i fucking loved this movie.

shame on me and anyone else who hasn't seen it yet.

Meh. Not bad, just kinda bland...but again, I've only seen half of it.

I'm surprised at how much that gets overlooked by fellow writers.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

I've been beating the drum for this movie's writing for some time... it really is an awesome writer's movie...

_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

the density of the material combined with the clarity of the material. I can't recall any movie that did it as well as this one. Never once does it talk over you, nor does it do the "star trek trick".
George Clooney had a stretch there of a few years where he was really putting out top quality stuff.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

some legs. For more information, see Up in the Air when it comes out...

________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

a somewhat paraphrased definition: when very complicated, intelligent, complex, dense, or otherwise hard to understand material is stated, followed by someone explaining in very layman's terms (usually with a spark of eureka wonder). Example:
Captain: "We'll have to fire the self-gravity-having-gravitron-thingy into the nucleus. Then it'll have to penetrate the outer level and begin moving in a counter clockwise orbit. If it can move at a fast enough speed, it will create an inner vortex."
Ensign: "Like a spoon stirring a cup of coffee!"
This happens on just about every episode of Star Trek, and just about every outer space show for that matter.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

what made it extra great was I read it like Shatner doin some interpretive song

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

I always picture LaVar Burton (Geordi) doing the "eureka" line - mostly because that was the only lines he had in the show.
I swear everytime I come across Geordi - tv, movies, Reading Rainbow - I immediately hear the phrase "reverse the polarity". It's on some serious Pavlovian level.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

"we'll have to science the science to science"

"Like a spoon stirring a cup of coffee!"

Since they'd write it, and then kick it over to the tech consultants.

---------------------------------
Photo zine(some images NSFW): http://bit.ly/USaSPhoto

"This (and every, actually) conversation needs more Chesterton and less Mike Francesa." - Walleye

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

©


Dolby sound will be then top crowned, when I put the needle into your groove
I got a good thing...and in full swing

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

As a screenwriter myself I have to say I agree 100%. I thought the way they structured it was absolutely brilliant. Starting early in with the car explosion, no explanation, and building back to that so when you get to it the second time the shock factor is less but the impact might even be greater b/c you know the implications. I also thought they did a great job of humanizing Clooney's character with the failed business and his relationship with his brothers. Honestly I thought this thing was top to bottom excellent which is why I was so disappointed to see the trailer for 'Duplicity'. This might be his one great script - I hope not - but it can often be the case.

Dude adapted State Of Play - that's a feat unto itself. He did a seriously top notch job with that.
Michael Clayton is a product of much self revision, which is why it's as tight as it is.
And come on, dude wrote The Cutting Edge - how could you doubt?


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

I really liked the UK mini-series but I'm not really a fan of any of the actors in the US version and have heard mixed reviews.

It probably won't change your opinion of the actors, but I thought it was good enough to see.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

______________________________________________________________________________

"There's a fine line between persistence and foolishness..."
-unknown

"To Each His Reach"
-George Clinton

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

that was a WONDERFUL script.

********************************

Get Out The Room!
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
@fakewilliamkatt

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do!" - Olin Miller

for doing 'no country for old men' in that same year. if it wasn't for that, there's no other reason why tom wilkinson shouldn't win an oscar for 'michael clayton'.

____________________________

<--- One of those days...

tom wilkinson was so brilliant... so was javier though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKVkHRGc-60

I'll catch again sometime...liked it, but didn't stay with me

--------

I love the scene with the Michael and the Son in the car and most everything Tom Wilkinson does but the opening flashback ruined the tension for me of the car chase (since you see him get out of the car) and I laughed out loud when Sidney Pollack seemed rather nonplussed when he was told Michael Clayton died in a car bombing. Wouldn't blowing someone up in the suburbs kind of bring some unwanted attention?

