quote: Brad Miller

---

At least the film was in focus, unlike the poster.

---

I am in focus! It's just a time exposure. Did I mention that this was presented at a Cinemark theater?
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-20-2007, 10:40 AM:
 
Well, I haven't seen it, but I'll be running it in just over an hour. It's getting two shows today, but the other two films only one each, so this is probably the one that won't do well; they always seem to give the films that few want to see the most shows for some reason. 'As You Like It' is running now, and we had 'The Simpsons Movie' earlier today. All on 35mm, as are 'Surf's Up' and the two London Film Festival films later in the week, no digital at all this week, which is unusual now. Normally I'd rather run film, but I've been getting really bad headaches for the last few days, so the lack of noise from the digital machine would be quite welcome today!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-20-2007, 04:01 PM:
 
Joe, unlike the movie poster.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-21-2007, 03:54 AM:
 
Enjoyed this one very much. As usual George Clooney is at ease in the role and plays it well. The supporting cast is excellent (especially Tom Wilkinson). I even liked Tilda Swinton which I haven't done since 'Orlando'.

This isn't a fast paced thriller by any means, which is not to say it's not suspenseful. Very much in the vein of early seventies thrillers.

out of

 

---

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 10-21-2007, 11:02 PM:
 
I wasn't sure what to expect when I went to this one because I don't particularly like George Clooney. However, I really enjoyed it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-21-2007, 11:15 PM:
 
Brad, pictures or it doesn't exist.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-22-2007, 09:55 AM:
 
Here you go Joe...

 

---

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 10-22-2007, 10:04 AM:
 
A movie that for once appears to have had a completed script before it was made. Very well photographed (no shaky-cam), and pretty engrossing performances. Not a perfect film, but one for the grown ups.

RPM
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-22-2007, 05:52 PM:
 
That picture is in focus. Obviously Gaussian blur was applied.

Spoilers:
Did I mention this movie was retarded? I don't know why the crime boss from Batman Begins was going mentally crazy. That was the main focus of the movie. Just because he switches sides doesn't mean there is a need for him to go nuts and talk to Tom Clancy's kid on the phone. He was just hurting his own case against his former clients anyway. By the way, that kid was a fucking asshole and needed to be put in his place. Towards the end I was hoping that the kid was in the car when it blew up as George was looking at the horses for NO REASON. And he threw his ring and watch in the car and that was supposed to substitute as his body? OK.

And what's with Tom Clancy's brother? He had no reason to be in the movie. That was just stupid. He was a recovering crack addict or something who shows up out of the blue as Tom and the little brat race away. His only other scene was sneaking George Clooney out of the... ummm... wherever he was. I guess ol' George was able to use telepathy to obtain the brother's new contact information during their brief encounter on the driveway. And what was the deal with the poker dude who's only goal in life was to give Georgey a hard time? That's ALL he did, even as George was leaving. There wasn't any reason for that whatsoever and it added nothing, and neither did George's fixation with gambling.
End spoilers

This movie was made by retards, and everyone looks like they're only working on two hours of sleep in each scene.
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-22-2007, 11:16 PM:
 
Joey, where's the review of the other retarded movie we watched?

This film was extremely boring and I was trying to entertain myself the whole time.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-22-2007, 11:47 PM:
 
I can't even remember the name of that movie.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-23-2007, 12:21 AM:
 

quote: Jennifer Pan

---

I was trying to entertain myself the whole time

---

Well, let's see some pictures of that.
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-23-2007, 01:02 AM:
 
The Darjeeling Limited
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 10-23-2007, 10:34 AM:
 
Joey?
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 10-24-2007, 10:43 AM:
 
I thought it was OK, but whenever Steven Soderbergh involved, you know the film is going to be s-l-o-w. Cutting 20 min would have been good. It was on 7 reels, but only 119 min, so you know they already trimmed some out.

SPOILER NOTICE!

