Critics argue that script doesn’t match the talent level of the A-list cast in George Clooney’s political drama. By Kevin Sullivan Ryan Gosling in “Ides of March” Photo: Sony Pictures George Clooney returns to the director’s chair for the first time since 2008’s “Leather Heads” in one of the first big releases of Oscar season with “The Ides of March.” But then again, we might just be interested in Ryan Gosling’s third major role this year. Everything about “Ides of March,” from the critically lauded cast and director to the political story line seems to scream for awards season attention, but does it live up to high expectations? Critics can’t seem to agree, but the general consensus is that the script doesn’t meet the talent level of the cast, which is pretty fantastic all around. We’ve rounded up some of the reviews to give you a better idea of what to look for this weekend at the movie theater. The Story “Mr. Gosling’s consultant, Stephen Meyers, would seem to be a true believer. Speaking of his candidate, Gov. Mike Morris (Clooney), he tells a reporter, played by Marisa Tomei, ‘He’s the only one who’s going to make a difference in people’s lives.’ (At that point it’s hard to know if this is true, or if the movie thinks it’s true, since some of Morris’s positions — i.e. that we don’t need Arab oil any more — sound awfully fatuous.) And Steve’s boss, Paul Zara, the campaign manager played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, would seem to be cynicism incarnate. The problem is that the news the story brings may be perfectly accurate, but it isn’t particularly original, and it’s certainly not what we hunger for in these dispiriting, cynical times.” — Joe Morgenstern, The Wall Street Journal The Direction “Clooney has a keen eye for a good story. With this, his fourth turn as a director, he has chosen wisely. While perhaps not as nuanced as 2005’s ‘Good Night, and Good Luck,’ it’s more assured than 2008’s ‘Leatherheads’ and more accessible than 2002’s ‘Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.’ It grows a little overheated but works particularly well as a morality tale about power and its tendency to corrupt absolutely.” — Cynthia Puig, USA Today The Screenplay “What is surprising, and disappointing, is that the plot borrows, not once but twice, from the hoariest tropes in the book of smug clich
