Michael Clayton (2007) User Reviews

Michael Clayton a different kind of thriller

[rparham · 8/10 · 8 December 2007]

Michael Clayton is not your typical legal thriller. Oh, it has most of the standard trappings of one: double-crossing, shady back room deals, and a guilty client. But in the case of Michael Clayton, the film focuses most of its attention on the questionable moral quagmire of working for guilty clients, living your life protecting those who you can't help but find reprehensible, wanting to get out, but finding you are good at it and that is where your superiors want you. Michael Clayton isn't a revelatory film, but it is a smart one that deals in the grey world that we all live in, not the black and white one legal films are usually about.

The central character is Michael Clayton (George Clooney), a "fixer" at a major Manhattan law firm. His job entails him cleaning up other's messes, not litigating in a court room. He hates the work, but the senior partner at the firm, Marty Bach (Sydney Pollack), wants him to stay in the job because he has a talent for it. Things are not rosy for Michael right now: his addict brother has run a business venture that Michael was a partner in into the ground, leaving Michael with thousands of dollars in debt; his relationship with his ex-wife is on the rocks, and into this environment comes a whole new caliber of problem: Michael's friend, and fellow attorney, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), who is a lead attorney for a major case for the firm involving U/North, a huge, multifaceted corporation, has discovered evidence damning to U/North, and has also, seemingly, lost his senses.

Arthur begins plotting to publicly expose U/North with this evidence, thereby destroying them, something that U/North's lead corporate attorney, Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), cannot allow. Michael is called in to help calm Arthur and bring the situation under control, but it becomes quickly obvious that Arthur cannot be reigned in, and Karen begins looking at far more dire methods of containment.

When you walk into Michael Clayton, you need to be prepared for a limited amount of action, and a fair amount of talk. It is a film about words and far less exciting events than found in many movies. Michael Clayton is also not the most straightforwardly plotted film. A great deal of information is suggested through inference and requires the full attention of the audience. But Michael Clayton is hardly boring. It delves into the decisions that individuals make when their livelihood depends on living in a moral quagmire. Michael is a man who is concerned about making sure that he can make the payments on a huge debt and dealing with the sometimes annoying and reprehensible people that the law firm provides its services to. Arthur is in a similar situation, but he can no longer live with himself and the protection of clients who are obviously guilty. It is debatable whether Arthur is mentally unhinged, or simply woken up to the reality of his actions and what they mean in the grander scheme of things.

Michael Clayton is the directorial debut of Tony Gilroy, a longtime Hollywood screenwriter, who crafts a film that manages to keep you involved like a good thriller without providing many of the requisite elements: chases, shootouts and fisticuffs. Michael Clayton is a thriller that works at a slower pace, but still manages to enthrall with its developments. Critical to the film's success is its performances. George Clooney gives us a Michael who feels many aspects of his world closing around him and tries to keep all the balls in the air. Tom Wilkinson's turn as Arthur is that of a man who has experienced an epiphany, seeing the world like a newborn baby. Finally, Tilda Swinton's Karen Crowder is a woman who is all about appearance (one of her first scenes reveals her practicing a speech so that it will appear perfect) and ensuring that no one rocks the boat of U/North. She has sold her soul to the devil and will do anything to keep the company intact.

Michael Clayton is certainly not everyone's cup of tea. It requires a strong attention span and a willingness to not have everything spelled out for you. If you can provide that, then it is a film experience that will provide some rewards.

Slow burner but high quality movie

[bobbyelliott · 8/10 · 30 September 2007]

After seeing "Superbad" last weekend, I needed a grown-up antidote and this movie is certainly that. A slow moving, adult, serious movie with a message.

The movie has a number of themes including ageing, corruption, principles and truth. The movie's message is that there is more to life than making money.

The acting is uniformly good but Clooney is outstanding. His character is complex and he's pretty unhappy with what he has become. But it's all done very subtly. There are no obvious messages in this movie. As another reviewer wrote, you have to pay attention.

