The Ides of March (2011) User Reviews (339)

Solid, realistic political melodrama - not a thriller

[dfranzen70 · 8/10 · 8 October 2011]

The Ides of March isn't a story just about the back-alley dealings of those seeking to gain power; it's a morality tale of how much one must wrestle between doing things because he feels they are the right thing to do and doing things that will serve themselves better in the long run. It is a political melodrama, but it just as easily have been written about business and high finance. It's highly cynical, with its points driven home by a terrific cast, and yet it manages not to be heavy handed or preachy. Indeed, there aren't really any strictly good or bad guys in this movie.

Ryan Gosling stars as Steven Myers, a top aide to Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), who is running for president; currently at stake is the battleground state of Ohio. If Morris can gain Ohio's delegates, he's pretty much assured to get the Democratic nomination, and in the film it's noted that the Republicans have a weak field themselves (at best). All of this means, of course, that as Ohio goes, so goes the presidency, so there's plenty riding on this one primary.

Morris' campaign manager is Paul Zara, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, a veteran of many cutthroat campaigns. And although Zara has the experience, Morris often turns to his young(ish) aide Steven to gain a less-jaded, more-truthful perspective. (Of course, by doing so, Morris is simply trying to hear from someone who may not be thinking four years or fewer down the road at his next job.) Like most staffers, Steven believes in Morris; he thinks that if the man is elected president, good things will happen. He is the prototypical idealistic aide; doing the right thing will win out over all, he believes. He's not completely naive to backdoor politics, but his organization, his analysis, his acumen, and his spirit are what endear Morris to him.

Even though Steven is not a Mr. Perfect, a self-righteous do-gooder, he's savvy; he knows which buttons to push. He learns, though, that his chief obstacle to success is in recognizing whom is trustworthy, and just because one is friends with another doesn't mean that either owes the other much when it comes to the game of politics. For example, simply feeding the press (in the person of Marisa Tomei) the occasional tidbit doesn't mean that the media will be an extended PR arm for Morris.

Somewhere along the line, Steven reaches a breaking point, a place at which loyalty isn't the most important thing on his plate. This point comes as a result of two pretty bad decisions, one that he knows is a bad idea right away and another that seems a little more innocent – but then Steven has underestimated how petty, parochial, and vindictive those in the business can be. It's all about one's level of paranoia. You have to have some in order to foresee problems, but too much of it will hollow out your soul in a jiffy.

Clooney, who also directed, looks and sounds presidential, but he's not the focus of the movie; as with his brilliant Good Night, and Good Luck, he's a powerful supporting character. Things don't revolve around Mike Morris as they do around Steven Myers, and that's one reason the movie works – our focus is on the morality battle, and it's presumed that as a sitting governor, that battle's long been over for Morris.

The hand-picked cast is superb. Not only do we get Clooney, Hoffman, Tomei, and Gosling, we also get Paul Giamatti as the governor's opponent's campaign manager. Each one seems to steal scenes, even ones they share. Even Evan Rachel Wood, as a new intern in Morris' camp, turns in a splendid performance.

It's clear that The Ides of March won't be for everyone. It is, as I said, cynical – highly so. It won't leave you hopeful about, well, anything. It gives you no one for whom to really cheer and yet no one for whom to really despise. It offers realism in lieu of hope, and its goal of trying to explain the motivations of those who get involved in these campaigns is reached. It's an effective, gripping melodrama.

The games people play to get ahead, not necessarily in politics, but within themselves

[napierslogs · 8/10 · 7 October 2011]

George Clooney is running for President. Well, I mean, in "The Ides of March," as Governor Mike Morris, he's running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He's the good guy and his opponent is the bad guy. Because that's how it is supposed to be, right? The opponent's campaign manager is played by the ever-shady Paul Giamatti, while Morris' campaign is championed by the young, handsome idealistic Stephen (Ryan Gosling).

This is about politics, the games people play to get ahead, and the types of people who get played—that's the interesting part. The refreshing part, is that this isn't about election night and who is going to win and who is going to lose. A few poll numbers are rattled off, but it's mostly about what is going to happen to our heroes (or anti-heroes) and what are they going to do in response. When you look like Clooney and Gosling, it's hard not to be the hero, but remember, this is politics and nobody is really a hero in that mess.

People make mistakes. I enjoyed following Stephen as he struggled internally with his path forward. He believes in the good of the Governor. He's smart and passionate and makes a good campaign manager. His mistakes seem minor and understandable. The problem is, he's 30. He's at the in-between age, where he's half young-college-student-ready-to-take-over-the-world and half experienced-cynic. Those are two very combative halves and when they come at odds within him, the character takes some shocking and drastic turns.

The few references to actual political gaffes are obvious and just done for comic relief. All the clever lines are stolen by Giamatti, who, I am predicting, will come away with the only acting nomination for the film. Although, the brilliant character work – that's done by everybody, and is what makes "The Ides of March" so intriguing.

politics with shocks and twists

[antoniotierno · 7/10 · 23 December 2011]

Ryan Gosling's at his best in dramatic roles and there's no exception here. As things unravel - that happens quickly thanks to the intense plot - Gosling decides that his ambitions are so important that he'll be willing willing to lose his soul. George Clooney has a very strong appeal, he's very convincing, his acting being almost perfect. "Ides of March" has very few flaws, the twists in the plot are not predictable and overall doesn't have any problems connecting with the viewers. Eventually, though there's no character to empathize with, the audience has the impression of a notable film noir, challenging us to come to terms with what politics is nowadays. I've seen intelligent filmmaking and a provocative moral fable.

