Michael Clayton Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
1920x800 | 8136.42 MiB | 1080p | |
|
1280x528 | 4477.47 MiB | 720p | |
|
640x272 | 699.98 MiB | divx | |
|
320x144 | 461.99 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
The Truth Can Be Adjusted
Michael Clayton is an in-house "fixer" at one of the largest corporate law firms in New York. A former criminal prosecutor, Clayton takes care of Kenner, Bach & Ledeen's dirtiest work at the behest of the firm's co-founder Marty Bach. Though burned out and hardly content with his job as a fixer, his divorce, a failed business venture and mounting debt have left Clayton inextricably tied to the firm. At U/North, meanwhile, the career of litigator Karen Crowder rests on the multi-million dollar settlement of a class action suit that Clayton's firm is leading to a seemingly successful conclusion. But when Kenner Bach's brilliant and guilt-ridden attorney Arthur Edens sabotages the U/North case, Clayton faces the biggest challenge of his career and his life.
| Tom Wilkinson | Arthur Edens |
| Michael O'Keefe | Barry Grissom |
| Sydney Pollack | Marty Bach |
| Danielle Skraastad | Bridget Klein |
| Tilda Swinton | Karen Crowder |
| George Clooney | Michael Clayton |
| Wai Chan | Chinese Dealer |
| Alberto Vazquez | Player #1 |
| Brian Koppelman | Player #2 |
| Thomas McCarthy | Walter |
| Denis O'Hare | Mr. Greer |
| Julie White | Mrs. Greer |
| Austin Williams | Henry Clayton |
| Jennifer Van Dyck | Ivy |
| Frank Wood | Gerald |
| Tony Gilroy |
7.80 out of 10 (7005 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Not good enough, Same old, same old.
posted on 22 Aug 2009We've seen this type of movie a million times before. Yes, nothing new here. Acting is good in most places. The direction is good in most places. The editing is bad at the start, but, gets better towards the end. 1hour and 46, that's what I timed it at. It felt just shy of 3 hours. honest!!! This is a movie that I would not have the ability to sit still through again!!! I fail to understand how people can seriously give this movie 10 out of 10. Great movies can be enjoyed over and over again. This is not one of them. I've never seen 10% of the people leave after 50 on the clock. Thanks for the movie, but thats the end of that!!! move on!!!
Lots of markers but no follow through...
posted on 20 Aug 2009Film put lots of things in place thematically to carry off a rich storyline but did not seem to follow through. Main character of this film was the starkness of these people's perfunctory and marginal moral existences and director's job was so good, redeeming elements did not seem to come through when they really needed to. Implicit in this story was a building metamorphosis, re-awakening of moral conscience by the lead and some supporting characters but they hardly seemed to rise above it in any recognizable or meaningful way. Again, the moral indifference of the characters was so detailed, I really didn't care that they might come to some meaningful conclusions. Tom Wilkinson's character was by far the most compelling and workable in this scenario and the rest could not hold a light to it. Thematic continuity continually suffered in an often uneven delivery of basic ideas and too much reliance on viewer presumption of internal goings on of characters to support a script that was brilliant at times but not throughout. Ending was a perfect example of director's obvious shortcuts to cover lapses in dialog, again sometimes brilliant and sometimes bizarre.Won't be renting this to see again although not a bad bang for the buck.
Trying too hard
posted on 18 Aug 2009I tried to enjoy this movie but there is so much wrong with it. The depiction of darkness that isn't anything like real darkness . . . the siliiness of an employee with Michael Clayton's talents not being properly rewarded . . . just a lot of silliness and unreality from start to finish. A terrible film, because it really tried to achieve something and completely failed. In the end it doesn't matter who is involved or how much is spent or how many good lines there are if the story is based on a fantasy of how people and corporations behave. I feel sorry for the people who produced it, as it must have looked like it was worth doing. The truth is that it's emotionally dead, and phony.
Movie Will Keep You Guessing
posted on 16 Aug 2009Take a former criminal prosecutor who cleans up the messes made by colleagues and customers of a prestigious New York law firm.One day a renowned trial-lawyer partner (Tom Wilkinson) goes off his meds, makes a spectacle of himself, and throws in with the enemy, the unfortunates involved in a class-action suit against a mega-corporation. Clayton is sent in to sweep up and save the day, but somehow gets himself on the wrong side of everyone involved, with disastrous consequences. It is hard to believe this is a directorial debut of anyone. However the fact that it is the work of Tony Gilroy starts to make sense. Gilroy is responsible for adapting the Jason Bourne novels. The film is amazingly polished and well made. There are some issues that are inherent in the story itself and I don't think could have been overcome by Gilroy without a few more rewrites. The film saw some success but not enough to break too many top ten lists. A great topsy turvy movie that will have you wondering where it is going next.