Don't read too much into my "slow moving/slow burner" descriptions. This movie is not boring. It just doesn't whiz along with one implausible twist after another. It's evenly paced with an almost complete lack of silly plot lines (there was no need for the lawyer in crisis to remove his clothes during a trial).

Everyone involved in this movie deserves praise for producing a challenging, grown-up, movie-with-a-message in the face of a torrent of mindless nonsense.

Highly recommended.

Good film, but not for everyone

[John K.-2 · 6/10 · 29 September 2007]

This is a well-made suspense film. It builds slowly, it features the key characters in sometimes agonising close-up, it weaves an intricate plot (a bit too intricate, in hindsight -- I'm still not sure why some events were included), and George Clooney is masterful as the morally conflicted character who does his best to hold his collapsing life together, while slowly realising that his role in life is not quite what he thought it was in any case.

There are some things this film is not. It's not an action film ... if you expect that, it will seem very slow. It's not a warm and friendly film that leaves you feeling good about the world -- it was shot in winter, just to emphasise its coldness. It's not a comedy in any way, not even through being over-the-top. It's reality rather than escapism.

If you like suspense, unflinching realism, stories of moral conflict, criticisms of corporate America, or George Clooney -- or if you're just in the mood to see that kind of film -- you'll love it. If you're in the mood for a film to wash away the cares of the day (as I was), choose something else.

Fantastic Dialogue, Story, and Acting

[rich-rossi-50 · 10/10 · 24 April 2017]

There aren't many movies that I enjoy watching twice or more, this is certainly one of them. This is in the running to be my favorite movie of all time. This movie can be hard to follow, and can seem vulgar at times, but in reality the dialogue has a higher purpose: to illustrate how we can get lost in our personal objectives and lose track of the bigger picture. The majority of characters in this movie don't fall into the "good guy", "bad guy" category, they are various shades of gray, just like real people. If one puts themselves in the shoes of the characters, their actions are plausible and consistent with reality. If you don't want to have your brain challenged by a time-line that bounces around and a complicated story that requires the viewer to put the pieces together you might want to save this for another night, but don't miss it, it's an incredible piece of writing and filmmaking.

The best film of 2007

[transcendingpictures · 9/10 · 12 September 2016]

This film marks an incredible directorial debut for Tony Gilroy. He was an accomplished screenwriter - and his script for MC is immaculate - but his direction was inspired with confidence and craftsmanship. Immaculate performances across the board - especially from Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson. Masterful storytelling and nearly perfect execution. The look and feel of the world was perfectly calibrated. It's one of the those films that gets even stronger with age. There's so much happening in his film, to re-watch is overcome with revelations. I love this film so much. I really wish they made films this smart and well-crafted more often these days. It's just not the kind of film that movie studios care to make anymore. Sadly.

Holds up over time

[rbnrnnr · 8/10 · 7 November 2021]

I love this movie - I have watched it many times, most recently last night. It has one of the best collections of superb performances you'll find, wrapped in an anti-corporate Erin Brokovich-like story structure. But what's really going on is the individual characters. George Clooney is so under rated. He has a clear understanding of his role at his firm - he's a fixer, a janitor. But he's really good at it and it's allowed him to fund his other hobbies. The interaction between him and his brother is so subtle New York class structure: brother's a cop so sees his brother as a fancy lawyer; Clooney's coworkers know his background and see him as a cop. Tom Wilkinson is incredible. Lead attorney at the firm, leading their defense of their client, a giant ag company accused of poisoning people. A non-showy naturalistic performance showing someone going off their medication. Or is he just waking up and deciding not to sell his soul anymore? It's a Peter Finch/Network level performance, I kid you not. And finally, my girl Tilda Swinton. She is never ever boring. She is ostensibly the face of the villain in this story. And yet Tilda does something really interesting here. She allows you inside this character's job in a male-dominated corporation, in an awful industry, you understand her ambition, but she lets you see how over her head she feels she is. She makes her character's anxiety palpable. And yet, when the inevitable confrontation happens: she deserves it. You get the feeling, though, that had she been smarter and stronger, the men she works for would never have allowed her to be around. So ultimately they did this to themselves. Finally, the elegant plot structure. You begin near the end, go back to the beginning, and then go past where you started to the end. "I am Siva, the god of death"

Dozen Loaves of Bread

[tedg · 19 October 2007]

I'm a student of noir. Its an American invention, something like jazz, and has colored film and therefore narrative deeply and permanently.

