I saw this film at the New Orleans premiere and found it to be an interesting spectacle that I largely enjoyed watching. I'm writing to let the public know that the numbers look strange at this point (September 17, 2006). Why? Nearly 20% of the votes have been in the 1-3 range (which would rate this film to be in the ranks of the worst low budget films ever made). One voter has commented that he did not see the film, but hates Sean Penn's politics so he won't see it and will give the film a 1 just to spite Penn. At the same time, nearly half of the votes give the film a perfect 10. I don't think that the polarized ratings to date reflect careful attempts to rate the film. Perhaps that's often the case with IMDb. I suggest taking them with a grain of salt for the time being and deciding for yourself if you are interested in the film.
Add a Review
-
wjcj3413 January 2007I may be in the minority but I found this to be a very good picture, was it as great as the casting implies it should be, probably not, but it was extremely well written. Sean Penn made a great Willie Stark, not what you would expect if you had seen the earlier versions, but he brought his usual passion and emotion to the role. Jude Law did a very good job, torn between two worlds with his reserved demeanor, you could almost see him cry out from the torture. All of the other characters were simply props and support for the two main characters of Willie Stark and Jack Burden. Even though the movie is not fact based it captures the time it represents very well. Huey Long (whom Willie Stark) is based on, was what some called a madman and some called a great leader of the common man. It is now out on video and worth watching
-
kaswoj9 October 2006As a foreigner with not much ideas about U.S. history and politics, I have watched this movie with no bias and quite some problems to understand many phrases of Southern accents (which are quite fascinating on their own). However, it appeared to me as an interesting and pretty complex political story of the usual fight between rich and poor, honesty and false promises, racism, corruption... you name it. Even though the movie can catch one's attention for its full running time, some of the desired tension and drama are missing, and much of the final outcome is quite predictable. Overall, it's certainly no Oscar candidate, but also doesn't deserve low ratings as some (politically motivated) users distribute.
-
Zaillian's 'All The King's Men' is a well shot film. I liked how he created the feel of the 50's Lousiana with dark washed-out colours, the costumes, cars, money, interior architecture and the simplistic settings. Some of the visuals are very impressive as they brilliantly highlight the darkness of that era. However, the script seems a little contrived. In spite of having a wonderful stellar cast that includes talents like Sean Penn, Jude Law, Mark Ruffalo, James Gandolfini, Kathy Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson, Anthony Hopkins and Kate Winslet (could anyone ask for a better cast?), none of the characters, (with the exception of Penn's Willie Stark and Law's Jack Burden) are fleshed out enough and none of them, with the exception of Ruffalo's Adam Stanton, are particularly likable. Not every actor masters the Southern diction but I'm glad that they spoke with an accent their more comfortable with than a forced Southern-I'm-chewing-glue-while-talking accent. Yet at the same time it was too obvious especially when Anthony Hopkins spoke with a British accent. All the actors do a fairly good job. The dialogues are a stand-out. I particularly liked how the characters played around with words, mostly the double-entendre. At some points the film moves at an extremely slow pace. We don't see much of the poverty, which Willie Stark claimed to demolish. We do see him build hospitals but a glimpse of the hardship of the poor people would have given us a better understanding of the depth of their difficulties. Instead all we see of them is when they're cheering Stark. In addition to that, the ending is very predictable. In a nutshell, 'All the King's Men' is an interesting but contrived film that could have been a lot better had the aforementioned flaws, especially the sketchy characters, been taken into account for reconsideration.
-
Bridesheadd23 September 2006Contrary to some of the bad reviews out there, this is a good film. Not great but an enjoyable ambitious yarn that suggests just enough to make you think. It does have grave defects which I put entirely at Zaillian's feet, but it is worth your while to see it.
First off, the film is perfectly coherent. I did not read the book but I had no trouble following the story or the time shifts. What it lacks is cohesiveness (more on that later).
The actors' accents were not distracting to me. I can't tell a Louisiana accent any way so for me, accents are not a big deal. Differences between Penn's and Law's accents and delivery are actually an asset because they reinforce their class differences. If there's a problem here, it's that some of the actors don't even try to sound Southern at all (Winslet and Hopkins). Hopkins started out with some sort of Southern drawl and then gave it up altogether later. But as I say, it's not a big deal for me.
Next, THE GOOD STUFF:
-- I am a fan of Jude Law and for me, his sardonic, sly take on Jack Burden is the best thing in this movie, though I have to say his efforts are undermined later on by the inexplicable script (more later). Law is an honest, gifted and clever performer, and he plays his Burden as an outside observer whose idealism is used as an excuse for moral irresponsibility. Burden is drawn like a moth to Stark's flame and he lays aside his scruples in Stark's service (but it is not clear whether Burden had scruples to begin with or whether he lost them with Stark). Law makes you sense Burden's growing self-hate and hints that what he actually resents is his privileged heritage. You also sense that somehow the key to Burden lies in his blighted relations with Anne Stanton, but this is under-developed as well. Law gives a thoughtful controlled performance. Sadly the story does not give it more substance.
