Seven Oscar nominations, nearly 50 other awards and nominations from film boards and critics societies and generally positive critical acclaim. Also, the discriminating moviegoers who have spent the money and seen the movie in theaters have raved about "Michael Clayton".
I saw the film before the Oscar nominations and I found "Michael Clayton" to be a well-acted, well-written movie. I like challenging films that does not always need to explain every move through the entire movie. Don't give away the punchline so early in the movie. Trust the audience's intelligence and in the end many will appreciate the ride. If more filmmakers (and studio heads) would heed those suggestions, perhaps there might be fewer cheesy, critically drubbed blockbusters.
Why is "Michael Clayton" not a blockbuster? To some, it was paced way too slowly and many people got bored and bailed out. Other moviegoers thought it ripped-off other thrillers involving lawyers (e.g.: the numerous John Grisham adaptations. For the record, as much as I liked "The Firm", I found it, as well as "A Time to Kill" and "The Client" to be by-the-numbers and not very challenging.) Most audiences demand good to great movies but end up, by their own choice, watching expensive trash. At the risk of sounding condescending, what amazes me about "Michael Clayton" is that the movie seems too intelligent to be a Hollywood movie. It certainly doesn't hurt that award-winning filmmakers Steven Soderbergh, Anthony Minghella, lead actor George Clooney and co-star Sydney Pollack are credited as Executive Producers. I would guess that it guaranteed that veteran writer/first-time director Tony Gilroy's pitch to the studio heads at Warner Brothers was not going to compromise the film's vision with focus groups and last-minute changes to make the audiences numb.
Maybe the film's marketing campaign turned people off. Sadly, there are many good to great films that did not do well at the box office for numerous reasons. As much as I believe that awards and ceremonies are problematic, the Oscar nominations can only help to get more people to check out "Michael Clayton".
For the record, I gave "Michael Clayton" an 8 out of 10. The film did have some pacing flaws and did seem disjointed, especially the first 20 minutes. What impressed me was that the all the story resolutions made the entire film worth my time. It can be very easy to confuse people by simple time shifts but, like a completed crossword puzzle, the finished product is impressive. I think the acting nominations of Clooney, and especially Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton were well-deserved.
I saw the film before the Oscar nominations and I found "Michael Clayton" to be a well-acted, well-written movie. I like challenging films that does not always need to explain every move through the entire movie. Don't give away the punchline so early in the movie. Trust the audience's intelligence and in the end many will appreciate the ride. If more filmmakers (and studio heads) would heed those suggestions, perhaps there might be fewer cheesy, critically drubbed blockbusters.
Why is "Michael Clayton" not a blockbuster? To some, it was paced way too slowly and many people got bored and bailed out. Other moviegoers thought it ripped-off other thrillers involving lawyers (e.g.: the numerous John Grisham adaptations. For the record, as much as I liked "The Firm", I found it, as well as "A Time to Kill" and "The Client" to be by-the-numbers and not very challenging.) Most audiences demand good to great movies but end up, by their own choice, watching expensive trash. At the risk of sounding condescending, what amazes me about "Michael Clayton" is that the movie seems too intelligent to be a Hollywood movie. It certainly doesn't hurt that award-winning filmmakers Steven Soderbergh, Anthony Minghella, lead actor George Clooney and co-star Sydney Pollack are credited as Executive Producers. I would guess that it guaranteed that veteran writer/first-time director Tony Gilroy's pitch to the studio heads at Warner Brothers was not going to compromise the film's vision with focus groups and last-minute changes to make the audiences numb.
Maybe the film's marketing campaign turned people off. Sadly, there are many good to great films that did not do well at the box office for numerous reasons. As much as I believe that awards and ceremonies are problematic, the Oscar nominations can only help to get more people to check out "Michael Clayton".
For the record, I gave "Michael Clayton" an 8 out of 10. The film did have some pacing flaws and did seem disjointed, especially the first 20 minutes. What impressed me was that the all the story resolutions made the entire film worth my time. It can be very easy to confuse people by simple time shifts but, like a completed crossword puzzle, the finished product is impressive. I think the acting nominations of Clooney, and especially Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton were well-deserved.