Newsletter sign-up: 
Get Breaking News on your cellReconsidering Michael Clayton
3:20 PM Mon, Feb 04, 2008 | Permalink |
E-mail News tips
 |
 |
 
|
|
November 2008
Recent Posts
Big sale at Criterion Collection's Web site Dear Zachary to be shown on MSNBC Lindsay Lohan refers to Barack Obama as 'first colored president' 'Let the Right One In' director discusses film Robert Pattinson tonight: Are you ready? Set your alarm to meet 'Twilight' star Robert Pattinson at Galleria Dallas 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' at Mockingbird Station tonight Categories
GuideLive.com
Entertainment Blogs |
It says here Vognar is full of it. But at least he admits it. (Warner Bros.) The short version: It's better than I thought it was. (Here's my original review). Tom Wilkinson is scary-good as the high-powered lawyer who flips out and grows a conscience in the midst of defending an agro-chemical conglomerate. Even better is the way the film posits the breakdown: Does it matter that Arthur is off his meds? Or does it take a mad man to see through a mad world? Clooney is also fine, as is Tilda Swinton; all three actors deserve their Oscar nods. And the cinematography is first-rate in its use of shading to indicate moral ambiguity. The first time I saw it, I got bogged down in two things: the slowness with which the narrative gets started; and my appreciation of '70s conspiracy movies that Clayton emulates. Upon further review, as the NFL replay officials like to say, the leisurely start helps set up a rich, troubling and timely story, and the film stands up well enough that it doesn't need a heap of comparisons to a bygone era. See? I'm not always right. Just usually. |
 | |
|
Spotlight
|
|