My primary concern heading into The Ides of March was the possibility of the film being a bit too pretentious for its own good. After all, political dramas have a tendency to be stuffy and have a smug sense of self-importance. Thankfully, none of that is found here. Instead, we get a smart, well-executed story highlighted with exceptional performances and Clooney’s sure hand guiding the picture, behind the camera as well as in front of it.

In the same way that Moneyball provided a fresh perspective on a baseball movie, The Ides of March gives a dramatic look at the behind-the-scenes scheming of election films. Though Clooney is primarily known as an actor, this is his fourth feature film as a director; with solid movies like Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Good Night, and Good Luck on his resume, it’s no wonder he’s able to amass such talented casts for his projects. The multi-talented superstar also lends his hand to the screenplay, co-writing with his producing partner Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon (whose play, “Farragut North,” is the source material for this movie). Clooney’s collected persona seems to permeate the film through every frame: the movie itself definitely takes a stand for one side of the political spectrum (Clooney himself is an outspoken Democrat), but The Ides of March is impressive because it has a sense of conviction without condemnation. The ideas presented are not preached but practically stated, and regardless of the audience’s personal political beliefs, anyone can watch this movie without his or her feathers being ruffled too much.

While idealistic political advisor Stephen Meyers (Gosling) masterminds the primary campaign for Democratic candidate Mike Morris (Clooney), the young consultant makes some troubling discoveries about loyalty, compromise, integrity, and the reality of politics. Tempted by his enemies (Paul Giamatti as the rival campaign manager), seduced by an intern (Evan Rachel Wood), tested by his boss (Philip Seymour Hoffman as Morris’ campaign leader), and hounded by a reporter (Marisa Tomei as a journalist for the New York Times), Meyers soon realizes the world of politics isn’t easily traversed without sacrifice.

This film has one of the best casts assembled this year. Everyone does fantastic work and the Oscar nominations are sure to come once awards season rolls around. Thus continues the Year of Our Gosling, 2011: after a stoic role in Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive, Ryan Gosling is allowed more opportunities for actual emoting and takes full advantage of them, delivering one of the best performances of the year. He’s terrific as the starry-eyed advisor, a man who honestly believes in the cause he’s fighting for, slowly revealing to the audience his willingness to justify the final result of the election. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti fit right in with their characters, having played variations of them before (see: Giamatti in 2009′s Duplicity). Both actors were wonderful, each bringing an intangible quality that captivates the audience – we hang on their every word. Evan Rachel Wood was outstanding as the young intern who provides a jolt of energy to the story, and from what I’ve seen of her career, this is my favorite performance of hers. Marisa Tomei (Wood’s co-star in Aronofsky’s The Wrestler) also does some good work with a small role.

The look of the film can be a bit stark at times, but there’s some great imagery here. Clooney’s character gives a campaign speech in front of a giant American flag with thousands of people cheering him on while Gosling and Hoffman’s characters argue just behind the flag. On one side, the flag represents hope and progress, and on the other side, it hangs ominously as a weighty reminder of the stakes of every decision the key players make. Every directorial choice in the movie felt calculated (in a good way), and Clooney continues to prove himself as powerful creative force in Hollywood.

The Ides of March is a must-see for audiences who love strong dramatic performances. It’s not as much a great political movie as just simply a great movie, and this could easily end up scoring a nomination for Best Picture. As someone who isn’t heavily invested in politics, I was captivated during the entire film and definitely recommend checking it out. Until next time…

Read similar posts to Review: The Ides of March at Filmonic

If the phrase “inside baseball” was ever used to describe a film, this would be the movie in question – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Moneyball (based on Michael Lewis’ 2003 book of the same name) chronicles the story of Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) and his unorthodox attempts to create a championship team with far less money than his competitors. In a way, the film itself is just as unorthodox as Beane’s methods; we expect certain elements from this genre, but director Bennett Miller gives us a new angle to consider. Through good performances, a detailed script, and a fresh perspective, the movie tells an intriguing story of two men who went against the tides of baseball history and changed the game forever.

When teams with more money start poaching Billy Beane’s players for themselves, Beane literally can’t afford to compete on their level. During a potential trade meeting with the Cleveland Indians, Beane meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a Yale graduate who studied economics and has a different approach to rebuilding than Beane’s over-the-hill scout staff. Beane adopts the youngster’s philosophy and hires him as the new Assistant General Manager of the Athletics, much to the chagrin of his older co-workers. Much of the movie is steeped in the age-old “technology vs. human instinct” theme, but while most films take the human approach in this argument, Moneyball champions facts over intuition.

Moneyball successfully turns the sports genre on its head by exposing audiences to the detailed inner workings of a Major League Baseball team. Beane’s acquisition of Peter is far more valuable than that of any one player, and for the purposes of this movie, the players on the field aren’t nearly as important as the key “players” off the field. It’s easy to hear co-writer Aaron Sorkin’s influence in the dialogue, especially evident in a labyrinthine trade deal that comes midway through the film. It’s smart and lightning quick at times, reminiscent of portions of Sorkin’s Oscar-winning Best Adapted Screenplay from last year, The Social Network. Throughout the movie, we’re shown flashbacks of Beane’s days as a player and we see the effects his past has on him in the present time. The editing was sharp and effective, only concerned with the interesting aspects of the story and wisely breezing over sections that didn’t need to be explored in depth on film.

