The Ides of March

Good movie!

another one

Good movie!

source: The Ides of March

Well we see George Clooney play himself yet again. There is no real acting talent at all and the plot is thin an weak. Ryan Gosling, on the other hand does put in a credible performance as his aid. Ryan finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place however it is not enough to save this very average film. The way in which the dirty side of politics is portrayed is given some credence here and that may be its saving grace. By the time the end of the film had rolled around I was bored and then to see this long shot of Ryans face hiding the anguish due to his actions was really quite pathetic. I wondered if the director had run out of ideas and was trying to make the drama stronger with this quite silly closing shot. If you are really bored, have nothing at all better to do then it might be worth a look but really you would have to be at your wits end to see this film.

Unbelievable is a word that got it's usage all twisted in recent years. People use it now as a synonym for 'extraordinary' or 'incredible.' Not me. This review has plenty of spoilers. It's not meant for those who haven't already seen the movie. It's meant for those who want to know what others think about it. On the plus side, it's got a cast of heavyweight actors (especially Philip Seymour Hoffman, and why does he have to chain smoke? Don't the producers know that people learn these bad habits from the movies?) so it's watchable. But as a story it's ..... unbelievable. Let me explain with a comparison: Think about Avatar. That movie begins by presenting us with a futuristic existence in a world with interplanetary space travel. Then we are introduced to a concept where people can lie down in a chamber and control a real live body which was designed to act on the hosts mental commands. That's absurd, isn't it? Yet once I accepted the basic premise, from then on, everything made sense. Now compare that to Ides of March: Set in modern day USA with ordinary people (no super powers etc.), what it presents to us should be reasonable. I don't mean to say an action flick where the hero never get's shot after 20 gunfights with automatic weapons. Those kind of movies we're trained to accept as pure fantasy whenever and wherever they are set. I mean this movie is about characters who are set in a modern day election campaign, and it seems the key theme is the changing of one person from a loyal idealist into a ruthless selfish criminal. So the 1st key event is when Ryan Gosling, a key staffer in George Clooney's Presidential campaign, is given a call by Paul Giamatti, who is the head campaign manager of the rival candidate. Giamatti wants Gosling to meet him for a chat. Gosling hesitates, then agrees. Giamatti offers Gosling a job if he will change sides because he thinks Gosling is so talented. Gosling declines, then goes back to his headquarters and tells his boss, Philip Seymour Hoffman about the interview and restates his loyalty to Clooney. How does this differ from an engineer at Apple getting a call from a headhunter and offering them an interview at Google, to work on the latest Android OS for twice the pay? It happens all the time. It's legal. It's ethical, to the point the Apple engineer may have a nondisclosure agreement he signed when hiring in about proprietary technology. In the case of the movie, that doesn't count because at the same time, Hoffman was trying to woo a senator for an endorsement and gave away all the Clooney 'strategy' to what turned out to be the competition. So Hoffman makes a big deal about the meeting Gosling had with Giamatti as if that was a big breach of ethics to find out what the guy wanted. Phony premise. Then what happens gets more unbelievable. Hoffman fires Gosling for having the meeting after leaking that 'story' (who would care about that) to the press, and Gosling then confronts Giamatti and agrees to work for him. Giamatti laughs in his face and explains how smart he had been arranging this coup: He explains that if Gosling had originally jumped ship, that was a big win for him and if Gosling didn't he knew all about Hoffman's character and that Gosling would get fired anyways, so that would deprive Clooney of his talents which was the objective. A win-win for Giamatti. That's all too much for me to buy. After that we learn what a rat everybody involved really is, with death, extortion and backstabbing all rearing their heads which isn't so unbelievable, except for one thing: If the people involved were so ruthless, how come nobody disappears in the middle of the night or while walking down the street? That would be realistic.

I went into this movie with great expectations; too bad. Ides of March is noise signifying nothing. I expected more from George Clooney. Hollywood likes Ryan Gossling. He'd better hope that they don't start to like him too much because when they do they start to put you in garbage like this. Ides of March should have been a great political thriller, but instead we get a predictable movie that telegraphs all of its intentions and leaves you empty. I guess George has become cynical about politics and I guess I can't blame him based on the current situation. I guess I can understand why more people haven't flocked to this movie. My husband fell asleep on the first half and I was angry after the second half. The movie should have left you with something to think about like Michael Clayton but it didn't; too bad.

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.

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

Oh Dear! Considering the amount of talent involved in making this it's a real disappointment. A dull story about characters I couldn't care less about doing things I wasn't interested in. It's the old chestnut about American politics being a dirty business and how no one can be trusted and all the double dealing and manipulating that goes on. It's been done before and better with films like 'The Best Man'and 'Bulworth'. Many of the characters seem to have been drawn from every political stereotype and none of them seems very believable, and Marisa Tomei's cartoon styled journalist belonged in something like 'The Simpsons'. For fans ofthe particpants only I'm afraid.