MERGED--> Michael Clayton

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Harry Vest said:
Don't worry, it's up for Best Picture and numerous other oscars so I'm sure it will be back in theaters. If not, there's always DVD. It's a good one - well worth seeing.


Actually, I'm pretty sure I read before the nominations that they were already planning on putting it back into the theatres. It's the earliest-released film of all the Best Picture nominees, coming out in late September, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Uhh, you don't think he was recognized as such when he won an Oscar?

I knew he was quality and capable when I saw Solaris, still his finest work to date.
 
pope_bobble_head_1.jpg
 
Goddamn it, Laz.

NSFW doesn't have to kill me, because I'm now already dead.
 
Harry Vest said:
Don't worry, it's up for Best Picture and numerous other oscars so I'm sure it will be back in theaters

It's being re-released tomorrow at the theater I go to according to their web site. So that must be the plan.
 
lazarus said:
Uhh, you don't think he was recognized as such when he won an Oscar?


Well, one nomination or win . . . that can be perceived as a fluke. But 2 nominations or wins, well, then you're pretty much a serious contender.

And I'm going to say he was better in Michael Clayton than in Solaris, though he was awesome in Solaris.

Of course, I LOVE him in Out Of Sight, even though he's a bit more "George Clooney-ish" in that role, I thought he still did a really great job with it.

But out of: Out Of Sight, Solaris, Syriana and Michael Clayton, I thought Michael Clayton was his best performance.

He just keeps getting better and better.
 
Fitz, I see your point, but a win is far more convincing than just the nomination.

Unless you're Marisa Tomei.
 
FitzChivalry said:



Well, one nomination or win . . . that can be perceived as a fluke. But 2 nominations or wins, well, then you're pretty much a serious contender.

And I'm going to say he was better in Michael Clayton than in Solaris, though he was awesome in Solaris.

Of course, I LOVE him in Out Of Sight, even though he's a bit more "George Clooney-ish" in that role, I thought he still did a really great job with it.

But out of: Out Of Sight, Solaris, Syriana and Michael Clayton, I thought Michael Clayton was his best performance.

He just keeps getting better and better.



Well, Michael Clayton was definitely an actor's film, and a character piece. Solaris was something much different, a film that raises certain complex moral and ethical issues that only can be found in science fiction, and also very much of a director's film.

To me, playing a character whose dead wife (or something that appears to be her) has come back to life is a bit more of a challenge than what Clayton demanded. Now we don't necessarily learn what makes Kelvin tick as much as we do with Michael Clayton--who has a much clearer character arc--but on a scene to scene basis I find Kelvin's story more fascinating because of its uniqueness.

Both films forced Clooney to rely a lot less on his charm as an actor (same with Syriana) and more on his actual abilities, so they're admirable in similar ways

I agree in general with your sentiment, in that Clooney is perhaps underrated in terms of range and talent. But considering his Oscar and multiple Golden Globe wins, I don't think he's lacking in respect around the industry. His work on Goodnight, and Good Luck may have been mostly behind the camera, but its reception still caused people to take him much more seriously in general.
 
I didn´t like it. :huh: This movie confuses you with four different plot attempts(ie. the kid, the bakruptcy, the arthur) and keeps you guessing so much that you can´t enjoy the film because you´re too busy trying to figure it out. And then when you do figure things out, it happens almost superficially and it doesn´t really delve as deep as it´s supposed to. I thought it was pretentious. :shrug:
 
So it would be more interesting if everything was really obvious and you barely had to pay attention?
 
I'm pretty sure "pretentious" is the most misused word on the entirety of the Interweb.
 
FitzChivalry said:
I think one of my favorite things about the film was that it treated its audience as intelligent. The opening monologue alone was breathtaking, but I'm also talking about the characters and their relation to one another. There was no big, flashing-dialogue or exposition; characters just came in and out of the story and if you were paying attention to the earlier dialogue, you knew who they were.

I love movies that don't dumb-it-down for the audience. Everything was accounted for and explained, but it didn't hit you over the head with recaps, summaries and explantions. The events just happened and unfolded in their own due time.

I think I love this film even more for treating me as a person with a brain, rather than as an ass in a seat! :lol:


Well, as I've earlier stated, for the exact reasons BrownEyed thought it was pretentious, those are the EXACT reasons I LOVED it!

Yay for movies that make the audience engage!

:applaud:
 
Finally got to see this On Demand this evening. I enjoyed it. A lot going on simultaneously, and just trying to keep it all clear in my head as I was watching. Will probably have to see it again when it finally hits the cable channels (don't want to pay again :wink: )

:up: :up:
 
Back
Top Bottom