Why would the hired hit men use a bomb? I thought they would going to make it look like an accident, or something less obvious. Why would the main charactor throw his watch, wallet, etc. in the burning car; that's not goingto fool anyone.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 10-24-2007, 03:53 PM:
 
Accelerated flames often don't leave anything of the body behind- bones included (the basis of cremation); it's sortof plausible that they would be fooled by his personal effects in the car and miss the fact that there's no bone dust.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-02-2007, 12:00 AM:
 
Location: Carmike 8, Lawton (where else?)
Auditorium: #7
Format: Christie 2K DLP/LPCM 5.1
Rating: 3.25 stars out of 4

Going in, I didn't know what this movie was about. I only heard lots of movie critics (and a couple people I know) really liked it. I liked it too.

This isn't an action movie, but I kind of got that vibe from the trailer. The main characters of this story go through a pretty tense pressure cooker. The ending was a little predictable and a couple of other points were left unresolved. But I would still recommend it.

The true anamorphic 'scope photography was pretty decent. Nice to see instead of the usual grain-o-rama Super35 stuff (although there were a few shots here and there that were purposefully grainy).

I have one minor complaint over something hardly anyone else would care about: title design. This is one area that really shows off the limitation of the 2K d-cinema format.

The opening title "MICHAEL CLAYTON" is set in white Copperplate Gothic letters at a fairly small size in the lower right area of a black background. The type is drawing slowly closer to the camera. And the movement made the lettering look totally freaking screwy. It had this really strange jumping, rippling effect as it grew into adjacent pixels of the image grid. As that rippling occurred the "C" in "Clayton" was looking larger and then smaller and then larger than the neighboring letters. I'm fairly sure if I had seen this movie on 35mm I would not have seen the same problem on the opening title.

Copperplate Gothic has some really tiny serifs at the ends of its letter stems. It's a type style that is only meant for very high resolution reproduction and usually works best set in fairly large point sizes.

In television production type is chosen a little more carefully. And other steps are taken to make sure that coarse pixel grid doesn't chew up the edges of the type. Often the edges of letters are deliberately blurred. Certain kinds of movement is avoided. And the type has to be at least a certain size to not turn into visual mud.
 

---

Posted by Carol May (Member # 4068) on 12-05-2007, 09:09 PM:
 
I just saw M. Clayton, had no idea what to expect, but I like George Clooney. I was engrossed from the beginning. The reviews all said that the first hour was a little vague, and it was, but I think that's the point. We know that there are corporate shenanigans going on that will be to the benefit of the corporations, but not The People, and that's enough.

The movie didn't wander, it was clearly geared towards adults and the filmmakers didn't feel compelled to write something in to make it a better date movie or more enticing to teen boys.

Here's to Clooney and to Clint Eastwood for making movies the way they ought to be made
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-06-2007, 02:24 AM:
 

quote: Carol May

---

Here's to Clooney and to Clint Eastwood for making movies the way they ought to be made

---

Amen!

How long until they make a movie together?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-06-2007, 11:18 AM:
 
The National Board of Review announced its movie awards for 2007. They awarded George Clooney with Best Actor for his performance in Michael Clayton.

A number of respected film critics have already speculated Clooney could pick up a Best Actor Oscar nomination for this movie. The National Board of Review award makes that prospect much more likely.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-06-2007, 12:11 PM:
 
Some people like really bad movies.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-06-2007, 01:33 PM:
 
Actually I did not think Clooney was too bad here.

But the script was an insult to the intelligence.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Clooney is supposed to be a "fixer" yet he walks through the whole movie in a fog supposedly not realizing (until the end) that other people can fix things too.

The car bomb ending was ridiculous. I mean just at the moment the bomb was going to go off he stops his car by the side of the road and gets out to look at horses so that (miraculously) he is not killed. Now what are the real chances of that happening.

And what's with the car bomb. The killers who went to such lengths to make his collegue's death look like an accident then go after Clooney with a CAR BOMB. Yeah I know the police in these sort of movies are stupid but even the stupid police here would probably conclude it was attempted murder with the use of car bomb.
 

---