The Ides of March

User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 273 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 12 out of 273

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Oct 31, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I donâ Expand
  2. Oct 10, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film is very dark and not very interesting... we like George Clooney and many of the other fine actors in this film. Unfortunately, the movie plods forward at a tedious tepid pace, slowly boringly and inexorably dissolving any reason for bothering to follow or care about he arc of any charter in the movie. If the intent of the plot of this movie was to be an unrelieved bummer without a cause, it is a success. If you were to paint this movie it would have to be as non-descript homely plain brown canvas, without a frame or even a dot... as it has no useful point to make. The simplistic and transparent plot is nothing more than an weak attempt to portray the axiom "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" . All of the characters start out as seemingly actually trying to do good, and to a character they all end up as their own diametrically opposed mirror image, actively trying their best to do bad... wow, point made.
    This film is a glacially slow paced, depressing, and derivative remake of every potboiler political downfall story ever written. This film swings for the infield and can;t seem to even manage that, You can't make a home run movie using a whiffle ball plot. and plastic cookie cutter characters. The story breaks no new ground, mainly it breaks wind, leaving the wonderful talented cast to struggle with arcs that begin and end without a whimper, and embarrassingly weak and boring dialogue. The opening and closing scenes are are jejune junior high level bookends, restatements of the already all too painfully obvious plot... We meet and leave our failed protagonists standing largely exactly where we had the misfortune to meet them they where when first we saw them... but as their own now negative mirror images. The good now bad, the naive now jaded, and the new replacement groupie serving coffee and waiting to be noticed and despoiled. It's a great weekend, take a walk instead... or watch a rerun of Mr. Deeds Goes to Congress... you might like a character or two, and you won't need an anti-depression tablet.

