Quick version: Ides of March does not suck, but neither is it awesome.
I haven’t liked it as much as other films Clooney has directed. Probably because it didn’t have as sharp a plot as his past efforts. Good Night and Good Luck was more than just a biopic; it was a sharp and biting indictment of a media that has become the force it was supposed to monitor. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind was a hell of a spy movie that may or may not (probably not but still) be trueish. It was wonderfully demented. Leatherheads was about how professional football (as a stand in for all sports) got where it is today. These are all fine films.
Ides of March is a political thriller and that is a difficult genre in which to raise eyebrows. Because: A: there are already several good political thrillers that are based on actual events. All the Kings Men, Primary Colors and all that. 2: Even if you make up a story you’ll still be judged against the likes of The Contender and Bullworth. The field is rather packed. Also, all those films mentioned also have awesome endings. And D: a bunch of films also use a political thriller element but also have a meaty spy story or a classic courtroom scene. So, if you want to make a film that’s just about the intrigue of a presidential campaign; it needs to be juicy.
Ides of March isn’t that juicy. It has an excellent cast that acts excellently. I’ve got no problem with any particular piece of the picture; it’s just that when they’re all put together it’s all rather tame and uninteresting.
The sexual scandal doesn’t seem all that scandalous to me. Sad? Sure. Would it ruin someone’s presidential campaign? Yeah. Does the film make me care? …No.
There needs to be something more at stake than a bunch of politician’s careers. I think the Clooney character is supposed to be the one man who can fix the U.S.; but they don’t establish that well. He’s a broad liberal candidate whose speeches are just lists of generic sound bites. So it’s not really clear what the salvation would be (unless you’re one of those folks whose worse nightmare is a Republican president; if that’s the case you’ll be on the edge of your seat) or why this guy is different.
Let’s take Bullworth for example. That film made very clear why and how the titular candidate was different from his competition. That’s what’s missing from Ides of March; there’s nothing to tell us what if anything is actually at stake; other than some white dudes’ jobs.
But well acted, you won’t be disappointed on that score. This is a solid rental.
But if you like political thrillers rent The Contender first.