Michael Clayton...
Umm ... I'm not sure I liked this. I can't say I didn't like it, but I'm not going to endorse it either. I'm not entirely sure it deserved the rave reviews it got from Richard Roeper(when will I learn to stop listening to him??). Jeez ... both my brother and I felt there was something missing from this film ... we're pretty sure it was the screenplay that was poorly done. Having said that though, it was written by Tony Gilroy ... same guy that scripted the Bourne films (or, that seems to be what I remember, don't quote me on that) ... and he directed this well. And that is really the problem ... the greatness of the direction surpasses a kind of lame duck script ... not that the writing was bad, because it wasn't ... the story was just lacking period. Perhaps. I really can't get my head around why this film wasn't better ... And I really can't get my head around all the rave reviews. This is a solid film ... but it's not a great film. I can't even figure out why all these amazing actors signed on to do it? Was it confidence in the director? To be fair, it does appear that the film was trying to be the opposite of things like Erin Brokovich (a film I have no beef with, by the way), something slow burning, more a character study than a crime/courtroom drama ... the problem is, it's not a very good character study. If you want to argue the merits of this film with me, I'd love to hear what you liked about it. Really ... lets talk about this