-- The film looks beautiful; each scene is gorgeous. Trouble is, the scenes don't quite flow and the film feels oddly static.
-- This is NOT a message movie. It doesn't offer easy answers. Instead, it does make you think and ask questions. On the other hand, I am not sure what exactly it's trying to say and what questions it intends to raise.
THE BAD:
-- Sean Penn is miscast. I actually like the actor. I don't agree with his politics but they don't bother me. However, he is wrong here. He is supposed to the a man of the people and a natural leader, but that's where he is least convincing. In his public speeches, he is a one-trick pony, playing off people's anger at the establishment and nothing more. But there should be more, shouldn't there, something that makes people including Burden love him? Also, Penn's over-the-top gesticulation may be true to Huey Long, but they are distracting on screen. In the private scenes, Penn is fine, excellent even. He suggests the insecure little guy, the loser at heart that knows deep down he's out of his league. But then that has always been Penn's forte.
-- The script *SPOILER* -- this is by far the gravest defect. It's as though Zaillian could not decide whether to tell Stark's story or Burden's story. He ends up with both and succeeds with neither. You don't see at all how power corrupts Stark. One day he is a clean-living guy, passionate about advancing the causes of the poor. The next he's having affairs and taking bribes. With Burden, you don't see why he should do the things he does for Stark. When his actions killed the man closest to him, he merely shrugged it off and explained it in a voice-over. It is exasperating There are hints about his thwarted relations with Anne, but this is left frustratingly vague. Why did Anne end up with Stark? Was it to get back at Jack? Why did Adam get tangled with Stark in the first place? There's not enough in the film to indicate anything. I suspect much of the story ended up on the cutting room floor because Zaillian bit off more than he could chew. -
claudio_carvalho13 April 2007In the 50's, in Louisiana, the smart populist, manipulative and wolf hick Willie Stark (Sean Penn) is elected governor with the support of the lower social classes. He joins a team composed of his bodyguard and friend Sugar Boy (Jackie Earle Haley); the journalist from an aristocratic family Jack Burden (Jude Law); the lobbyist Tiny Duffy (James Gandolfini); and his mistress Sadie Burke (Patricia Clarkson), to face the opposition of the upper classes. When the influent Judge Irwin (Anthony Hopkins) supports a group of politicians in their request of impeachment, Stark assigns Jack to find some dirtiness along the life of Irwin, leading to a tragedy in the end.
In spite of having a constellation in the cast, "All the King's Man" is a low paced and boring soap opera. The dramatic and tragic story has some good moments, when the Machiavellian Willie Stark uses his political skills to develop strategies and revert situations, but the lead character of Jude Law is annoying. His romance with Anne Stanton, performed by Kate Winslet, is simply awful and unreasonable, and I do not know why the relationship of Jack with Judge Irwin is only disclosed by Mrs. Burden after his death. The cinematography and art decoration are very beautiful, but I did not like the story. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "A Grande Ilusão" ("The Great Illusion") -
bkoganbing23 September 2006Before seeing this new version of All the King's Men, I ran and reviewed my VHS of the Robert Rossen 1949 classic that won Best Picture of that year, Best Actor for Broderick Crawford and Best Supporting Actress for Mercedes McCambridge.
One thing I will say for this version, in the previous one they never actually give the name of the state this takes place in. Could be just about any southern or midwestern state, in fact with the lack of black faces in 1949 there was no suggestion it could even be in the south. Here they not only name the state, but the picture was filmed inside the state capital building of Louisiana in Baton Rouge where Huey Long was assassinated.
Of course it's no closer to the real Huey Long story than the first one with all the same reasons I enumerated in my review of that film. This film is updated to the early fifties, right before the civil rights revolution. It loses something by not being set in the early thirties during the Depression and the rise of the Long family in Louisiana. The populist message of Willie Stark/Huey Long isn't right for the times.
Sean Penn as Willie Stark certainly is suggestive of the redneck machismo of a demagogue. Of course his slight build works to a disadvantage to Broderick Crawford whose sheer bulk was domineering in the part as it should be in this film. Patricia Clarkson's role is whittled down to a nub from the part Mercedes McCambridge won her Oscar for as Stark's girl Friday. Of course the subplot of Stark's football hero son Tom is non-existent.
