<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Michael Clooney . . . George Clayton . . . Oh, Forget It</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theottery.com/2008/03/michael-clooney-george-clayton-oh-forget-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theottery.com/2008/03/michael-clooney-george-clayton-oh-forget-it/</link>
	<description>"If an otter can't have fun doing something, it just simply won't do it."</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:55:04 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: BoogaFace</title>
		<link>http://www.theottery.com/2008/03/michael-clooney-george-clayton-oh-forget-it/comment-page-1/#comment-2054</link>
		<dc:creator>BoogaFace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theottery.com/2008/03/michael-clooney-george-clayton-oh-forget-it/#comment-2054</guid>
		<description>I liked the Bourne movies better too. Michael Clayton is good, but not great. Clooney&#039;s character is OK, but just OK. I agree with you that Karen Crowder (Swinton) is a much more interesting character. I was impressed that the movie was able to get the audience to feel conflicting emotions about her character, but perhaps you&#039;re right that this could have been even better.

However, in addition to quality (since we know the Academy doesn&#039;t really care about such tedious notions as quality), I appreciate the publicity the movie is getting because of what I take to be its anti-corporate politics. What worries me is that most people watching the movie will just enjoy the thriller and then go home and not realize that there actually exists a company really that evil out there -- Monsanto. I mean, U/North is clearly Monsanto, right? 

This was the same problem I had with the Constant Gardiner and Syriana -- the movies address real things but in such a hyperbolic and sketchy way that they undermine their own puprose. As political of a person as I am, I actually prefer the fantastic and otherworldly Bourne movies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I liked the Bourne movies better too. Michael Clayton is good, but not great. Clooney&#8217;s character is OK, but just OK. I agree with you that Karen Crowder (Swinton) is a much more interesting character. I was impressed that the movie was able to get the audience to feel conflicting emotions about her character, but perhaps you&#8217;re right that this could have been even better.</p>
<p>However, in addition to quality (since we know the Academy doesn&#8217;t really care about such tedious notions as quality), I appreciate the publicity the movie is getting because of what I take to be its anti-corporate politics. What worries me is that most people watching the movie will just enjoy the thriller and then go home and not realize that there actually exists a company really that evil out there &#8212; Monsanto. I mean, U/North is clearly Monsanto, right? </p>
<p>This was the same problem I had with the Constant Gardiner and Syriana &#8212; the movies address real things but in such a hyperbolic and sketchy way that they undermine their own puprose. As political of a person as I am, I actually prefer the fantastic and otherworldly Bourne movies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
