George Clooney's genius has always been his ability to transform every role into a version of his eminently likeable, utterly familiar screen persona. As a serious actor though he has no range beyond the admittedly generous parameters of playing himself. That is not inherently a criticism & has certainly been no impediment to his effectiveness on-screen or his much deserved popularity. Many other movie stars have maintained long, successful careers out of playing themselves: Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, Gary Cooper, Warren Beatty, Richard Gere & Harrison Ford among many, many others have acheived great success by essentially refining & reprising the same performance, while carefully selecting roles that can be adapted to their often likeable, generally believable but stictly limited range.

I haven't seen "Michael Clayton" & have no reason to question Ms. Zacharek's praise for the subtlety & effectiveness of Clooney's performance. I would however sincerely doubt that his performance notably expands his range or significantly departs from his entirely praise-worthy previous portrayals. His body of work firmly indicates that isn't what he seeks or is able to do. That Clooney is able to refine & make more subtle his limited, if consistent, characterisation is certainly to be commended. It should not however be confused with genuinely great acting which inherently involves the abilty to play characters that are quite unlike the actor. Interestingly, many fine practitioners of that strange, dangerous, preternatural craft are often to be found working closely alongside Mr. Clooney: Cate Blanchett, Ed Norton, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg & Don Cheadle, among others have all dared to & succeeded in playing a diverse range of roles with little resemblance to either earlier roles, or perhaps more tellingly, to themselves.

that George Clooney can't act. His best effort was in "O Brother" where all he had to do was imitate Clark Gable. That said, this movie sounds like crap.

...to stand squarely behind your convictions while critiquing another human being, Mr... uh...

The movie description reminds me of the 1998 movie "A Civil Action" with John Travolta.

And when the camera cherishes an actor the way it does George Clooney, there is absolutely no percentage in him trying to be a chameleon-like "actor." Because of this it is easy to miss the actual range a performer like Clooney can command. As an actor, John Wayne faced the same skewed perception of "limited range." In truth, he handled a fairly wide range of roles; even assaying a credible Swedish accent in one.

Every actor has his or her limits. For instance, Laurence Oliver was a terrible Big Daddy in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," his essence was just too pinched and prissy for the huge raw rudeness needed for the part. And his southern accent was awful. But, you can bet that this dreadful performance is often trotted out as proof of Oliver's enormous "range."

Smug Alert!

AllI can say whether his acting bad or good, George Clooney is YUMMIE.