I also was kind of bummed out by the cliche hidden tape recorder ending. At the time, I said it was an art house version of The Firm. I appreciate it more now but I agree with others who say it's kind of forgettable.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

You've harped on the opening explosion "ruining the tension" and the "city bomb explosion" before. The opening explosion works: to me, it sets a mysterious (not suspenseful) tone, especially since the scene ends once Michael runs off... for all we know, later in the film, those two goons could have caught up to Michael and shot him, no? Or Michael could have gone and got help, or called the cops, or lay in wait for... whomever. At that point, we simply don't know.

I thought the opening explosion was a nice simple writing device that Gilroy used to build a little bit of mystery into the opening of the story, to hook us in to figuring out how we got to the point of Michael Clayton's car exploding without him in it... and as Longo pointed out before, the context of the explosion -- and the way we see that context change from the the first time we see it to the second -- is VERY important... the explosion's merely mysterious at first; it only becomes "suspenseful" after the second time we see it, and yes, there is a difference...

And I know that one of your other gripes with the bombing was that this hit looked "pretty unprofessional" in comparison to the efficient way they killed Arthur and made it look like a suicide. Sure, it *looks* that way... until you think that maybe Karen and/or the U/North folks knew who Michael owed money to, so an explosion that kills a "legal fixer" -- a legal fixer who owed money to a loan shark -- looks awfully shady... and places U/North above reproach, because hey, they'd never get their hands dirty with a car explosion, that's something those evil mob guys do... in other words, if U/North pulls off the hit successfully, they frame the guys Michael owed money to (again, assuming they know Michael's financial straits, which isn't that far-fetched an idea considering Michael told Marty about his need for a loan)...

And also, the "cliche tape recorder ending" would have been if Karen or some U/North security goon had caught Michael with the tape recorder and was about to off him, only to be thwarted by Michael's police office brother and his squad, who would have come to the rescue by busting in on the confrontation and arresting Karen...

_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

"I thought the opening explosion was a nice simple writing device that Gilroy used to build a little bit of mystery into the opening of the story, to hook us in to figuring out how we got to the point of Michael Clayton's car exploding without him in it... and as Longo pointed out before, the context of the explosion -- and the way we see that context change from the the first time we see it to the second -- is VERY important... the explosion's merely mysterious at first; it only becomes "suspenseful" after the second time we see it, and yes, there is a difference..."

I had to laugh that when it's completely dead at work, I decided to log back on here and there was a Michael Clayton post.

>You've harped on the opening explosion "ruining the tension"
>and the "city bomb explosion" before. The opening explosion
>works: to me, it sets a mysterious (not suspenseful) tone,
>especially since the scene ends once Michael runs off... for
>all we know, later in the film, those two goons could have
>caught up to Michael and shot him, no? Or Michael could have
>gone and got help, or called the cops, or lay in wait for...
>whomever. At that point, we simply don't know.

But the whole chase scene is about whether or not they can get the bomb to work and we know that it doesn't. The tension of a chase scene isn't "Man, when the hero gets away, I wonder if he's going to call the cops?" It's not, "Well, I know this plan won't work but maybe there's a plan B that will get him." And the idea that they might have gone through all of that and then just SHOT Michael? LOL. That would have been downright comical. (Also, choosing a method in which you still kind of have to guess whether or not the guy actually died was stupid.)

>I thought the opening explosion was a nice simple writing
>device that Gilroy used to build a little bit of mystery into
>the opening of the story, to hook us in to figuring out how we
>got to the point of Michael Clayton's car exploding without
>him in it... and as Longo pointed out before, the context of
>the explosion -- and the way we see that context change from
>the the first time we see it to the second -- is VERY
>important... the explosion's merely mysterious at first; it
>only becomes "suspenseful" after the second time we see it,
>and yes, there is a difference...

It's supposed to be "suspenseful" the second time but there's no suspense since we already know how it ends. And the film doesn't need the writing device. There's no reason to add it. Take it out and the film is better. You could also wonder more about Michael's allegiance since the car bomb pretty much lets you know that he's going to fight UNorth. It's not like the farm girl or Wilkinson is going to plant a car bomb.