In almost every way this version of All the King's Men comes up short in comparison to the earlier one. Still its good entertainment and particularly look for Anthony Hopkins's performance as the former judge driven to suicide by Stark's blackmail. That part was expanded from the original story. -
Chris_Docker24 October 2006A door-to-door salesman, Willie Stark (Sean Penn), is a straightforward man with decent morals and a commitment to the common weal. Such a winning profile is quickly spotted by political hucksters who disingenuously persuade him to stand for Louisiana State Governor simply to split the opposition vote. Stark gets wise to this attempt to use him as a pawn and, in a dramatic turnabout, throws away a prepared speech and appeals to the people, declaring himself a 'hick among the hicks' who will stand up for the commoners' needs. Once made Governor, he does indeed set about popular reform programs, also hiring reporter Jack Burden (Jude Law) to dig dirt on anyone who stands in his way. Jack, unfortunately, comes from the wrong (well-heeled) side of town and soon finds his loyalties torn when Judge Irwin (Anthony Hopkins) refuses to publicly support Stark. Jack also has some unpleasant surprises in store as he is reunited with childhood friends Adam Stanton, a determinedly unmaterialistic character who doesn't want to be in anyone's pocket, and his luscious sister Anne (Kate Winslet), both of whom are tangling in different ways with Willie Stark before very long. This is a towering story set in the deep south, amid sweltering ideals and where goodness only comes out of the dirt - which means that everyone has some dirt on them somewhere.
All the King's Men aims at being quality, heavyweight cinema with outstanding performances. Penn sets a standard, delivering one of his most moving demonstrations of carefully chiselled acting skills.
Having given All the King's Men such accolades, you might think I'd be struggling to find fault with it but, although many of the elements might individually be worthy of an Oscar, my overall impression was that the film showcases a lot of remarkable talent rather than putting it to its finest use.
This is the second time Robert Penn Warren's book has been made into a major movie, yet we might wonder if much of the subtle analysis that space allows an author is being woefully denied filmmakers because of time restraints. Although the movie is to be congratulated for not using a trowel to lay on contemporary analogies about political power, corruption and oil, some character development in other morally ambiguous areas would not have gone amiss. Did power finally corrupt Willie Stark, and how far did he go in using criminals to further his beneficial public works? Penn creates a powerful figure, but the story, for all its tension, remains sadly predictable. The title is never clearly explained in the film, although it can elsewhere be attributed to a motto used by real life Governor Huey Long (on whom the story is arguably based): "Every Man a King" - which was part of a Share Our Wealth program of heavy taxation for wealthy individuals and corporations. In 1929, Long had called a special session of the legislature so as to enact a five-cent per barrel 'occupational license tax' on production of refined oil, in order to help fund social programs. What would originally have been complex trade-offs between a rich elite and an impoverished, post- Great Depression lower class, is in the movie reduced to high-sounding truisms about ideals and finding things of value. The rhetoric, forcefully delivered (as it is here) is an actor's dream, but although the story is beautifully and dramatically told, it lacks enough surprises, is heavy with the gravitas of its own self-importance, and may tempt some audiences simply to exclaim, 'So what'? Reading up on the background can supply a context that gives All the King's Men greater depth, but as entertainment it is a tour-de-force that is at the same time unsatisfying. -
peregrine198825 September 2006If there was one film in 2006 that suffered because of hype and rather uninformed critics, this would be it. First, the magazines played it up because of the all-star cast and fantastic source. Then, all of sudden, the nation's movie critics decided it wasn't what it was cracked up to be, and piled on it. One problem with the critics is that many of them clearly have not read the book. Richard Roeper complained in his newspaper review, for example, that the movie never shows you how Stark went from bad to good. Well, having reread the book in anticipation of the movie, I can state emphatically that that is because the book never explains it. Take your pick critics: is your criticism going to be that it's unfaithful or that it followed the book? Furthermore, the move is NOT a remake. The original All The King's Men movie, no matter how good it was, focused the story on Willie Stark. The real story (and this version) is focused on Jack Burden (which is why the whole backstory with Anne Stanton is thrown-in). To call it a remake shows how self-centered Hollywood can be (as fans of Brokeback Mountain are no doubt ruefully aware).
Now, what I thought of the actual movie: first and foremost, Sean Penn gives a absolutely brilliant performance, one of the best I've ever seen. I saw a Huey Long documentary a couple month before the movie, and Sean Penn evokes him magnificently. The scene where Willie Stark is stumping the state is simply film-making brilliance, as are his several hauntingly shot speeches. Jude Law gives a fine performance, as do all the supporting actors, especially Patricia Clarkson, who nails Sadie Burke. Some people had a problem with the accents, but I thought that Jude Law and Kate Winslet did adequate impressions and did not lose anything for it. And of course, the power of Warren's story shines through the whole movie. I do not personally know anyone who did not really like the movie.
Why did it not work with people? I'd say two reasons: first, first-person narrated classics are notoriously difficult to translate to film. Another example that comes to mind is The Great Gatsby, which has a similarly detached narrator, and did not succeed despite Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, Karen Black and Sam Waterston among the ensemble. Second, to be brutally honest, if your favorite films are normally comedies or horror movies, you won't like this kind of movie.