My definition of noir centers on the world between the viewer and the story. In the ordinary instance, the characters (usually one man and his girl) find themselves in a world where the laws of cause and happenstance are artificial. Things don't happen as they normally would in life, rather they are arranged. Things are artificially jiggered to produce a story that works for the storyteller. Odd circumstances. Strange coincidences. Unlikely relationships. Things serialized, compressed and displayed for the convenience of the viewer.

The thing that's characteristic of conventional noir is that the thing starts with a real reality. We have a common fellow, nominally a Jimmy Stewart type, who is living a normal life and who gets lifted into a noir fate. What makes this so flexible is that we the viewer become gods, jerking around the character. This allows for all sorts of clever ironies and narrative folding because we implicitly become agents in the story.

But if you are a modern screenwriter or filmmaker, your greatest challenge (usually) is what to do about this. Its something that Soderbergh and Clooney worry about. What we have here is pretty basic noir, elaborated in three dimensions.

The first is that they chose to make our noir hero a full character. No Philip Marlowe here; this guy is comparatively fleshed out and played by someone who knows how to do so.

The second twist has been done before. They add in the world of law. That world has a different ontology in matters of cause and truth, so is a handy one for noir games. For lawyers if something really is true it doesn't matter. Its only true if there is admissible proof that it is so. Cause, the basic thing that is at the root of noir fate, has a similar disconnect between the real and the legal. Normally, this would just be a background element. But here there is something novel.

Clayton's son has a fixation on precisely these matters of real and unreal worlds. There's lots of talk about how they blend, and a terrific device of a lawyer who decides to "change sides." That means shifting from the evil corporation to the ordinary girl, at the same time shifting from memos to a fantasy book — he literally puts a "new cover" on a key document. And he shifts from sanity to madness. A key plot point, by the way is that he never did anything without leaving a memo.

This is terrific writing and reason to see the thing by itself. Kid, book, reality.

The third twist is that we have two noir characters. The woman here isn't just a moll along for the ride. She's Tilda Swinton for heaven sakes, someone equally caught up in circumstance. She's probably in her position because of past sexual favors and trying hard to "perform." She's as manipulated by the story as the Clooney character. Its a bit novel and very well done. She's good to have around.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

A Very Gray Thriller

[terrygiu2000 · 7/10 · 8 October 2007]

I understand they were trying to be serious but their intentions took over the film. A special projects man played by George Clooney against the monstrous conglomerates bearing the face of Tilda Swinton. Scary? You bet! Little touches to let us know that the special projects man has a gambling problem and no life. Horses, in an indirect way, will save his life and well, you can sit through this couple of hours without guessing what's going to happen next and, if you permit me, without caring. I prefer George Clooney in his brighter, campier roles. I believe Cary Grant had the same problem but I would like to know who's idea was the Queen Christina moment through the closing credits. That was campy and allowed some much needed smiles. All in all, go to see it at your own peril.

An elegant work showing a filthy world

[jemmytee · 10/10 · 31 January 2008]

"Michael Clayton" is the name of the best lawyer in the powerhouse litigation firm of Kenner, Bach, & Ledeen. So good, he's not allowed to waste himself in court; he's used to clean up the messes the firm's rich and powerful clients cause -- and he's damn good at his job. Problem is, it's destroying him from the inside out. At least...it's doing so until he slams headlong into a problem that forces him to see the decay growing within. That problem comes in the form of a brilliant but guilt-ridden attorney named Arthur Edens, whose spectacular meltdown during a deposition has thrown a HUGE class-action suit against a conglomerate called UNorth into turmoil. Michael is sent to get him back under control...or else, thus setting in motion what is, in my mind, one of the most breathtaking suspense dramas I've seen in years.

