Michael Clayton (2007)

Tom Wilkinson and George Clooney

Now here is a movie that you probably have heard of: Michael Clayton. It stars George Clooney and was nominated for 7 Oscars, with Tilda Swinton winning for Best Supporting Actress. It is rated R for some coarse language and some brief violence.

Mark -
This is a movie that I have been meaning to watch since shortly after it was released on DVD but have just now gotten to. George Clooney plays the lead character of Michael Clayton, an attorney in a large New York law firm, who’s role is to be "the fixer". Basically the easiest and simplest way to describe his role would be that if someone else screws up, its Clayton’s responsibility to make things right. The main focus of the movie involves a multibillion dollar personal injury/wrongful death lawsuit in which the firm is representing the defendant. As lead counsel, Arthur Eders (Tom Wilkinson), has a relapse of manic-depressive behavior during the middle of a deposition, Clayton is called in to work his magic in stabilizing both Eders and the unsettling incident which Eders created. Clayton does his best to mitigate the damage from the situation, but little does he know that the firms client has decided that they also need to take matters into their own hands. Events turn dangerous for all involved.

Wilkinson gives a great performance and is more than worthy of the best supporting actor nomination he received. Clooney also gives a great performance, but to show how good of an actor he has become, his role as Michael Clayton doesn’t seem to be all that different from many other roles which he has played. The film does a nice job of showing the ethical and moral dilemmas attorneys sometimes face, and how paths of good and bad are chosen by different attorneys.

The film received a lot of praise and deservingly so, however it is far from a perfect movie in my view. To begin with, I hated the ending. The film engrosses you so much into the role and life of Clayton, and unfortunately delivers nothing but speculation and questions in the end. My other major criticism is that I actually feel like there were too many minor characters thrown into the movie. The minor characters and minor subplots in many ways create more confusion and distraction than contribution to the movie.

Having said that I still thought this was a very good movie and would recommend it for anyone who has not seen it. 4 * out of 5

My Random Thought For Michael Clayton: Tilda Swinton won the Oscar for best supporting actress for her role in the film, and all I can really say to that is that is this goes to show how weak the performances really were that year.

Dan -
I don't know what it is about movies that involve the legal system, but they are made on a regular basis and a lot of them are really good. I am puzzled by this because from what I know about the legal system, which is more than the average guy but less than a lawyer, legal battles and such are extremely boring. Especially court hearings. Side note: In reality, there are no surprises in the legal system due to the rule of disclosure. Hollywood allows such things to make a movie more exciting, and really, can you blame them?

Back to the movie at hand. Mark explained the plot in his review, so read the summary above. All I will say is that what gets this movie going is one man's reaction to the answer of this question: What happens when the client you are representing, who has generated literally tens of millions of dollars in revenue, turns out to be the enemy? This movie isn't about the legal battle itself or the courtroom drama and there isn't any of the latter. This billion dollar lawsuit is on the verge of settling when Clooney comes in to fix problems created by the lead counsel on the case.

Performances: Tilda Swinton was weak. How she actually won the Oscar can only be chalked up to a year of weak performances in this category overall. I could still hear her Scottish accent peeking through some of her lines. It simply was not a remarkable performance to me. But who knows, maybe I missed the point, and the genius behind her performance is that I would expect a woman in her position to have a strong dose of confidence and she chose to play it a little apprehensive. Maybe her strength is conveying the fear and uncertainty of an experienced attorney who ends up (mild spoiler alert!) crossing the line. Her most fascinating scene is where she is crouched in the bathroom, drenched in sweat, and agonizing over the decision she has just made. That helps to suck you right in to her character, so credit is given where credit is due. And Tom Wilkinson was brilliant. Of all the nominees in Supporting Actor that year, he could have easily been given the Oscar among his fellow nominees (Javier Bardem actually won for his creepy killer in No Country For Old Men). He gives a crazy character some unexpected depth. And every scene he's in with Clooney is simply terrific. Two experienced actors playing well off each other with great dialogue.

Speaking of dialogue, this is really a great script that could really have been confusing, but Tony Gilroy (who wrote the Bourne movies) did a superb job at not spelling everything out and leaving things up to the audience to figure out and/or interpret for themselves. If I have one complaint, it's that I was slightly sidetracked by a couple of subplots that involved Clooney. One was his relationship with his son, and the other is that he is trying to square away a large debt he incurred while trying to open a bar. At least the overall point of the latter ties into the main plot easier than the former.

Here is one of the best movies released in 2007, although I do know of other people who did not like it as much as me, like the lady who gave me her DVD that she bought at my recommendation, and Mark (see above). It made my top ten of 2007, coming in at #4 and I give this movie 5 out of 5 stars.