All I can say is that I am surprised and somewhat astonished at the negative piling on. For any moviegoer who likes an epic story of humanity and politics in their harsh reality, All The King's Men is a must-see. -
rjdegraff-129 December 2006As a straight drama the movie tends to drag at times but considered as a thinly veiled account of the rise and fall of Louisianna governor Huey Long it becomes a riveting period piece. To see the similarities in the fictional and actual stories please check Wikipedia under "Huey Long", part of which states the following...
One of (Huey Long's) famous speeches was, "Your will is my strength and your need is my justice. They want to ruin me so they can ruin you, and I won't let them!" This quote was used verbatim in the movie.
Sean Penn dominates every scene in which he appears - a fantastic performance. -
salfan212 September 2006This film is actually pretty dreadful on many levels. First the music is thuddingly melodramatic; it's like the producers saw the dailies and said "well...there's not much going on, but we'll fix it with the music". The pacing is often glacial, but most disastrously, the film is FATALLY MISCAST. Sean Penn is screeching and braying as Willie Stark, and during his long speeches about "the hicks" he gestures like John Belushi doing Joe Cocker. He simply is nothing, physically or temperamentally like Huey Long on whom the character is based. On the other hand, I bet Penn would have been great as the journalist Jack Burden, and certainly far superior to the miscast Jude Law who is unbelievable as an investigative journalist. Ironically James Gandolfini gives a good impression of what Willie Stark should be in the secondary role of Tiny Duffy. And Jackie Earle Haley is chilling and most effective with virtually no dialog as Sugarboy, Willie's gunsil. Almost every other actor, Hopkins, Winslet, Ruffalo is wasted in this totally unnecessary remake of a very good 40's film.
-
wahzoh2 October 2006I saw this over the weekend with my best friend who claims to be a full-blown Louisiana c***-a**, and we both really enjoyed it. My friend also tells me that all the Louisiana people she knows wave they hands in the air like Willie Stark, and she even said that her people couldn't talk if you tied their hands up. So all you big-city reviewers complaining about the hand-waving just don't understand that Sean Penn and the rest of 'em just did a good job with their research, that's all. I even asked my friend - was that a true accent (Willie's) and she said "yup". I will grant that sometimes it was a little bit hard to understand, but it was accurate. They even showed some of the film to people in Lousisana to see if it was accurate and not only did they say it was good, but the movie got all good rave reviews down there. So all you nit-picky, itty-bitty big-city know it alls, just hush up. And if you like a movie that looks good and takes an ounce of sense to follow, then you will like this movie.
-
acs_joel23 September 2006Before seeing All the King's Men, I had read some negative commentary regarding the weak southern accents in the portrayals of Jude Law, Kate Winslet and Anthony Hopkins. The accents are weak, but the acting is superb. That is a fair trade.
The writing is superlative.
Sean Penn, once again, gives a riveting performance. Is there any role he can't master? Jackie Earle Haley is the only person I have ever seen discharge a firearm on screen without flinching. He is a profound Sugar Boy.
It is worthy of nomination for award. -
dbborroughs24 September 2006I really don't hate this movie, I just don't really understand why they bothered if they were going to make such a bland film. Its not bad but, actually far from it, the trouble is that its not really compelling. Forty minutes into this film I was wondering why on earth I was still watching it. It wasn't bad, it wasn't great, it was more the sort of thing that you come across while channel surfing on TV and watch it for a commercial break or two before moving on. You don't hate what you're seeing you just have a need to find something better. After forty minutes I was wondering where the commercial was and why I couldn't find my remote.
Well made and mostly well acted (there are a few people who should not be allowed near an accent) this is the story of Willie Stark who rose quickly in Southern politics before what he did to get on top came back to haunt him. Modeled on Huey Long the story has been a cautionary tale for politicians for the better part of a century now, and its warnings are still relevant today. However the film makers have made a film that never really grabs you.
Perhaps part of the problem is Sean Penn's Willie Stark. Stark should be the sort of person who sucks you into believing him even when you know you shouldn't. He needs to be larger than life. While Penn turns in a wonderful performance, he is never charismatic enough that we buy that people will flock to him as an all powerful savior. Stark the demigod is just a man. I don't blame Penn, I blame the writer/director who chose to portray him that way.
Its an okay movie. Its worth a shot at some point, but I'd leave it for cable or sometime like a long plane flight when you really won't be able to go anywhere for a while. -
isabelle19551 October 2006I am so glad that I went to see All The King's Men with my mate Betty (not her real name but I don't want to embarrass her), who is from Louisiana. A keen student of her state's history, she was able to explain the background of this story to me, particularly about Huey Long, otherwise I might well have been adrift. That's not to say I didn't enjoy it I did. It is pretty well acted, well filmed, well intentioned and obviously tells a story that needed telling (again), one of political corruption and the less-than-perfect past of America's democratic process. But it is also perhaps less than perfectly written - or edited? in that for someone not familiar with Louisiana's political past or with the book or previous movie incarnation, it is pretty complicated to follow. Hence my thanks to Betty.
