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.
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.