Movie Night Follow Up

The theater is older, with a screen set high up enough that you have tilt your head back and no stadium seating. But for $3.00 total cost to get in and watch Michael Clayton, well worth it. Our theater probably held about 200 people and it was pretty full. All but the first three rows were mostly full.

Michael Clayton was interesting-- I am not sure I think it qualifies as a Best Picture movie, although it is quite well acted, directed, and photographed. No Country for Old Men was far superior in comparison, for example. And Juno was this movie's equal in most aspects. However, I thought Tom Wilkerson and Tilda Swinton were incredible in their roles. I am scratching my head over George Clooney being nominated for an Academy Award. He was good, don't get me wrong, but one of the of the five best of the year? Hmm. I use some possibly faulty reasoning when I am thinking about who should be nominated for a Best Actor award: did the person do a good job in and of itself? Yes. Clooney provided a nuanced and subtle performance. Could anyone else be placed in the role and do as well or better? Yes. I saw nothing special or unique in Clooney's performance that someone else could not equal. Can I imagine anyone else in the role and liking the movie even more? Well, yes. I think someone older, like Clint Eastwood, could have really nailed this role. Does the person make those around him/her better? No. If anything, Wilkenson and Swinton made Clooney's acting better and stronger, not the other way around.

Another problem I had was the fact that it starts by showing you a bit of the future, then goes back four days and you see how those images come about. This is, in my opinion, one of the absolute worst things you can ever do in a movie. It never works, it doesn't work here, and takes a lot of the emotional and physical jeopardy out of the scenes until the movie syncs back up with itself. There are two assassins in the movie, but I never worried for the main star because I knew he survived anything they did until we reached the sync-point. However, if they had just told the story from day one, scene one and gone forward, I would not have been sure of anyone's survival and it would have given even more emotional impact to the scenes of Tilda Swinton crying, shaking, and sweating through her suit that come later (just to name one).

Secondly, while I appreciate them not telling us everything about everyone and letting the audience figure things out, the story itself could have been made slightly more clear. All those rooms full of lawyers tend to blur together and it is easy to lose track of the story and who is on which side (M complained of this; I felt I followed it okay, but think it could have been clearer).

Thirdly, throughout the movie we are told about how great Clooney's character is at "fixing" for this law firm. However, in both his personal life and in the law firm, he absolutely sucks at it for most of the film. I found that incongruity a bit unsettling and it didn't make a lot of sense to me.

Lastly, the payoff at the end is well worth it. Swinton and Clooney play off each other and bring a quality and satisfying end to what could have been a movie without much point. However, I'm not certain all audiences will want to climb the proverbial mountain to get to that payoff.

I would rate the movie a solid B+ or maybe an A- on my scale. A very good movie, but with some flaws. I would rate the theater a solid C-- flawed theater and one that I wouldn't want to go to often, but with great prices and good enough sound and picture to make me go back.