Et tu, Brute

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 8 October 2011]

Greetings again from the darkness. Political thrillers can be so juicy and filled with "gotcha" moments and "oh how could he/she" scenes. Inevitably, most come down to an "I believed in you" showdown and reckoning. This latest one based on the play Farragut North by Beau Willimon, gives George Clooney an opportunity to play out his political aspirations without opening himself to the real thing.

Clooney also directs and the smartest move he made was assembling an ensemble cast of some of the best actors working today. Clooney plays Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris, who is one of two still-standing Democratic Presidential contenders on the verge of the Ohio primary. His Campaign Manager is grizzled campaign veteran Paul, played with staunch principals and black and white rule book by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Their talented and idealistic Press Secretary Stephen is played by Ryan Gosling. Their opponent's manager Tom Duffy is played by Paul Giamatti. Duffy oozes cynicism and seems to have lost the rule book that Paul holds so dearly.

The film begins with the set-up so we get a feel for just how strong or weak of character each of these men are. Morris (Clooney) is obviously an Obama-type idealist who claims his religion is the US Consitution. He says this while gently poking fun at his opponent's Christian beliefs. We see just how talented Stephen (Gosling) character is at handling the words that Clooney speaks and we see Paul (PSH) in full back room politico maneuvering.

The film has two huge points where the mood swings. The first is a contrived, definite no-no meeting between the ambitious Stephen and the shrewd Duffy. The second is a sequence between Stephen and a 20 year old campaign intern named Molly (Evan Rachel Wood), who also happens to be the daughter of the Chairman of the DNC. These two events turn the film from political thriller to melodramatic Hollywood fare. That doesn't make it less of a movie, it's just different than it began.

Cat and mouse games ensue and we see just who is the master manipulator amongst a group of professionals. This is one of those films where the individual pieces are actually more interesting than the whole pie. There are two really excellent exchanges between Gosling and Hoffman. Ms. Wood steals her scenes with ease. Jeffrey Wright nails his brief time as a desperate Senator negotiating the best deal possible. Giamatti's last scene with Gosling is a work of art. The only thing missing is a confrontation between Giamatti and Hoffman. THAT alone would be worth the price of admission.

You might be surprised that Clooney actually minimizes the political meanderings, though he does get in a few jabs at the Republicans. This is more character drama ... how far can your ideals and morals carry you. What is your breaking point? Where is the line between realist and idealist? Is it betrayal if you act for the right reason? The final shot of film is superb. Et tu, Brute.

Very professional but doesn't have the sharpness or intelligence it suggests it does

[bob the moo · 25 April 2012]

You came here from the trailers and the clever poster campaign? Or maybe you came here because you love Clooney and the idea of him doing a political film appeals to you because you agree with much of what he puts his name behind? Or maybe you just decided to watch on a whim? Well for me it was the first two that put it in my mind but the third that saw me pick this from the queue recently. The publicity leave you in little doubt that this is a smart political movie while the names involved all point to something that is worth your time, expensive and very professionally put together. In terms of these latter qualities the film does deliver but it is just a shame that it is not as good as it looks in regards the former.

Let's deal with the superficial first. The film looks great and Clooney deserves credit for the job he has done here as it has a real sheen to it with really well designed shots and a real richness to the look (credit to the cinematographer of course). On top of this the score is just right – a little generic in its tone perhaps but it works and fits the film well. Naturally the cast features a collection of names and faces for whom quality is the norm and generally the film looks and feels like it is a really good product. The only place where it falls down is that it isn't quite as smart as it thinks it is. The story is fairly straightforward and the "message" (if that is the word) is equally simple; this puts a lot of pressure on the lead character of Meyers to be engaging and thrilling in his journey into the murky compromises and twists of politics – and this is the problem, it doesn't come over that way.

The solid plot holds the attention and the sleek presentation feels like velvet throughout but the real meat of the story here needs to come through Meyers and sadly the material just doesn't make this happen. In terms of narrative he has it, but in terms of heart and soul of the man, it is lacking and as a result the film is lacking. It shows in Gosling's performance; he is a good presence, easy to look at and follow but he doesn't have enough within him to lift the film. I watched A Single Man the other day, in which Colin Firth delivered a great and nuanced performance that carried that entire film – this needed Gosling to do that, but he didn't and/or couldn't with what he was given. Clooney is good in an easier role as are Hoffman, Giamatti, Tomei, Wright and others but they are the dressing around Gosling's character and as good as they look, they cannot hide the fact that the centrepiece just isn't as good as the trimmings suggest.

It isn't a bad film, indeed I quite enjoyed it as it went along, but it is a lot less satisfying than it looks like it will be. Really professional and polished but the heart of the message doesn't come out and the central character doesn't deliver as they should. Solid, but neither as sharp or as smart as it thinks it is or as it should have been.

Politics On-screen

[TroyeEvans · 7/10 · 3 February 2012]

And to talk about alternate thrillers, put this next to also Academy Award-nominated "Margin Call" for screenplay you easily spot the difference, both in the quality of performances and the power of the script. This thriller-drama revolves around Stephen (Ryan Gosling), a smart staffer for a campaign who learns the true face of politics the quick way.

The script is captivating and it draws the audience at the exact moment the film starts, but what satisfies more than the changes in Gosling from the beginning to the end? Ryan Gosling delivers his transition realistically through events that unfold in front of him, with solid and believable performances scene after scene that prove he is a highly capable actor. Gosling's mask-like portrait of the nameless hero in "Drive" is amazing and exciting, but his performance in "The Ides of March" undoubtedly expose to us more of his if not flawless, masterful and flexible acting abilities. And we shouldn't leave out Hoffman and Giamatti, who are both incredible and perfect for their roles, Paul Zara and Tom Duffy, respectively. Clooney is great, but credits should definitely be given to him for the whole package, for his directing and writing rather than his performance alone. Evan Rachel Wood plays a supporting role as Molly Stearns, who is much related to the entire campaign itself and many characters. She is also the key that motivates Gosling's actions.