I see that director / screenplay writer Steven Zaillian was one of the writers of The Interpreter, a movie that spoiled a reasonably interesting story line with some truly banal dialogue, (and also starred Sean Penn.) The Interpreter was one of the most disappointing films I've seen in many months. This one didn't disappoint me, but I felt the screenplay assumed too much prior knowledge from the audience, about a period of history and a state that many people, rightly or wrongly, are just not familiar with. Maybe a screenwriter gets so engrossed in the story, when they are adapting a book, that they forget that some of the audience may not have read it? I hadn't, although I will now.
Something that puzzled both Betty and me, is why the story, originally set in the 1930's, was updated to the 1950's. I make no claims to be an expert on the USA (although in the nine years I've lived here I've discovered that I know a lot more American history than many Americans), but I'm fairly confident that I'm correct when I say that 1930's America and 1950's America, were two very different places. The original story was set in the 1930's, when America was in the grip of the Depression. By the fifties, the USA had successfully cooperated with Europe to defeat the Nazis, the economy was picking up rapidly and people were much more optimistic. I really don't think the movie works in the 1950's in the way that it might in the 30's.
Sean Penn plays Willie Stark, a politician who wants to rouse "the hicks" to defeat the greedy, corrupt, incumbent state politicos, and bring about a new era of better government in Louisiana. The story is told largely through the eyes of reporter Jack (Jude Law), and ties in loosely with a backdated love story about his relationship with Anne Stanton, and her brother Adam. Adam finally becomes one of Willie Stark's stooges as the new squeaky clean(er) politician also flirts with corruption. We are posed the age old question, does power always corrupt? Are there levels of corruption, and if Willie Stark / Huey Long used corrupt means to improve Louisiana (and I'm reliably told that he DID improve Louisiana), does that really count as corruption? Stark and Adam both end up dead in a bloody reckoning, and an era ends. It's an interesting story and I shall seek out the book now. But I come back to my original point, a movie has to stand as a work by itself, it can't assume that its audience already knows the story. This was told in partial flashback, and the dialogue was occasionally hard to follow, meaning that there should have been more exposition of what was going on. I've never been a Jude Law fan (see my unflattering dissection of Closer) but I actually thought he was pretty good here, and Kate Winslet can do little wrong for me. I'm also not a big fan of Sean Penn, but I feel any faults with the characterization are more due to inadequate writing than his acting. The character moves too quickly from local Good Guy to dubious Big Guy with little in between.
Two major gripes; Anthony Hopkins plays a corrupt southern judge with a Welsh accent. He's a great actor but totally miscast here if he wasn't prepared to attempt a more accurate accent. I mean Welsh? In 1950's Louisiana? Really ...? There are limits to the elastic stretch of my credibility. And where in nineteen fifty something, did that ice skater find hold up stockings? They certainly weren't around when I was a kid in the 50's and 60's. This mystified me, as hours well minutes of internet research have revealed to me that the British company Pretty Polly invented and launched Hold-Ups in 1967. A small point, but exactly the kind of thing that drives me nuts! -
There are many films in which exceptional and talented actors participate which leave audiences praising their contribution. However, heavy guns are not needed in this remake of the 1949 version with the same name. "All the Kings men" is loosely based on the rise and fall of Louisanna's famed governor, Huey Long. Having seen the original Black and White, and then viewed this updated colored version, I can say with all honesty, neither Hopkins, Penn, nor the addition of Jude Law, and his incredible persona, could save this remake. This film has a great deal going for it. The sincere and passionate speeches made by the up and coming Governor are to say the least, inspirational. The dark drama of conversations in the car and hotel scenes are dramatic and create tension and tenor. However, too much weight is given to the muck-raking and soul-searching scenes, some of which are never exploited for the audience. This movie version spends an inordinate amount of time panning the secrets of Willie Stark (Sean Penn), the relationship of Jack Burden (Jude Law) and how they interplay with Judge Irwin (Anthony Hopkins). In doing so, the film loses its direction, for the heart and soul of the historic and meteoric rise of the famed politician. ***
-
jp_0112051 February 2007Based on the 1946 Pulitzer Prize winning book written by Robert Penn Warren and a remake of the 1949 film of the same title, 'All the King's Men' tells the story of southern politician Willie Stark (Sean Penn). Jack Burden (Jude Law) is a newspaper columnist in New Orleans who after a deadly school tragedy convinces Stark to take his, at the time small following, and attempt to become governor. It's not long though until Stark realizes his running is but a ploy to "split the cracker" vote so the current governor can be re-elected. He then holds no punches as he takes his own path and wins over every person considered to be a hick. He accomplishes this by repeatedly enforcing the fact that he too is a hick and if elected will do his mightiest to serve them well. This in the end gets him his seat in the governor's mansion. As time passes though, Stark himself begins to travel down the road those he initially spoke against when he starts to take what are thought to be means that are inappropriate to get his way.