a movie for critics
posted on 16 Aug 2009This is one of those movies critics like but the general public will find boring. I didn't like this at all. Films like this getting nominated for awards is what makes me care less about seeing nominated pictures. I have no idea how Tilda Swinton won best supporting actress. She was hardly in it and didn't do much.The movie is about a lawyer, Michal Clayton, whom is sent by his firm to fix a case messed up by one of their bipolar lawyers. That lawyer stopped his meds and created an embarrassing scene. When that lawyer shows up dead, Clayton realizes maybe there was more to his ramblings and maybe covered up secrets.FINAL VERDICT: It's the big bad corporation against the public type of picture. Think the Insider or Erin Brockovich except this movie is no where near as good as those two. This movie is just boring.
Big Disappointment
posted on 12 Aug 2009The rather two-dimensional script and dialogue for Michael Clayton's character didn't offer George Clooney a lot to work with. The beginning was a hodgepodge of unnecessary confusion only to allow the "surprise" explosion in the beginning. The plot was loaded down with a lot of side baggage regarding Clayton's life that detracted from the main storyline. Clayton's backstory and his performance on screen didn't portray anybody that one would suspect a multi-billion dollar corporation would actual retain to do speciality jobs, in fact, it seemed that he was almost out-specialized in the movie most of the time. This movie was no ERIN BROCKOVICH (2000) which was based on a true story and was even more compelling, no PELICAN BRIEF (1993). The cloak and dagger stuff was tame and uninspired compared to ENEMY OF THE STATE (1998) or one of the best THE THREE DAYS OF CONDOR (1975). It is a stretch to tie one's survival to a book. The one irony that may have been deliberate which had some sense of justice was how the former addict relative and Clayton's own compulsive behavior balanced out. Even the movie itself sunk under its own manipulative attempt to be something crime drama, thriller, espionage (black opts), political drama, family drama...something, an award nomination wouldn't be out of the question for the one performance that stood out for Tilda Swinton in one of the best supporting acting jobs of the year.
Complex plot driven film but not enough suspense
posted on 10 Aug 2009This film is about a highly competent lawyer being assigned to fixing a big corporate malpractice case. His morals and core beliefs are challenged along the way.I think characters are not introduced clearly enough, which impaired my understanding of the film. Though the plot is interesting and complex, I think there is not enough suspense. Though I wanted to know what went on in the story, the film failed to make me beg for more. Some murder and car explosions are not enough to make people interested in a plot driven film. Michael Clayton's moral dilemma is not highlighted enough. Just seeing a booklet with a red cover is not convincing enough that he has thought through a moral dilemma.I am surprised by Tilda Swinton's nomination for an Oscar. it's not that she is not good, it's just that her role is so small.
No shortage of thinking and Action
posted on 08 Aug 2009Wow. This held my attention the whole two hours.First of all, I love the horses. Duh. He's realizing what he's become and what his law firm has been mixed up in. He wanted to do a good job, but sold his soul to pay for other peoples'. The horses are innocent and don't judge him like others do (such as all of his family, friends, and associates except his son).I haven't seen Syriana, Good Night, and Good Luck, etc., but George Clooney's performance here is impeccable. Tom Wilkinson & Tilda Swinton are masterful as well.Is it going to be "legally" perfect? No. That's not what it's about. I love the very ending the best.
I Have Never Seen George Clooney So Good!
posted on 04 Aug 2009This is the third of the five Oscar Best Picture nominees that I have seen. I would not have expected this movie to be a Best Picture nominee at all if watched this last year. The build up of the movie is very slow. It only gains momentum in the middle and then it has you under its masterful grasp. The ending is quite neat though, even predictable, thus exposing the simplicity of the plot. However, it would also emphasize the excellence of the directorial style of Tony Gilroy (in his directorial debut) that makes the totality of this film transcend the limitations of the script.The acting was definitely excellent. The three main characters all play lawyers. All three were deservedly nominated for Oscars in acting.The star is definitely George Clooney. He was really very good here in a subtle and quiet way (so unlike the over-the-top style of Daniel Day Lewis in "There Will Be Blood"). He plays a lawyer who is employed by a firm as a "fixer", someone who uses under the table methods to smooth out creases in the cases of other lawyers. Clooney deglamorizes himself here (if that's possible) in playing a sad, down-and-out character who gets caught in a high stakes legal case involving big business. He makes the audience forget his real life persona. That lingering close-up on his face as he rides a taxi at the end shows him going though an entire gamut of emotions without a word nor gesture--excellent.Tom Wilkinson, whom I have admired as an actor since "In The Bedroom," is Arthur. He plays a big time defense lawyer who discovers that the firm he is defending, U-North, was actually killing people with its weed-killer products, and turns crazy in the process. His monologue about the sins of the company directed towards the agents whom he found out were bugging his apartment was a highlight of acting excellence.Tilda Swinton was not really an actress I liked from her past work. I will always picture her as the Snow Queen in the Narnia movie. This may be the only film that I have seen her in modern dress. Here, she plays the in-house attorney of U-North who had to resort to desperate measures to cover up for the sins of the company she works for. Cool on the surface, a bundle of nerves behind the scenes. Very good also.Compared with the other two nominees I have seen, this is actually more accessible to the regular viewer, since it is modern and the language used is clear. It is very effective as a character study. I am of the opinion though that its chances of winning Best Picture is a long shot. It lacks the epic feel that Oscar seems to love. The nomination alone may be its reward.
