There’s boring, and then there’s aggresively, actively boring. The existence of “Michael Clayton,” which I did not know about until last night’s Academy Awards, is a black hole of hungry boredom, sucking enthusiasm and enjoyment from this universe like a Lovecraftian demon.
“Michael Clayton.” In what world did anyone, out-of-touch Hollywood elder or not, think it was a good idea to name a film this? The mere fact that it’s called such a boring, pedestrian name means that I will never, ever watch it, but it also reveals that nobody cared about this movie beyond slapping a sub-working title on it - “I don’t know, just put the guy’s fuckin’ name on it” - and hitting the “print” button to begin manufacturing it. “Michael Clayton” - I mean, God, was “document.txt” already taken?
Every clip I’ve seen of this movie makes me want to go hang myself. It’s like looking into an abyss of boredom that immediately sucks all happiness and life from the rest of my day and from my environment. Drab, ugly sets with horrible lighting and what appears to be George Clooney tersely filing paperwork or doing his taxes or something. Who watches movies like this? Is “Michael Clayton” for people that weren’t bored enough by “Syriana,” which apparently is two hours of Christopher Plummer entering oil revenues into a database on an old Tandy before taking a lunch break in the climactic final scene? AND ALL OF THIS IS BASED ON THE EIGHT-SECOND CLIPS THEY SHOWED DURING THE ACADEMY AWARDS
Who watches movies like this? Nobody I know had ever heard of “Michael Clayton” before last night, and by “nobody I know” I mean people who actively make films and follow the film industry. Was this movie even released, or was it only shown for Academy Members-only screenings so that an “adult” movie could be voted in?
WHO VOTED FOR THIS MOVIE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REASON TO SLEEP AND DIE
Fuck “Michael Clayton.” Seriously, fuck it. Nobody ever watched this, and nobody ever will. It’s not even a movie, it’s the black hit of space in digital versatile form, a black hole that will eat us all.
You know people who actively make films and follow the film industry and somehow remained unaware of a film that starred George Clooney and racked up several Oscar nominations? They’re not doing a very good job of following the film industry.
That’s my point. There must be some sort of conspiracy or something. I think it’s tied into the “Harry Potter” phenomenon and 9/11, Irony as lifestyle, etc. - where the powers-that-be are losing market share to Superbad and Barack Obama and other vestiges of the youth revolution, and are terrified, so they feel that they have to do something to maintain their power. The answer is to engineer a movie like “Michael Clayton” and give it awards, to create the illusion that “the adults” are still in control.
Hamlet. What the Hell is that? Just some guy’s name? Doesn’t exactly make me want to go to the theater and plop down my money.
Look, maybe you’re just not comfortable talking about film. Michael Clayton was an involving movie with strong performances and some nice touches in the screenplay.
I think educated audiences of the day might have recognized “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” as Amleth from the Danish histories of Saxo Grammaticus, whereas Michael Clayton just sounds like a name plucked out of the phone book.
That’s about the only part of the OP that makes sense to me.
You could have perhaps made a legitimate argument for the film being boring, and we could have perhaps had an interesting debate about that, but with an OP that explicitly and repeatedly stresses how you’ve never seen and have no significant acquaintance with the film, I suspect all you’re going to get is negative attention.
Then your friends are ignorant, period. I’m not trying to be insulting but I’ve watched three movies (in theaters) all year and I’ve heard of Michael Clayton. What TV watching I do, is confined to Tivo so I never watch commercials. I’m about as “out of the loop” as anyone could be when it comes to movies. I didn’t even know the Academy Awards was on last night, or whatever night it was on. I don’t know who won last year’s Academy Award for Best Picture, or who won the year before that. I can maybe name THREE Best Picture winners off the top of my head (The Godfather, Rocky, and The Lord of the Rings: RotK.) Yet I was aware of Michael Clayton. My only guess is that you, and your “film industry following friends” are, in fact, ignorant of the film industry and only think you are otherwise.
(Just a note, I’m using the word ignorant not as an insult. I’m simply saying the person is uninformed, if that’s considered a personal insult I apologize, I have no desire to violate any forum rules.)
Also, FWIW I’ve never seen Michael Clayton (not sure I ever will.) But I’ve seen many glowing references to it on the internet and in newspapers I read, so I find this is why I think someone has to be generally ignorant about current cinema if they’ve never even heard of the movie, once.
Man, I can’t wait for the OP to get started on No Country for Old Men, and how all he’s seen in the boring trailers is some weird guy walking around in a funny haircut.
Re: Michael Clayton:
Well, according to MovieWeb, it opened October 5, 2007, was ranked around 3rd in box office for most of the month, and by the end of the year had grossed close to 40 mill while showing on an average of around 2000 screens. So, certainly not Star Wars territory, but reasonable for a drama, seems to me.
Is “I’ve never seen this movie, but the name sucks” really a review?
Anyhoo, to second what Martin said, I see maybe two movies in theaters a year and am about as far out of the loop as one can be and still have an internet connection, and I’d heard of the movie and even knew vaguely what it was about.
I really liked the movie (although Amy Ryan got robbed, even though I do think Tilda did a great job), but even if it sucked, I’d probably sit through it for two hours just to hear Tom Wilkinson (who rocks) saying “I am Shiva, god of death” again. Oh, and to really annoy the OP, I actually liked Syriana quite a bit.
You might want to explain to your “industry” friends that watching “You sjuck at photoshop 27” on YouTube doesn’t count as being involved with the movie industry.
Normally, I’d say that you ought to watch a movie before you pan it, but it’s more than 3 minutes long, so I won’t bug you about it.