Zaillian's reconstruction of 'All the King's Men' starts out decidedly strong with its nicely written script and marvelous acting by Penn. Shortly after the election of Stark as governor though the film quickly loses it's drive and becomes a bit glum with only, sparse but nonetheless sharp moments. No one except for Penn is able to pull off a believable Louisiana accent. (Hopkins, who plays Judge Irwin, doesn't even try.) It's too bad they aren't able to because the script is actually really good. Of course what else could we expect from Zaillian? He is after all the same person who wrote the screenplays for 'Gangs of New York' and 'Schindler's List'.
It's not entirely the actor's fault that the movie isn't up to par. Where Zaillian's brilliant writing ends, his mediocre directing begins. When a movie is only two hours of length, yet feels to be three, you know something went wrong. The most awful moment would have to be just before the closing scenes, that being the assassination of Stark and death of his killer. It was horribly long, and painfully boring. Once they're dead, they're dead. There's no need for five minutes of aerial spinning around two dead bodies with close-ups here and there of their blood flowing into one stream.
'All the King's Men' isn't totally bad though. As I stated, Penn is great. The screen lights up with intensity and passion when he's speaking to the people. And although the other actors weren't capable of delivering stunning performances, the well written script makes the film good enough to sit and watch. The bottom line is, yes there was much more that could've been done to improve the film, but despite the weak direction and overall acting, 'All the King's Men' is highly underrated and is worth viewing at least once. -
screenwriter-1423 September 2006The first telling sign about this film was that in Act One I fell asleep only to be awakened by Sean Penn ranting to a crowd at a fair grounds as he stamps across the stage-with all of things: the crowd mesmerized by his speech! Sorry, but as we move ahead to the "Bush years" and perhaps the cynicism of American politics today, this film hit me in the face with Penn and his false promises, scenes with "fat political cats" set against the gentility of the old south.
Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins and Kathy Baker were simply terrific in their roles in this dark and very dreary drama. For some reason I kept thinking about Law's role in THE ROAD TO PERDITION and yet In KING'S MEN he's really a sap.
Locations, costumes and lighting were wonderful and watching the black Cadillacs and Packards on screen roar down country roads and highways added an element of interest to a simply boring film. And, as for the ending, well, can anything be more "Hollywood studio" than this film? I think not. -
vitaleralphlouis20 September 2006How many times this year will today's Hollywood know-nothings take the classic films of yesteryear and remake them into dreadful, awful, insulting trash? Is there perhaps a remake of Casablanca planned for maybe Cindy Lauper and Adam Sandler? Sean Penn, regardless of his personal politics, is just plain dreadful and silly; going around screeching like a madman, as if anyone would listen to this pint sized jerk except maybe Newsweek or the New York Times. Citizens of rural Louisiana 60 years ago? No way on earth! It takes a man, not a boy-man, to fill a man's shoes. Broderick Crawford played Willie Stark in the 1948 Academy Award winning (best picture, best actor) original. He's a tough act to follow; but... but most people these days didn't see the original and you can bet Columbia Pictures hopes they never do. Only one man alive could possibly have stepped into Crawford's shoes and play Willie Stark with conviction. That man is James Gandolfini. The makers of this alleged remake are so brain-dead they actually have Gandolfini in the movie --- but playing the wrong role. Besides that, the new picture lacks the award winning direction of Robert Rossen as well as the superior black and white cinematography of the original. As Humty Dumpty might say: All the king's horses --- and all the king's men --- couldn't put Columbia Pictures --- back together again.
-
nall-junk24 September 2006Being from Louisiana I really enjoyed this movie. The acting was great and the story was entertaining. As others have stated, the accents are not done well. In fact there are more than a few characters who don't even try to imitate a southern accent, for which I am very grateful. I am quite sick of actors trying to portraying a southerner by speaking as if all the teeth were removed and the brain has been lobotomized. Others have complained about a boring script to which I completely disagree. This is not a fast-paced movie but it keeps the story moving and the dialogue is fresh. The slow periods give you time to pause and let the previous scene sink in, while also giving the viewer the opportunity to absorb the ambiance of the scenes. The people in this movie are portrayed as they really were in the 1940's and 50's. There is no surprise hidden here. Although this movie is based on the book of the same name, neither are factual of Huey Long and his legacy. These stories are loosely based on a person, with a few facts thrown in for recognition, but not for historical purposes. I applaud the entire cast and crew for their great efforts in bringing this movie to fruition. This is what entertainment is all about and it shows a little of the corruption that existed (and some would say still exists) in Louisiana politics of the past.
