Michael Clayton was, overall, a pretty big disappointment to me. It starts off relatively strong with some very interesting exposition. However, by the middle, it became a bit muddled and off course. Instead of relying on characterization, which it could have easily done, the film focuses on twists that have been seen before and an under use of some serious acting talent.
Without giving too much away, I'll say that this more a story of ethics than other typical lawyer movies. In this respect, Michael Clayton offers a fresh perspective. That's about as far as the creative aspects go. George Clooney plays a forty-five year old "miracle worker" lawyer named Michael Clayton. Michael is a lawyer known for cleaning up messes. He even refers to himself and others as "janitors" rather than lawyers. At the beginning, Michael is bailing his colleague, Arthur, out of jail for indecent exposure. Arthur, once a renowned lawyer, has become guilt stricken and obsessed with a case and one of its plaintiffs. The case involves the death and poisoning of a substantial amount of people due to a weed killer. The lawsuit is against an agricultural company, U North, whose legal counsel is the brilliant Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton). Things go awry quickly and the struggle for power and money seem to head up the actions of these underdeveloped characters.
The main problem I had with this film was the fact that it tried way too hard to shove in several subplots that the film could have easily done without. These side stories weakened the film and, without them, the intensity of the plot could have easily been increased. Michael Clayton was a cool guy, but the scenes involving his son and brother were completely unnecessary. One could argue that these scenes characterized Michael, but I'd disagree. The scenes, especially the ones with his son, were of no real use to the film.
As far as acting goes, the cast here is top notch. Clooney turned in, arguably, the least stunning performance. Michael Clayton failed to make an impression on me as a character until the last few minutes of the film. I'm not saying that George Clooney was bad, but nothing about his portrayal made the character memorable or interesting. He redeems himself slightly in the last few scenes, showing more emotion there than throughout the whole thing. Tilda Swinton is a great actress and did well with the material she was given. The problem was that the material she was given is very limited. The film could have done something great with her character, but instead just left it kind of in the air. We see her practicing a speech before she gives it, showing a more vulnerable, less confident side than she actually shows when speaking in public. But the characterization ends there, leaving the viewer with no one to really care about or be interested in. I'm of the opinion that the best performance of the film was that of Tom Wilkinson as the guilt-ridden Arthur. Wilkinson manages to steal every scene he's a part of. It's a shame that he did not receive more screen time.
Perhaps I built it up too much, given the good reviews and Oscar nominations, but I fail to see how Michael Clayton is anything more than a typical legal film that tries too hard to be an edgy thriller. It's watchable, but rather mediocre and dull. Aside from some decent supporting performances and a pretty decent ending, Michael Clayton is nothing to get excited about.
6/10
Without giving too much away, I'll say that this more a story of ethics than other typical lawyer movies. In this respect, Michael Clayton offers a fresh perspective. That's about as far as the creative aspects go. George Clooney plays a forty-five year old "miracle worker" lawyer named Michael Clayton. Michael is a lawyer known for cleaning up messes. He even refers to himself and others as "janitors" rather than lawyers. At the beginning, Michael is bailing his colleague, Arthur, out of jail for indecent exposure. Arthur, once a renowned lawyer, has become guilt stricken and obsessed with a case and one of its plaintiffs. The case involves the death and poisoning of a substantial amount of people due to a weed killer. The lawsuit is against an agricultural company, U North, whose legal counsel is the brilliant Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton). Things go awry quickly and the struggle for power and money seem to head up the actions of these underdeveloped characters.
The main problem I had with this film was the fact that it tried way too hard to shove in several subplots that the film could have easily done without. These side stories weakened the film and, without them, the intensity of the plot could have easily been increased. Michael Clayton was a cool guy, but the scenes involving his son and brother were completely unnecessary. One could argue that these scenes characterized Michael, but I'd disagree. The scenes, especially the ones with his son, were of no real use to the film.
As far as acting goes, the cast here is top notch. Clooney turned in, arguably, the least stunning performance. Michael Clayton failed to make an impression on me as a character until the last few minutes of the film. I'm not saying that George Clooney was bad, but nothing about his portrayal made the character memorable or interesting. He redeems himself slightly in the last few scenes, showing more emotion there than throughout the whole thing. Tilda Swinton is a great actress and did well with the material she was given. The problem was that the material she was given is very limited. The film could have done something great with her character, but instead just left it kind of in the air. We see her practicing a speech before she gives it, showing a more vulnerable, less confident side than she actually shows when speaking in public. But the characterization ends there, leaving the viewer with no one to really care about or be interested in. I'm of the opinion that the best performance of the film was that of Tom Wilkinson as the guilt-ridden Arthur. Wilkinson manages to steal every scene he's a part of. It's a shame that he did not receive more screen time.
Perhaps I built it up too much, given the good reviews and Oscar nominations, but I fail to see how Michael Clayton is anything more than a typical legal film that tries too hard to be an edgy thriller. It's watchable, but rather mediocre and dull. Aside from some decent supporting performances and a pretty decent ending, Michael Clayton is nothing to get excited about.
6/10