The Politics of "The Avengers"; Or, Can Clean ...
The Next "Inconvenient Truth"? Jeremy Irons ...
Van Sant and Damon Attack Fracking with "The ...
In Defense of "Compliance," Sundance's Most ...
A Certain Tendency of the Documentary Ci ...
Iran's Movie Diplomacy: How Can We Attack ...
The Top 11 Political Movies of 2011George Clooney's "Ides of March" reviews (updated)
After the first review of George Clooney's political drama "Ides of March" violated a review embargo, and was quickly pulled after the film's UK distributor requested that it be taken down, the first more official reviews are now coming in after the film's premiere in Venice today.
The Guardian's Xan Brooks writes, "This handsome, solid campaign thriller paints its primary colours in darkening shades of grey," and The Evening Standard's Derek Malcolm's four star review says, "this intelligently written tale of political chicanery ... vies with Clooney's 'Good Night, And Good Luck' as the kind of relevant film Hollywood should make but seldom does," while The Playlist's headline "‘The Ides Of March’ Is A Gripping Return To Form For Director George Clooney" is a bit more flattering than the review itself. The writer says the film's Oscar frontrunner status may be in doubt.
The positive buzz stands in fairly stark contrast to British critic Tom Shone's early highly critical review, who has yet to re-post it.
In his piece, Shone wrote: "Whether you buy the rest of the movie will depend largely on whether you believe: a) the American public would elect an atheist to the white house; b) Cincinnati residents will ever forgive Clooney for portraying their city as a greying, washed-out dump and c) audiences want to see inspirational political candidates exposed as lying, immoral scumbags. This may get some takers, certainly more than in 2008 when the film was first penned, but the cynicism felt a little rote to me — and more importantly, it seems to give Clooney no joy."
"From its bleeugh cinematography to its central message — hope sucks, or blows, depending on your sexual peccadillo — this is one seriously depressed movie. I didn't know whether I should watch it or give it some telephone numbers to call."
But commenters were skeptical of Shone's take. One person, who also saw the film, wrote, "I’m not sure this reviewer saw the same movie. The movie was completely engrossing & kept my interest from start to finish. It wasn’t depressing, it was intriguing."
8 Comments
Nick | January 24, 2012 11:52 PM
Clooney was almost cooler than Gossling. It was refreshingly free from cheesy "inspiring" haughty speeches and somber french horns à la "The West Wing". It was a snooze though.
xiaojienyy | August 30, 2011 12:31 PM
( WWW netetrader com )= ( WWW netetrader com )= ( WWW netetrader com )= ( WWW netetrader com )= ( WWW netetrader com )= ( WWW netetrader com )=
doofus2 | August 27, 2011 6:02 AM
I meant to type that people don't get elected by being woo-wooy. People get elected by saying what people want to hear... not by "strange powers".... my point is that it takes being smart to get elected. Morals are up to the individual's personal views not "atheism".
doofus2 | August 27, 2011 5:57 AM
Of course they'd elect an atheist! Who knows how many atheists have already served in office considering that atheism is NOT a religion or philosophy and simply a lack of a certain belief about mysticism. People don't get elected by woo-wooy.
MoniqueV | August 27, 2011 5:17 AM
this guy with the obvious chip on his shoulder is wrong about everything, but especially point "A" - no one is "elected to the white house" in the movie. I really doubt he saw the movie.
Jason | August 26, 2011 9:48 AM
@Ray: How were performances? I am interested in everyone, esp. Gosling and Hofmann. Could anybody receive the Oscar nomination? What about the cinematography?
Rai | August 26, 2011 7:19 AM
I saw this movie at a screening. I'm not sure this reviewer saw the same movie. The movie was completely engrossing & kept my interest from start to finish. It wasn't depressing, it was intriguing.
Brandon | August 26, 2011 2:08 AM
I've read the play it's based off Farragut North...first of all, are we sure this person has ACTUALLY seen it? Unfortunately we've learned of people reviewing trailers on at least a few occasions. Anyway, the play is very depressing & corrupt, so I expect that from the film. The atheism is not in the play. "c) audiences want to see inspirational political candidates exposed as lying, immoral scumbags." Seriously? Most of them (/all of them?) are proven to be...so isn't this just being realistic? I'm not entirely sure I agree that it says such anyway (from the play)