The_American_Dream Blog

Under discussion:

Forrest Gump  (1994)

The English Patient  (1996)

A Beautiful Mind  (2001)

Hero  (2002)

Across the Universe  (2007)

Summer Palace  (2008)

There is not a great deal to be said for this movie. And it is not because of the sex which is what I was afraid of. But I hoped that this one would, in its epic standing, that it would pull a large amount of material across time and people to make it interesting. Unfortunatly "Summer Palace" is really more than a let down to the point of almost being a waste.

"Summer Palace" swings back and forth from what it gets made out to be. That being and political and sex charged drama spanning most of the dramatic periods in China's history. Well strictly speaking, it does that. This story of people does weave itself (or rather its characters) across distance and events rather completely. However, maybe only half way in or slightly more I was really wondering why I was supposed to care.

Frankly, this is something that can be done very well and in a manner where I really do care. "A Beautiful Mind" is an example of a movie about people that really does span events and changes very well. "A Beautiful Mind" is perhaps not as politically charged as a modern Chinese drama is bound to be, but that is not the point here. "Summer Palace" really wants to tell a story about people and less about a time, this is what ramps it up to its 140 minute runtime, and it is really uninteresting.

"Summer Palace" wants its audience to feel the trails and hardships, internal and external, faced by a small group over the corse of more than a decade. What is wrong with that? Nothing really, only that every time some little thing happens it takes several minutes of a character at sunset trying to work out why their friend stole a book from the library. Needless to say, you are in for far more of this kind of stuff when say someone throws them self off a building.

There is also the pretense that this movie actually captures something about the time. Although it might, between dates, locations, stock footage, and an epilogue, there is not so much the emotion that one feels when there is actual empathy for the situation from the actors. "Across the Universe" encounters this, but makes up for it by being visually stunning beyond use of colors or focus (and also being very trippy). "Summer Palace" does in fact maintain genuinely good photography. However the constant recycling of formulaic shots does not make the movie any more interesting.

With all this, what is there really to say is good? Well not allot. at the start, interesting camera moves and a heavy grit did grab my attention. But for its qualities, "Summer Palace" really falls short of expectations unless you came just for the sex (which is mostly buried under the afore mentioned lengths of sunset shots). "Summer Palace", perhaps grasping at the greats of historical fiction in film such as "Forret Gump", and the epic romance such as "The English Patient", does not impress. "Summer Palace" falls below the films of its county of origin as well, which often speak more volumes about China's history (as in "Hero") and create more connection between actor and audience (despite all the Kung-Fu hullabaloo). So I have to give this movie an overall negative review, not that I am the first it seems.

Under discussion:

The Libertine  (2005)

When this on came out, there was some amount of talk about it, everyone had to say that this was a mediocre movie. That is the very best of what I can say for it. Not that "The Libertine" is the worst movie I've seen, it is just not at all good. Furthermore, what gets me like with other movies I say bad things about, it could have been better or at least it gave the pretense that it was a better movie.

At its immediate opening "The Libertine" seems like a perfect sort of costume-drama as well as an interesting portrait of an interesting person. A film lover can enjoy for the first several minutes a decent amount of cinematic beauty, and a portrayal of several interesting figures. However, before long this stops being so great. After entering "The Libertine", a muck dominates the screen and basic frame of the movie.

Muck, a color in about every shot of the picture. Sometimes this can be used well to bring out a time, a feeling, or a place. Directors have used this forever, something tells me that it is not that hard to do, but really hard to do just right. Recently HBO's "John Adams" used muck very effectively, but only occasionally. When every shot of a movie is dominated by the same colors each time, I only find myself loving the fact that I did not see this on in the theater where this would have been too much. It is very clear what the director seeks to do, bringing out the tones from period pieces of art such as the work of Vermeer. I have seen Vermeer done well and it does not look like "The Libertine". How long can one look into the same muddy puddle? Well not 114 minutes which is more than enough running time for this mucky movie.

However, I am not going to say that that was the worst part of the movie. What did pain my eyes more than anything else in the movie was Samantha Morton's performance. I did not see "Mister Lonely" it looked okay, but it was her performance in the trailer that really turned me away. She looked painfully familiar when I first saw her in this, now I have more reason to not see other movies featuring her this prominently. Never has a performance been more dry and uninterestingly delivered as this one.