"The Ides of March" is certainly one of the most powerful and believable political thrillers or dramas out there, so don't miss this for certain.

• dchgl.blogspot.com

Worth it, but funny aftertaste....

[gbacquet · 7/10 · 8 December 2011]

It's difficult to write a review about this film. It's so full of contradictions (artistic and otherwise) that it leaves you with a funny aftertaste. The film is about an idealistic young man working as a consultant for a campaigning politician and the conflicts and dichotomies he has to face if he wants to remain whole and with his integrity unbroken. Purely from the filmmaking standpoint, the movie will remind you of political thrillers of the 70s made by Alan J. Pakula or Sydney Pollack. It's beautifully shot, has a great script, a very ad-hoc music score, great performances by everyone involved. The way the story and main character evolved, however, lacked coherence and at one point I was under the impression I was watching a fragment of a different movie. Somehow it went from A to D, skipping B and C altogether. That alone changed my viewing experience from fully satisfying to one that, as I said at the beginning, left a funny aftertaste. The movie is more of a character study than a political thriller per se; as the former, it works mainly because of the performances by actors who are able to convey the inner conflicts they face. As the latter, don't expect to be taken aback with unpredictable twists or edge-of-your-seat suspense, because you won't find those here. I give it a 7/10.

No heroes, no villains, just real human beings - and what could be scarier?

[jburtroald95 · 9/10 · 30 December 2011]

Corruption is such a nasty word. It is universally steeped in negative connotation, and is a term applied theoretically to a selfish, unjust misuse of power. Yet, realistically, this evil becomes hard to determine, and many attempts at justification can be made using alternate terms, such as "motivated" or "single-minded". Many of the best social dramas have explored this ambiguous area: in House of Sand and Fog (2003) an unfairly biased policeman was put to work, for once, for the supposed sympathetic protagonist, but we still didn't find it excusable; more recently, in the fiercely intense Contagion, the top doctor leaked confidential information in order to place his wife's chances of survival above the others – in this case, we can understand his position, but the injustice at hand here is still undeniable.

It is very unfortunate in society that the places where corruption is most prevalent are those in which justice and citizenship is supposed to be the absolute goal. Contagion and other similar films expose this in the medical industry, films like L.A Confidential (1997) in the police force, and now George Clooney, as both writer and director, has brought us another razor-sharp political drama that reveals how cutthroat and sinister working in the government can be, even if creating a "free world" is purportedly the overall goal.

Ryan Gosling portrays another robust yet ultimately inadequate young businessman attempting to excel in a challenging line of work. In Fracture (2007) it was the legal system, where, again, his character, Willy Beachum, faced this same temptation when his partners urged him to falsify evidence in order to put away a fiend that they knew to be guilty, yet could find no proof against. Willy resisted admirably, but Stephen Meyers, his more competent yet far less righteous character in The Ides of March, has rather weak moral resolve. He is the talented and favoured staffer of presidential candidate Governor Mike Morris (Clooney), a man whose political philosophies he genuinely supports, and is very anxious to see become president. However, Morris is a man who sticks firmly to his principles and is unwilling to make a strategic compromise. It is an insistence that frustrates Stephen, and indeed his entire team as they see guaranteed victory is within their grasp if he only concedes to endorse the slightly disagreeable Senator Thompson (although neither Jeffrey Wright nor Clooney exactly make it clear what it is that Morris dislikes about him). It is a case of breaking a few eggs to make a good cake, and as Morris continues refusing to do so, pressures mount, the opposition begins to gain the upper hand, and a highly riveting series of complications arises.

Audiences will be happy to hear that they will not have to sit through a ridiculous amount of dry, technical passages of dialogue, sift through needlessly enigmatic storytelling methods and poke and prod their way through murky themes in order to find value in the film. The broader ideas are not all it has to offer, but lie over the top of the solid story foundations to be properly examined upon the reflection that takes place after viewing, as they should. This piece also works as a slickly entertaining, enthralling crime thriller. For while the intricate world of politics can arguably be likened to a game of chess, as it is in the film, the pieces are not stone figures, they are real people whose entire lives become ruined when they are captured by the opposing side/ Seeing as beyond the point of the Senator Thompson dilemma, the plot involves a string of juicy surprises, I shouldn't really reveal much more. All I will say is that Paul Giamati, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Evan Rachel Wood and Marisa Tomei all give exceptional performances as the key figures involved, and that each of their characters, and at one stage or another, harbours a deadly secret.

Clooney's direction is remarkably apt, particularly in a wordless scene in which Hoffman's character is given aggravating news from Morris inside his car, and we become cheeky onlookers from the outside, not even seeing their faces. He has also done well adapting beau Willimon's play Farrugat North with the help of Oscar-nominated screenplay writer Grant Henslov (Good Night, and Good Luck) and the playwright himself. His performance as Morris is fine work also, but, for the common audience at least, the film really belongs to Gosling, who proves once again that he is more than just an exceptionally handsome teen idol, but the most convincing and versatile young actor since Johnny Depp, with Max Minghella (The Social Network) and Jennifer Ehle topping things off beautifully as part of the supporting cast.

Politically Charged Stage Play

[jtprius510 · 7/10 · 14 October 2011]

Audiences leaving George Clooney's latest Ides Of March will feel like they've just finished a watching a really good play.