Finally a Thriller with a Brain!
posted on 31 Jul 2009Michael Clayton: I'm not the guy you kill. I'm the guy you buy off! Are you so blind that you can't see that? I sold out Arthur for 80 grand. I'm your easiest problem and you try to kill me? Finally, a thriller that's not lacking in intelligent plot! First time filmmaker Tony Gilroy brings us a suspenseful, engaging and intricate legal drama about a plot to expose a corrupt weed killer company whose product is hazardous to those who buy it. George Clooney, in his finest performance to date, plays Michael Clayton, a high-level lawyer at a big firm in NYC, who works as a "fixer". Basically his job entails keeping clients out of legal trouble by lying, cheating and doing all sorts of other dirty work. When one of the firm's big shot corporate lawyers, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), goes off his meds and starts exposing a weed killer company's dirty secrets he works for, it's up to Clayton to diffuse the situation. That's about all I'll tell you about the story, in fear I might give something away.As far as thrillers go, 'Michael Clayton' is certainly one of the better ones. The acting is all top notch, with a brilliant performance by George Clooney. Tom Wilkinson couldn't be better as the lawyer who has a mental breakdown, and Tilda Swinton is absolutely incredible as Karen Crowder, the "evil" weed killer company's litigator. Sydney Pollack and Michael O'Keefe are also solid, but the real star is writer/director Tony Gilroy. From his near-flawless screenplay to his cool, slick film-making style, Gilroy has succeeded in making one hell of a debut film.My only complaint with Michael Clayton is that it takes a while to build suspense. The first 30 minutes are a bit shaky, but after it builds some momentum, 'Michael Clayton' becomes a force to be reckoned with. Expect some possible Oscar nods for original screenplay, George Clooney and Tilda Swinton. Grade: B+
1st time seen -- will see it twice
posted on 31 Jul 20092nd posting (after box office numbers came in):Creepy aspects of character played by Wilkinson may hurt box office in the malls of USA. Meanwhile, on the same opening weekend, Bill Cosby is on "Meet the Press" trying to use his platform in the entertainment industry to criticize radio-TV-film for all the unnecessary foul language and street-like behaviors.The creepy side to Wilkinson's character is not going to help the box office even though I get the idea that it's to create tension, but it may also be an attempt to get street credentials. If that's the goal, it didn't work. Teenage boys are not coming. They're going for Resident Evil stuff. Hollywood sometimes just doesn't have the pulse. I cannot see a whole lot of men going to this film without their female other. Women cringe. (And isn't it Hollywood's calculation that women will be drawn in by George Clooney).The producers hurt their box office by putting a few unnecessary smutty references (that a few other critics have mentioned more articulately than I) in the film. Realism aside, it hurts this film, which is unfortunate. The unfolding of the story was handled in an interesting way. (I just hope that Hollywood doesn't blame the film structure for the opening weekend's disappointing box office). And that's sad, because this script was good and precision-like. 1st posting :Tom Wilkinson was great in "Separate Lies," less so in Michael Clayton. Tilda Swinton provides a fascinating portrayal, not that unlike the vulnerable character played by Jodie Foster in "Silence of the Lambs." She deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress.Clever writer/ director Gilroy does a nice job controlling the tension and setting up all the characters -- both major and minor. He satisfies the Hollywood machine while handing in something better and more finely tuned than a standard thriller. The ending is boring and needs more of a Syrianna-kind of finale. (The audience who will stay with this film will probably be more hungry for complication than simple endings).Though a fan of backstory, I find Clooney's character doesn't seem to jive with the sophisticated Clooney. He's too cavalier (or whats-the-word) to be believable as a former stiff from a working class family. The backstory of the characters of Wilkinson and Swinton would be a lot more interesting. Gilroy seems to want to say that children have insight. Their exploratory nature leads them to be more pure and inquisitive.