But I will try not to pin all the blame on her (only most of it), the rest of the performances is smeared among several of my favorite actors; Johnny Depp, Tom Hollander, John Malkovich, and even Jack Davenport. All make the best of what they are given (as I am sure that Ms. Morton did), but none falls harder than Depp who the movie leans on for support without giving its main character enough to hold it up. Where a tour-de-force would be, a struggling cast of top-notch actors is left. In the end, the is simply unfortunate.

However, I feel it necessary not to pin to much to one person or group. Obviously, at some point on the line, a writer has some blame in not being able to create enough for this movie. The best lines of the script seem to be prose from the Earl of Rochester's own works, something greater, although apparently not much greater, than this movie. Perhaps not the whole movie but certainly the last two acts.

At first, or rather, the first act of "The Libertine" seems good all things considered. There is good and lively character exposition, while not forgetting to point out what sort of disgusting people the movie revolves around. All this is generally very good, it could even be relished in a movie. But when the second act stumbles in, all there is is an amount of filth with nothing to balance it out, the movie looses sight of any kind of solid matter for the opportunity to show off its already evident themes. Any audience knows what the movie is about by the time "The Libertine" takes the opportunity to throw it in your face again and again. Finally, the brief third act steps in, with nothing more good to bring to the screen. The third act comes through in two of its own wakes, the first really really bad, the second only really bad. The audience suffers through the disgusting end of John Wilmot's life just wishing he had died sooner (which is a terrible thing to say, especially for Johnny Depp's role). Finally when he does die, an ending must be slapped on so that the filmmakers can feel like it actually was meaningful. Since deep down they knew it wasn't at all meaning full, they put another one in slightly earlier.

Unfortunately, I have nothing much good to say for this movie. I wish that it was mediocre. If it was, it would have been better than this. I did not like it, which, as John Wilmot made clear at the beginning, was exactly what he wanted. Damn him.

Under discussion:

War, Inc.  (2008)

After seeing this movie, and several of the comments bellow, I am forced to ask "Was this really that bad?". Perhaps "War, Inc." is not all the hype that it has gotten. It isn't, even to the point where I may feel betrayed by the trailer. But, in answer to the question, I would have to say that it wasn't that bad.

"War, Inc." brings several good things to the screen. This is a satire, that in itself is worth something to me. That the subject of gloomy documentaries can be humorous and poignant to the subject. This is a good thing, and it is something that is lacking in this world with gloomy documentaries.

Another point about this movie, it is not really indie; indie really is just some guys with a camera and little or no money, with the idea that they have something overwhelmingly important to say by not doing much at all with an audiences time (as in "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou", which itself isn't very indie anyways) and that can yield perfectly fine results as well. "War, Inc." differs from this in that, although it is in limited release, it has many of the blockbuster qualities, seeing it, one realizes that the production was hardly pressed for money. This movie also does have something to say to the world, maybe it is something that you hear everyday on NPR, but that does not make this movie any worse for what it is.

As for some actual reviewing, as opposed to simple opinions on what "War, Inc." is or is not, I would have more positive things to say for it than some of what has been said here. But not, however, glowing with endless lines of praise for it. As I have said, it was even a bit of a let down. But, Cusack does mount a tripled outfit as writer, actor, and producer which may be somewhat of a stretch, having some amount of control on almost every aspect of the film (except, I assume the streak of peroxide blond hair he sports). Never the less, this movie does not loose itself to John Cusack, which is one of the best things the movie does not do.

Also, as I said before, "War, Inc." brings something to the audience in that it allows a chance to have some amount of joviality over the ugliness of the truly grotesque world we happen to live in. This is not a problem, "South Park" is a masterwork of this and it, like "War, Inc." gives us pause for humor as well as self reflection on what we do. This is something to be commended. 

The point is that "War, Inc." although a let down, I found to be just fine for what it is. This cannot be said for some other movies, movies that fit into really another category all together or lack some vital part to them. "War, Inc." does not reserve itself to such halls. In its case, one should find an amount of middle ground for what it is as an existential work of satire which it lives up to perfectly, and a movie which is more second rate but not totally problematic.

Under discussion:

Paths of Glory  (1957)

Schindler's List  (1993)

Saving Private Ryan  (1998)

A.I.: Artificial Intelligence  (2001)

The Lost Battalion  (2008)

Black Hawk Down  (2006)

Kingdom of Heaven  (2005)

Sin City  (2005)

The Black Dahlia  (2006)

Munich  (2005)

Cloverfield  (2008)

FORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more.

