Michael Clayton review

 Number 977 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal thriller 'Michael Clayton.'

Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is the fixer for a prestigious New York law film who is representing the agricultural conglomerate U-North amid a massive scandal. However, when the firm's lead litigator Arthur (Tom Wilkinson) has a massive breakdown, it's up to Michael to clean up the mess. However, he soon discovers his firm is at the centre of a huge cover-up. Sydney Pollack and Tilda Swinton co-star.

Michael Clayton was nominated for no less than seven Oscars including best acting, writing and film. While it wasn't a bad film, it certainly wasn't Oscar-worthy. Nor was it worth a place on this list.

It was an underwhelming affair, replete in dramatic tension, suspense and any concrete detail that would have made it an entertaining thriller. The narrative focusses on U-North as it weathers allegations on whether it knew that its carcinogenic weedkiller would lead to hundreds of deaths. Sounds like a horrific scandal, right?

But the details of this were kept surprisingly vague. It was treated very clinically. Perhaps because we were seeing everything through the eyes of lawyers who were more interested in the legal nitty gritty rather than the actual victims of the scandal. This film was definitely missing a lot of heart.

And while I don't want to diminish any of the immense acting talent on display, I don't think George Clooney or Tom Wilkinson deserved Oscar nods and I don't think Tilda Swinton deserved her Best Supporting Actress win. I don't think I can pin-point an exact moment where I thought, "wow, that's why she won the Oscar." Furthermore, all three of their characters remained very under-developed.

Michael Clayton is a little more than your standard male lead who has an acrimonious relationship with his wife and son. And while Arthur's meltdown catalysed the film, we never really explored the reasons or causes of it. Tilda Swinton's character was similarly under-developed.

I'm really not sure how Michael Clayton made it onto this list. It certainly was not one of the best films of all time. 

We Need to Talk about Kevin review

 Number 809 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2011 psychological thriller 'We Need to talk about Kevin.'

Franklin (John C Reilly) and Eva (Tilda Swinton) are parents to the deeply troubled Kevin (Ezra Miller.) However, Kevin only shows his dark side around his mother. As he grows older and his acts become more disturbing, his mother wanders how much she is to blame for the sins of her son.

In this film, director Lynne Ramsay tries to tackle the age-old question of nature vs nurture. Is evil innate within us all? Or is it the product of our environments? There is a case to be made for both, picking from a wide range of examples across history. In the case of Kevin, I think he was born evil. Yes, we see that he was an accident and his mother didn't really want him, but he also wasn't abused or neglected as a child. His father dotes on him and his mother tries her best to form a relationship with him, only to be constantly rebuffed.

This makes Eva all the more of a tragic character. And Tilda Swinton plays her very sympathetically. It's all too easy for parents to blame themselves for the failings of their children. Are there obvious signs you're too blind to see? John C. Reilly was also good as Franklin. He might primarily be known as a comedy actor, but he can also do the drama well.

As for Ezra Miller, Kevin is as dodgy here as Ezra Miller is in real life. Sure they were good as the sarcastic, laconic, psychopathic son, but I don't think they were anything special. They didn't bring anything new to the role.

Nonetheless, this was still a stylish thriller with a distinctive look that leaves you with plenty to think about. Nature or nurture? Let me know your answer in the comments below.