Go into this movie with an open mind and you will find yourself entertained and pleased with the whole experience. -
ferguson-624 September 2006Greetings again from the darkness. Can't help but be disappointed in what was to be the first of this year's Oscar contenders. Director and usually great screenwriter Steven Zaillian takes on a quasi-remake of the 1949 classic based on Robert Penn Warren's novel. Loosely based on Huey Long and Louisiana politics, this version is placed in a different era altogether, and because of that, loses some of its powerful message.
An incredible cast is assembled, though, most had me scratching my head by the mid-point. Rarely do you find so many Brits and Jersey boys faking a bayou accent. At least Sir Anthony Hopkins just muffles his normal speech pattern rather than go full out southern. Jude Law, on the other hand, just seems totally out of place in most every scene save those with Kate Winslet (who herself seems misplaced). The great Patricia Clarkson (actually from Louisiana) is totally underutilized as compared to Mercedes McCambridge's stellar performance in the original. The reduction of the role is evidently what led Meryl Streep to drop out. Mark Ruffalo, James Gandolfini and Kathy Baker are also given little to do, but don't miss Eileen Ryan (Sean Penn's real life mom) as Lily Littlepaugh and Jackie Earle Haley ("Bad News Bears") as Penn's bodyguard. Haley will also be seen in an upcoming fall release "Little Children". Nice to see him back on screen after 13 years! Of course, as with the original, the movie belongs to Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford in the 1949 version). Sean Penn, one of the top 3 American actors, dives full body and soul into this role, but it is not quite enough to save the film. His performance did keep me interested enough, but the change in era and lack of focus on Stark's grass roots efforts took some of the edge from the film. Penn's performance is over the top, but it must be in order to capture the fascination that is Willie Stark.
My guess is much of the film was left in the editing room as much of the story line regarding Winslet and Ruffalo made little sense and there was a tremendous amount of Clarkson's character that was reduced to a facial expression or knowing glance.
The sets and costumes are excellent and the score (James Horner) and music (TBone Burnett) are wonderful compliments, but the script and direction falls short and does not capture the power of the original and really is a bit of a mess as far as the story. -
krishna-520 September 2006We went to a pre-release screening and were optimistic about the movie.
The British accents peaked out every once and a while in the "Louisana" born characters. The shaky camera movements were nauseating. We weren't sure if they were intended or just a poor projection. We'd figured out the story about half way through and thought about leaving the theater to see something more interesting. But, we stuck it out and aren't any better off for having done so. There is a nude scene that's reminiscent of Titanic. Everyone seemed to be drinking booze, but never shown drunk on screen. The Jude Law character was the most sympathetic. We never developed an attachment to the Stark Character or the Kate Character. Stark became annoying with all the speeches. There were entire statements where we could only make out one or two words. Stark's accent was difficult to follow without subtitles. Now that I think of it, subtitles would have helped all the accents out. I guess that means if you must see ATKM, rent it and turn the subtitles on -
Danusha_Goska23 September 2006The critics slammed this movie and I loved it. Shame on the critics.
I love movies that transport me to an exotic place and a distant time. "All the King's Men" lushly recreates mid-century Louisiana. There's a lot of money up on the screen, beautifully lit and photographed: vintage, boat-like automobiles, forties and fifties fashions and fabrics, Spanish moss, ante-bellum mansions, a bronze bas relief map of Louisiana, set in a floor, that is put to amazing use.
There's a scene where a young woman returns from an illicit tryst in dim light. Her hair ripples to her shoulders in honey blonde waves. Her plump lips are painted, matte, in the color of dried blood. Her jilted lover, his fedora slung low on his forehead, stands in silhouette, watching her every move. Neither speaks.
In another scene, a backlit woman enters a bar and places her white cotton gloves over her hand.
Just, lovely scenes that capture another era.
I'm a political junkie, so I went to see this movie in spite of the bad reviews. It didn't let me down. It's a political soap opera from the first frame to the last.
Deals cut in smoke filled rooms, double crosses, fiery speeches to enthralled crowds. I ate it up.
The stars! Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Kathy Baker, James Gandolfini...Jackie Earle Haley, someone I'd never heard of before, was memorable as a gun toting body guard.
Sean Penn's performance has been panned - too much arm waving. I loved the arm waving. Penn's arm waving doesn't come across as forced or inorganic. This is a man who can barely contain himself -- he's a human tornado. The historical figure with whom Penn's character, Willy Stark, is associated, Huey Long, was a powerhouse builder of bridges, hospitals, and roads. Penn conveys that kinetic energy and passion.
