Los idus de Marzo

Jugando por el arribismo versus la lealtad en un guión claro y una dirección precisa, produciendo excelentes actuaciones. Sin motivos secundarios y menos personajes de los que estamos acostumbrados en películas similares, pero aún más enfocados en ellos. El hecho de que evoque más bien una excelente obra de HBO que una ambiciosa producción cinematográfica es una desventaja solo en la medida en que es suficiente verla en casa (a diferencia del más visual y atmosférico Michael Clayton, del que se disfrutaría aún más en la pantalla grande) . (15.02.2012)

A very good political drama set in the backstage of American politics. Great actors, the script relies a little too much on coincidences, but it doesn’t matter. It’s just the right length, so even those who aren’t too much into politics shouldn’t get bored. 8/10 (16.12.2011)

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.] (05.01.2012)

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. (24.12.2012)

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%] (23.01.2012)

George Clooney has proven many times in his directing endeavors that sophistication is not foreign to him, and a political investigation seemed like a literal treat for him. However, I am disappointed and must admit that I am quite taken aback that no sophistication was present this time. I expected him to dig into the highest-ranking politicians, but for the second half to go through transparent twists towards disillusionment and broken hearts is a step too certain. Allowing the viewer to see into the fastest verbal machine guns and then easing towards morality is simply a lesser betrayal. (04.02.2012)

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. (28.12.2011)

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. (11.09.2014)

It's not entirely George Clooney's fault, because he was once again successful behind and in front of the camera, but The Ides of March, I would say, is his least successful directorial effort to date. From my point of view, everything is mainly due to the choice of substance, because political dirt, intrigue and the fact that the person who smiles and means well (not only) during elections can be a scumbag is nothing new. And since nothing actually happened in the 100 minutes of that I didn't expect, the plot didn't really progress, and I felt like a lot of it was missing. Especially the ending was too rushed and bland. Nevertheless, the film is very well shot and acted, accompanied by Desplat's wonderfully listenable music, and it’s certainly not boring. It's just that compared to Clooney's previous works it's nothing special.__P.S. I found Ryan Gosling incredibly unsympathetic, but that's probably how he was supposed to come across. (15.02.2012)

When Ryan Gosling played the lead role in the series "Young Hercules", he probably didn't even dream about meeting such great actors on the screen. In his career, he has already met actors like Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, or younger ones like Emma Stone or Michelle Williams, but he catapulted into the first league with the film "The Ides of March". Of course, he also made a name for himself in the movie "Drive", where he was perfect. In the film "The Ides of March", however, he met actors like George Clooney or Philip Seymour Hoffman. This is the damn first league. Not only was he able to easily compare himself to them, but he also played the lead role among them. "The Ides of March" is a film by George Clooney, who directed and wrote the screenplay. "Ides of March" is the term for the day when Gaius Julius Caesar was killed. It was March 15, 44 BC. "Ides" is the English version of the Latin "idus", which represents the middle of a given month, in this case, March 15. However, "The Ides of March" is definitely not as drastic a story as the killing of Caesar, but it is still a fairly good metaphor. The film tells the story of the backstage of elections, which is definitely not kind and friendly, although I think it could be harsher. The main trio of men is absolutely excellent, but their performance does not guarantee that the story will be sufficiently consistent. It's just a fragment, nothing is properly explained, nothing is concluded. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/09/rebelka-perfect-sense-sprosty-holky.html (27.02.2013)