Michael Clayton

I will not give the highest rating to Clayton, as it is too cold and distanced, but otherwise, it is a thoroughly professionally made and impressive film about the evil in legal and business circles, the power of money, and the unfulfilled ambitions of one unscrupulous manager. The film has a clear storyline, convincing motivation for its characters, an excellent acting cast, and corresponding top-notch performances. In short, it is a world-class film. It is no coincidence that one of the producers was the director of the legendary thriller Three Days of the Condor. Overall impression: 80%. (11.12.2011)

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). (29.03.2008)

The excellent opening with Tom Wilkinson’s alarming monologue and shots of cold glass offices creates an atmosphere that will engage you and won’t let you go until the final shot of Michael Clayton. The screenwriter of the Bourne trilogy, Tony Gilroy, produced a respectable directorial debut and, thanks to its deeper message, puts his genre competitors Steven Zaillian (A Civil Action) and Sydney Pollack (The Firm) to shame. Tilda Swinton is great here, as are Wilkinson and Clooney. This drama is a proud representative of the “Hollywood Art” category. (21.01.2008)

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. (17.01.2008)

In the face of George Clooney's convincing warrior face and James Newton Howard's emotional tones, I may feel guilty with my assessment, but any saving idea, warning finger, or suffocating statement drowns in the inarticulate and yet unnecessarily entangled boredom, which minute by minute increasingly flows towards an unsurprising conclusion. (21.08.2008)