Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

mistramicizia The first half of the movie was somewhat promising, but some twists that succeeded I found inexplicable. Furthermore, I'm not quite sure this is the right picture of how politics are (at least from what I hear from other sources), and some scenes just seem to be left "hanging" like they don't affect the further development of the story. I simply feel that this is one relatively confined view on the topic itself. On the other hand, the acting was very well done, everyone played that part beyond average, which is a shame because I didn't buy into the plot itself.DISCLAIMER : Everything stated in this review is entirely matter of personal opinion and doesn't have to coincide with the opinions of other reviewers

masterblaster1975 An upgright guy working for a political campaign makes a few mistakes under stress and sacrifices his integrity to keep his career. Everybody has to pay for his decision. Gut wrenching drama. First class acting all around. A treat to watch, though hard towards the end.

Semisonic Let's face it: the only two places where politics has also become a form of entertainment are the United States and Westeros. Anywhere else, all these stances, movements and statements would be either formal or plain dull. But the American life managed to turn politics into a reality show, and politicians into media stars, an achievement matched only by the product of G.R.R.Martin's creative mind. But, unlike The Song of Ice and Fire, the American reality show takes place in our own world, and it doesn't seem to have a final season any time soon.So, when life gives you such a never-ending source of inspiration, it is only natural to start capitalizing on it. In that sense, The Ides of March is hardly the first film about politics and political intrigues, although, having been released two years before House of Cards, it still had a lot of unconquered media land around. Combined with a stellar - and I mean it - cast, it could seem that success of The Ides of March is a deal decided. But, just like we're constantly reminded by this very film, there is no such thing as a guarantee of success. But what could possibly go wrong?One problem with this film is its way of creating suspense by first setting the rules and then changing them when you expect it the least. True, politics is a cruel mistress and fair play is not to be expected. But even in cheating there must be some logic and consistency, otherwise the characters' actions become rather random and plot twists forced. A young and ambitious campaign coordinator who's "not like everyone else" because he needs to actually believe in the person he promotes - to become easily distraught and seduced by a most predictable competitors' move. A candidate, all-out solid stand up guy with rock hard principles - to turn out a vicious predator and abuser. A young woman who made a mistake but tries her hardest to deal with the consequences - to simply give up when all is seemingly over. Such things just don't make sense. And even when they do, they are never given much premise to create at least some credibility. As if people act drastically out of character simply for the kicks of it. Such erratic scenario succeeds at creating not suspense in the audience, but paranoia, making you imagine things and see crooked shadows where everything's actually plain and clear.But even that low blow could be justified if The Ides of March managed to deliver some kind of culminating strike, to exploit the inner pressure the film's been building during all its course. Some revelation, light or dark, it doesn't matter, at least something clear and definitive. But that's where the film fell painfully short, just abruptly ending at the moment it's been leading us towards through the whole second act. Instead of even trying to explain the illogicalities it exploited, or at least settling for the plain and coherent ending with no hidden implications, the film decided to play smart and hint at some game-changing turn towards the end, but instead of actually taking that turn satisfied itself with a hollow point, trying to convince us that it's a masterful open ending we could finish in our imagination the way we liked. It seems, George Clooney was too busy with self-adoration, being all dashing and daring, courageous and caring in front of the camera, that he forgot to orchestrate the show behind it. And instead of a true open ending, a smart way of not rubbing in the eyes of the viewer a set of most probable outcomes the film has previously set clear through its actions, we received an empty ending, leaving us with not enough consistency throughout the film to even begin guessing what could be implied or inferred for real and not be a product of our already inflamed imagination. Such move, instead of provoking curiosity and creative thinking, robs us out of the only satisfaction we could get out of this film: the satisfaction of finding out how this unhealthily hectic set of events actually unfolds. Which might be fine for the cruel genre of art house, but, within the framework of political reality show entertainment, equals to no fun at all.

Bill Slocum Politics is a place where ideals go to die. That's the underlying message of this realistic, well-acted, occasionally involving film.Ohio's Democratic primary is only days away, and Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) has a sizable but insecure lead over his one remaining challenger. An alliance with a former candidate with 356 pledged delegates can put Morris over the top, but at a steep price. As campaign aides scramble to make the best of the situation, Morris's deputy campaign manager, Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) discovers Morris carries a secret no primary can overcome.Clooney directed and co-wrote the film, adapted from a play which presents the Machiavellian situation in the form of a personal journey similar to what Michael Corleone experienced in "The Godfather." Will he do what it takes to clear the field, or will he be left in the dust?"This is the big leagues," Meyers tells someone in the movie, though he could as easily be talking to himself. "It's mean. When you make a mistake, you lose the right to play."The challenge "Ides Of March" sets up is not in laying out the tawdry realities of campaign politics, which anyone with eyes can see on the news. It's making you care. In that way, it's not successful. The characters all talk in caffeine-charged soundbites, winning you over with their charisma but lacking depth. Clooney in his DVD commentary talks a lot about losing one's soul, and you see what he means, but you wonder whether anyone here has a soul to lose.While Meyers' journey is a dark one, we never quite see him as much of a prize. One of the first orders we hear him give deals with a scurrilous rumor about Morris' rival having a financial stake in a Liberian diamond mine. "I don't care if it's true, I just want to hear him deny it," Meyers says. "Win, win."So when Meyers finds himself the rumormongers' victim, you don't care as much as you might, even with Gosling giving a finely-shaded performance. He's too much of a Machiavel already.What gives this film its lasting power is not the message but the supporting performances. Paul Giamatti and Philip Seymour Hoffman crush every scene they are in with smart readings of clever dialogue without the slightest flavor of ham between them. Even better is Evan Rachel Wood as a young intern, "a little girl trying to make it in a grown up world," who discovers herself a helpless pawn in the game. She could too easily play the part of a mere sacrificial lamb, as that's what she's given. Instead she finds the grit to deliver real empathy in a film sorely in need of it.I find Clooney a fine director here stuck with one weak acting performance, ironically enough his own. Morris is supposed to be a smoothie, but his handling of trickier territory, and his attempts at playing dark in dealing with them, ring hollow. When Clooney focuses his camera on the other actors, which he often does, the results are so solid you wish he followed those selfless instincts more closely."Ides Of March" is a well-played film with a played-out message. I had no problem admiring its craft, but I felt disengaged throughout, caring less about the story than the acting clinic unfolding before me. In that sense, it delivers enough positives to make it worthwhile. Just don't expect too much.