What makes sense of this is the fact Ides Of March was adapted from a play. In a play telling an audience everything they need to know always helps, especially when the majority of it are only going to see it once. However the difference in film is the aesthetic liberties it allows its' director and I don't think in this Clooney took enough advantage of that.

There is a part to this movie where a business exchange takes place inside of an escalade parked outside of a barbershop. The words being exchanged within that escalade are left to the audience's imagination because the camera never goes inside, but stands staring at it from across the street. Ides of March could've used a lot more scenes like this, but Clooney played it safe with a conventionally linear story line. And I think Clooney put so much more into the story line than he needed to for the audience's sake.

This film didn't leave enough to the imagination of its' audience. While the actors carried out every single demand of this script, the film itself doesn't leave its' audience with enough to make them want to watch it again. The amount of telling done over this show leaves little to no replay value. It feels like the majority of the aesthetic was put into the script when I think a minimum would've been more than enough. Ides of March's script told me a lot more than I needed to know. It feels like the script told me so much that I forgot some key elements to the story. Then again the liberties he took with the script is exactly what allowed Ryan Gosling to take his character to some extremes.

In terms of acting, with names like Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Paul Giamatti, Clooney delivers an all-star studded Sega Dream-Cast. And in terms of his direction, Clooney really leaves Ides Of March to his roots in the stage. However with that said I'm afraid it all felt a little too staged for the silver screen.

For the sake of cinema I think Clooney could've taken a little more of an aesthetic liberty with this project.

Finally a good one!

[tangentz-86180 · 9/10 · 4 September 2020]

Great script, great cast. Well directed by Clooney. A must see. Phillip Seymour Hoffman great as usual.

Somewhat two-dimensional and rushed expose of cynical political practice

[pfgpowell-1 · 6/10 · 3 December 2011]

The odd thing about The Ides Of March is that, in a way, it ends halfway through. It is about the blooding of a young deputy campaign manager and his rather brutal initiation into some of the darker arts of running a presidential campaign (in this case the campaign of a state governor who wants the Democratic nomination). That campaign manager, Ryan Gosling, who does not seem especially naive when it all gets going, is transformed before our eyes from a reasonably idealistic man into all that he would previously have despised: we meet him when he insists that he is working for the governor (George Clooney, who also directed and co-wrote the film) because his boss wants to do all the right things - save the planet, stop going to war, that kind of thing. But by the end of the film (which can only have been a week later in the film's time) he has resorted to blackmailing the governor not only into sacking his top campaign manager (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and appointing him instead, but in accepting the endorsement and votes of a state senator the Clooney character despises, who will play ball and help the governor get electedn on the promise that he will be made the new Secretary of State. And that, really, is it.

I'd like to think that the 'message' of Clooney's new film is not 'my, my, but isn't politics dirty'. But then if that isn't the message what is? Is gorgeous George really trying to tell us to 'watch out - water's wet!' And that is a slight problem with The Ides Of March. A more complete film would have used what we are given more or less as a prologue to the full story. Taking the Shakespearean allusion just a stage further, if the full story is the tragedy of Stephen Myers (Gosling's character), Clooney's film gives us only the first two acts. What happens next? That is what I want to know.

I have no trouble at all in accepting that a previously idealistic man can have the stuffing knocked out of him and be transformed into the kind of cynical bastard his boss and his boss's rival are. But that transformation does happen almost in the twinkle of an eye, and we are given no reference points in the Gosling character which would indicate that it has all been brewing up for some time. In fact, the film goes out of its way to show him as decent and upright. I have no way of knowing personally, but if the kind of down and dirty muck-raking and wheeler-dealing shown in is not par for the course in politics, I'll eat my hat. And it would be pretty naive to expect the viewer to accept that it is all a bit exceptional but that otherwise our politicians are good men and women and true.

Apart from that flaw, this is an engrossing and entertaining film with some great performances. Unfortunately, the flaw does loom rather large in my reactions.

One of the best political dramas

[Vindelander · 8/10 · 30 October 2020]

Clooney has excelled himself with this - mind you, it would be difficult to fail with such a great cast.

Clever, well written and close to reality. It's a slow burn, as it's bound to be with the story it has to tell, but gripping nonetheless.

Watching the Ides of March in March. This movie is full of dirty politics. Hard to watch. Get my vote for one of the most cynical political movie ever.

[ironhorse_iv · 6/10 · 22 March 2014]

