4/4  C to the Layton
This movie was divinely orchestrated, brilliantly written, and awesomely directed. On top of that, there are performances to die for from George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, and Tom Wilkinson. I loved how each actor took roles that weren't in... (read full)

3.5/4  Best Picture of 2007
High powered attorneys, corrupt in house counsel, and "fixers" working in law firms create interesting food for the movies which is a unique twist to a somewhat typical movie genre. Much of the films concerning the subject matter of law us... (read full)

2/4  Not complex or interesting enough
I found this movie to be not complex interesting in any way. Most have said that it so intricate, but it is not its simple. Evil corporation that is not fully fleshed out does not do what it should. One of its lawyers cries out in the most... (read full)

3/4  Astute and Consistent
I truly wanted to like it more than I did because its dark tone is pitch-perfect, the script is stellar, and the characters are fascinating. In the end, I must admit, I needed that extra "oomph" that could make my heart race. I didn't get ... (read full)

2/4  Sugar coated candy that's empty on the inside
There are far too many inconsistencies during the course of a two hour talking marathon. It’s still a big mystery to me why Clooney is nominated for his performance,I didn't feel he did anything new. Half of the things that happen in this ... (read full)

4/4  Not your typical whistleblower movie
One of the most engrossing movies of the past year, Michael Clayton is the story of Clayton (Clooney), a lawyer who serves as a "fixer" for a firm involved in a huge class action lawsuit. When one of his colleagues Arthur (Wilkinson) goes... (read full)

3/4  Michael Clayton Quick Review
The movie was tough to follow, but I won't take away credit because it was well done. I feel like it lacked a little bit of that suspense but it still served its purpose.

2.5/4  Michael Clayton Quick Review
I'm not quite sure what it is about this film that keeps it from being good. It just doesn't quite deliver. There are some distracting, poorly developed subplots that are actually irrelevant to the main story. Mediocre at best.

2.5/4  Michael Clayton Quick Review
I liked this film, but didn't love it. Clooney, Wilkinson and Swinton are great and the story is interesting, but it moves rather sluggishly for me. I understand this is more about words than action, but it never grabbed my attention.

3/4  Michael Clayton Quick Review
An underrated film from the past year that people only now have begun to discover. Clooney is magnificent as the title character is is Tom Wilkinson in a great supporting role.

4/5 A brief comment
  by magellan (Santa Clara, CA)
This is a dark, brooding, moody corporate thriller about a lawyer who works as a "fixer," a roving troubleshooter who does everything from going after runaway housewives to fixing high stakes corporate lawsuits when problems crop up. In this case the story revolves around the case of a corrupt agribusiness company that is fighting a multi-billion dollar class action suit stemming from their marketing of a dangerous pesticide which it manufactures and has concealed evidence of its harmful effects.

George Clooney is utterly convincing as the conflicted fixer who wants to get out but who desperately needs the money to pay off his gambling debts, and Tom Wilkinson is possibly even greater as the brilliant but wacked out attorney who is defending the agribusiness company. When he goes off his medication and has a psychotic break and temporarily goes AWOL, it's Clooney's job to find him and get him back on his meds. I'm not familiar with the woman who played the company's chief counsel but she is excellent too. All the main leads do a fine job, in fact, and the slow pacing allows the story to unfold unhurriedly as the suspense builds to the satisfying climax.

It's a suspenseful and intense movie from beginning to end. Overall a good flick and especially if you're a Clooney fan you'll want to give this one a look.

2/5 A Drama about a Class-Action Suit
  by Acute Observer (North Jersey Shore)
The film begins with scenes of New York city. A man is talking in an emotional voice. He works for a big law firm. A reporter calls for information but gets nothing. Men are playing poker, one gets a phone call. Michael Clayton will handle this problem, and drove to Westchester to see a man who is a difficult client. [Some lawyers make house calls to rich clients.] Clayton stops to view some horses; then his car blows up! The story shifts to four days earlier. Michael sells things to raise money, he is in deep debt. He knows people and can arrange things, a "fixer". Will this big law firm be bought up by another law firm? [The sequence of scenes is a little confusing.]

