Tell us what you thought of 'The Ides of March'
George Clooney's political drama hits theaters today
George Clooney in "The Ides of March"
Are you a fan of Academy Awards?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
We've said about all we can say about George Clooney's "The Ides of March" around these parts. Guy was reserved about the film in Venice and used the occasion of the film's release to launch a list of the top 10 films about politics. I was over the moon about it in Los Angeles and am willing to stake plenty on its Oscar chances, despite naysayers. And Anne and I had plenty to say about it and the film's critical reception this morning. But today, the film is opening wide across the country. So many of you will get a load of it yourself this weekend. I'm eager to hear what you have to say, so hurry on back here when/if you get around to seeing it and give us your thoughts.
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
News From Our Partners
-
'Star Wars: Episode VII': Is George Lucas Involved in the J.J. Abrams Reboot?
'Anchorman 2' Teaser Poster Revealed, and It's Kind of a Big Deal
New 'Kick-Ass 2' Trailer: Hit-Girl Gets Her Hits In, Kick-Ass Goes Shirtless
-
Mike Hogan: Why We're Hating Don Draper
Colorado Woman Dies During Production Of Reality TV Show
It Pays To Play Gay On Daytime Soaps
-
'Veronica Mars' Begins Filming: See Set Photos Here!
'Kick-Ass 2' Exclusive: Meet Your Heroes And Villains
Brad Pitt Promises 'World War Z' Will Be 'Most Intense' Movie You'll See All Year
-
Video Interviews with Cast & Crew of Monsters University
Digital Multiplex: 21 & Over, Quartet, and More
RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Jack the Giant Slayer and Quartet
-
Hear This: My dad toured with Phil Collins
Watch This: White Zombie is the granddaddy of all zombie flicks
Comics Panel: New comics releases include a high-profile Superman title and a musician’s return to comics
-
The Telefile - TV on DVD: Tuesday, June 18, 2013
The Telefile - Veep: The Episode's Best Insults
The Telefile - The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
-
What to Watch Tonight: SYTYCD, Pretty Little Liars, and the Season 4 Finale of The Voice
Dan Harmon Has Apologized for His Comments About Community Season 4, But Should He Be Forgiven? (POLL)
Teen Wolf "Fireflies" Review: The Virgin Homicides (PHOTO RECAP)
-
Avicii Drops New Single 'Wake Me Up'
New Music Releases – July 2013
Robert Pattinson Wants to Introduce Katy Perry to His Parents
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupPaul Doro
October 7, 2011 at 2:30PM EST Reply to CommentConsidering all the talent involved, I was disappointed. Gosling is credible and extremely compelling, and Giamatti & Hoffman are (as always) great. But the movie loses focus as it goes along and spends too much time on melodrama (with Wood's character) and not enough on what's most interesting about it (advising major party presidential candidate, behind-the-scenes strategy discussions, aides fighting to be heard and working on speeches/tactics). Gosling's transition is too quick and forced, and Morris isn't fleshed out enough. No way that guy won a race for governor being that liberal without getting at least a little down and dirty. And ultimately it repeats the obvious too much: politics is a dirty game that pollutes the soul. It isn't as smart as it thinks it is, nor as good as it should have been.
Kristopher Tapley As smart as it thinks? Respectfully, yours is the classic, unfortunate, miss-the-boat reaction a lot of critics are coming away with. It doesn't think it's smart. It's dead-faced, "this is how it is," not at all aiming to present epiphany.
October 7, 2011 at 7:33PM ESTIt's staggering, to me, how many people are so hung up on the idea that they wanted it to be somehow revelatory of a game that has been dirty since the dawn of time.
Kyle T. Completely in agreement Kris. Personally, I think a lot of the reaction has to do with the film being sold as a thriller, when I'd argue its more of a character study. I don't think that the trailer helped this any, especially with it ending with Gosling's character saying "he has something big". It set up expectations that the film would reveal something monumentally revelatory. I find it more interesting anyway that Clooney is concerned more with the individuals than with the overall political system.
October 8, 2011 at 2:45AM ESTJay I have to agree with Paul. It wasn't a matter of me wanting the film to be something different than what it was, but what Ides did present made me shrug my shoulders at the end. Great performances, but it built up to nothing special for me.
October 9, 2011 at 4:26PM ESTPaul Doro Ah yes someone disagrees with you, so pull out the classic, unfortunate, and lazy response "you didn't get it." Really Kris?
