To say I was worried about George Clooney would be an understatement. His last three outings, Up in the Air, The Men Who Stare at Goats and Fantastic Mr Fox have all been rubbish. They were also all made about the same time and released in 2009. I’m going to say burnout may be the reason. Or just shit writing and bad judgement picking scripts.

But with The Ides of March Clooney is back; as actor, director and producer although the producing credits were almost as long as the acting credits and even included Leonardo DiCaprio.

The film is set around a fictions US Democratic party primary election to determine who will run against the Republican candidate in a Presidential general election. I think. Well, I know the protagonists are democrats and that they are duelling it out to see which one gets the nod to run for President.

But this movie could have been set in a myriad of backgrounds. It’s a story of honour, loyalty, trust, hope and faith. There are no winners. Or losers for that matter.

The writing is smart. The tipping point is elegant. There was even an audible gasp in the theatre where I saw this movie (mostly from my companion) when the infallible became the indefensible.

The Ides of March plays much like a story arc from The West Wing but without Aaron Sorkin’s dialogue trickery for effect, enhancement and filler. Don’t get me wrong, when I grow up I want to write like Aaron Sorkin, after all he gave us one of the greatest movies, scenes and lines of all time with Jack Nicholson versus Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!”

And for special mention I select Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti. Both these dudes are spectacular actors. They have zero screen time together but share a couple of scenes. For my money, a movie with these two playing opposite each other could be the equivalent of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino doing Heat.

As for Ryan Gosling, well although he is the lead, it could have been played by almost anyone. DiCaprio would have been good. But not Bradley Fucking Cooper!

4 broken election promises out of 5.

Once again Messrs Downey and Law reprise their roles of Holmes and Watson. One would be forgiven if perhaps the editor was being paid by the frame as this tends to spend a lot of time, a lot of t i m e, in scenes which IMHO could have been much shorter and retained all the impact, if not more.

On the other hand, A Game of Shadows is beautiful to watch so the editor can be forgiven for not wanting to leave a single frame on the cutting room floor. It does mean the Director’s Cut, a marketing ploy of pure genius if ever there were one, will be longer only in the extras as opposed to the feature itself.

This movie wraps together too many of the printed version stories including the series ending which is considered by many an expert as the finest literary conclusion every put to page in modern time, with a rather big hat tip to Bill Shakespear’s Romeo and Juliet. Someone at the studio obviously thought ending this cash cow prior to making a trilogy (and collector’s edition box set complete with actor, director and producer commentary on Blueray in time for Xmas ’12) too soon was not an idea to that would gain favour with his/her higher ups. Said exec aded what looks like two pages of script to the end to ensure a) a Hollywood ending, b) increase in Christmas cash revenues which leads to c) not holding entirely true to Arthur Conan Doyle’s original.

As I have said before to friend and foe, Jared Harris as Professor James Moriarty is not good casting. Moriarty was brilliant. And evil. And vindictive and well quite insane. While Mr Harris is a fine actor, at the top of his craft and career with starring roles in Mad Man and other production, he doesn’t bring ‘it’ to this role. Again, I refer you to Philip Seymour Hoffman as the evil mastermind in the third instalment of Mission: Impossible. Pure genius. Blood curdling with nothing more than the slightest of looks. And the right tone of voice.

Three and a half psychopaths out of 5