These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory.

Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach.

Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great cliché. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it.

But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence.

Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir.

To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view.

These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing.

Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. 

Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies.

Under discussion:

The Fall  (2008)

I just got back from "The Fall". This is its first day in wide release (which means one theater in Chicago), I had been looking forward to it for months now. "The Fall" met my expectations and gave me a new look at movies and the world. That is really kind of a lame and formulaic intro, but I need something before I can get into the real review of this extraordinary film.

The trailer alone recalls to one the quotes you see on the DVD box of a movie. Quotes like 'visually arresting' 'a masterpiece' 'visually stunning' 'fantastic' and the like. But you really have no idea until you see the movie and then also know that everything in it, all the locations all the costumes et cetera, are 100 percent real. Suddenly you are seeing the world a new way.

The visuals are something I really do want to talk about. But the only real way to describe this movie in particular is to see it yourself. It is so off the charts of anything ever seen before that to see the whole thing is the only way. In addition, much as I would like to describe and discuss the visuals, there are other things about this movie that are important and interesting to discuss. This is a bit of a departure, as in previous reviews I have spent time on the style and colors of a movie. But "The Fall" offers its visuals so freely that, although equally important to a film as a whole, other themes get bogged down. At times in "The Fall", these themes are easy to over look.

Along with all the beauty the movie has, "The Fall" deals primarily with deep and existential themes of colliding experiences and interests. Throughout, there is a sense of two worlds, and a variety of categories the worlds fit in; imagination vs. reality, love vs. exploitation, life vs. death. These conflicts are central to "The Fall" and are embodied in many different ways. Also interesting, is that it is not entirely clear until during the climax that all these things are at work in the movie.

To begin, "The Fall" is almost totally between the two main characters, a crippled stuntman and an immigrant child. The stuntman wants to kill himself. The immigrant girl wants him to continue his story that embodies her life, his life, and the people around them. Already there is a conflict between the characters. And the both of them are always trying to get the other to maintain their agenda. This, the key factor to the movie, conflict between the two is actually symbolized in their dialogue. The two never quite understand what the other is saying and they often interrupt each other. Switching off on what the details of the story are.

The story that is being told, or rather the two stories that are being told to the viewer, are symbolic and represent a conflict. Here, although I did say that there were two, there are actually three. But the viewer does not know this until the very end, something I would rather not ruin (but probably will anyway). All three are congruent, tied together by one. There is the life in the hospital, characterized visually, by the same set of actions, places, colors and so forth. There is the life of the story, characterized, by an always changing set of the above. The world of the imagined ends up being divided between the two main characters, they fight over its presentation. This, however, is where the subtleties really begin.

I really have to ruin the movie at this point to talk about this in the most detail I can. The stuntman who is telling the story, as well as the girl, have agendas invested in how the story effects the world in the hospital. The stuntman wants morphine to kill himself, the little girl looks for the perpetuation of the story. Here is where the changes to the story play a part. The stunt man will make the changes the girl wants, so long as in the hospital she follows his requests. But, at the climax, these come into great conflict. The girl who wants to hear the story, ends up saving this man because, if the story ends happily so can his own life. But he resolutely wants his life to be miserable. This conflict comes when they argue over the events in the story. The voiceover shifts between the two of them. This had been foreshadowed with their person to person dialogue up to that point, some arguing and miscommunication.

Eventually though, the conflict is reconciled in keeping with basic dramatic structure. Order is restored. But the very end brings upon the movie a whole new meaning of their lives up to that point, what they had done, who where the players. I do not want to ruin the ending. Plus I am not entirely sure as to its meaning. It has many possible interpretations. It deals with love, the loss of imagination, the truth of mythology, all this is in the movie.

So to wrap up, and to actually give a review of "The Fall". "The Fall" is a very powerful movie. It has this existentialism and symbolism deeply rooted in it, but it couples it beautifully with only the most amazing visuals in a movie. "The Fall" has no failings in my opinion. Sometimes it puts the viewer in a position he may not like, but it lets one see and feel elements that are impossible other wise. I highly recommend this movie. It represents allot of things, a true marriage of a great film like beauty and plot and meaning. It keeps an amount of action and intension. And it is all real, a glimmer of hope that movies are not to be totally one with the computer. "The Fall" flies above other films as a true testament to the art of the cinema.