This movie directed by George Clooney is brutality a downer as none of the characters are likable and leaves the audience with a bad taste in their mouth about the American political system. This film gives an appropriate nod to intrigue and betrayal by using a William Shakespeare's quote from Julius Ceasar as its title. Et tu, Brute. The ides of March generally refers to March 15, the day that Julius Caesar was thought to have been betrayed and killed by his friends. The movie titled also hints at half division, as the poster for the movie displays half of the politicians' face and half of campaign manager. Ides is Latin for that. The film is an adaptation of Beau Willimon's 2008 play Farragut North. The original play was inspired by the Democratic Chairman Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, but the film a lot of similarity to George W. Bush, Bill Clintons, Lyndon B. Johnson and other presidential campaigns added to the play. Even the posters in the film taken inspiration from the Barack Obama posters. Set in the world of the American Democratic Party primaries in Ohio where candidates contest the party nomination to become the Presidential candidate. The movie is about the junior campaign manager Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) that work for Gov. Mike Morris's of Pennsylvania (George Clooney) campaign. The campaign is trying to attempt to secure the endorsement of North Carolina Democratic Senator Franklin Thompson (Jeffery Wright), who controls 356 convention delegates, enough to clinch the nomination for either candidate. Meyers sees Mike Morris as the right man for the job, but when Stephen uncovered a scandal that would rock, Mike Morris's chances to become president; he looks for a chance to betrayal his boss, senior campaign manager Paul Zara (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) for the gamble of working with Morris's opponent, Senator Ted Pullman of Arkansas (Michael Mantell) and his campaign manager, Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti). The movie is full of mind games, cheating, and double crossing that you can't help wondering where is the integrity and honestly in American politics anymore. It shows politics to be a messy and brutal game. I knew the movie would be like this, so it didn't bug me as much as other people's opinion. One thing, I didn't like about this film is that the scandals seem forced and rush. It comes out of nowhere. Without spoiling it: the scandals are really dumb and overused in political films anyways. Plus, most of the problems, Meyers dealt with is in my opinion, is his foolish fault. How on earth, does Meyers doesn't see that coming!?! The movie like to paint that Stephen got the raw deal out of it, but I have to say, nobody in this film are angels. Even the female characters of Intern Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood) & New York Times reporter Ida Horowicz (Marisa Tomei) seem annoying and power hungry. The movie was well acted, but nobody really stood out. All of them, pretty much show the same acting characteristics that they put into other films. George Clooney sounds like he is playing George Clooney. Ryan Gosling is just Ryan Gosling. Paul Giamatti is just Paul, and Phillip is just Phillip. The writing is pretty good, but it does differs from the stage play in one thing: Mike Morris was never in the play. The movie did had a lot of political lingos that can confused the audience on what's going on. I don't see the movie being for everybody. It takes a lot of understanding of the US presidential primary system to get what is happening. I did laugh, in the stupidity of in what the paranoia details. It was bit odd for Tom Duffy to take offense on the media saying he order Buffalo Wings during his meeting. He seems angry at that, then anything else. The film was well shot, particularly in its way it use shadows, darkness and shafts of light amplify the themes of honor and deceit. I like how the film gave the audience, a little room for a non-dialogue scene in the van scene. The movie had way too much talking, and little action to go with it. There was one badly done scene that I have to complain. One scene that stood curiously out of place was with a young girl from a high school Democrat Society arguing that gender distinction was the same as racial discrimination. It never truly finish what she was trying to say or the answer to that question. The film quickly moves to the next scene. I felt like that if you going to bring an issue in the film, at less, finish it before moving on. If not, just cut the whole scene out. The score by Alexandre Desplat was dark-hued and work with the themes. The movie ending is pretty good, and its serves as an open to interpretation as if you don't know what Stephen's next actions will do. Overall: It's a good morality tale, but highly cynical that can be hard to chew. It really does kill optimism in believing in any government.

Great setup. No punchline.

[lillolablue · 4/10 · 20 February 2013]

This movie is like that joke you heard on the bus from some kid you didn't know when you were in grade school. It has a really elaborate setup, and you're really excited to get to the punchline, but when you hear it. the whole thing falls flat.

Because the setup for this movie is really good. You've got a maverick politician running against a traditional party hack, whose candidacy had energized not just the hopeful young interns on his staff, but also his jaded, faded, seen-it-all manager. And he's given a new hope to his junior campaign manager, and idealistic young man who was beginning to lose faith in the political system.

There's even a cute subplot about Our Hero getting involved with a perky little intern who is even younger and more idealistic than he is.

Of course, as soon as you see this setup, you know that the perfect candidate is going to do something perfectly awful to bring everyone's hopes crashing down. You settle in for a political thriller and wait for the bodies, literally or figuratively, to pile up.

And then?

Nothing really happens, and what little that happens is wholly unbelievable.

Without dropping any big spoilers, I can tell you that the perfectly awful thing would-be President Clooney does is the kind of rookie mistake that a man of his age, intelligence and political sophistication would never make. This is the kind of trouble high school boys get into on Friday nights.

Not only that, as perfectly awful things go, it's a pretty pedestrian mistake, and one that would be easy to sweep under the rug.

From this point on, the movie piles one unbelievable and unrealistic episode of top of another, and this great setup is lost in a farrago of events that strain our suspension of disbelief.

The most ridiculous of which is when a character that might as well have "Party-Line Sleazeball" tattooed on his forehead passes up a chance to blow his opponent's candidacy out of the water.

I can tell that this movie wants to teach me that no matter what their rhetoric is, all politicians are amoral finks; a bunch of conniving, backstabbing predators who will do and say anything to get elected and stay in power.

Yeah, I think most people got the memo on that during the Nixon Administration, and Tricky Dick's successors haven't really done much since 1974 to make us think otherwise.

Movie, even if you have nothing new to say, shouldn't you have at least said the same old thing in a better way?

It's a real shame that this movie turns out to be a whole lot of nothing going on, because the performances are very good and the actors are all extremely well cast. I'm giving it four stars for the structure and the performances.

Bottom line? I saw the first half hour of what promised to be a really great movie, and then the movie spent the last half hour breaking that promise, and delivering to me on a bright, shiny platter with the 2010's written all over it some old news from the 70's.

If you have to see everything that Ryan Gosling, or George Clooney or Phillip Seymour Hoffmann are in, because you are a big fan of one or more of them, see this movie for their performances. If not, skip it, because, trust me, you've seen this all before, and written a whole lot better.

