Saturday, February 9, 2008

Two (more) Quick Reviews

27 Dresses

On Wednesday (my day off) I went to mail a few things at the post office. When that task was accomplished, I decided to drive down to the lower level of the strip mall and walk around a bit. I thought I’d pop into Yankee Candle and take a whiff, stop by Game Stop and waste a few minutes, then head over to Barnes and Noble to read a trashy magazine while drinking an overpriced latte. On my drive down, however, I had to pass the movie theatre. Since it was 4pm on a Wednesday, there were about 10 other cars in the parking lot. Huh, I thought. I wonder what’s playing. I decided to take a look. As luck would have it, there were 2 movies set to start in 5 minutes – Juno and 27 Dresses. Hmmmm. See a great movie again, or a mediocre movie for the first time? I chose the latter, and that’s how I wound up seeing 27 Dresses. Wait ‘til it’s on cable and you’re home with the flu.


Michael Clayton

George Clooney is a good actor. George Clooney has given great performances before. Unfortunately, George Clooney was not the best actor of the year. It might be that the title character was written a little flat. However, even if that were true, an excellent actor would be able to bring the nuance with him. I believe George did a wonderful job, but I wasn’t always sure where his character was on the emotional pendulum. He spent most of the movie making small circles around the middle, with a few wild swings towards extreme regret! or guilt-racked associate! The movie itself held my interest throughout, and I definitely recommend it. It was somewhat slow-paced, but it built towards a satisfying ending, and there weren’t any parts that dragged so badly that I pulled out my phone to check the time. It’s a movie that I’m glad I saw, but that I have no interest in seeing again. Also, there were several other performances that I felt far surpassed George’s, with Tom Wilkinson’s being the obvious standout. So, to sum up: good movie, good acting, worthy of the Oscar nods, but not the statues themselves. Except, perhaps, Tom. Sorry George.

No comments: