The Ides of March (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.

Fmovies: 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.

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.

The Ides of March fmovies. 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

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.

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.