I'd suggest you see Ides, film buffs; although more of a triple than a home run, the cast is superlative and the direction very fine

[inkblot11 · 5 October 2011]

Stephen (Ryan Gosling) is a razor-sharp, rising star political media consultant. Presently, he is working on Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris' (George Clooney) campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. Steve-o has only one man above him, overall campaign manager Paul (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The two consult each other daily. The governor has a single chief competitor, an Arkansas senator with his own astute adviser, Tom (Paul Giamatti). At the moment, the Ohio primary is looming and the staff is working out of Cincinnati. One of the governor's lower-level workers is beautiful Molly (Evan Rachel Wood), the daughter of the present head of the National Democratic Party. Only 20, she is just learning the ropes. One day, she makes a pass at Stephen and he responds positively. But, he makes it clear to her that politics is his passion and, especially, Mike Morris, his idol. Indeed, Morris is handsome, smart, and appears to speak sincerely and clearly to potential voters. Yet, very soon after their first encounter, Molly drops a bombshell on Stephen. It is a stunning piece of news, one that could knock the earth off its axis. Also, amazingly, Tom has been courting Stephen to "switch sides" while a respected, determined journalist, Ida (Marisa Tomei) is eager for any and all campaign stories. A cauldron of conflicting genuine and perceived realities is brewing. What will be the result? This is a fine film, based on a stage play, and directed by Mr. Clooney. While the story is more predictable in nature, the script has some great lines and Clooney's direction is quite, quite admirable. This is particularly true of the performances he draws from the cast, with Gosling, Hoffman, Giamatti, Tomei, Clooney himself, and especially Wood giving great turns. All the film's amenities, from sets, costumes, and camera work, are also nice. If you are a discriminating film buff, who loves quality flicks with ample discussion points, then I'd suggest you see Ides at your earliest convenience.

Faultless acting, direction and writing, but ultimately rather pointless

[tomgillespie2002 · 6/10 · 30 March 2012]

In the height of the run-in for the Democratic Presidential candidate, young campaign manager Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), who is working for Governor of Pennsylvania Mike Morris (George Clooney), is called for a meeting by rival campaigner Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) who attempts to convince him to jump ship. Meyers refuses, but fails to tell his boss Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), only to admit it to him later. Furious at the lack of trust now between the two, Zara fires Meyers, who furiously tries to join the rival team. During this time, Meyers has been romancing intern Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood), who may just harbour a secret of his own. Over the course of the film, Meyers learns the true nature of politics, and just what it takes to survive in the business.

There are three things that cannot be faulted with this film - that is the stellar acting by a multi-talented cast, the sharp script, and Clooney's direction. Gosling is quickly becoming Hollywood's favourite A-lister (even though I've been championing him for years!), combining good looks, charm, and a huge acting talent. 2011 was good to him, with this film, and the year's sleeper hit, Drive, catapulting him to stardom. The reliable supporting cast - Giamatti, Hoffman, Clooney, Wood, Jeffrey Wright and Marisa Tomei - all prove effective in their roles. The script, by Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon, and Clooney himself, packs a lot into its feature running time, but it keeps things rather tense and suitably fierce. And Clooney, who is quickly becoming a hugely confident director, keeps the style of the film very much that of the political thrillers of the 1970's. Not to say he is a homage director, but he clearly takes his styles from his peers. Given that America's finest cinematic era was the 70's, there's certainly nothing wrong with taking its influences from it.

Yet, given all the style and fine acting on display, The Ides of March seems rather pointless. It is clearly depicting the corruption of the self through politics as Gosling evolves from naive and passionate wunderkid, to morally dubious game-player, though it's nothing that has been seen before. So politics corrupts? No s**t. A shame then, as I wanted to really like this film, and I suppose I did, but ultimately it left me yearning for more, and I felt the film would have been more effective as a mini-series, giving time to breathe life into its characters between the moments of back-stabbing and shady meetings. It's undoubtedly extremely well made and well-intentioned, but rather hollow. Clooney, however, still remains a director of promise, and I will still be eager to watch whatever he directs next.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Hollywood and politics don't mix

[intern-88 · 6/10 · 12 June 2012]

It's no secret that celebrity endorsement has begun to take an increasingly important role in the US electoral process and the drawbacks of this are pretty evident. Not only does it risk reducing the proceedings to a mere popularity contest, but the passionate celebrity backing given to Barack Obama in the last 2008 election promoted a very narrow idea of what constitutes political change.

Obama's campaign was spoilt for choice in terms of support from the cream of acting and musical talent, with everyone from West Wing star Martin Sheen to rapper Jay-Z publicly voicing their support for the Democratic candidate. However, the way in which this host of liberal celebs joined arms to scream 'Yes We Can' seemed to suggest that political upheaval could be achieved by merely shirking one mainstream party in favour of another.

Following the election, interviews with Obama's celebrity fan-boys perpetuated a false feeling that the country had arrived at some hallowed place in which the pressing issues of welfare, race relations and foreign intervention would simply fall away now that the fabled one was in office. Furthermore, even the reaction of conservative celebrities to Obama's election maintained the idea that, with one election, the world had irrevocably changed. Right-wing media figures like Donald Trump and Bill O'Reilly presented Obama as a veritable threat to Americana, speculating about the details of his birth certificate and his possible socialist affiliations. Of course, both sides failed to recognise that this was, after all, just another election of yet another president.

Bearing all this in mind, it would be fair to assume that The Ides of March would be an unenlightening and self-congratulatory piece of liberal Hollywood propaganda. Not only is it produced by, directed by and starring George Clooney – a strident supporter and personal friend of Obama – but the film centres on the presidential campaign of a squeaky-clean and 'socially progressive' Democratic candidate.

For much of the film's opening half this appears to be the case. We are introduced to hunky spin-doctor Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) who insists that he only plays dirty if he believes in the cause. The cause he believes in is Mike Morris (George Clooney), an atheist Democrat, who wants to tax the rich and make petroleum a controlled substance. In short, he is a liberal wet dream.

On the eve of the Ohio primaries, Meyers is approached by Morris' opponent and asked to switch sides. Yet just as you think this will be a tiresome competition for Stephen's soul and allegiance, The Ides of March does something rather refreshing. It demonstrates an often overlooked fact in Hollywood: Democrats can be bad people, too.

Having rejected the opportunity to defect, Meyers stumbles across one of Morris' dirty secrets, leading him to question if there is indeed anyone in politics who is truly incorruptible. From here on out, the film challenges the idea that underhandedness is the sole realm of conservatives and that beneath superficial differences, politicians are rather alike. However, as welcome a turnaround as this is, it remains a pretty unoriginal moral on which to anchor an entire story and there is unfortunately very little else here to sustain viewers' interest.

Clooney takes a discernibly sober approach to the political thriller, and whilst this is somewhat commendable, the complete lack of any original insight leaves one yearning for the excessive twists and turns that the genre usually entails. Furthermore, whilst Clooney and Gosling are predictably competent and Paul Giamatti is fantastic as Machiavellian campaign manager Tom Duffy, the cast nevertheless struggle to keep the film afloat.

Obama's campaign, and the celebrity endorsements which surrounded it, put a lot of emphasis on symbolism. He was not your average Democratic candidate appealing to the nation on the basis of a particular policy platform. No, he was above all else the embodiment of an idea. He represented a zenith of tolerance and progression and, in just being elected, he had already changed the world forever. The fact that the 2008 election produced the first African-American president is no trivial matter, but the suggestion that the very idea of Obama held some sort of metaphysical power only inspired a lot of false hope, which Obama, the man, would never be able to live up to.

While The Ides of March should be applauded for unpicking this sort of liberal complacency, there's no escaping how sophomoric this political fable really is. As ever, it seems Hollywood and politics just don't mix.

More than politics, it's power. Power over other people. That's what it's about.

[levybob · 9/10 · 11 February 2021]

George Clooney's 'Ides of March' could have been set in a corporation. Or a university. A family. But in fact it is set during a Presidential Campaign. Specifically a Democratic Primary in the state of Ohio. We've got two candidates. Each candidate has a staff. And more than the candidates, it's the politics between the staff members that forms the foundation of this story.

"I know something about you, so you'd better ... ' 'Ah, but I know something about YOU, so if you know what's good for you ... ' 'But what about the time that you ... ' 'Never mind me, what about you ... '

And so on. And so on. But most important, it works. It is compelling. The stakes get added to as the film progresses until the determination of the winning candidate will depend on nothing more than this back and forth of power.

I liked 'Ides of March'. A lot. I thought that Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti were perfect as opposing campaign managers; each more unlikeable than the other. Ryan Gosling as a younger campaign official is fine (though I think that the role was not as demanding as others). As one candidate, director George Clooney is at his handsome, well-spoken, best. If there is a weak-link, it's Evan Rachel Wood as a campaign intern with more on her mind than election strategies.

Though ten years old, the film and its story, its conflicts, its undercurrent of grime, it all seemed wholly relevant today. I recommend that you see it.

Great acting, but nothing earthshaking

[addiewhiz · 7/10 · 31 December 2011]

"Ides of March" is the story of a political campaign from the perspective of a campaign aide of the name Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling). It is meant to portray the nature of a political campaign and how the entire process is a grueling ordeal. In addition, it is meant to expose some of the under-the-table dealing and corruption involved in the election process.

Stephen Meyers is an idealistic campaign aide, who from the beginning of the campaign, believes strongly that his candidate, Mike Morris (George Clooney), absolutely must win in order for the United States to succeed, as a country. The story depicts how Meyers is broken down by the political process and is turned into a part in the corrupt machine that he is trying to work against.

One of the biggest strong points of this movie is the acting. Ryan Gosling brilliantly plays a young man who is driven by idealistic views of how a country should be and how a government should serve its people. He manages to play an intelligent character who is simply too naive to understand how things really work in national politics. In addition, Phillip Seymour Hoffman does a very precise job playing the campaign manager Paul Zara, depicting him as a a man who has been hardened by many years of weathering a corrupt political system, and has been turned from an idealist to a pragmatic realist.

The weakness in this film is that it fails to convey anything that is already known to people who follow politics. It does not give a fresh perspective that a politically aware moviegoer would be hoping for. It simply gives specific examples of the interaction between two political campaigns as well as the campaigns and the news media.

In the end this is a well written movie with well acted characters, but it simply falls short of reaching its intended goal. This is not a bad watch and would be worth seeing once. Ryan Gosling's performance in this movie is definitely worth consideration for "Best Actor" at the Oscars, but this film will probably not have much of a chance at "Best Picture".

9/10

[hollandsa-09070 · 9/10 · 22 November 2020]

First off I want to say how impressive it is that George Clooney wrote, directed and starred in this because he still manages to act wonderfully, you wont know by watching that he doesn't have someone else pulling the strings. But onto the story, I think it is so well done and I can't fault it. What I would say is that it goes a bit fast from the good guy turning into the bad guy and it doesn't ring true exactly. 9/10

Worth a watch

[craig-hopton · 6/10 · 31 October 2014]

OK but not the best political thriller I've ever seen.

The idea is to show how politics corrupts an idealistic political activist on the campaign trail. Ryan Gosling plays this character. He is a young talent but naive and at first easily wrong-footed by the more experienced Machiavellians around him. Until he has an affair with an intern, gets caught up in things and becomes just like them...

