Last Movie Thread

[stratman]

Originally Posted by GeraldTheMouse

What'd you think of Michael Clayton? I have a well-formed opinion on the movie but want to hear from as many other people as possible on it because my opinion is 'different.'

I thought it was a very good movie. I could relate to Clayton's situation. I was puzzled for awhile about his stopping to look at the horses, but then I think I got it.
I thought it was well-acted all around and "Karen Crowder" could have used an industrial-strength anti-perspirant.

[GeraldTheMouse]

Here's where I get in trouble.

I liked the movie well enough, and then I started listening to the commentary. According to the director, it's a story about a man (Michael Clayton, duh) who is no longer at the peak of his 'fixer' powers; his career is winding down, he used to be a legend, able to fix any situation, and now he's weary, in debt, and his life is crashing around him. During all of this (and because of it), he has a sort of crisis of conscience because of his best friend Arthur, which eventually leads to Clayton realizing for perhaps the first time that the actions he's been performing for the entirity of his career have moral implications, and that he hasn't necessarily been on the right side for his whole life.

Now that sounds like a great movie. The movie I saw, though, was a decently put-together legal thriller in which the main character (Michael Clayton, duh) figures out all the loose ends of a complicated situation and uses the information to win one for the good guys. Having listened to the director's commentary, I can see where that first movie is inside the movie I actually watched, if I look for it; but I certainly had to look for it, and the only reason I knew to look for it was that the director told me to in the commentary. I think the reason for this, aside from the script (which in my opinion could have done with less thriller and more character), is Clooney's performance. It's a good performance, but it also gave me absolutely no sense of the foregoing. Clayton's weary and depressed about his abilities? He wrestles with his moral role in the world? I didn't see any of that.

Now, if you tell me that the movie you saw fits the first description (and that you got all of that without being told), then clearly I'm just pretty dense and need to give the film a second try. But from other people's responses that I've heard, the movie that got made and the movie that Tony Gilroy wanted me to see are not the same movie.

[stratman]

Originally Posted by GeraldTheMouse

...Clayton's weary and depressed about his abilities? He wrestles with his moral role in the world? I didn't see any of that.

I saw it more like you did.

Arthur was the one who had the moral-crisis-of-conscious.
Michael was too busy with his own multitude of problems. It was only when Arthur was found dead that Michael began looking beyond himself. Sure, Michael Clayton picked up Arthur's fallen baton and skewered the U/North folks, but that was for revenge -- for their murdering Arthur and blowing up his (Mike's) Mercedes. (Well, there was a nod Michael made towards the 487 deaths caused by U/North there at the end.)

I didn't see where he felt any guilt for being a "fixer".

[GeraldTheMouse]

Okay, I feel slightly less crazy now.

[Mark Dwyer]

I saw three movies in the last 2 days.
And i didn't fall asleep during any of them. well almost maybe a little bit on one of them.
I order of which I thought was best
Into the Wild: A little long but otherwise excellent movie Hal Holbrook was great.
No Country For Old Men: Good Movie. Should have been called No Country for anyone to live. Opps I hope I didn't give it away. Also a very strange ending. Does anyone get it?
Eastern Promises; my least fave of the 3. Why? a little to much with the fingers. women get to see Viggo Mortensen in his birthday suit. Some may like it some may not. My wife did. Hey she always complains that they always show more naked women then men.
i tell her its because nobody wants to see a naked man on the screen. At least i don't want too.

[GeraldTheMouse]

Originally Posted by Mark Dwyer

No Country For Old Men: Good Movie. Should have been called No Country for anyone to live. Opps I hope I didn't give it away. Also a very strange ending. Does anyone get it?

I've heard a lot of people complain about the ending, and I honestly don't know why. I thought it was a perfect ending— it wrapped up the themes and narrative (in the sense that it gave a finality to its open-endedness, not in the sense that They All Live Happily Ever After) exactly as they should have been.

[Mark Dwyer]

I guess Gerald. It was definitly not a feel good movie with happy ever after.
Did you see Into the Wild?

[GeraldTheMouse]

Originally Posted by Mark Dwyer

Did you see Into the Wild?

I did, and need to see it again. I got a bit of the queasiness I get from Sean Penn's work (see his short film on the September 11 DVD) wherein I get a strange sense that Sean Penn can barely keep himself from sitting down next to me and shouting his I'm-a-sophomore-in-college-and-I-just-read-Hobbes opinions straight into my left ear. His films come across (to me, at least) as being severely in favor of some incredibly naive things.

[Not Now John]

After reading that, I can only think of an interview with Matt Stone and Trey Parker where they totally trash Penn as being, well, Sean Penn. They kind of dismissed himhis actions as being anti-liberal.

[GeraldTheMouse]

Yeah. I don't care if Sean Penn agrees with every single nuanced detail of policy position that I have, he's still an annoying self-righteous whiny turd.

[DeathTöngue]

Originally Posted by GeraldTheMouse

Yeah. I don't care if Sean Penn agrees with every single nuanced detail of policy position that I have, he's still an annoying self-righteous whiny turd.

I forgave him for a long time because of his work with Ray Walston (My Favorite Martian) in Fast Times, but he's just irritating now.

Now I realize Penn wasn't acting.

[Mark Dwyer]

Hey don't let the fact the Sean Penn is whatever you think he is get in the way of seeing this movie. If you get a chance to see this movie its worth seeing. I'm not a huge Penn fan either. Although Spicolli was good in Fastimes at Ridgemont High. But this movie explores alot about life that is not talked about.

[GeraldTheMouse]

I agree, but something about the tone of the movie seemed to be a little too in favor of ditching your parents and ignoring the advice of heartfelt, helpful friends because the press of consumer culture is looming.

[Mark Dwyer]

Being a parent now I thought also that he was a bit rough on them folks. He could of at least called or wrote to say everything was cool but I guess he was so into the idea of total isolation from people.

[stratman]

I've been watching the new HBO series "John Adams".
Adams supposedly was a progenitor of my wife's so it is of special interest.
It's well done, accurate, educational and most of all, very interesting. I recommend it to all. Especially you student-types who likely never learned this stuff in school.

I'm certain our own esteemed Revolutionary War expert, Mr. Dwyer, would give it his seal of approval.