One lawyer has a problem. Arthur is in jail after he went off his medication. [Is this another industrial disease?] "I guess that's it." We learn more about Michael Clayton. The background facts slowly seep out. [The story drags here.] Michael is told to pay up what he owes in one week. Do law firms hire private detectives to check on their employees? "Then who are you?" Arthur found out that a farm product can cause cancer in northern climates! "There's the other way." They make it look like a suicide. Why was there no note? Michael calls Anna and gets a surprise. Will he investigate on his own? Will somebody call 9-11? There are complications.

"We have a situation." Michael should know how his law firm pays the rent. The story continues, and we see what was done. The story repeats from the beginning [as if to pad out the film]. The suspense picks up. [Is there symbolism in the car brands?] We see what happens next. One lawyer explains the reasons for a settlement this year. Michael talks to Karen and makes a deal. Will there be a surprise and a happy ending?

This would be a better film without the confusing sequence of events. Some scenes go nowhere. Overall it's a good story in spite of the many scenes that serve as distractions, or aren't believable. Unneeded scenes drive up costs. One problem is the `suicide' of Arthur. He seemed to die from an overdose of his medication but there would be no pills in his stomach when they did the required autopsy for a violent death. Using Karen as the villain suggests an unusual point of view, or an agenda. Was there a real reason to blow up Michael's car?



5/5 Low-key drama about corporate corruption and its effects
  by James A. Strong (Atlanta, Georgia United States)
While making the occasional blockbuster on the side - such as "Ocean's Thirteen" - to prove that he's still a bankable matinee idol, George Clooney is also becoming one of the most compelling leading men in the business today by following his own star. As a title character of this film, who's a fixer for a major law firm who mops up messes for his bosses' wealthy clients, he carries himself with the kind of character and grace that glues the viewer's eyes to the screen every time he appears. Both he and his colleague (played by the always brilliant Tom Wilkinson) tap into their basic human decency before they clean up a corporate mess that they decide needs to be discovered instead of covered up. They rediscover the true meaning of justice in the process. As the nerve-racked, ladder-climbing adversary they square off against, Tilda Swinton gives a remarkable performance that illustrates the compromises of every step she climbs. Tony Gilroy (the scribe behind all three Bourne films), who also makes his directorial debut here, is quickly becoming one of my favorite screenwriters. In other hands, his premise could have turned into a klutzy, obvious, and sentimental muckraker. In his, there isn't a single false moment.

2/5 tedious, boring, pisspoor storytelling...
  by some guy (San Francisco, CA USA)
tedious, boring, pisspoor storytelling...what a CHORE to watch this thing. No suspense, just confusing subplots and tedious talking talking talking. Man, this thing is in need of some major script overhaul and editing.

Most of the time I was completely baffled as to what was going on, and desperately trying to even CARE enough to continue watching.
I couldn't even summon any emotion about any of the characters....I didn't like or dislike them, they were just.... THERE.

Films like this make me angry for the time they stole from me. I could've been doing something more interesting and satisfying instead....like scratching my nuts.

4/5 Requires two viewings
  by e. verrillo (williamsburg, ma)
If there is such a thing as a film that is too tightly crafted, this is it. The first time I saw this film, I was hopelessly confused. The dialogue seemed to fly by, I kept missing tidbits of information that turned out to be crucial, and for the first ten minutes I absolutely could not figure out what was going on. Who were all these people? Why did Michael stop his car? How did he figure out whodunnit? The plot holes seemed enormous.

There was nothing for it but to watch the movie again. And, I have to say that after watching it twice, Michael Clayton was an impressive piece of filming. Every spoken line, every gesture, every bit of visual information was intricately structured. The acting was wonderful, with George Clooney at his best as a man at the end of his rope. Tom Wilkinson delivered a memorable performance as a manic-depressive lawyer who has "seen the light." (Do lawyers really switch sides in real life?) And Sydney Pollack was superb, as always, in a small but significant role. The filming was moody, tense, edgy. And every detail fit together tight as a drum. There weren't any plot holes. There weren't even plot pinpricks, which was both the strength and the ultimate weakness of this film.

With the exception of Memento, which was designed for several viewings, you shouldn't have to watch a movie twice to understand it--especially if the film is a thriller. While you can appreciate Michael Clayton more with a couple of viewings, all the tension is lost after the first. If there had been more explanation, more built-in redundancy, an occasional arrow to point to the "X" on the treasure map, it would have made Michael Clayton a more satisfying viewing experience. As it was, the film was almost very good.