Starting with a tight, stunning script by Tony Gilroy, this movie has every cylinder firing in perfect sync. The acting is, without exception, exceptional. George Clooney takes a vile human being and inhabits him with such sympathy and understanding, he becomes just another man fighting to keep his life going who IS still capable of decency. (The moment where, after Michael's son has seen a beloved uncle who's an addict come groveling for forgiveness, he stops the car and lets the boy know he's stronger than that uncle is so right and so perfect, I nearly wept.) And Tilda Swinton's litigator, Karen Crowder, is so desperate and unsure, you can almost understand why she makes some of the decisions she does. And Tom Wilkinson blazes across the screen as Arthur Edens, who has finally seen the evil within himself and wants to make it right but who, despite all his legal brilliance, is still naive enough to think he can get away with it.

The direction is taut, cinematography and editing cool and precise, and all are at the service of an elegant work that uses the suspense genre to illuminate a filthy world that has been glossed over by money and power. Magnificent in every way.

The screenwriter-director trap: tedious pace, from first reel

[vostf · 4/10 · 24 January 2011]

Most screenwriters don't have what it takes to shoot a story with the appropriate rhythm. The problem is they like words, words feel nice on paper and they end up over-burdening the director since words don't necessarily translate well in terms of visual and space narratives.

Michael Clayton and Duplicity were two movies with a very interesting premise, a promising cast, and a very unimpressive result. So I guess it has something to do with Tony Gilroy. From the very first scenes I felt something important was ill-executed in Michael Clayton. First there's this very annoying, forced, voice-over which really gets us to a very bad start. It reminded me of the introductory v-o narration in the documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, except there the rhythm picked up and in the end it was a great thriller of a documentary. Then you have some low-key exposition - something screenwriters are deeply proud of, and they sometimes are trying too hard to be subtle, esp. as screenwriter-directors, taking all their time to be subtle. The poker scene should have been a key feature in the exposition, but it feels like a totally irrelevant scene. You don't feel how much Michael Clayton (George Clooney) was/is addicted to gambling, you only get clues that he used to gamble at some other, nicer, place, that he's done bad business as owner of a bar. Low-key, subtle touches but visually it's dumb, uninteresting, uneventful, which is correlated with the fact it wastes time, not advancing efficiently key plot elements.

First-reel contact is really bad, and there are no signs it's just a matter of bad introductory choices. Instead, as in 99% of such ill-conceived movies, it's a matter of initial poor choices that will linger on the rest of the movie. The story of Michael Clayton is mostly one big 4-day flashback with a prologue and an epilogue. The prologue is slow, devoid of "plot peaks" that could titillate our interest -- forget about building suspense. Low-skills directors mistake suspense for heavy atmosphere, slow narration, and we get more of the latter in the flashback.

Disjointed narrative, no sense of immediacy or urgency, no time or space or psychological pressure, the hero is just bullied around in the story. Think of the difference between a tense atmosphere and a character that just moves around somewhat ill-at-ease for nothing seems right in his life. That is the technical assessment of this movie. Now the conclusion is fast, at last, but nothing was right in making us crave for it. it's just edited in at the end, like an clean and sharp attachment to a long and tedious email.

Now you can't blame the technical crew, they did a great job but you really have to think of it when you're watching a boring movie. There's a good cast too for sure, but I was not impressed by George Clooney since his character was so little interesting. Now he was involved in the production and he must have thought this was a deep likable torn-apart character, so he is largely to blame here for the decisions made upfront. At the end of the day the premise was interesting but most conspiracy movies from the 70s are more interesting, faster than this.

Good, But Overrated Thriller

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 5 April 2008]

In New York, the divorced attorney Michael Clayton (George Clooney) has been working for many years fixing messy situations for the law firm Kenner, Back and Odeen. He has never been invited to become a partner due to his conflictive personality of poker gambler and alcoholic that left him completely broken. Michael's addicted brother owes a high amount to a dangerous loan shark and Michael is trying to find a means to cover the debts. When the brilliant attorney Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) that has been ahead of the U-North case, a complicated three billion dollars lawsuit, for six years has a nervous breakdown and is arrested naked in a parking area in Milwaukee, Michael tries to help his friend, and is involved in an evil scheme plotted by Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), the legal counsel of U-North.