Slow start but strong finish.
posted on 27 Jul 2009This movie starts slowly but then the tempo picks up and what at first seems to be just another long, pretentious Hollywood clunker turns into an interesting and well-acted story. George Clooney is excellent in the title role. The movie is long but avoids becoming tedious and the story is complex but not so convoluted that it loses its direction. Where the movie tends to be weak is the ludicrous character of the attorney who for reasons that can only be surmised decides to betray his own client, a large corporate conglomerate which happens to be paying millions of dollars to this attorney's firm in legal fees. This was stretching literary license to the limit. But other than that the movie presents a credible story that should keep the audience's attention, which nowadays is saying a lot. After all, when's the last time that Hollywood made a two-hour movie that told a story AND actually made sense?
It's great entertainment, but not as intelligent as it pretends to be
posted on 25 Jul 2009SPOILER ALERT This is a very entertaining film - and entirely enjoyable while you're watching it - but the plot really does not make a lot of sense if you give it close scrutiny. SPOILERS AHEAD - While the document that Clayton finds is certainly damaging evidence, given the facts of this case, the plaintiffs should have been able to win it without that document. If the defendants wanted to hush things up, I don't think a car bomb would be the way to go. There are a number of ways the bad guys could have killed someone and at least made an attempt for it to look like an accident. Finally, the woman in charge of the law firm was not the type of take charge, confident, shark-type she would need to be to rise to that position. Yes, MICHAEL CLAYTON is a very entertaining firm to watch - but the "logic" falls apart if you think about it afterward.
Groups of people who might not like this movie
posted on 23 Jul 2009I will take a different approach on this comment, than I do usually. Instead of describing why one might like this movie, I give some thoughts to people who won't like it.There are three groups of people I can think of, which might not like this movie.The first group comprises people, that watch movies for pure entertainment. They seek for enjoyment in a positive way. They don't watch movies to be remembered of problems in this world, on the contrary they want to forget about them when watching a movie. "Michael Clayton" will reward you with a wonderful conclusion, but I still had these thoughts: Too bad, it's just fictional. I would really like to see it for real, a corporation like "U/North" getting a good spanking. So it's not a movie for these kind of people. It is just too serious for that.The second group is rather a small one, I suppose. It comprises those people, who will see their own bad actions reflected in this movie. Of course, there is no way people like that could ever like this movie.The third group are those people, that will have problems to follow and understand the plot. "Michael Clayton" is movie that expects the audience to think. It does not explicitly explain what is going on. You need to be attentive and patient. Of course, people won't like something they don't understand. And some people simply don't want to make any effort.Granted, this is oversimplifying, but not utterly wrong.Anyway, "Michael Clayton" is still a good movie. THAT is MY opinion.
Good old fashioned quality acting made this movie a worthy contender for best picture.
posted on 17 Jul 2009"Michael Clayton" is the best legal drama I have seen since "The Verdict" with Paul Newman.It is not over the top character acting but realistic acting at its finest. I am not sure exactly how many nominations it received, but best picture, best actor and best supporting actor told me I needed to see it, and boy am I glad I did.George Clooney stand up and take a bow, you have delivered a performance that must have been very close to winning the Oscar.After seeing so much rubbish of late at the box office, thank you "Michael Clayton and co" for restoring my faith that a good movie with quality acting can still be made.See it!
Think You've Seen It Before? You Have, But not Quite Like This!
posted on 15 Jul 2009Michael Clayton The more films that pile up out of 2007, the more lax of a critic I think I'm becoming. How many tens have I handed out? Have I become soft; am I incapable of distinguishing cinematic flaws? No, I think that's not the case. 2007 quite simply has been one of the greatest years of the decade so far (and it isn't even over!). Even the seemingly predictable, you've seen it a thousand times type films have been made with expertise and flair; particularly "We Own the Night" and now "Michael Clayton".A big corporate company with a dark secret, and the means to do anything necessary to cover it up (including kill, bribe, etc.). Sound familiar? It is, but "Michael Clayton"--a character-driven, superbly written drama/thriller from Tony Gilroy (the writing force behind "Bourne")--is made with such an energy and precision, as though its the newest thing around, you don't feel as though its the same garbage you've seen elsewhere a hundred times over.Besides Gilroy's classy and elegant writing, matched perfectly with his tight and focused directing (both of which work together to keep the puzzle moving at a brisk and clearly understandable pace), much of what gives MC its kick is its stellar acting. Tilda Swinton is great as a corrupt, yet nervy corporate leader; she evokes a strange blend of menace and nervousness. Sydney Pollack is also great as Michael's boss. Tom Wilkinson, as the seemingly crazy lawyer who has actually come to his senses, is of course magnificent; he sucks you into his paranoid and slightly delusional persona wholeheartedly. And as the title character George Clooney uses his star presence to brilliant effect; he is charming and magnetic, a presence that holds your unwavering attention, and at the same time he reveals Michael's moral deterioration and epiphany with subtly and effectiveness.Sure Michael Clayton isn't anything new, but its made so neatly and polished, I can't convince myself there's anything wrong with it. 10/10"I am Shiva the god of death"-Michael Clayton
certainly not thrilling!
