Michael Clayton: Good
The world of the lawyer flick is riddled with good intentions. John Grisham adaptations are hit and miss, as is anything with the word “JAG” in it. But my faith in the judicial genre was re-ignited this weekend with the viewing of “Michael Clayton”. Good times. This movie did just what it needed to; it got in, got done, and got on with life. It was a good lesson to other film-makers of what happens when a good cast, effective editing and tight story-telling come together
Why it Worked
Acting. George Clooney did a good job with his leading role because he did not over act his part. All too often we see acting replaced by vibrato and phony emotion. ‘Clayton’ worked because Clooney played his part like a real lawyer. He came in to work and did just what he needed to in order to get the job done. The supporting cast, especially Oscar-honored Tilda Swinton in her role as the unsuspecting top dog lawyer at a pesticide company, was especially golden.
Another plus for the film: Editing. I’ve made a big stink about this in former entries but I’ll say it again: the devil of a movie is found on the cutting floor. So many would-be-good flicks are almost unwatchable because the director couldn’t part with superfluous footage. ‘Clayton’ did a good job at keeping things moving along and relevant to the story. The plot points were well executed and the dialog was sharp and natural.
The Point
I try not to demonize nor hero-ize (yay! for made up words) any one film (except maybe “Lady in the Water”. I don’t think I could ever stop finding reasons why that film sunk). But “Michael Clayton” was overall a refreshing cinematic experience. It was understated and fun to watch. This writer gives it two enthusiastic ducks up, four monkey’s paws, and the cosign of 6.253 out of 12, simultaneously.