The low-paced "Michael Clayton" is a good but overrated thriller tailored for George Clooney, who is perfect performing his complex and ambiguous character. I believe that the excessive nominations to the Oscar show the lack of good movies in Hollywood. The excellent actress Tilda Swinton has another excellent performance in the role of the villain Karen Crowder. However, I am not sure whether I was not paying much attention, but I found the screenplay confused and in the end something was missing to make "Michael Clayton" a great movie. Further, I did not understand the need of a bomb in Michael's car; the killers were very effective and why using a sophisticated electronic apparatus to kill the attorney? My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Conduta de Risco" ("Conduct of Risk")

The law firm's janitor

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 10 November 2016]

In the title role of Michael Clayton, George Clooney is described by himself as exactly that. Whenever there's a big mess he's the one they send in to clean it up. The law firm under managing partner Sydney Pollack has a real mess on his hands. One of the firm's top attorneys Tom Wilkinson has gone off the deep end. He's representing a chemical company accused of poisoning people with a new insecticide they've developed. Cleaning up this mess might be just a baby sitting job with Wilkinson who mentored Clayton. But it has the potential to be worse because this company is guilty as sin and will do anything to limit the liability and keep their good name.

Michael Clayton was nominated for a flock of Oscars including Best Actor for George Clooney as a much flawed hero. Takes a while for the better angels of Clooney's nature emerge. Tom Wilkinson as the lawyer with both conscience and schizophrenia steals the acting honors though. He was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Michael Clayton got a flock of other nominations including Best Picture.

The film did take home one bit of Oscar gold. Tilda Swinton as one of the chemical company executives who also has an attack of conscience got a Best Supporting Actress Award. She's quite good herself.

The film is an interesting look at big business and the high priced lawyers they must retain to keep them out of trouble. Sad in some cases we have to rely on consciences coming to the fore for any justice at times.

Michael Clayton, a well done piece of cinema.

How did Tilda Swinton win an Oscar for this?

[stephenmurphy28 · 6/10 · 19 February 2019]

What did she have ? A soft 3 pages of dialogue? And it wasn't even that meaty. She didn't put much effort into looking constipated & thoroughly disengaged fit the few scenes she was in. Now do t get me wrong, I think she's a good, intense actress but an Oscar for this?

Her other nominees must have been horrendous

A satisfying flick, but you have to pay attention.

[wxgirl55 · 8/10 · 14 September 2007]

Saw this at a screening at the Toronto Int'l Film Festival.

This movie is appropriately titled "Michael Clayton" because in it we are introduced to the man in his many life roles; father, ex-husband, brother, son, friend and businessman. Some things he's good at, others not so much.

Terry Gilroy's debut directing showed a controlled and restrained hand, allowing the multi-tracked storyline to expand and grow, but always with a pull back to the core. For a fairly busy plot with numerous sub-characters, he did a good job of turning over pieces of the puzzle to bring the audience back full circle to the opening scene.

Michael Clayton fixes things, but we see in his own personal life there are a trail of problems he's dealing with. It's when he works alone that he seems to do his best work. Once those close to him come into his decision-making process, he lets emotions rule rather than his head.

George Clooney always seems to have a message in his movies, wanting us to be aware of the evil-doers out in the world. His boyish charm and general likability makes you root for him. We can relate to him.

Michael Clayton is a flawed individual who has good intentions but often gets beaten by the world and the people around him. Can't we all relate to that too? This was a satisfying suspense flick. Key to enjoying it is to pay attention.

Lots of loose ends?

[tvit · 6/10 · 18 October 2007]

The main plot of the movie is entertaining although somewhat slow building. The numerous sub-plots that mean nothing, very weak character building attempts & unneeded scenes are surprisingly frequent in this movie.

The "big scene" at the end has been done in hundreds of movies before this, yet it caught me completely off-guard! After thinking about it for a day or two, I realized that I spent more time trying to reconstruct the loose ends at the theater than watching the ending!