>And I know that one of your other gripes with the bombing was
>that this hit looked "pretty unprofessional" in comparison to
>the efficient way they killed Arthur and made it look like a
>suicide. Sure, it *looks* that way... until you think that
>maybe Karen and/or the U/North folks knew who Michael owed
>money to, so an explosion that kills a "legal fixer" -- a
>legal fixer who owed money to a loan shark -- looks awfully
>shady... and places U/North above reproach, because hey,
>they'd never get their hands dirty with a car explosion,
>that's something those evil mob guys do... in other words, if
>U/North pulls off the hit successfully, they frame the guys
>Michael owed money to (again, assuming they know Michael's
>financial straits, which isn't that far-fetched an idea
>considering Michael told Marty about his need for a loan)...

The strength of the film is its realism. This moment requires suspension of disbelief, fan fiction, etc. to explain why it could possibly make sense. But apparently, most people think that Clooney staring at horses outweighs the "Huh?" factor so I'm left in the minority on this one.

>And also, the "cliche tape recorder ending" would have been if
>Karen or some U/North security goon had caught Michael with
>the tape recorder and was about to off him, only to be
>thwarted by Michael's police office brother and his squad, who
>would have come to the rescue by busting in on the
>confrontation and arresting Karen...

Yeah, it could have been MORE cliche but that doesn't change the fact that the tape recorder in the jacket pocket is still cliche.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>And I know that one of your other gripes with the bombing was
>that this hit looked "pretty unprofessional" in comparison to
>the efficient way they killed Arthur and made it look like a
>suicide. Sure, it *looks* that way... until you think that
>maybe Karen and/or the U/North folks knew who Michael owed
>money to, so an explosion that kills a "legal fixer" -- a
>legal fixer who owed money to a loan shark -- looks awfully
>shady... and places U/North above reproach, because hey,
>they'd never get their hands dirty with a car explosion,
>that's something those evil mob guys do... in other words, if
>U/North pulls off the hit successfully, they frame the guys
>Michael owed money to (again, assuming they know Michael's
>financial straits, which isn't that far-fetched an idea
>considering Michael told Marty about his need for a loan)...

Incidentally, this is the same logic provided in the commentary.

>And also, the "cliche tape recorder ending" would have been if
>Karen or some U/North security goon had caught Michael with
>the tape recorder and was about to off him, only to be
>thwarted by Michael's police office brother and his squad, who
>would have come to the rescue by busting in on the
>confrontation and arresting Karen...

I figured it worked because of the audacity of it, he's playing to the ineptitude of Tilda Swinton's character - and even says so. I thought that was the best way around so obvious a plot device I've ever seen - so good that it's believable (again, because Tilda Swinton's character is inept).


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

The bomb probably cost more than Michael owed them.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

________________________________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/punannydiaries

also on Facebook

That is hilarious

It's funny; when people think I'm making a mistake, the idea of bookies blowing up Clayton is "hilarious". When it's the writer's plea cop for why the scene might make sense, they buy it hook, line, and sinker.

To recap for those who couldn't follow: I think blowing up Clayton in the suburbs is a ridiculous way to get rid of a key person in an ongoing billion dollar court case. The argument defending that scene is that UNorth could shift the blame the people to whom Michael owes money. My response is to ask: how is using an expensive remote controlled explosive device that costs more money than Michael probably owed a logical way to frame a local bookie?

The answer: it doesn't. In fact, as you guys have pointed out, it's laughable.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>It's funny; when people think I'm making a mistake, the idea
>of bookies blowing up Clayton is "hilarious".

No...it was hilarious that because of your muddied explanation, I thought you were criticizing the movie while having it completely wrong.




>To recap for those who couldn't follow: I think blowing up
>Clayton in the suburbs is a ridiculous way to get rid of a key
>person in an ongoing billion dollar court case. The argument
>defending that scene is that UNorth could shift the blame the
>people to whom Michael owes money. My response is to ask: how
>is using an expensive remote controlled explosive device that
>costs more money than Michael probably owed a logical way to
>frame a local bookie?
>
>The answer: it doesn't.

