George Clooney plays a combination between Harvey Keitel's The Wolf in "Pulp Fiction" and Christian Bale's magician in "The Prestige." On the one hand, he's a fixer, he solves problems. On the other, he's not good at his job. (To refresh readers' memories, Bale's character was a bumbling magician who was a hilariously terrible showman, though he repeatedly claimed, "No one can do my trick.") This latter observation is my own; I think the movie would have us believe he's competent. Every character tells him he's great at his job and he's indispensible, but, if you pay attention, he never solves any problems, and indeed screws some things up.
But back to the story. His law firm, one of the most prestigious in the world, is defending the business U/North in a $3 billion class-action lawsuit. Problem is the lead lawyer on the case (Tom Wilkinson) goes crazy; he develops a conscience. And Clooney is developing one too. The point of the film (which is obvious from the beginning, I'm not giving anything away) is that this white-collar law firm defends a company that -- prepare yourself -- did something wrong. And this is news to Clooney, who seriously asks, "What if we're on the wrong side?" Clooney would rather live in a world where lawyers turned against their clients and took on the role of judge and jury. He'd prefer the world of "Idiocracy," where Luke Wilson's defense lawyer tells the judge he's guilty, in part because he destroyed the lawyer's wall while he was "'batin'." Maybe you had to be there.
The movie is decent for what it is, but there's not much here. "The Firm" covered similar terrain and was more engaging. There are some good moments between Clooney and his kid, but the rest of the scenes with his family are fairly worthless. And, as with every other film nominated for Best Picture this year (except "There Will Be Blood"), the ending blows.
Several critics described this as a throwback to '70s cinema, but I don't see it. This film develops characters and has an untidy message and has a paranoid, skeptical view of certain institutions, in this case law firms and corporations. But I don't think that defines films from the '70s more than any other decade. It does define films by Tony Gilroy, the director of this and a screenwriter, who has written paranoid, skeptical films about the US government (the "Bourne" films), doctors ("Extreme Measures"), offshore miners ("Armageddon"), and figure skating ("The Cutting Edge").
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
well i liked it.
to say that the law firm clooney and wilkinson's characters work for represents a corporation who's done something "bad" is a severe understatement, and so your idocracy analogy in this instance doesn't hold.
i didn't see this movie before the oscars, so when i heard clooney was nominated i was suspicious. (he's certainly no crowe or day-lewis) but i was pleasantly surprised by his performance. you're right, he plays a guy who's no good at his job. but unlike bale's character in the prestige he's not bumbling or laughable and he doesn't seem to have any delusions about his capabilities--at the same time he's not a guy who walks around kicking the dirt--he does what most of us do, he gets by the best he can. then you juxtapose his character who's merely mediocre at everything he does with swinton's character who is driven and depicted as someone who's very good at her job--and think "wow. maybe it's best not to be so driven--look what that drive can lead to"
so, although it wasn't the best movie ever made i would argue that it's better than you claim it is.
Post a Comment