Michael Clayton-Oy...and In Bruges
I remember when I first saw the trailer for Michael Clayton. I thought "George Clooney is playing a lawyer and it looks boring". Then I saw the print ad, and I thought "He's playing a lawyer who has some kind of a problem-drugs or alcohol (gambling, as it turns out), a kid and will be forced to make some kind of a choice where he either sells out or does the right thing". I couldn't quite figure out if he had sold out in the movie or before the events of the movie took place-before, I think because I'm pretty sure I would have noticed because it would have been FAR more interesting than what actually took in this movie. I'd much rather see the movie where George sells out than this, in which he does the right thing.
To me, this whole movie was stolen by Tom Wilkinson, playing the lead lawyer in a huge case who has gone off his bi-polar meds. It certainly was not stolen by Tilda Swinton-I'm even more baffled by her academy award after seeing this movie. Any actress could have done this part and she did not turn it into anything special, unlike Wilkinson, who took a semi-showy part and invested it with heart and intelligence. Aside from him, I thought it fairly boring and somewhat predictable.
That is almost the complete opposite from In Bruges, which is not really predictable and is wholly entertaining. Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson are hiding out in Bruges, on orders from their boss, Rafe Fines. A hit went wrong, Farrell screwed up and now they're in Bruges. Gleeson loves Bruges, the history, the architecture, the medieval quality of it, while Farrell..well If I grew up on a farm and was retarded, maybe I would be impressed. But I didn't, so I'm not". Usually Colin Farrell annoys me (see Miami Vice or any other movie he's made) but he does a good job playing the irritated-to-be-in Bruges hit-man who is also vaguely suicidal. Brendan Gleeson is always good as is rafe Fines. My only quarrel with this movie is that it's easy to tell that a playwright wrote and directed it. Coincidences happen, things are wound up a little too neatly...it's all a bit like watching a really good play. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that I think this movie would have benefitted a bit from being not quite so neat. However, I still recommend it to anyone who has a dark sense of humor-that's the sort of person for whom this movie was made.
To me, this whole movie was stolen by Tom Wilkinson, playing the lead lawyer in a huge case who has gone off his bi-polar meds. It certainly was not stolen by Tilda Swinton-I'm even more baffled by her academy award after seeing this movie. Any actress could have done this part and she did not turn it into anything special, unlike Wilkinson, who took a semi-showy part and invested it with heart and intelligence. Aside from him, I thought it fairly boring and somewhat predictable.
That is almost the complete opposite from In Bruges, which is not really predictable and is wholly entertaining. Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson are hiding out in Bruges, on orders from their boss, Rafe Fines. A hit went wrong, Farrell screwed up and now they're in Bruges. Gleeson loves Bruges, the history, the architecture, the medieval quality of it, while Farrell..well If I grew up on a farm and was retarded, maybe I would be impressed. But I didn't, so I'm not". Usually Colin Farrell annoys me (see Miami Vice or any other movie he's made) but he does a good job playing the irritated-to-be-in Bruges hit-man who is also vaguely suicidal. Brendan Gleeson is always good as is rafe Fines. My only quarrel with this movie is that it's easy to tell that a playwright wrote and directed it. Coincidences happen, things are wound up a little too neatly...it's all a bit like watching a really good play. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that I think this movie would have benefitted a bit from being not quite so neat. However, I still recommend it to anyone who has a dark sense of humor-that's the sort of person for whom this movie was made.

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home