn’t simply laid out for you like Reese’s Pieces for E.T. Still…while I appreciated the screenplay, etc., I still felt like it wasn’t an amazing movie, and like I’d seen better.
I saw it too, and it was interesting. I mean, it kept my attention, but it wouldn’t rank up there with my favorites. (Granted, I’m a scifi fan, so maybe that’s why, lol.) Sadly, I was really sick while I watched it, so I wasn’t able to get into it like maybe I would have otherwise.
I really liked it and didn’t find it to be slow-moving at all. I wouldn’t say it was my favorite movie last year, but I did like it a lot.
Hey dude. Just watched Michael Clayton last night. I don’t think the movie was good enough to be nominated for Best Picture, but I overall enjoyed it. The plot was pretty light on glitz and flash that wouldn’t constitute for “tight, gripping thriller” but I felt the story was coherent enough for me to follow. Really, the acting (especially Clooney’s) overshadows all other aspects of the film. His Oscar nomination was well earned.
I would definitely agree with the acting. It was good. I would also agree that it was pretty barebones when it comes to the various contrivances used to make something feel tight and gripping. And yeah, the story was coherent…I just felt like the movie wasn’t all it was cracked up to be, and it didn’t really resonate with me.
Oh well.