I had to laugh at the final scene as the credits rolled. An exhausted MC hands a taxi driver 50 bucks & tells him to "drive". With traffic, 50 bucks will take you from Lower Manhattan to Central Park. Not nearly enough time to decompress, just enough time to end the credits I guess :-)

Michael Clayton is all about the people

[MovieZoo · 8/10 · 12 October 2007]

In a world over-run by corporations and lawyers, the little man rarely wins. It takes a big man to keep that world in order. But sometimes another big man comes along to show who really is the big man. Or is it a woman? That said, no big man would exist without the little man - the outsider.

While you can watch this movie and see a good story develop, the story makes an interesting shift. The people become the story once the initial story has laid to bare the reason for the peoples' existence.

I enjoyed it for that very reason. The characters were all extremely interesting thanks to great performances by everyone. Clooney, Wilkinson, Pollack and especially Tilda Swinton(White Witch from Narnia) - I am in love with her acting ability. I will be doing some back-tracking to catch up on what I have missed from her. In Narnia, she was deliciously evil and in Clayton, she couldn't be any worse at being evil, but that was her character. It was fun to watch how she made weakness such a strength.

Wilkinson is such an all around great actor and makes his character seem lovable although pitiful and downright nasty for reasons I won't bring up here. Wilkinson definitely delivers.

Clooney provided the best performance in a long time. I think Clooney has long been an interesting performer but this role is just one of his best - dedicated, sometimes mysterious, loving and charming; even funny and sad.

You may look for more in the story line but you may miss the best part if you don't accept that the people are the story once the movie gets rolling.

8 of 10

It was okay

[bob-rutzel-1 · 6/10 · 20 April 2008]

Michael Clayton (Clooney) is a "janitor", a lawyer who gets clients out of trouble without going to court. There is an ongoing Class Action suit that his company seems to have the edge in until things go bad.

I would have liked this better if that Class Action suit was explained somewhat better somewhere in the beginning of the movie. Things moved so fast in the beginning and another janitor case was mixed in with the Class Action suit, it was hard to know what was going on. But, eventually, it all got sorted out………….near the end of it all.

I wouldn't call this a thriller or even a suspense story. I was more concerned trying to figure out what was going on that the suspense angle was non-existent. So in that case, there was no caring for any of the characters, even Michael Clayton, who seemed to know what to do, yet I trusted him. And, MC had baggage: divorced, a failed business, gambling problem, and still I did not care and that was because he was always going forward, trying to make his life better, not dwelling on the past.

Yes, I would have nominated George Clooney for a Best Actor award. He is good and can carry a story, but he didn't get it. However, they nominated Tilda Swinton for Best Actress in a supporting role and she got it. Go figure. Get out. After seeing this movie, I would not have nominated her for anything. She is okay, but an Oscar performance? I don't think so.

This movie was also nominated for Best Picture. I wouldn't go that far, it was okay, but not Oscar material. Seems Oscar material has new standards these days. One more thing, this movie was also nominated for a Music Award. What? I don't recall any music being played at all. I was so busy trying to figure out what was really going on that I didn't hear a thing.

Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: Yes, there was some, not a lot

Lacks suspense, moral dilemma not shown in a compelling way

[kellyq12 · 5/10 · 2 January 2008]

I was really disappointed in this movie. It was just okay. I do not agree with the level of critical acclaim is has received. It was a decent (but not great) character study. It lacked any real suspense. It was pretty simple story that tried to appear complex.

I think there were great individual acting performances, but I think something was lacking in the relationships between the story's main characters, which made it not compelling enough.

One of the biggest reasons for the lack of suspense is that the flash-forward opening killed any possibilities of suspense in the movie's later scenes. The first 10 minutes shows the audience what will happen in the end, which makes a late-in-the-movie "car chase" not really a car chase (we know where he's headed!) among other spoiled moments. So instead the end just feels long and drawn out.

