The Ides of March

Clooney is precise. All of the storylines are designed to the smallest detail, Gosling’s acting is excellent (he’s having a really good year right now) and even I would have chosen Clooney. The chess game is great to watch. The lesson of the story is somehow too classic and so there is nothing world-shattering about the Ides of March apart from well-made drama. (29/12/2011)

It's not entirely George Clooney's fault, because he was once again successful behind and in front of the camera, but The Ides of March, I would say, is his least successful directorial effort to date. From my point of view, everything is mainly due to the choice of substance, because political dirt, intrigue and the fact that the person who smiles and means well (not only) during elections can be a scumbag is nothing new. And since nothing actually happened in the 100 minutes of that I didn't expect, the plot didn't really progress, and I felt like a lot of it was missing. Especially the ending was too rushed and bland. Nevertheless, the film is very well shot and acted, accompanied by Desplat's wonderfully listenable music, and it’s certainly not boring. It's just that compared to Clooney's previous works it's nothing special.__P.S. I found Ryan Gosling incredibly unsympathetic, but that's probably how he was supposed to come across. (15/02/2012)

I watched The Ides of March twice. I watched it for the second time mainly because I wanted to find out whether this movie was really boring or I just didn’t pay enough attention to it during the first watching. And I must say that even though the story is really interesting, I’m not in the mood to watch something that reminds me of the Czech government, where betrayal and revenge are part of the daily agenda of just about every political party. The actors were indisputably great. Ryan Gosling was amazing, even. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that this politics crap is not my cup of tea. (24/12/2012)

Like The Candidate and Primary Colors, The Ides of March shows us what we won’t see on the television news and what we rarely read about in the newspapers. It gives us a look behind the scenes, allowing us to get to know the men and women whose precisely balanced statements such as “I’m nobody, I’m anybody” make other men and women seems so outwardly convincing and trustworthy. The demystification process does not end with the removal of decorations and the greater interest in the preparation than in the live performance (just as Moneyball shows the “programming” of baseball games instead of the games themselves). Based on the stage play  Farragut North, the screenplay uses rapid-fire verbal exchanges to depict politics as not very fair juggling of valuable information. Given the existing information overload, however, the winner is not the one who knows more, but the one who is better able to manipulate facts and use them to his or her own benefit. Trust, friendship and other key concepts in the hierarchy of values lose their meaning because it is clear that it is much easier to gain someone’s interest if you put a knife to their throat (even if only in the figurative sense). The Ides of March takes into account the roles of various advisors to an even greater extent than earlier election dramas and makes outwardly powerful governors and senators mere media constructs that are dependent and manipulable. The film perhaps goes too far in relying on the power of words – it is directed in a generally unconventional way and underappreciates the power of images, but thanks to the elite cast, I still enjoyed it immensely. The actors are excellent without exception and their well-balanced performances in accordance with the functioning of politics make it impossible to draw a clear line between the villains and the good guys. We find ourselves in a place beyond good and evil, in a world where everything is relative. This opaqueness and uncertainty about who to trust elicit a feeling of hopelessness by which, in my opinion, the film fulfilled its purpose and George Clooney did his civic duty. 80% (23/01/2012)

Politics, psychology, intrigue, manipulation. It’s good, with excellent performances and a solid narrative value. It's just a shame that it's too short and therefore not very epic, but much more like television. In terms of atmosphere, Michael Clayton was slightly better and broader. Just when it was starting to get really suspenseful, the end came. (12/09/2014)