October 10, 2011 at 9:22AM ESTIt's OK that it isn't "revelatory," but ultimately it's not very substantial. There's not much to it.
If you disagree with someone, try doing better than "you just didn't get it"! That's grade school.
HoustonRufus
October 7, 2011 at 2:51PM EST Reply to CommentI'm seeing it tonight. Will report back. I'll be curious to measure my reaction against what I've been reading.
Laura Stewart
October 7, 2011 at 6:32PM EST Reply to CommentTied for best movie of the year with Drive (so far). I went in expecting Gosling and company to shine, and did they ever. I was the most impressed with Evan Rachel Wood- between Mildred Pierce and this film, I think she is having one hell of a year (and singing Justin Beiber on Fallon).
Gosling should receive a lot of notice for his performance too. Gosling in, Oldman out?
Frank Lee
October 7, 2011 at 7:54PM EST Reply to CommentClooney's character, when prattling on in his smug way about hydrogen power and energy independence, reminded me of Alec Baldwin's puppet in "Team America: World Police" when he implores the impoverished North Koreans to drive hybrid cars. The movie indicts Clooney's character for his poor judgment and cold-heartedness, but it never ridicules him for his naive and disingenuous political views, which Clooney seems to be endorsing. It's not clear why Goslin's character begins the movie so enamored of Clooney's character's politics. What we see of them is silly and self-adoring, but the moviemakers don't seem to realize it.
Kristopher Tapley It's an extreme just like the right has an extreme. Why does it need to be ridiculed?
October 8, 2011 at 2:40AM ESTJesse Crall Gee Frank, watch Billo much? Everything Clooney's character discusses on the stump has been initially proposed by various liberal candidates over the past 8 years. And the use of new energy including solar power was a major talking point (though unfortunately forgotten since) during Obama's campaign.
October 8, 2011 at 3:29AM ESTadelutza
October 7, 2011 at 8:21PM EST Reply to CommentI enjoyed it. It was a good story that kept me guessing and the acting was good all around. My only complain is that Gosling's acting in the last 10 minutes of the film reminded me a lot of his acting in Drive. I guess he's got that not-sure-what's-happening-to-me-I'm alone-in-the-world face expression down good.
HoustonRufus
October 7, 2011 at 9:42PM EST Reply to CommentThoroughly enjoyed it. Entertaining, while still being deeply cynical. Now having seen it, I'm perplexed at all the reviews expecting the movie to reveal something we didn't already know about American politics. It's a criticism that strikes me as unfair. To me, the movie isn't trying to tell us anything we didn't already know. It's just trying to present a depiction of how idealism ultimately doesn't survive, can't survive once thrown into the snakepit. And it does so in riveting fashion.
Could the story have been a wee bit more complex and not so soapy? Probably. I'm a little torn on the nature of the potential scandal Myers uses to keep himself in the game. Then again, we've seen that sort of scandal bring down so many politicians in recent years. So it's not like it's not realistic. I just wish it were a bit more interesting, maybe because we have seen that type of scandal unfold so often.
Ultimately what made the movie rise to the level of one of the better movies of the year is the directing and acting. Clooney tells his story with elegance. And it moves at a clip. It was over before I knew it. What the reviews do have right is that the actors are all top drawer. Clooney is pretty much perfect for his role. He nails it. Giamatti and Hoffman are utterly believable in their parts. It's hard to imagine anyone pulling them off better. And Gosling is sensational. In fact, I had some reservations about him for the part. He's always come off too cynical to me to play an idealist. But he pulled it off beautifully. I still insist he's one of the most fascinating actors to watch in movies right now. His acting style is so retrained, but I love watching what he does with his eyes. His face, especially those eyes, literally transform over the course of the movie. The glowing, hopeful boy at the beginning has learned to play the game not using his heart. The last scene, though small, with Tomei's reporter, he handles brilliantly. His expression as he reacts to her and then walks away tells us he'll do what he has to do now to survive in that world.
I suppose many will say none of this is new. Isn't it enough if its done well, even wonderfully well? Maybe political movies are held to a different standard. No I didn't learn anything I didn't know or suspect. But it is a riveting drama nonetheless, smartly made and with performances that are thrilling.
