The Ides of March (2011)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Disturbing yet enthralling

It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Democrats vs Republicans. Honestly surprised we don't have more films about political debates! The reason why I compared this to chess was due to the intelligent methodology that these campaigns used against each other. A glimpse into the inner workings of a political campaign and how simply one mistake could cost a senator the presidential seat. Acknowledging every move your opponent makes and having to predict what they will do. Most importantly though, this is a film about loyalty and how it is the most important trait to acquire in the world of politics. Believing in an idealism even if the man representing that ideology is not entirely innocent or perfect. This is George Clooney's baby; he directed, wrote, produced and starred in the film...I was mightily impressed. The political sub-genre is a guilty pleasure of mine and really showcases some excellent concise screenplays. It's no different here, I was captivated from start to end. A talented and likeable cast certainly helped, particularly Ryan Gosling who just keeps on excelling in every role he gets. Hoffman, Clooney, Giamatti, Tomei...the list goes on and every one of them gives a cold stern performance. Politics is harsh and the screenplay really hones in on campaigns doing anything they can to win. Corruption, persuasion, blackmailing...the brutal reality of politics have negative effects on campaigners, so much so that their lives could potentially be destroyed. Absolutely fascinating, although slightly hyperbolic. I did find the ending slightly underwhelming and frustrating, probably because it's the ending I didn't want. However, this is utterly enthralling with a tight script and excellent cast. I would like to live in a world where George Clooney runs for president. Make it happen.

Let's face it: the only two places where politics has also become a form of entertainment are the United States and Westeros. Anywhere else, all these stances, movements and statements would be either formal or plain dull. But the American life managed to turn politics into a reality show, and politicians into media stars, an achievement matched only by the product of G.R.R.Martin's creative mind. But, unlike The Song of Ice and Fire, the American reality show takes place in our own world, and it doesn't seem to have a final season any time soon.So, when life gives you such a never-ending source of inspiration, it is only natural to start capitalizing on it. In that sense, The Ides of March is hardly the first film about politics and political intrigues, although, having been released two years before House of Cards, it still had a lot of unconquered media land around. Combined with a stellar - and I mean it - cast, it could seem that success of The Ides of March is a deal decided. But, just like we're constantly reminded by this very film, there is no such thing as a guarantee of success. But what could possibly go wrong?One problem with this film is its way of creating suspense by first setting the rules and then changing them when you expect it the least. True, politics is a cruel mistress and fair play is not to be expected. But even in cheating there must be some logic and consistency, otherwise the characters' actions become rather random and plot twists forced. A young and ambitious campaign coordinator who's "not like everyone else" because he needs to actually believe in the person he promotes - to become easily distraught and seduced by a most predictable competitors' move. A candidate, all-out solid stand up guy with rock hard principles - to turn out a vicious predator and abuser. A young woman who made a mistake but tries her hardest to deal with the consequences - to simply give up when all is seemingly over. Such things just don't make sense. And even when they do, they are never given much premise to create at least some credibility. As if people act drastically out of character simply for the kicks of it. Such erratic scenario succeeds at creating not suspense in the audience, but paranoia, making you imagine things and see crooked shadows where everything's actually plain and clear.But even that low blow could be justified if The Ides of March managed to deliver some kind of culminating strike, to exploit the inner pressure the film's been building during all its course. Some revelation, light or dark, it doesn't matter, at least something clear and definitive. But that's where the film fell painfully short, just abruptly ending at the moment it's been leading us towards through the whole second act. Instead of even trying to explain the illogicalities it exploited, or at least settling for the plain and coherent ending with no hidden implications, the film decided to play smart and hint at some game-changing turn towards the end, but instead of actually taking that turn satisfied itself with a hollow point, trying to convince us that it's a masterful open ending we could finish in our imagination the way we liked. It seems, George Clooney was too busy with self-adoration, being all dashing and daring, courageous and caring in front of the camera, that he forgot to orchestrate the show behind it. And instead of a true open ending, a smart way of not rubbing in the eyes of the viewer a set of most probable outcomes the film has previously set clear through its actions, we received an empty ending, leaving us with not enough consistency throughout the film to even begin guessing what could be implied or inferred for real and not be a product of our already inflamed imagination. Such move, instead of provoking curiosity and creative thinking, robs us out of the only satisfaction we could get out of this film: the satisfaction of finding out how this unhealthily hectic set of events actually unfolds. Which might be fine for the cruel genre of art house, but, within the framework of political reality show entertainment, equals to no fun at all.

The movie shows that at the end you have to do what you have to do to save yourself. You might have the best interest in heart but when others around you play you then it's time to start thinking about yourself. While I think this message is transmitted clearly enough through the story line of the movie, the story moves forward quite slowly for my taste. There are a lot of scenes where the dialogue between characters is mundane. With regards to acting, I am not impressed by Ryan Gosling. He comes across as cold and fails to transmit emotions in situations when for example he feels betrayed and played. George Clooney does a great job in impersonating presidential speeches but beyond that he delivered a mediocre performance as well. Overall, I find the movie to be a bit unrealistic and overly simplified in terms of how the character of Stephen Meyers achieved his revenge. When I feel that I have wasted almost two hours when a movie ends, then I know that I didn't like the movie very much and that was the case with this one.

If you haven't been watching House of Cards or following the news at any time since you were old enough to comprehend what was going on, it may come as a surprise to you that politics is a dirty business, that politicians can be pretty sleazy, that political campaigns & cesspools have a lot in common ... but probably not. And, if you paid attention in history class or read Julius Caesar and recall the soothsayer telling Caesar " beware the ides of March," you probably anticipated there might be a bit of backstabbing taking place. Throw in a pregnant campaign intern, a suicide, the usual palace intrigue & standard Washington, DC Machiavellianism and there you are.That's pretty much the problem with the Ides of March. It's all pretty obvious and predictable. No suspense or cliffhangers. No original plot twists & turns. If you're into political drama, you'll probably enjoy this movie. Watching Ryan Gosling for 90 minutes or so is a pleasant experience. Philip Seymour Hoffman turned in a credible performance of a two-dimensional character. Clooney appeared to have phoned in his performance, which is odd since he's credited as both writer & director as well. Possibly multi-tasking is too great a burden for him to bear. Full of (muted) sound and (tepid) fury, signifying same-old-same- old.