The Ides of March

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. (2012-12-24)

This is another in Clooney’s series of contributions pointing out the wrongs of contemporary politics. This time he takes the Michael Clayton route, which means perfectly slick suits with a high coefficient of immorality, visual austerity, and audience nausea from all the characters who pass through the film. [PS: Gosling reigns supreme, keep it up.] (2012-01-05)

A conflict of careerism versus loyalty in an easy-to-follow script with precise direction, leading to magnificent acting performances. The Ides of March dispenses subplots and has fewer characters than we are accustomed to from similar films, but this allows the movie to place more focus on its characters. That it looks more like a great HBO opus rather than an ambitious cinema production is a failing only to the point that it’s enough to watch it at home (as opposed to the more visually stunning and atmospheric Michael Clayton, which was more enjoyable on the big screen). (2012-02-15)

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. (2011-12-28)

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. (2014-09-11)