Kyle T. Curious to hear what you thought of Tomei. I remember hearing Kris or Anne say on an Oscar Talk at the beginning of the season that they had heard Tomei wasn't an awards possibility. While I agree completely after seeing the film, I think I had assumed that she was poorly cast or just plain bad in the film. I was pleasantly surprised. Her interactions with Gosling and Hoffman were some of the more interesting in the film.
October 8, 2011 at 2:51AM ESTHoustonRufus I thought Tomei was pitch perfect. I totally bought her as a seasoned Times reporter who plays the game as good as the politicians she covers. I don't think she'll get nominated. It's a really small part and has no BIG moments. But she played the part perfectly in my eyes.
October 8, 2011 at 12:48PM ESTJJ1 Houston, couldn't agree more with your opening comment.
October 9, 2011 at 7:49PM ESTjunesong
October 7, 2011 at 9:55PM EST Reply to CommentI loved the movie -and I think Gosling should get a nod for sure. One criticism - and it's sure to be controversial - is that I don't think the film needed George Clooney in the role of Morris. He felt slightly out of place and I think it would have been better if he had of stayed behind the camera. I feel like Morris should have been cast a little older - like a Robert Redford, or even (as someone jokingly mentioned above) Alec Baldwin.
Kyle T. While watching, I also felt that Clooney's Morris felt out of place, but I think that's deliberate. His character is almost elevated to 'God' like status by Gosling and his cohorts, so he should feel 'otherworldly". At the same time, the sense of alienation associated with Morris kind of mirrors his status as an empty signifier for the staffers to fill with up/ project their 'spin' and rhetoric onto.
October 8, 2011 at 2:39AM ESTLaura Stewart Interesting because in the play, I believe the Morris-like character is off-stage the entire time.
October 8, 2011 at 7:59PM ESTjunesong
October 7, 2011 at 9:56PM EST Reply to CommentWrite a comment...I loved the movie -and I think Gosling should get a nod for sure. One criticism - and it's sure to be controversial - is that I don't think the film needed George Clooney in the role of Morris. He felt slightly out of place and I think it would have been better if he had of stayed behind the camera. I feel like Morris should have been cast a little older - like a Robert Redford, or even (as someone jokingly mentioned above) Alec Baldwin.
Kyle T.
October 7, 2011 at 10:43PM EST Reply to Comment*Some mild spoilers ahead*
Agree with many of the enthusiastic endorsements of the film, and agree with some of the criticisms. What I think that it does well, and is perhaps the true 'revelatory' message/theme that people are looking for (and misidentifying in thinking the film only suggests "politics are corrupt) is show just how quickly a supposed 'moral' crusader can turn on his own ideals. I LOVE that Gosling's character pivots almost animalistically into self preservation mode when forced. Clooney also directs economically but with style, the scene with Gosling crying in the car is beautifully wrought. Overall, I would say that it's a solid triple. It would be interesting, imo, to see what Tony Gilroy did with the material. This ranks just under Michael Clayton for me.
HoustonRufus Well said. I pretty much agree with all of this.
October 7, 2011 at 11:17PM ESTAvi H
October 8, 2011 at 1:59AM EST Reply to CommentReally enjoyed the ides of march. I agree with you kris that ryan gosling will get in the best actor race, but mostly because of the year he is having. He is quickly becoming one of the best actors working today. Paul giamatti and Hoffman may just be the two actors today that everybody loves because they are always good in everything they do and just always seem to pick great roles. They can do no wrong in my book. i think the movie will be one of the last movies in for best pic. however i dont believe it will win for anything and it will go down as another great political flick that people will enjoy but easily forget down the road because of the topic. one of the best movies of year hands down
Chad Hartigan
October 8, 2011 at 3:17AM EST Reply to CommentI guess I have the classic miss-the-boat reaction according to Kris but, to me, the movie is sophisticated in only the most superficial ways and is otherwise pretty pedestrian.
Jesse Crall
October 8, 2011 at 3:34AM EST Reply to CommentI found Ideas gripping and sharp, well-acted, and wholly plausible based on my moderate knowledge of politics. Very neat A- and I'd rate it higher if the plot was a little more ambitious. But Clooney's direction was the best I've seen so far this year and I'd love to see Hoffman and/or Giamatti find their way to a supporting nod. I doubt either will (Hoffman probably has the better chance) but I loved the cynical viewpoint that never wavered while the editing ensemble kept things moving.