I am not one who needs a lot of flashy action sequences to keep me interested in a story, so that is not my complaint. But even the psychological suspense was lacking. This movie was a story that showed Michael Clayton caught in the midst of a corrupt situation, and it showed how another character's guilt pulled him into madness. However, the insane character was already insane from the get-go, and Michael Clayton never was faced with a really juicy moral dilemma where BOTH choices are bad. I love movies where as an audience member I question what I'd do because the situation is so precarious. Instead, I was bored, waiting for Michael to get on with what was so obviously coming.

A better psychological thriller/character study involving moral dilemma is "Breach." I recommend that over "Michael Clayton" any day.

Holds up...I am rewatching this after 10 years

[fashinrashin · 9/10 · 14 April 2022]

Why are there not more films like this ? Films for adults, about important themes.

The cast and crew hits this out of the park. Superlative work.

Tom Wilkerson was robbed , he deserved the oscar. The scene that really got me was the speech Clooney made to his son in his car. That was some script writing !

This movie is a joke

[Agnelin · 24 April 2011]

I am impressed at the amount of praise that "Michael Clayton" and its director, debutante Tony Gilroy, have received. For me, the only redeeming point of this movie is the acting -and, still, only that of Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton's; not so impressed with George Clooney, whose acting ability I still consider quite average, but perhaps this movie is one more attempt to come across as a "serious" actor in "ambitious" and "necessary" movies. For me as an anonymous little viewer, "Michael Clayton" is a complete failure, and a monumental waste of time.

The first serious flaw of this movie is the fact that it never really shows us what Michael Clayton does, who he is. We need to read the blurb on the cover of the DVD or the plot summary in the newspaper in order to know that this Michael Clayton guy, who works for a top attorney office, is a "fixer", someone who solves problems for the firm involving its clients. That's to say, he's some sort of last-resort person or a "janitor", like he's described in the movie. However, we hardly ever along the whole running time of the movie do we actually see him doing that job, or doing it as reputably well as we've been previously told.

Second, the movie is a typical debut work in which the director needs to show off by using a completely unnecessary but confusing (how convenient!) narrative device to tell us what is, in fact, a quite simple story, and one we've been told an uncountable number of times in cinema. One of the best, most heartless attorneys in a firm suddenly finds himself falling in love with one of the plaintiffs -a country girl- against the corporation U-North, which said attorney is defending against claims of having caused cancer to some farmers. It is as familiar and well-learned as it sounds, and the movie adds very little, if anything at all, to what we have seen in many other -better- movies. This attorney happens to be our hero's best friend (sorta) and this is supposed to be the reason why the character of Michael Clayton is in the movie at all. For some two hours, Clayton/Clooney will drive back and forth, have supposedly very intelligent and insightful conversations, do -though poorly- the job he's being paid to do, whisper in the ear of horses, solve petty domestic situations, and little more.

I'm giving this movie a 3/10 score, and that only for Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton, as well as the supporting actors.

Not bad but could have been better

[a4Dble · 6/10 · 15 October 2007]

At times (especially the start), this movie reminded me of the 'movie' "Playback Time" from Mr. Bean's Holiday. It was confusing and going nowhere. That said, it has been a movie that has got stuck in my head and the storyline was good, it just could have been better. I would have preferred if the irrelevant parts weren't there and the ending (although good) was tied in better, as it basically came out of nowhere. Overall, this is a movie that makes you think 'what's going on?', then when it's over you think 'what was that part about?', which I guess makes you want to see it again. I suggest renting this movie for this reason but only when you have nothing else to watch.

Class and Sorrow

[billion_mucks · 9/10 · 15 February 2008]

I have to say that I didn't expect much of Michael Clayton. But it has grown on me in such a way, reassuring me with it's decided desolate aura, that I owe a review to those in a doubtful measure.

Although it starts with some idle comings and goings, the first reaction we have is to alienate with Clayton. He is battered down, morally ambiguous, suffered. If one watches closely his eyes, one can discover within how a feeling of despair takes over. Clooney is a very happy, cheerful guy: you will appreciate his work, how he lets Clayton dominate Clooney.