Under discussion:

Gangs of New York  (2002)

To review this movie it helps actually to try to figure what it is. And it is allot of things. Part of it is like allot of Scorsese films, particularly more recent ones, in that it is another attempt at getting an Oscar. It is also a costume drama. A classic style mob movie with murdered fathers and revengeful sons. And all this with a great cast and in a richly stylized setting.

Now I am going to do what I usually do and that is to work though what I set out in that first paragraph. Trying to allot a paragraph to each thing. All the while trying to bring out an honest dialogue about the good and bad, the weak and strong et cetera of the movie. And for this one, that is going to be a bit of a monster undertaking.

First, on Scorsese. I haven't seen allot by him. "Age of Innocence", "Taxi Driver" maybe some other works but not "The Aviator" not "Raging Bull" some but not all of "The Departed". All of these I want to see but that is beside the point in that you do not need to see all of what Scorsese has done to get a picture of what he is doing. And what he is doing is this; trying to get his fair share of Oscar which he deserves and got for "The Departed". But for the longest time, probably since "Taxi Driver" was nominated for four Oscars in 1976, he has been working for what "The Departed" got him. This becomes most evident in movies like "Gangs of New York" because he goes for moving drama set in some time past which he works very hard to bring in full life to the screen. He tried this in "Age of Innocence" and everybody hated that. Does this drive make this movie or his movies in general bad, no. This drive forces allot down the throat of a movie, and good stuff too, but it also loosens the movies spine and all that good stuff cannot work with out a proper backbone.

That being said, lets look at what this movie has to offer. I would like to say that what this movie offers, it does to the fullest. "Gangs of New York" is a costume drama in every way. It takes place in during the Civil War, so from soldiers uniforms to the various garbs of the different gangs this movie is covered. And it isn't just the costume that makes "Gangs of New York" as costume drama. There are three masted ships and elaborate upper-class parties and all manor of period picture things. Scorsese has done this before in "The Age of Innocence" and had every detail researched, the difference here is that this movie has at its center a basic plot that we know and love.

The mob movie. It is long, tried and true, plot line that Scosese has allot of practice in. This one is like allot of others. There is a mob war, one side looses and that sides leaders son goes into exile. He comes back and becomes friendly with his fathers enemy all the while plotting revenge. He tries and fails to kill his fathers enemy. Comes back after a long and hard recovery to do what he first set out to do meanwhile seducing a beautiful girl. Eventually he triumphs in a thrilling and violent war and life goes on. Guess what happens in "Gangs of New York". You have seen it but this is just as good as any other, even a bit different. Its 1860's setting gives a different feel while maintaining the styles of gangs (some wear prim blue cloths with stovepipe hats while the others are wearing more ragged red stripes). Again though, nothing really new just another spin on it. It is fine.

I have all ready talked somewhat on the look of the film. But it really does have a bit of its own life, worth spending more than a few mentions. "Gangs of New York" has a beautiful color pallet. Allot of warm colors periodically punctuated by colors more hot or more cold than your usual yellows and oranges. But it can seem almost overly so. How much this way or how much that way can people dress? It is very beautiful to watch and allot of the imagery seems to come from woodblock illustrations of the time, busy theaters, sculpted mustaches and the like. And even more, occasionally the video ramps to add dramatic effects to usually innocuous actions like door opening or around turning. All this is cool and works. But again it is more okay than really good. Looking at it it is a little more push on the action that does not need to be there. 

So what is a break down of all this. Over all, everything is good. Four stars, I liked it. But go back to what Scorsese is doing here, force feeding this to be a masterpiece. And it is but it comes off a bit over weight. By that I mean it is so loaded with trying to be great that it beaches it self like a whale to some degree. For a final word I would tell those interested to see it. It is a worth while and beautiful movie with great actors and great design. Just not exceptional enough on some level.

All the same four stars, I really want to end this one a positive note.

Under discussion:

Michael Clayton  (2007)

I am sitting in silence just trying to write about it still only minutes after seeing it. I had come to the conclusion that "No Country for Old Men" would have it but I can see now that "Michael Clayton" is a serious player in this years Oscars. It is a close race. But about the movie.