Jorge
October 8, 2011 at 11:59AM EST Reply to CommentThe Ides of March is a borderline ridiculous movie, aside from its impeccable cast, which was beneath all of the trite, unrealistic characters they were asked to portray.
The movie doesn't make any sense. On day one, Ryan Gosling's character is a wide-eyed, romantic and idealistic believer. He believes in his candidate because his candidate believes in doing the right thing, and he likes to do the right thing. There is not an ounce of cynicism or jadedness in his body. Not only that, we have to presume that, on this day 1, he is a smart individual, he is after all the number 2 guy on the campaign of a guy on the verge of the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
About 36 hours later, his character is all of a sudden, incredibly stupid, and so jaded and seasoned as to be somehow more conniving than the vultures who have run circles around him. Inexplicably, he meets with Giamitti - the movie doesn't even bother to explore why he did it (save for a superficial comment by Seymour Hoffman, speculating later as to why). He just does. It makes no sense. No one at that level would be so stupid as to do that. Then he lies about it. Then, to add icing to the cake of ridiculous, he sleeps with the 20 year old intern.
OK. Then here comes the best part. He knows he's screwed up, the reporter has found out about what he did. He then confronts the intern, who wants to return to the campaign after the abortion, by telling her: (can't remember the exact line) "this is politics, if you make a mistake, you lose the right to keep playing." I laughed out loud when he said that. I still think I imagined it. I mean, seriously? He just made a colossal mistake, completely fucked up, and somehow he's the one lecturing about making mistakes and getting to play? Then, as if not done bordering on the absurd, Ryan is *shocked*, SHOCKED when his character is told he can no longer play given the mistake he made. How can this be? He's devastated! And yet, seconds before, he was lecturing about mistakes. One non-sensical occurrence after another.
But the movie is not done. He then goes to Giamatti's character and once again, the dude runs circles around him. He goes from being an idiot, to being the cunning strategist, to being an idiot again, and then brilliantly to a cunning strategist. And all of this, mind you, within the span of about 72 hours.
All of this nonsense leaves me no choice but to conclude that The Ides of March is not a *serious* political movie. I mean, I realize that the storylines movies portray do not have to be realistic. But, in the realm of politics, if they are not, then they are by definition not a "serious" political movie, they are simply a Hollywood thriller. Which would be fine, except Ides tries *so hard* to be taken seriously as a political movie. It has the campaign-posters "Believe" which clearly allude to Obama and his campaign. It has the easy one liners about gay marriage, about the environment and job creation (also all pulled from Obama).
Even at being taken seriously as a political movie Ides completely fails. It expects its viewer to be naive enough to believe that such a ridiculous sequence of events could ever occur in politics and to not realize that many of the ploys it uses are stolen outright from old campaigns ("I like Mike"? I mean, come on), and yet expects them to be seasoned enough to understand why a reference to "Neville Chamberlain" in foreign policy is a bad thing.
Perhaps Ides was meant as an allegory of what happens throughout the course of a person's career in politics, the systematic jading that occurs. If that is the case, Ides falls unfortunately prey to its own desire to also be an action movie, and keep it face-paced and on-the-edge-of-your-seat. Things occur too quickly and too illogically for the allegory (if that is even the point, which I doubt) to work.
This movie is not even worthy of being in the discussion for a Best Picture nomination.
HoustonRufus Your points on the plot construction are well taken. I had trouble with some of the choices made, as I pointed out in my post. The overall plot could have been more sophisticated. But my final judgment isn't nearly as harsh and dismissive as yours. I don't think Ides belongs in the discussion of the best political films ever made. I agree with Guy on that. But I do think it's a hell of an entertaining movie set in the world of politics with performances that feel lived in and true, even if, as you point out, Gosling's motivations could have been fleshed out more. He makes it work, at least for me, as does Clooney's direction.
October 8, 2011 at 1:02PM ESTEven though I haven't seen many of the films already discussed on this blog, because I haven't had the opportunity, I know Ides will not rank as my favorite film of the year. I'd probably grade it a B+/A-. But I still insist the film itself will be an oscar player in several categories and deserves to be. I agree with a post upthread that it won't win anything, but I'd like to see Gosling, Hoffman, maybe cinematography, editing, directing nominations.
