I would like to compare the movies State of Play and Ides of March. They are both political movies, one from the side of media that covers the scandal, and another from the side of the politicians. They both have really credible actors.
Ides of March: beautiful and ridiciculously good Ryan, unforgetable George Clooney, crazy believable Philip Seymour Hoffman, never-a-weak-link Marisa Tomei, awesome-voiced Paul Giamatti and weirdly sincere Evan Rachel Wood
State of Play: long-haired Russell Crowe, short-haired Rachel McAdams, the unfortunate-choice-every-time-except-in-Good-Will-Hunting Ben Affleck, accountable Robin Wright, a beautiful surprise from my never-ending crush Jason Bateman and Helen Mirren who you may know from:

or

....yeah.
For some reason, the two movies couldn't be more different and I WANNA KNOW WHY. Both have an awesome cast, a great scandal story line, but Ides of March was so...delicious, even for a "silent movie" (my dumb name for a movie with little to no score. Shameful, but appropriate sometimes.) I think it's the pace--both develop really quickly. But State of Play seems fast-paced simply to be that way and to show that journalists have to work really fast to meet a deadline. And Ides of March was fast but you didn't notice or have time to blog about it because you were so engrossed. Ides of March was fast in a really sophisticated, artistic way that State of Play doesn't play into. But that's not to say that I don't like State of Play--Im watching it again, recorded it after catching it half-way through last night on la tele. BUTT
...and that's what I would tell Roxy if we were to have this conversation. Because no one else knows what I'm talking about....oops. JESUS ROXY YOU A CELEBRITY TO ME