Thursday, October 13, 2011

The Ides of March

Summary:  A political thriller centered on the press secretary for the democratic presidential nominee.  Stephen Meyers, the secretary, starts sleeping with an intern on the campaign and finds out that the candidate, Mike Morris, had slept with her before.  She got pregnant by the candidate and needs to take care of it.  Meanwhile, the opposing campaign manager tries to recruit Stephen for their team.  Stephen is supposedly one of the greatest young political minds out there.  The whole situation implodes and Stephen has to decide what he's going to do:  continue working for a candidate you once believe to be different than the rest, or admit that he's just another corrupt politician and work against him?

OaTs:  The press secretary is played by Ryan Gosling and the candidate is played by George Clooney, who also directed.  Philip Seymour Hoffman was the campaign manager and Marissa Tomei was his wife, a reporter for a big newspaper, reporting on the presidential race.  Evan Rachel Wood played the intern on the campaign.  Paul Giamatti was the campaign manager for the opposition.  Given this cast, I figured I was in for a great ensemble piece that I'd be rooting for come Oscar Night.  I was wrong.

The story was much more focused on one person than I thought it would be, which is quite a shame given the ensemble.  There was hardly a scene Gosling wasn't in.  He's played to be an upright and genuine guy at first, and then you start to wonder about him.  The constant reminders of how good of a guy he's supposed to be started to ring false after a while.  I found him to be rather annoying and cocky after I got to know him.  

I was much more interested in Philip Seymour Hoffman's character, Paul, who is Stephen's boss and Morris' right-hand man.  I adore Hoffman and every word he utters sounds like music to my ears.  I love his voice, but that’s not nearly as important as the fact that the audience can totally understand his conviction.  He seemed to be a decent guy, but didn't profess to be.  And actions speak louder than words, especially in film.  I could have watched a film about his character all day.

There's really not much to say without giving away the ending of the movie, but I feel justified in my belief that the movie could have been more engaging and much less predictable. But the biggest reason for my disappointment is that I absolutely loved Good Night, and Good Luck, Clooney's Oscar nominated directorial effort from 2005.  It's one of my favorites of the past decade.  I had high hopes, and they were quite dashed by the end of the film.

I found myself predicting the very last shot.  When the last scene began, it all started to seem very familiar.  The way the camera moved.  The character's actions.  The noise and dialogue in the background.  I could feel what was coming next.  Then it happened.  Exactly what I saw in my mind a minute or two earlier.  And I was disappointed.  I wanted something new.  Something that I hadn't seen before.

The thing is, I actually don't like it when I figure things out.  In that brief moment, after I predict the ending and before it's revealed that I'm right, I think to myself, "Prove me wrong. Surprise me."  And I wish that with all my heart.  When I walk into the theater, I ache to see something different.  I sit down in my seat, preferably in the middle of the row, directly in front of the screen, and beg the screen, "Wow me."  It doesn't happen as often anymore.  I was hoping this film would, but it didn’t.

Maybe The West Wing set the bar a little high for political shows and films.  Maybe I shouldn't have listened to the hype and reviews coming out of Toronto.  I don't know.  I can't call it a bad film, it was just a predictable one.  And those are my least favorite.  I can like a bad film.  I've liked many in the past.  But it's hard for me to like a predictable one.

Score:  6/10

No comments:

Post a Comment