The Ides of March

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.] (01/06/2012)

George Clooney has proven many times in his directing endeavors that he is no stranger to sophistication, and a political investigation literally seemed like a treat for him. And yet I'm disappointed, and I must admit that I'm quite taken aback that there was no sophistication this time around. I expected him to dig into the highest-ranking politicians, but for the second half to labor through transparent twists towards disillusionment and broken hearts is too certain a step. Allowing the viewer to see into the fastest verbal machine guns and then easing towards morality is little more than a minor betrayal. (02/05/2012)

An ultra-bitter probe into the inside of the machine in which reality is prepared. The fantastic Gosling, who, even without a single grimace, can contain the fascinating tension between idealism and pragmatism, an excellent script and a wonderfully escalated scathing ending. An overall balanced and anti-idealistic drama that is an excellent counterweight to Hollywood escapism, which dominates Oscar nominations. It is a pity that, especially in the beginning, fairly solid knowledge of the American electoral system is needed (which I do not have at all), so I was groping slightly in the first minutes. But I blame myself for that and not The Ides of March. [85%] (01/23/2012)

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). (02/16/2012)

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. (09/12/2014)