    Oh, just so you'll know when to be ready for the movies heart pounding pivotal scene... it involves an accidentally read text message... perhaps the socially redeeming merit here is as a cautionary tale on the dangers of texting while cheating. No, really, that's it. This film isn't likely to be a box office success, or a ballot box stuffer come Oscar time. In fact the only buzz for this film might be the sound of the film flapping on reel the theaters rewinding machine... Oops, that's right, they don't use those anymore, so maybe it will just be the sound of silence.
    Expand
  3. Oct 18, 2011
    4
    Not bad, but certainly not good. It just meandered over the course of a very long-feeling 102 minutes without saying anything new or interesting. The real shame is that Philip Hoffman and Paul Giamatti weren't given more screen time, because they gave fantastic acting performances. This film felt like it was an episode of a TV drama, but packaged into a first-run movie. It had goodNot bad, but certainly not good. It just meandered over the course of a very long-feeling 102 minutes without saying anything new or interesting. The real shame is that Philip Hoffman and Paul Giamatti weren't given more screen time, because they gave fantastic acting performances. This film felt like it was an episode of a TV drama, but packaged into a first-run movie. It had good ingredients, it looked good, it smelled like it would be delicious, but after a few bites I realized just how bland and boring it was to my taste buds. Question: How long is it going to take Hollywood to wake up and realize that Ryan Gosling can't act? Expand
  4. Oct 18, 2011
    5
    Its well acted but that's about it. There's nothing new here. This should have been a TV movie. To be honest I don't think it was that good. Its a waste of two hours. There's no risks being taken here. This should never have been made into a movie. Its more like a documentary than a movie.
  5. Jan 13, 2012
    4
    Like the Empire critic review said here, there's less to this movie than meets the eye. It's done in an engaging enough manner (perhaps Clooney the director's credit) but it absolutely says nothing new. Gosling is actually more interesting here than in his other recent movie DRIVE, but his character epitomizes the big hot air balloon that is this story. Whoop-dee-doo.
  6. Oct 8, 2011
    6
    The movie reaches a peak about halfway through as a political melodrama then meanders off into a machiavelian yawn. It's a B movie wrapped up like an A. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti get little air time but steal the acting chops. As they're up against "one expression Gosling" that's not hard to do. The problem is that this plot has been written out so many times in the mediaThe movie reaches a peak about halfway through as a political melodrama then meanders off into a machiavelian yawn. It's a B movie wrapped up like an A. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti get little air time but steal the acting chops. As they're up against "one expression Gosling" that's not hard to do. The problem is that this plot has been written out so many times in the media that it comes to the movies as stale as a day old croissant. That's too bad because all the ingredients are there: good acting, writing, firecting. It's just that the final product was taken out of the oven way too early. Expand
  7. Dec 7, 2011
    6
    http://themuddoctor.blogspot.com/2011/12/ides-of-march.html
    The Ides of March wants to pull the curtain back on Americaâ
  8. Jan 30, 2012
    6
    As a directorial debut, this film shows that George Clooney is multitalented, and we have not yet plumbed the depths of his genius. And the role of Governor Mike Morris is certainly a more flattering role for Clooney than the role he played in The American, which could be retitled, "The Spy Who Shot Me." In that film, Clooney shoots his lover in the back, and then inexplicably falls inAs a directorial debut, this film shows that George Clooney is multitalented, and we have not yet plumbed the depths of his genius. And the role of Governor Mike Morris is certainly a more flattering role for Clooney than the role he played in The American, which could be retitled, "The Spy Who Shot Me." In that film, Clooney shoots his lover in the back, and then inexplicably falls in love with a prostitute while brutally sidestepping another beauty who is a trained assassin. His image survived that film, and there is probably nothing that could tarnish Clooney's glamour for long.
    Nevertheless, The Ides of March, well acted and well conceived, has a lot of problems as a political thriller. We are watching the Democratic primaries in this film, and the ambition is so ruthless that there are no ethical principles, and this dirty campaign is just within the Democratic party--we haven't even met the Republican candidates. The role of the campaign manager is overblown, creating the impression that campaign managers are superstars like managers of baseball teams. I have never once been aware of who the campaign managers were for the various candidates--before the primaries are over, it's hard enough to keep track of who the candidates are, much less who is managing their campaign. These political impresarios stay in the background, and they are anonymous. Clooney has said in interviews that he's a democrat and a liberal, but the film greatly oversimplifies the liberal, left-wing agenda, making it sound trite and predictable. The Republicans are actually admired by the competition in this movie. In one scene, Paul Giamatti's character, another campaign manager, says of the Republican party, "They're meaner, tougher and more disciplined than we are."
    Ryan Gosling is another bonus for this film--his character, Stephen Meyers, is effectively dedicated, shrewd, and controlling. But unfortunately, he has to clean up an indiscreet mess left by the Governor, and in this role where Gosling is The Voice of Morality, he makes the prophetic pronouncement, "you can bankrupt the country, but don't f*** the interns," an insightful remark that refers us back to both Presidents Bush and Clinton. When it comes to morality, neither political party gets off scott free. Loyalty is a major theme is this film, but loyalty gets thrown out the window the moment it is tested, because ambition and a sense of destiny are the order of the day. These are not political candidatesâ
    Expand
  9. Mar 6, 2012
    6
    Political thriller is generally favored by the orthodox mass, as it hinges on an abiding gist: the pitch-dark side of politicians and their marionettes. But as a fact it will never own the impact on an social level to substantially transform the framework, so it only function is to appease the jealousy and complaint from our average joe with a fawningly condescending feeling as such â
  10. Jan 17, 2012
    6
    This is an ordinary and definitely non-surprising movie. Not bad, but not good either, obviously. We saw a lot of movies about politics and this movie hasn't got any differences with other movies. It could be watch with any expectations. I watched this movie because of the golden globe nominee, and i'm disappointed.
  11. May 25, 2012
    6
    This movie was just Ok for me. It was very well done, yes. The cast was wonderful. George Clooney and Paul Giamatti did very well as well, but I do believe that Philip Seymour Hoffman was the one who deserves the best acting job in this film- just great. The cast and dialogue is what really put this film together nicely. Here are my criticisms and reasons why I gave the movie a lowerThis movie was just Ok for me. It was very well done, yes. The cast was wonderful. George Clooney and Paul Giamatti did very well as well, but I do believe that Philip Seymour Hoffman was the one who deserves the best acting job in this film- just great. The cast and dialogue is what really put this film together nicely. Here are my criticisms and reasons why I gave the movie a lower score- Before I saw the movie, I read a brief synopsis about what the film was about. I was very interested and excited to find out what sort of "dirty politics" were going to be used in it. What I found out to be unfortunately didn't impress me and seemed a bit unrealistic to me. It took a very long time for the "problem" and climax to appear in this film as well, so as a result, it seemed to me that the first half of the movie dragged on. My final criticism for this film is the ending. Directors like to leave audiences hanging, yes, but in this film, it just lets you fall off of the cliff, not even knowing what to think. Yes, the ending made me think, but everything (the climax of the film) led up to nothing. It felt under-cooked and disappointing to me. Expand
  12. Jan 8, 2013
    6
    It was good. I liked the screenplay, Clooney is really progressing as a writer but this movie is a cool representation of how politics work but their is no conflict in this movie that is that interesting. Ryan Gosling is fun to watch but this movie doesn't bring much to the table.
  13. Jan 23, 2015
    6
    In the 60s and 70s Hollywood made political films that asked questions. "The Ides of March" is too lightweight in its plot to provide anything other than a basic film. Empty and meaningless.
  14. Jun 20, 2015
    4
    I wanted to like this movie, but since the introduction of "House of Cards", this movie just can't live up to other political thrillers available. You watch this movie, you get one storyline. You watch House of Cards and you get far more bang for your money.
Metascore
67

Generally favorable reviews - based on 43 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 43
  2. Negative: 0 out of 43
  1. Reviewed by: Angie Errigo
    Oct 24, 2011
    60
    Entertaining while you're watching it but, as deceptive as a party's election promises, there's less to it than meets the eye.
  2. Reviewed by: Peter Rainer
    Oct 7, 2011
    75
    The film is actually fairly entertaining once you get past its overweening desire to be the bearer of bad tidings. A more adventuresome movie would have treated the down-and-dirty world of politics as its starting, not its ending, point.
  3. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Oct 7, 2011
    88
    Both taut and satisfyingly relevant, it presents a portrait of a compromised elections system -- one that should give the left wing, the right wing and the fringe-dwelling nutjobs something they can all agree on. Namely: We're in deep doo-doo.