Rob I have to say that it is strange that Gosling's character is *that* naive and idealistic at the beginning. He says that he's worked on more campaigns than most people have by the time they're 40, and yet he thinks that Tomei's journalist is his *friend*? Any average joe would be smarter than to do what this character does and think as he does in the film's initial third. How he gotten to this position without realizing that politics are corrupt, idealism is silly, and journalists are not sharks?
October 9, 2011 at 11:23AM ESTRob I meant to say "How has he gotten..." and "journalists are sharks". Oh...and he tells Duffy that Paul is his friend....right.
October 9, 2011 at 11:26AM ESTJJ1
October 8, 2011 at 2:17PM EST Reply to CommentSeeing this tomorrow. Can't friggin' wait. That said, I wonder if this will be the type of movie that (and this could be for most movies, but I digress):
Based on a well-recieved play, Clooney, Gosling, PSH, Giamatti, Wright, Tomei, ERWood, good editing, good cinematography, Oscar caliber writing team, etc etc etc ... something that Oscar prognosticators, bloggers, and even critics might really enjoy; because of the prestige involved.
And then you got the public (who doesn't always think in terms of performance quality, writing team, editing, cinematography, etc.), who may just sit down, watch the film, and say ... 'eh, it was ok'. Or 'so what?'. Or 'well I thought that'd be better', etc.
I'm hoping I'm in the Kris camp. But I feel like there will be a disconnect between several bodies: AMPAS, critics, Oscar prognosticators, and the public. I don't think this looks to be an 'A' CinemaScore type of movie now that it's released. Anyone know what I mean?
Can't wait to see it for myself tomorrow and see where I fall. :)
Oak
October 8, 2011 at 10:48PM EST Reply to CommentI thought it was a very solid if not a great movie. What really works is the perfect casting of the key eight or nine main roles. Even Max Minghella pulls out some nice acting skills during a crucial scene with Evan Rachel Wood. Clooney's direction was also well done and while not many scenes were overly artistic or masterful, a few shots like Gosling in the rain and him in shadows behind the giant flag are very memorable. I just got back from seeing the film so I don't really know what is keeping me from saying I loved it, but I would recommend it to anyone I know who likes movies.
Angelo
October 9, 2011 at 3:44PM EST Reply to CommentSad but in no way ashamed to be on the "missed" boat here. It has really solid production values, and great performances from Hoffman and Giamatti, but I was crushed to see the usually excellent Gosling struggling with his character's busted moral compass. His performance veers wildly from doe-eyed "people have SEX in this country?" expressions to the crazy-eyed destructo-glare from Kill Bill in his later scenes with Wood & Clooney, and neither are befitting a supposedly highly competent young political operator who's been on as many campaigns as most contemporaries have by their forties. If this was a movie about a mentally unstable man-child who thought all pretty blondes were virgins and all righteous leaders were scandal-free, then suffered a total nervous collapse when presented with reality, this might be an interesting performance in a strange movie. But no, the film does not present us with a sane and sober counterpoint to Gosling's increasingly silly reactions; rather, I think we're meant to identify with him and go down the rabbit hole of 'how things are today' by his side. No thanks: I got over my anxieties about girls having sex with people who weren't me and authority figures letting me down when I was about 15.
JLPatt
October 9, 2011 at 5:07PM EST Reply to CommentShould be a certainty for a SAG ensemble nod, I'd have to think. Everyone is brilliant. The only problem is when it comes to picking out ONE exceptional performance from the supporting cast. Nobody really stands out above the rest in a major way, so that might be an issue.
Best in show was Gosling, though. I was a little surprised how much I loved him in this role. I totally bought his arc and especially that galvanizing, sinking feeling when you know you've messed up and it's not going to be easy getting out. All conveyed quite beautifully by him and Clooney's direction.
Another under-appreciated aspect of the film I feel needs to be pointed out is Alexandre Desplat's score. Extremely effective and subtle work, reminding me of the equally underrated and somewhat similar subtlety of Mychael Danna's score on "Moneyball."
JJ1
October 9, 2011 at 8:03PM EST Reply to CommentOK, just saw it. I have to say, not only am I confused by all the "it's not a revelatory political film, therefore it stinks" talk ... but I'm also a bit confused on all the "Gosling character's arc was too unbelievable" chatter.