posted on 13 Jul 2009I had so been looking forward to seeing this and actually bought the DVD. It may pass as a thriller if you have been living under a coconut tree for the past 40 years, without benefit of television, radio or newspapers. Shock Horror! Lawyers will act for parties they know or suppose are guilty!! Money is more important to them than ethics!! The film starts with a voice-off of what sounds like a very annoying drunk rambling on about some dream-like experience. Mercifully, he is killed off relatively soon - he is a lawyer who has seen the light and realises that the gigantic corporation he is acting for in a class action is indeed guilty of the deaths of many people (was it fertiliser or weed-killer? something like that). There is another lawyer played y Tilda Swinton who is very nervy and bony faced - we see her practicing her speeches at home and pretending to be relaxed. This would be more effective if in fact the woman did not look like a ball of nerves (those gaunt cheekbones and staring eyes - not to mention the rather grubby hair!). George Clooney is the good guy - a friend of the rambling first lawyer and saves the day in the end - but not without having his car blown up. There is a very interesting vignette of the domestic life of the New York middle classes: a particularly tedious little boy (about 7 years old) arrives for breakfast shouting to know where his "cards" are (what these are we never find out). No nonsense about saying "good morning mum, dad and little sister" - just peremptory requests for his cards. The mother seems quite helpless and reacts like a servant who is about to be fired for incompetence. If this is true to life, it might explain why children are so very badly brought-up. If the drunken/drugged out lawyer had ever been shown to us as a normal, pleasant, fellow, we could empathise - as it was I was delighted when he disappeared (I must confess I did not witness this, having left the room to make tea and do the washing up!). The best actor was Syndey Pollack and the bay horse that our hero gazes at - it would be too tedious to explain when and why. Anyway - a complete waste of time ............and money
Rather dull...
posted on 07 Jul 2009Micheal Clayton could of very well been a Syrianna type lay out with thrills and spills along the way as it again George Clooney dealing with a very important subject which plays a big part in the cooperate world today. However unfortunately the film tries to slap a tone of realism into it and it then thusly goes from being a thriller to well a rather dull yawn fest! The film looked as if it had some good pointers to it but things never really get heated up for it and thusly it just seems like a mindless ride in which my mind just kept on drifting off. I mean George Clooney was good but I think giving what he had to work with , his performance was just bogged down along with Tom Wilkson and also Tilda Swinton. Micheal Clayton was something that was trying to be different but instead just ended up back firing with its incredibly slow plot and rather dull moments. Watch it , If you want to .Micheal CLAYTON : 6.1 OUT 10THE TRUTH CAN BE ADJUSTED...
If you like hearing the "F" word, a graphic description of oral sex, and a long drawn out weak plot, this movie is for you.
posted on 07 Jul 2009I find it so disappointing that movie producers seem to think movie goers need to hear the "F" word in all types of conversation. Personally, I talk a lot and never use the word. I heard it no less than 4 times in the first 5 minutes. Since the plot didn't have any visible sex, we had to listen to a graphic description of it as a means to convey the speaker's thoughts related to the plot. I usually like movies with a flashback because they fill you in on information. This was one of those movies where I kept waiting for the plot to unfold. It finally did in the last 10 minutes. I've seen better movies with this kind of plot - big business taking advantage of the unsuspecting public - on television. If this is Academy Award material - they're in trouble.
Completely confusing
posted on 24 Aug 2009I rented this movie, luckily, because after one hour of watching it I had to give up, since I couldn't understand what was going on. CTV in Canada has a documentary similar to 60 minutes called W-FIVE, Its name comes from the five words: what? where? who? why? when? (mot in this particular order, question marks added by myself). I couldn't answer none of the five above questions watching this movie . . . I like this type of movie, but it has to be understandable, at least after about half hour of watching. My wife kept watching it and liked it a lot. But she couldn't convince me to watch the rest of it later today or tomorrow. It's not the actors' fault, it's the screenplay . . .