johnaugust.com

(a ton of useful information about screenwriting)

• Main
• Off-Topic
• Answer Finder
• Library
• Store

Michael Clayton

Tony Gilroy’s Michael Clayton is fantastic. Move it to the top of your must-see list.

11 Responses to “Michael Clayton”

1. Tim W.
   October 10th, 2007 at 9:42 am

   While I’ve never been one to see a movie because of who’s in it, I’m starting to change that rule for George Clooney. He seems to have one of the better track records of any actor (although I admit I have yet to see The Good German, only because the reviews were not that great). The man has paid his penance for Batman and Robin, although Oceans 12 was a bit of stumble.

2. Seth
   October 10th, 2007 at 8:24 pm

   MICHAEL CLAYTON left me feeling a little empty and not in a good way. Gilroy cleverly subverts genre clichés, writes brilliant characters and dialogue, but still withholds freshness. It was like paint by numbers done by a master. You can see the numbers underneath brilliant brush strokes. Does that make sense?

   But for what it is, there’s nothing better. And that’s something.

   … I sound like my dad after he’s read one of my scripts…

   ME: Did you like it? DAD: Yes–No. It was great. Maybe a little shallow, but great.

3. Dave K
   October 11th, 2007 at 12:21 am

   I loved it– seen it twice. It’s totally one of my top 5 of the year, along with ZODIAC, BLACK BOOK, GRINDHOUSE… I caught a matinee last Friday at the Grove and dragged my partner to see it today on his day off. It totally holds up on second viewing– maybe even better. And if Robert Elswit doesn’t get nommed for cinematography, there is no justice. (Of course, there’s routinely no justice when it comes to those things, I’m still sore about Dion Beebe not being nommed for MIAMI VICE’s astounding cinematography last year. But oh, they had room for BLACK DAHLIA.)

   What a totally amazingly constructed script. Seriously, I want to write this dude a letter. I’m completely blown away.

4. Dave K
   October 11th, 2007 at 12:22 am

   Forgot to mention– I was confused by Manhola Dargis’ assertion it’s like a Sidney Lumet movie. I disagree. If anything, it’s the best Alan J. Pakula movie Alan J. Pakula never made.

5. James
   October 11th, 2007 at 5:15 am

   Micheal Clayton was fabulous. The Clooner was on top form, but how about Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton? Go the Brits!

6. Michael
   October 15th, 2007 at 3:42 am

   Saw the film recently and man, that was fantastic. Thank you, John! :)

7. carrie
   October 15th, 2007 at 5:24 am

   I thought it was terrific as well. I read the script afterwards — and I don’t think I would have predicted that the movie would be as good as it was. TG’s narrative writing is very blueprint-schematic, which is clearly all he needs; but it makes a read somewhat flat in comparison with screenplays by writers with a more literary narrative style. Not to be a suck-up, John, but I find your scripts fun to read in large part because of your writing style.

8. Michael
   October 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pm

   I rarely see movies in the theatre. Given what they cost these days, on balance with what you get, I feel like I have been slimed. However, I journeyed out to see Michael Clayton, and I am certainly glad that I did! Yeah, it might have been a little draggy at the beginning, but the superb acting of Tom Wilkinson, and George Clooney made up for any shortcomings the movie might have had in the plot department. Sydney Pollock is always a nice addition to any movie as well. He is just one of those guys that can look at you, and have you doubting youself This is definitely a movie I will own when it hits the shelves!

9. Dominic
   October 18th, 2007 at 6:14 pm

   Not to be the only picking at the emperor’s clothes but…I thought it was a plodding, marginal variation of the standard evil-corporation-vs-poisoned-good-folks fare – with a decent role for Clooney thrown in to get it greenlit the variation. I won’t add any spoilers but thought the ending was in no doubt from start to finish and the plot had about as many twists as a plumb-bob.

10. Ironbelly Norton
    October 20th, 2007 at 1:11 am

    Although I have just began to delve into your collected contemplations, Mr. August, I followed your suggestion to catch a showing of Michael Clayton. It was refreshing to see a film whose prime ingredient wasn’t the famous faces or the flashing lights, but instead was an engaging and powerful script. And it only had one explosion! Although I have only seen it once to date, I have an itching feeling that Mr. Gilroy might have been alluding to Jonathan Swift’s “Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of several Ships”. Perhaps I am perceiving ghosts in a fog, but I felt the horses on the hill were subtle hints at the Houyhnhnms, the deplorable morals of the humans correlating with that of the base and vulgar Yahoos, and a parallel between the theme of the film and theme of Swift’s novel: whether men are inherently corrupt or whether they become corrupted. There is a split second in the film when the assassin who plants the explosive removes his deadly charge from an unassuming container. I do not have the quickest of eyes, yet I thought I saw the word Lilliput on the container’s cover. Perhaps with your advanced contact’s in the land of the silver screen you can provide me with an affirmation or refutation as to these speculations.

    Much gratitude for the suggested viewing, Ironbelly Norton

11. Robert Chandler
    October 28th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    I’m re-submitting this query with the “notify me” box checked in case anyone knows where the MICHAEL CLAYTON cscript an be downloaded or purchased.

    Apoligies for boring anyone with the repetition.

johnaugust.com is powered by WordPress.