I thought - given the story, time table, and what happened - that every single thing that happened to/with/for/about/from the Stephen character made sense in a logical way. I'm reading the criticisms, but I just don't see them. He reacted exactly how I would've. And just because he's idealistic and a brainiac strategist doesn't mean he knows everything about the nature of humanity (Paul/Tom's interplay, that Molly had sex, that Marisa Tomei's Ida wouldn't be his friend). Give me a break. To me, that is nitpicking of the highest order, and searching for reasons to negate the film's quality.
I do think the movie was excellent. Not OMGGG territory. But a solid political drama with an enticing story, great performances, et al.
And although the story lacks a little political ambition, I don't quite understand the 'melodrama' comments, either. What happened happened within the span of a week in this story. What do people want? Something bone dry?
I get that not everybody will like the film (duh), I just haven't agreed with the criticisms I've read.
Jorge In my longer post above I forgot to mention another silly moment. (Spoils) After he has slept with Wood and found out about her pregnancy, and is mortified about what would happen if it came out, he screams loudly for her to come into his office in front of everybody else in the room/campaign and then.....writes her a note saying: "meet me at the stairs at 12" or something like that. Wouldn't want anyone to notice that they were planning on meeting up huh??
October 9, 2011 at 9:45PM ESTI'm not sure how that can be seen as logical. If he doesn't want anyone to find out he texts her or sends her an IM like she did him on the bus. I know it's a minor point, but it kind of encapsulates the point of how the story teller was trying to be dramatic yet explanatory at the same time. It just really didn't work.
Ryan Sartor
October 9, 2011 at 10:44PM EST Reply to CommentI thought the film was fine, and I'd like to give it another look, but I feel that the film has little at stake that I care about: Clooney's a scumbag and I don't want him in the white house--not because he slept with an intern but because he didn't use a condom. Hoffman was right to fire Gosling so I don't care if he wins out. If Morris gets the nomination, Gosling gets the job--he's young, he'll get another job. I just didn't care. And characters don't have to be likable, their problems just have to feel big enough and despite all the shock phrases: Abortion! Infidelity! I just didn't care a lot.
I did like the film though lol.
And if Clooeny gets a nm for Best director, I will film a sequel to Les Blank's film and eat my shoe.
RichardA
October 10, 2011 at 9:30PM EST Reply to CommentThe movie was great right up until the 1/3 of the movie--the initial meeting. The movie was pretty laughable soon after that. SPOILERS. My whole problem was that there was no suggestion that Steve had any reason to meet with Tom. And then it occurred to me that I'm all confused with all the Vanilla names in this movie--all after football quarterbacks--Ben Rothlisberger, Tom Brady, Steve Young, I'm sure there's Pauls and Mikes running around.
The most laughable scene was when the nurse was giving Molly her presciptions like it was a bad afterschool special--Rachel Evan Wood was just nodding her head.
The movie had nothing at stake--because what--George Clooney was gonna lose to another Democrat, who for all we know is probably a nice guy.
It's a silly movie. But credit should be given to Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, and Phillip Seymor Hoffman--as they chewed every scene they were in. The musical score was also notable.
Also: Paul Giamatti plugs his movie and says, "WIN WIN".
alex_leonardis
October 11, 2011 at 1:14AM EST Reply to CommentSpoiler question ahead...
Did Morris lose? Because at the end when Steven is a bout to do the interview and he hears the speech, the cheers afterwards are, from what I heard, "Pullman, Pullman!" Sorry if I'm stating the obvious. But I seriously don't think that after your candidate has just won, your going to give your speech in an empty lightless gym. Is this new insight or am I just late to the game?
RichardA I don't think so, or at least not yet at that time since Ida was really into getting to Steve who was in ascendance.
October 11, 2011 at 3:42AM ESTAs far as the empty gym, I think it loops back in the beginning preparing the setting for Morris--except this time, Steve is steely eyed and not as charmingly goofy from the beginning. At least that's what his hair gel says to me.
I'd like to find out if you're right.
AndrewM679
October 15, 2011 at 9:29PM EST Reply to CommentJust saw it, and thought it was really good. Not great, and not my favorite of the year so far, but very good. The acting, the old-fashioned directing by Clooney, and I thought the editing, cinematography, and score were very good.
I too don't understand the criticisms that the movie was treating the scandal like it was some huge thing that people don't know about. It wasn't, it was just showing the viewer the truth and how the characters dealt with it. Can't believe that this is one of the major reasons that it's being held back from being considered a major contender.