This is clearly a Brad Pitt vehicle, and I’m already hearing some whispers of Oscar potential surrounding his performance. I think this is some of his best work in recent years, and though I don’t quite agree that he’s deserving of an Oscar for this particular performance, I thought he was…aggressively good. Not breathtaking, but still the kind of quality work that you expect from an A-lister. His supporting cast was impressive as well, with really solid work from Jonah Hill and small roles for Philip Seymour Hoffman as the embattled coach and Chris Pratt from “Parks and Recreation” as a catcher-turned-first-baseman. Beane’s daughter is played by Kerris Dorsey (a spitting image of a young Katey Rich, friend of The Not Just New Movies podcast), an actress with a bright future who provides the muse for Pitt’s character as he struggles through decisions late in the movie.

If you're a sports buff, you may know how this story ends before you see Moneyball’s opening credits. But I didn’t know how it would play out and it captivated me, so I won’t get into the specifics of the ending here. I wonder, though: because I grew up playing baseball, much of this movie was easy for me to comprehend, but would someone who’s never played or studied the game have the same appreciation that I do? Sound off in the comments and let me know what you think, regardless of your personal history with baseball. Until next time…

Read similar posts to Review: Moneyball at Filmonic

Marc Webb’s Spider-Man reboot is gearing up for production and meanwhile his star Andrew Garfield is on his way to becoming a household name. With solid performances in both Never Let Me Go and The Social Network, indifference toward the 27-year-old’s casting as Peter Parker is slowly turning toward interest.

Now, Deadline brings word of some actresses up for the role of Spidey’s love interest: Dianna Agron (“Glee”) and Georgina Haig (Wasted on the Young) join the already-listed Emma Stone (Easy A), Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland), and Dominique McElligott (Moon). There’s also a really interesting bit about a potential recasting of Venom. Find out the latest after the jump.

Before we move into Venom discussion, I should mention that the women listed above are not specified for any particular roles. That means any of them could be in contention for Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane Watson, or perhaps a completely original personality created for this film. My take? I’d love to see Emma Stone as MJ and Dianna Agron as Gwen Stacy. (Assuming they can’t bring the gorgeous Bryce Dallas Howard back to reprise her role.)

The role of Venom/Eddie Brock is a key rival to Peter Parker in the Spider-Man mythology. Brock and Parker are constantly in competition – not only in their love lives, but also professionally as freelance photographers at the Daily Bugle. Topher Grace portrayed the character in Raimi’s Spider-Man 3, and in a casting decision that will make your head spin, Deadline presents “early unconfirmed talk” that Sony is considering Philip Seymour Hoffman as a replacement. This is a wildly off-base decision that I can’t possibly get behind. Hoffman is a great actor, for sure – but Venom? No way. The dynamic between the characters will be completely thrown off because of the age difference (Garfield is 27, Hoffman is 43).

Now it’s your turn: give me your dream casting scenario in the comment section. No holds barred: it doesn’t have to be just the people mentioned above – let’s open the floor to all suggestions. Who would you like to see?

Read similar posts to Potential casting for Spidey reboot at Filmonic

As many of you know, George Clooney is not just a talented actor, but also a very skilled director. Clooney was nominated for Best Director at the Academy Awards for Good Night, and Good Luck, but it was his debut – Confessions of a Dangerous Mind – that I thought was much more enjoyable. Now, he’s setting up his third directorial film: Farragut North, based on a stage play about a political campaign and the corruption and tricks that go along with it. Hit the jump for more information, including Clooney’s hopes for his cast.

Clooney has his eye on Star Trek‘s Chris Pine for the lead role of Stephen Myers, a young press secretary/spin control expert for a presidential campaign as he plays dirty to secure his boss the nomination. Leonardo DiCaprio was once in talks for the part, but after dropping out, Pine seems the next logical choice; he recently starred in a Los Angeles performance of the play on which the film is based.

Brad Pitt was also once attached to the project, but he and Leo must be having a meeting of the Busiest Guys in Hollywood Club; Pitt probably won’t be able to fit the project into his schedule. Enter Philip Seymour Hoffman as a replacement in the role of Myers’ boss on the campaign trail. Paul Giamatti has joined as the rival political party campaign manager, and offers are also out to Evan Rachel Wood and Marisa Tomei in supporting roles.

Sounds like a compelling story and a fantastic cast – count me in. What do you all think? Are you on board with Clooney as a director, and does Farragut North sound appealing to you?

Read similar posts to George Clooney hopes to lock down impressive cast for ‘Farragut North’ at Filmonic

There have been a number of reports saying that Philip Seymour Hoffman will be playing The Penguin in the follow up to The Dark Knight, despite director Christopher Nolan himself not yet being attached to the film. Well finally those rumors can now be put to rest as MTV spoke to Hoffman himself, who quickly dismissed the claims.

“No one has talked to me about it ever — never,” replied Hoffman. “It happened, like, five years ago, too. It was a rumor back then and it’s still a rumor. [laughs] It’s just in the press. It’s funny.”

“I’m such a fan of those movies,” related Hoffman. “Comic book movies in general I look forward to — I am a real cheerleader for them. I want them to do well because those are terrific stories. As a kid I was a big comic book collector. What [Nolan]’s doing is taking it in a whole other exciting great place. I’m more a fan, so the interest of being in it isn’t that great. It’s more the interest in wanting to see the next one. It’s probably better that way.”

When further pressed for his level of interest in the role if Warner Bros. approached him about the role, Hoffman said, “I don’t know. I think I’m more interested in seeing someone else do it. I don’t know if I’d be a good Penguin to be quite honest. [laughs]”

So there you have it, Philip Seymour Hoffman is not interesting in playing The Penguin. I don’t think The Penguin will actually be in the next film, after writer David Goyer said he doesn’t want to use any villains we have already seen. It will be interesting to see what villain(s) they do use, however we have a long time to wait until we hear anything.

Read similar posts to Philip Seymour Hoffman Talks Penguin at Filmonic