For you.

For me, it does. Who says they were trying to frame ANYBODY specifically? And who says a bookie can't use a car bomb? If you're letting that get in the way of you're believing the ending then THAT is what is stupid. Shit a member of the low-grade irish mob The Westies blew the fuck out of Frank DeCicco's car trying to get John Gotti. A car bomb is not some super secret military intelligence shit. They wanted Michael Clayton DEAD and maybe a message sent to those who'd be aware enough to catch it.

I was in the middle of a discussion about the logic behind UNorth using a car bomb. I'm not going to rehash the entire discussion in each post. Sadly, people are so quick to disagree that they never take a second to even consider an opposing point of view. They just leap up and go, "Well, even though throughout this post, he's shown that he knows that UNorth set up the bombing, I'm going to take this out of context and assume he didn't know what was going on."

Then again, rehashing the discussion doesn't seem to help you much because your following questions were ALL answered in my summary of the discussion.

>For me, it does. Who says they were trying to frame ANYBODY
>specifically? And who says a bookie can't use a car bomb? If
>you're letting that get in the way of you're believing the
>ending then THAT is what is stupid. Shit a member of the
>low-grade irish mob The Westies blew the fuck out of Frank
>DeCicco's car trying to get John Gotti. A car bomb is not some
>super secret military intelligence shit. They wanted Michael
>Clayton DEAD and maybe a message sent to those who'd be aware
>enough to catch it.

And you know what the best part is? Half of your questions are answered by the EXACT post that you tried to clown.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

"The bomb probably cost more than Michael owed them"

Yes this explains exactly 1/2 of my 2 questions precisely. Thanks for dropping that crazy knowledge.

You should really move off of this snide and dismissive routine. You don't wear it well.

Let's look at your questions. I'd say the one post answer three of your of your questions, maybe two and half.

1. "Who says they were trying to frame ANYBODY specifically?"

Well, as I explained in the very rehash that you quoted before writing your questions, people in this post were saying that framing the bookies explains the use of a car bomb. Also, Wordman pointed out that it was the logic in the commentary track of the film. That's why that was mentioned.

2. "And who says a bookie can't use a car bomb?"

A bookie is going to use a remote controlled explosive device? The bomb probably cost more than Michael owed them.

3. "Shit a member of the low-grade irish mob The Westies blew the fuck out of Frank DeCicco's car trying to get John Gotti."

A remote controlled explosive device?

"4. A car bomb is not some super secret military intelligence shit."

A remote controlled explosive device? Like the one in the movie? We're not talking a homemade bomb and a cellphone here.

But let's also not forget this doozy: "They wanted Michael Clayton DEAD and maybe a message sent to those who'd be aware enough to catch it."

"Aware enough to catch it"? Really? A car bomb? it must have been one of those run-of-the-mill, cheap, anyone can do it, high tech, remote controlled, SUBTLE car bombs.

So if we count the final statement, I'd go with, at least, 2.5 of your 5 points were answered by my post.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

Wouldn't blowing someone up in the suburbs
>kind of bring some unwanted attention?
>



>I also was kind of bummed out by the cliche hidden tape
>recorder ending.


Especially that one. I was like, "Man, c'mon. That's the best you got?" I can't even see Tilda Swinton's character being the type of person to fall for that.

that monologue from Tommy Wilk

The ending was on some Ronin steeze. Just as wack & didn't really fit in well with the rest of the flick.

Just randomly popping up in some post about a movie all of ten people have seen!!!!


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

i was late in seein it too

_____________
Kamikaze Genes
____________♌♀
goddess; small g.

Grisham movies, but what else?

Everybody's got opinions on the way you're living but see they can't fill your shoes... Life is made of half-illusions... forty percent confusion, whatever's left I'm using... to keep myself from losing, yeah.

Although that's more like a different take on Wilkinson's character if he was a defense lawyer.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

"tony gilroy, walks on water. it's entirely official as far as i'm concerned"

great script, story, acting
i would've argued that george clooney deserved the academy's that year if it wasn't for daniel day-lewis.
tilda swinton? no word needed.

