For anyone who has ever drafted him, you'll know the pain.

Michael Clayton is the new George Clooney lawyer "suspense" movie.  While it has some interesting dialogue, I thought it was boring and drawn out.  My main complaints were:

• Despite the smattering of interesting lines, even it gets a bit indulgent.  The film lingers on the various diatribes of its characters a bit too much, and they bypass clever on their way to being longwinded and repetitive.
• Where Bourne Ultimatum overused the gimmick of manic camera shakiness (much to Marc's chagrin), Michael Clayton latches on to a more sedate convention that made me roll my eyes at just about every scene.  At every scene change, you're subjected to at least 20 seconds of useless "scene setting."  I understand the need for this in general, but when you get stuff like a company investor video being repeated at least 5 times, or a phone ringing in the dark for 20 seconds, it just gets annoying.  This movie could have cut at least 15 minutes out and not lost a damn thing.
• Along with the above, there were too many scenes that weren't central to the story.  I guess the film is supposed to be about the title character, but honestly I'd rather it be about the case/coverup.  Michael Clayton's gambling and investment problems (and his amazingly boring loan shark) are not worth screen time.
• Most of the scenes suffered from "ending one line too early" disease.  This is where a scene ends right before it pays off (with a line, decision, etc.).  Again, this can be effective, but only when there's either uncertainty or real suspense.  In this movie, you know what happened and not showing it on multiple occasions just gets old, especially when there's not a lot of real built-up suspense

In addition, the final credits are just annoying.  I don't want to see a boring, 50 dollar cab ride to nowhere after a boring 10 dollar movie.

1.5 stars...for Clooney and a bit of the dialogue.

• Stale humor: There was little humor that was interestingly different from the first movie.  Yes, Jack talks funny.  Yes, pirates like rum and gold.  Yes, that guy has a glass eye.  The new characters didn't provide much help either.  Yes, those guys are made of sea creatures, let's make jokes about ink and stuff.
• Cliche action scenes that seem tacked on: Haven't we seen this Kraken maw before?  Sand worms in Dune (thanks Brandon), the Sarlaac in Star Wars?  And if you're going to give a beastie the power to destroy a ship instantly, don't give it away early (first ship) and then make the Kraken an idiot that plays around with its prey while getting maimed by cannons and gunpowder *twice* before using it's full power.  And the guys in the cage falling to their deaths because of a snake?  Please.  I could go on but I'd probably use up my post size allotment.

Gotta head to work now, I may continue this rant later.  The one shining beacon of hope: Geoffrey Rush eating fruit from his delicious bushel of apples!

After much poking and prodding by various people (you know who you are), I finally started reading Hittchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  I like it so far, but I am only about 50 pages into it, so my opinion is far from informed.  The best parts are the quirky pseudo-encyclopedic analyses of various intergalactic phenomena (some more familar than others :)).  Which brings me to the real point of this post...the Hitchhiker's Guide movie.

I saw the movie last weekend and was thoroughly disappointed.  I laughed at some parts, but mostly only the parts that conformed to the style/tone of the source material.  The problem was, that was maybe 30% of the movie.  The other 70% was mass-marketized drivel about love and related meaningful glances, flirting, peril, and so forth.  I have nothing against this in the proper context (say, a romantic comedy).  Hitchhiker's Guide, though, should NOT be a romantic comedy.  It should be a slightly disjointed, light-hearted jaunt, a bit like Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  To be fair, my estimate of 70% drivel is probably a bit high, but that is the percentage of my attention that was spent dwelling on those parts while watching the movie.

Others I know who have read the books were also annoyed that the story cut off before the restaurant at the end of the universe.  Those complaints kind of go hand-in-hand with mine.  Cutting out the drivel would have made room for 200% more real material!

If anyone else has read Hitchhiker's Guide and disagrees with my assessment (i.e. knows that Hitchhiker's Guide turns into a romance novel after the first 50 pages), let me know :).