Michael Clayton

The excellent opening with Tom Wilkinson’s alarming monologue and shots of cold glass offices creates an atmosphere that will engage you and won’t let you go until the final shot of Michael Clayton. The screenwriter of the Bourne trilogy, Tony Gilroy, produced a respectable directorial debut and, thanks to its deeper message, puts his genre competitors Steven Zaillian (A Civil Action) and Sydney Pollack (The Firm) to shame. Tilda Swinton is great here, as are Wilkinson and Clooney. This drama is a proud representative of the “Hollywood Art” category. (01/21/2008)

Michael Clayton was a completely different movie than I originally expected. No lawsuits, no flashy crime story with a shocking final reveal, but a perfectly sober and precise drama with amazing performances. I'm not so much talking about George Clooney, who once again performs to his classically high standard and is more than convincing as a stubborn negotiator suspecting a great deception, but in particular about the deranged Tom Wilkinson and his tiresome monologues, and the lawyer Tilda Swinton, who perhaps still carries a piece of the evil queen from Narnia. And even though I was quite sceptical at first and the plot seemed far-fetched, the slowly unravelling story gradually drew me in and I really enjoyed the final part. Tony Gilroy has made a low-key but very subtle film that is one of the pillars of its genre... (08/29/2012)

A very intelligent and quite cold film that sticks so strongly to genre conventions to the point of being a problem, because a little more excitement wouldn't hurt. Despite Gilroy's attempt to ride the wave of reality, there are a few missteps, like for example, the dream “horse/bomb” scene – that could hardly happen in real life. But this is still a solid legal thriller, thanks to its visually simple and austere execution, with plenty of brilliant dialogues and experienced actors who play strong and captivating businessmen to perfection. Clooney in his mentally toughest role yet, he has forsaken his charming façade, and as a tough negotiator, you believe in him down to the last detail. A high-quality genre film that may not entertain everyone, but is capable of smartly appealing to the audience. (08/02/2008)

Michael Clayton is another film that seems to come to us through time from a bygone era. I can imagine it being made by Sidney Pollack (great idea to cast him here, by the way) or his namesake Lumet sometime during the seventies, preferably with Robert Redford or Gene Hackman in the lead. But back to the present. What we have here is a simple story that has been seen, read and heard several times, but it is well written, has excellent dialogue and such unique characters that it is a joy to watch. Tony Gilroy's direction is fairly slow (Michael Clayton is thankfully not an action movie), but he comes up with a lot of ideas and many of the scenes (the horses, Arthur's apartment, the cab ride) are memorable. There's also a subtle but atmospheric performance by James Newton Howard... Four and a half. (12/10/2011)

Tony Gilroy. Another in a row of quality screenwriters who let himself be lured into the director’s chair. He wrote a screenplay for himself that focuses on a fascinating topic dissects the psyches of the (a)moral protagonists and that is sophisticated and intelligent. Many mention its similarity to Syriana. It reminds me more of The Firm or Coppola’s Interview. Everything in this movie urges the viewer to try to be a step ahead of Clayton’s investigations. What is the strongest side of this movie? Is it that outstanding screenplay? Or is the truth that sell-out bitch played by Tilda Swinton who long ago smothered any hint of conscience inside her? Or is it Tom Wilkinson and his character who, conversely, is resuscitating his conscience at the end of his career? Or is it George Clooney in the role of the lawyer “Mr Wolf who takes care of bothersome problems" who has experience, ability and, primarily, knows what people are like? Not forgetting that perhaps it is the precise direction. In the end, you reach the conclusion that Michael Clayton has no strongest side. All of his sides are in an unusual symbiosis and serve one single purpose. To make a good movie. And it worked, although it has a fault. And that is the ending which is just ordinary. It’s not bad, not stupid, not illogical. Simply what we’ve already seen so many times before. And in view of the fact that the movie is overflowing with hints, the unsaid, a parallel with a story for kids and even some metaphors, this is simply disappointing. But a niggling feeling that somewhere deep inside the finale there is “something more" provokes a desire to watch it again, after which it will hopefully be possible to give it full a set of stars. Because it just can’t be possible that the result could be so... ordinary. P.S. A month after seeing Gilroy’s debut at the movie theater, I can’t get it out of my head and so I gladly give it full marks. (01/17/2008)