"you mean you dont want the money?"

One of my favorite scenes ever.

yupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyup

One of the best years ever imo.

I didn't get half of it... kept on waiting for something exciting to happen.

PEACE

http://www.myspace.com/shanciee

Everyone has pretty much summed it up, although I disagree with both the gripes about the bomb diggy bomb going off and the tape recorder GOTCHA! ending. The latter gets an excuse because Tilda Swinton so bodies that whole scene that I vacillate between air-punching in my glee that she got hers to actually feeling a bit bad for the self-absorbed cunt who was so obviously in over her head.

I just would like to add that the loan shark intermediary that Michael keeps meeting with is the baddest assed old man on the planet. He's gone from supplying Sam with cel numbers in Nice to being the true kingpin of Baltimore's drug trade from a Greek slop shack. Dude looks like someone's grampa.


©


Dolby sound will be then top crowned, when I put the needle into your groove
I got a good thing...and in full swing

>Everyone has pretty much summed it up, although I disagree
>with both the gripes about the bomb diggy bomb going off and
>the tape recorder GOTCHA! ending. The latter gets an excuse
>because Tilda Swinton so bodies that whole scene that I
>vacillate between air-punching in my glee that she got hers to
>actually feeling a bit bad for the self-absorbed cunt who was
>so obviously in over her head.
>
>I just would like to add that the loan shark intermediary that
>Michael keeps meeting with is the baddest assed old man on the
>planet. He's gone from supplying Sam with cel numbers in Nice
>to being the true kingpin of Baltimore's drug trade from a
>Greek slop shack. Dude looks like someone's grampa.

I was pretty sure that was the same guy. That old man will eat your face off.

The ending of Ronin is beyond believably bad. It is utterly detestable. I mean its like the makers of the film just said “How can we just totally fuck this great movie up? I know…lets have a horribly clichéd and impossibly ill conceived conclusion to everything!” Its not just one or two missteps…it’s the entire final 10 minutes or so that just discombobulate the whole damned thing. I’m going to go and re-watch it and come back with a breakdown of the horrociousness of it.

The ending of MC is just a standard “hidden tape recorder” ending. Its clichéd but why all the hate for it?

>I was pretty sure that was the same guy. That old man will
>eat your face off.

This is the guy in Ronin: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0674052/

This is The Greek: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0713209/

>The ending of Ronin is beyond believably bad. It is utterly
>detestable. I mean its like the makers of the film just said
>“How can we just totally fuck this great movie up? I
>know…lets have a horribly clichéd and impossibly ill conceived
>conclusion to everything!” Its not just one or two
>missteps…it’s the entire final 10 minutes or so that just
>discombobulate the whole damned thing. I’m going to go and
>re-watch it and come back with a breakdown of the
>horrociousness of it.
>
>The ending of MC is just a standard “hidden tape recorder”
>ending. Its clichéd but why all the hate for it?

It's just as bad as Ronin's bro. And overall I like both movies a lot. But I just don't see how you can cop pleas for one & not the other. Both were cliche & corny as fuck to me.

actually liked an intelligent, politically motivated, and socially aware movie. this was third behind "there will be blood" and "no country" in 2007, which brought the fuckin pain. what the fuck has been going on for the past two years in film

> this was third behind "there will be
>blood" and "no country" in 2007, which brought the fuckin
>pain.

I love that line lol

is Spy game, starring Robert Redford and Brad Pitt.
I'm not that big a fan of Tony Scott, but this movie is pretty good.
It's a little more "Tom Clancy" than "Michael Clayton", but definitely lives in the same area.
The writing is surprisingly sharp (especially for a Tony Scott movie), and the performances are very good (I'm quite a fan of older Robert Redford, I wish he got more work now in the vein of this flick).


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

i remember it being a dope movie tho....i love Tony Scott..more so for the look of his films

But I did really like this one.
This and Pelham 123.


"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams