The Ides of March

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

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.

George Clooney's 'Ides of March' could have been set in a corporation. Or a university. A family. But in fact it is set during a Presidential Campaign. Specifically a Democratic Primary in the state of Ohio. We've got two candidates. Each candidate has a staff. And more than the candidates, it's the politics between the staff members that forms the foundation of this story.

"I know something about you, so you'd better ... ' 'Ah, but I know something about YOU, so if you know what's good for you ... ' 'But what about the time that you ... ' 'Never mind me, what about you ... '

And so on. And so on. But most important, it works. It is compelling. The stakes get added to as the film progresses until the determination of the winning candidate will depend on nothing more than this back and forth of power.

I liked 'Ides of March'. A lot. I thought that Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti were perfect as opposing campaign managers; each more unlikeable than the other. Ryan Gosling as a younger campaign official is fine (though I think that the role was not as demanding as others). As one candidate, director George Clooney is at his handsome, well-spoken, best. If there is a weak-link, it's Evan Rachel Wood as a campaign intern with more on her mind than election strategies.

Though ten years old, the film and its story, its conflicts, its undercurrent of grime, it all seemed wholly relevant today. I recommend that you see it.

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.

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.