Michael Clayton

Cold, distant, and unforgiving. Tony Gilroy is a very wise man who has managed to make his name a trademark, under which he is going to distribute goods of the best quality. You’ll be so chilled by Tom Wilkinson's opening monologue alone that you won't melt until the closing credits. This high-level legal game with lives on the line knocks you out with its formal austerity, which gives ample room for narrative peripeteia and theatrics in which the venerable academy has once again crowned the wrong person. Tilda Swinton spends the few minutes she gets looking like an uptight spinster, and immediately the golden statuettes come tumbling down. But otherwise, apart from the hasty introduction, I have no major complaints. 4 ½ (with the promise of a reunion coming soon). (2008-03-29)

Clayton is like a snowball slowly collecting more and more snow as it rolls on. The beginning is rather boring (despite being polished and realistic), but with added color from the precise background music by James Newton Howard. Clooney is great as usual and Gilroy is too good to let you switch off, and that’s good... at the end all the loose ends tie up nicely. I'm not the guy you kill, I'm the guy you buy! Are you so fucking blind that you don't even see what I am? I'm your easiest problem and you're gonna kill me? (2011-05-22)

A corporate apocalypse with a terrific script, direction, music, and performances. Characters abound and it's not hard to get tangled up in the convoluted story at times. But it's all the more satisfying when you get it back and everything starts to fall into place in you. Add to that the perfect scenes, led by the murder of Arthur Edensen, and the lack of audience pandering, and the rating is clear. And the ending... Anyone who doesn't like this, hop on back to Seagal ;) (2010-09-13)

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. (2011-12-10)

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. (2008-01-17)