It's not exactly an original idea for a political movie and the plot doesn't race along as quickly as I'd like. But again, it's OK. There are plenty of heavy-hitting actors in here that put in good performances - Clooney, Giamatti and Seymour Hoffman all play their roles well.

Worth a watch.

If for not anything, watch it for Ryan !

[halils6959 · 8/10 · 7 January 2012]

Well, it was a good film, a good production.

The story has some ups and downs with somewhat expected turns of events. The editing was solid and timing of the events - in spite of being easily foreseeable - was certainly in line with the flow. The Script was above average; there were a few forced metaphors though. But, all in all, it was well structured production with a fluent flow of events and it achieves what it wants to convey in an orderly fashion.

However, real achievement within this movie, is how the acting of Ryan Gosling outshines through all the other great actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and even George Clooney. Even though Ryan Gosling is certainly accepted as a great actor now, it is clear that he is destined for much more than what he has already achieved.

Surprisingly Dull

[MRavenwood · 6/10 · 23 January 2012]

I thought this was going to be interesting, or exciting, maybe intense and it was none of those things for the first HOUR. Unbelievably talented cast - Clooney, Giamatti, Tomei and even the great character actor Greg Itzin. The most thrilling of which to watch on screen was the never-disappointing Phillip Seymore Hoffman. I spent a buck-thirty on my rental, and I kind of want my buck back. The story is about a very left-wing Democrat, running against another Democrat for President. His true-believer campaign speech writer is offered a position with the competitor's campaign. These leads to an unfortunate series of events which makes him seek revenge. The revenge plot doesn't really start up until 3/4 of the way through the movie. Too slow and vague for my tastes. Found my mind wandering. Wanting to get up and do other stuff. Ryan Gosling unfortunately could not hold my attention. I very much hope other people enjoyed this movie, but I just couldn't stay interested. Although I did stick with it until the uneventful ending.

Good acting but disappointing ending in my books

[jucie3689 · 5/10 · 18 January 2012]

The movie's premise is a good one. Coming at a time when America is rich with political strife, the ideas of march brings a few key issues to light and attempts to wrap it all up in a pretty bow, with a couple twists and turns along the way. I enjoyed the first half of the movie. The writing in on point as is the acting. Given the star studded cast you would expect nothing less. It gives you a sense that there could be some good politicians out there, ones willing to stand by their morals and principals and change the great United states of America. It covers such topics as our reliance on oil, our religious debates as well as gender classification, gay rights and abortion. It pretty much touches on so many topics that every single person in the audience will find themselves at one point or another personally vested in it's outcome. It does a good job keeping you wondering. Where it loses me is the ending. Nothing irks me more than a movie that doesn't take ownership of it's plot and grant the viewer the courtesy of an ending. Now albeit I was disappointed with Inceptions ending as well, which I know is not in agreeance with a lot of people. Personally I just felt let down when Ryan Goslings character never reaches the final climax. He sits down- looks at the camera and that's it. I get it, the premise is he's going to out the whole scandal and you can argue that the title of the movie alludes this but I'm sorry, I just feel let down and robbed that the writer/director didn't think enough of me to shoot that final scene.

Great start to a disappointing movie

[gigadragon12 · 8 October 2011]

The Ides of March is a political thriller about the Democratic Primary in Ohio at the start of a political rally for who will eventually be nominated to run for President. Political Manager Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling) is top of his game as new presidential candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney) looks to be well on his way to winning the Ohio primary. However, several moves on the political spectrum, and a surprise controversy uncovered part way through, shake the idealistic Myers to his core, and puts him knee deep in a race for the primary with his candidate as the target to lose it all.

Sounds great right? Well it could have been – 7.5 / 10 What Clooney wants with this film is something that was just accomplished by the film Contagion only a few months ago, in short, he wants to realistically represent what actually goes on behind all the media storm and speeches, what really goes into the hearts of the political campaigners as they battle for the chance to win the presidential spot for their party. And the film certainly starts well enough in that spectrum.

But a fundamental shift halfway through the film or so. It goes from realistically portraying the events that take place, to suddenly becoming something much more emotional. What happens isn't so much unbelievable as it is badly placed in a movie that does not seem to want to tell a story as much as make a statement. Instead what it does is tell a story and says to hell with the statement, but still wants to act like it is making a statement.

This is because it goes from realistic to emotional. Contagion worked because it portrayed an outbreak realistically, the emotional parts were limited and had more to do with people being people rather than ever replacing the logical and clockwork functions of a virus, which is clockwork. This movie decides that a logical game of chess (politics, same thing) can be completely destroyed because a pawn has a heart attack.

The real issue is the twist itself and that's stepping into spoilerville. Essentially, so much melodrama is suddenly demanded from one simple scene, that it throws the intelligent and logical viewpoint of the movie so completely off track that it doesn't remember that this is supposed to be a movie about politics and works on more spectrums than just the one going on behind people's bedroom doors.

But at least the acting was great. You hear a lot about Gosling's performance in the lead role, but the greats take the cake, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti are so empowered as the heads of their candidates' political campaigns and knowing so much more than Gosling, that you would be more impressed if you hadn't seen them in better movies doing better roles.

All that banter and ranting being said, Ides of March could have been a great movie had it kept its head and tried to offer an acceptable reason for the dirty game of politics, rather than amounting to a few too many cookies missing from the cookie jar. Their reasoning focuses too much on the antics of one type of scandal, rather than the true strategic meanderings of people, media, and candidates. The movie actually leaves us much like Gosling at the end, disappointed, confused, and wondering at what point our true expectations got left behind and converted without us even knowing about it.