"Michael Clayton", as it says just about everywhere you look, is about a big law-firm's fixer who suddenly has to deal with a case that is so off the map that he has trouble dealing with it. But it is one of the most multifaceted I think that I have ever seen. Initially it is in the same line as "Citizen Kane" and "Network", a movie about corruption and how it prays on good people and why you have to get out of it before it is too late. But there are so many things that have to be seen looking at this movie that it is hard to fit it all just in your head.

Okay working from the most obvious. You see the body of the movie several times. There is the fixer story that is what the movie s about and what you see on the screen and it looks like almost all others do. But there is also this story about Michael Clayton and the trouble he has had running a restaurant and it goes under but really it seems to be the whole thing in some kind of miniature. There is also this underlying mythology to Tom Wilkinson's role which is absolutely crazy but really he is the only one who sees the case for what it really is until Michael Clayton gets it at by the end. Now I would like to talk about all that in full detail but first lets look at the skin of the movie.

On the outside, as I have said, this movie is like the other in the long line of these corporate corruption stories. This one is easily the best since "Network" if not of all time. This movie has allot of style to it. Nothing to win an award over but more than you see in allot of movies and I feel that that in part could ensure its win as Best Picture. It does not need to have the beauty that "Atonement" but it has it in just the right amount to make it all be very pleasing to the eye yet keeps you in the harsh real world the movie is talking about.

Now about the corporate corruption story. When watching the movie, "Network" and "Michael Clayton" the two have amazingly similar set ups and characters. But both are more for their time. In "Network" the crazy man gets blown up on TV for the ratings and then is killed over them. In this movie the crazy man has to be silent when he should be blown up on TV because he does need to bring down this corruption and he is quietly killed over that in this movie. The differences are with the movies of corse but also with the times. In the 70's "Network" showed us all the plastic that we are force fed and how it, as plastic, was bad. "Michael Clayton" now shows us what that plastic is covering up and why. Both movies speak very clearly to their now. And that is important cause that too could win the big prize for "Michael Clayton". 

Now there is also the story about Michael Clayton and his restaurant. The restaurant is one thing that he has more control over than any other thing and it still goes under. This reflects the corporate drama, when something tries to come up it has to get put down. One thing eats another. 

The last part is that of the crazy man getting shut down even when he sees things as they really are. And that comes out in an amazingly delivered monologue by Wilkinson, his nomination for Best Supporting Actor is not to be taken lightly, he stands out among supporting roles this year. This one also has a mythology about it. Because of the craze of the character it revolves around, the plot takes the chance to bring out dreams and childhood into the picture and into the real world.

These different points are something none of the other movies nominated have. Each and every other lacks that amount of folding and blending. "Juno" comes closest with its somewhat mythological characteristics. But the facets of this movie are far more deep and important, because they are not entirely by happenstance. This movie drives its points home in ways only seen in Victorian era writings like Great Expectations.

At the beginning of the movie we have a seemingly odd event occur. Michael Clayton sees three horses at the top of a hill and gets out of his car to see them. Then his car blows up. This scene is the turn as we find out after seeing the body of the movie and how these three plot lines all come together and how Michael Clayton sees them and everything else as it is, what this scene really represents is an enlightenment of sorts, and the horses represent the three stories. One is large and brown. One is small and brown. The last is small and white.

The large brown one represents what everyone sees this movie as, the corruption drama in corporate America. The small white one represents the crazy man and the mythology as the odd one of the three. But the most subtle is the small brown horse that is everything in miniature, the suppression of the crazy man and the corruption of the lives we lead. When you see this the first time it does not make sense at all, the horses only play a role as some kind of angels that save Michael Clayton from the exploding car, and they run off as soon as danger is gone. But when you see this you can have the rest of the movie dictated. You can better understand how to watch it. And that is a genius on par with Charles Dickens and the like and has not been matched like this for a very long time. And this goes through to the end which adds another fold to it all that without that the end could not happen the way it does. And not just for the physical meaning that he did not explode with his car. This movie is deep.

At this point can I say what will win, now only hours away from the big night? No. The other movies nominated this year are all very strong. And all very good each in some important and interesting way. But one thing I can say for this movie is that is does somethings that has never been done before and it has things that the other movies do not. Will that send "Michael Clayton" onto the big win is hard to say. What can be said is that this is an extraordinary movie in many respects and has my applause.