The conjecture about this movie's failure to attract moviegoers leaves out the somewhat obvious issue of the movie's terribly bland, forgettable, weak-sounding title. "Michael Clayton" sounds like it might be the name of an author or someone you've read about; but it doesn't ring any bells. "Hey, let's go see Michael Clayton!" "Who are you talking about?" This is not some new lesson for Hollywood. There is a very short list of mainstream movies named after random and ordinary sounding people. "Jerry Maguire" only pulled it off because of Tom Cruise's star power and more religious fanbase.

"Forrest Gump" is likely an exception...though he had a very interesting name.

Sometimes, making the name the title is an Oscar-focussing bid. It worked for Julia Roberts with "Erin Brockovich," but did not with "Mary O'Reilly."

I guess it worked for Phillip Seymour Hoffman with "Capote." Most people KNEW who he was. (Wait; it didn't work. Best Actor Oscar...nobody saw it.)

"Jerry Maguire" likely worked for Cruise because his picture was front and center in the ads. We'd find out what the movie was about later; his fans knew it was about Tom Cruise. If Clooney's handlers thought "Michael Clayton" was worth doing for the same reason...they were wrong.