In here, the lawyer of the title must decide which side to take in an important lawsuit after his friend changes sides and endangers himself. Is he helping the good guys? How can he tell, deep Inside? The film carries the moral dilemmas, the strangled fight between choosing the good and the correct. Gilroy commanded a brilliant, harrowing script. But Clooney is the definite star, with his sadness, empathy. His sorrow is deeply moving.

The Grey, moisturized environments, carefully veiled with a soft mist. Clooney's interior acting, arising within his foggy emotions.

This film is not cheerful, it's somehow depressing. But it's a must see.

Good thriller , but slightly disjointed.

[charliecheswick · 6/10 · 14 October 2007]

I quite enjoyed this movie, its a slow mover , but it does eventually get to where its going. George Clooney plays the role of Michael Clayton -a legal firms downtrodden dogs body.While struggling to juggle the many aspects of his life- friends , family , money , and work he becomes involved in the dark underworld of business. What I enjoyed about this movie is that it does not spoon feed its audience the story and characters. At the same time though , this is a flaw in the film as it at times seams clumsy and slightly disjointed. For example we see a few scenes involving Clooney and his family , but not enough is revealed to give the audience an insight into the dynamics of the family. We here that he is an intelligent man , but we don't see him excelling in intelligence. We see him struggling to run is business ,but are not shown enough of this struggle. Etc...etc... As a result of this , by the end of the movie ,you are left with the feeling that you don't know Michael Clayton any better than you did after the first 10 minutes of the film. Overall what makes this film good is the story and performance by the cast, but i was left with the feeling that it could have benefited at times if it had adopted a bit more of a direct "slap bang" approach

A great character study and a masterclass in writing

[alex_with_a_P · 10/10 · 17 December 2021]

Everyone who is interested in writing should take note from that movie. The first few minutes are a bit disorienting but the movie carefully sets up it's pieces with every player and their relationships.

To give you an example, in general I hate it when movies start with the third act until the obligatory "two weeks before" line pops up after five minutes.

Here it does have a purpose from a narrative point of view to establish the sense of danger and what is about to come. Not only that, because of this we get a first glimpse of our protagonist. The way he is introduced in this opening feels very natural without any heavy exposition dumps. In fact we get a two way-introduction: by his private situation and through his professional life as well.

In general, the dialogue here is very precise, to the point and doesn't have any artifice like an Aaron Sorkin script. It has quite some memorable lines that I could almost compete with Glenngarry Glen Ross.

This isn't another movie that glorifies lawyers and throws in a trial here and there to keep the attention with spectacle. No, this is more about what happens between the cracks. How arrangements are being done in the background, before we even get to a trial.

Especially for the rich clients who benfit from these kind of deals. We all know, it's a dirty business.

Nevertheless there's a focus in the humanity of each character and even the 'villain' played by Tilda Swinton is more realistically portrayed in a pitiful manner, rather than a cold calculating CEO we usual expect from those kind of movies. There's one deeply disturbing scene for me which I won't spoil but the way it was so casually shot was quite something.

It even benfits from a second viewing because there's a lot foreshadowing and imagery in the background (especially the book the kid is reading).

It's a little bit complex in the beginning and dialogue- heavy in terms of lawyer speech so it's definitely a movie where you have to pay attention, but it's worth it. Anyway, to anyone who likes strong character portrayals paired with conspiracy thriller elements, I can wholeheartedly recommend this movie.

an over rated flick?

[jackcaptai · 6/10 · 24 February 2008]

i went in to this movie with all that hype floating around just before the big evening. and i was left disappointed. the story was simple and there was nothing in the name of a thriller. just a bland story with a glass eyed central character. i am not even sure why this movie is getting so many good reviews. i agree to one point that its a mature movie made with a certain degree of frankness. i mean there are no flashy actions or senseless bang bang. but it is just that. not an all out Oscar material. only the demented lawyer left any mark who came close to a insane man. i liked the company head's role too. she depicted woman who is caught in a rat race which have nothing but dead ends. these are the 2 characters who i felt gave that extra something to the movie. i feel its just an Oscar propaganda. just rent a DVD and lol around on the couch with home made lemonade. its not worth the ticket.