And the script! Thank God someone was willing to write a script in which people take some risks with language, communicate complex ideas, employ figures of speech! Heavens! In a movie in which nothing explodes and no cartoon superhero saves the world! I loved having to listen to what people were saying to know what was going on. I loved the flowery language. This is the South, after all, from several decades ago, and, yeah, those folks did love their language skills.
Another reviewer denounced the film's score as bombastic. It is bombastic, wonderfully so. It suits the subject matter perfectly. This isn't a movie about a shrinking violet who sits at home and writes poetry; it's a movie about a sweaty man who takes power and makes his mark.
Okay, so why didn't I give the movie ten stars? Sean Penn's character is fully realized, but the other characters are not. "All the King's Men" is a big, fat soap opera. There's a lot of sex, threats, lust, longing, suicide, and betrayal to fit into two hours. The film should have been longer so that characters other than Willy could have been fleshed out.
Patricia Clarkson is a case in point. Her character sets some key events in motion, but she's barely there -- either the character or the actress.
Anthony Hopkins comes across as just that -- Anthony Hopkins -- not the character he is playing. While everyone else does their best to produce a Southern accent, Hopkins insists on speaking with a British accent, and this sticks out like a sore thumb.
Kate Winslet and Mark Ruffalo are meant to be, like Blanche Dubois, representatives of degenerate Southern aristocracy, but they both seem entirely too robust to be degenerating.
Jude Law is better in a similar role as a member of the fading aristocratic class. Law always seems to do well in roles where he is punished by, rather than enjoys, his beauty. Just so here. Too bad that, in key scenes, Hopkins doesn't create any chemistry with him.
The lack of development of secondary characters -- and everyone, compared to Willie Stark, is secondary here -- made the film oddly emotionally unmoving to me. Again, there are scenes that contain the kind of elements that might have packed an emotional wallop that left me dry eyed.
Willy Stark's rise to power is built on the poverty of the citizens of Louisiana. The movie didn't convey that poverty to me. According to one website devoted to Huey Long, Lousiana had three hundred miles of paved road, two bridges, and high illiteracy rates when Long took office. If true, those stats are startling.
Finally, something else was missing, for me. Whenever one observes a charismatic politician, there is always the question: Does he really care about the people? Or is he just addicted to the adulation? I never had that question about Sean Penn's Willy Stark, as I do about, say, Bill Clinton. Willy Stark, here, is imperfect, but sincere. He wants to help his people. -
DVLefferts27 September 2006Despite myself (I am one of many who thinks Sean Penn is full of himself and need a break from the screen), I do think the man gave a startlingly good performance as governor Willie Starks. James Gandolfini, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo, and Jude Law all gave deft performances as well. Kate Winslet was unusually weak in this movie, but what really ruined the film for me was the odd, almost strange directing. There are camera shots that will make you cringe (at least a two second pause on a shaking chandelier after Hopkins raises his voice); the symbolism is very, very obvious and so it loses its credibility; and finally, the film tries to be too dramatic. Dramatic music plays while Sean Penn delivers speeches, there are dramatically loud chords signaling a shift in mood characteristic of 80's horror movies. I rated this movie a 7, because it is powerful, and because it is important, but its fatal flaw lies in that it attempts to be far grander and far larger than it really is.
-
When he was President FDR said the two most dangerous men in America were Douglas MacArthur and Huey Long, implying that any native-born fascism would likely originate from those sources to his right and left. The Willie Stark of Robert Penn Warren's "All the King's Men" is off course molded from Huey Long, the "Kingfish" himself, the very epitome of southern populists. The 1949 film version, directed by Robert Rossen and starring Broderick Crawford, is a classic and one of my favorite films on politics. The courthouse rings, the electoral populism, and the back-room deals are effectively depicted in the 1949 film while this current version (although produced by James Carville, the notable Democratic political strategist) seems to stress the politics less while emphasizing the emotional predicaments of Jack Burden (an ex-journalist and now Stark's associate) and his well-off family friends. The film does indeed depict Willie Stark's rise to political power, and shows how this intertwines with the emotional vulnerabilities of Burden's folks, but I believe the 1949 film had a better balance between the politics and Burden's connections.
Not having read the novel, I can't say whether Sean Penn is a better Willie Stark than Broderick Crawford, but I'm convinced he's a better southern / agrarian populist (a better Huey Long) than Crawford. Crawford's characterization always struck me as too angry for a populist politician, while Penn's depiction seems to have the right blend of mocking humor and impish rascality to move the masses toward the voting booth. One weakness in this film (and also prevalent in the 1949 film, but less so) is the startlingly fast transition Stark makes from honest political reformer to power-hungry dictator. This film calls out for an intelligent discussion of issues related to human nature and political power but we don't really get it in a satisfying way. Does power corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely, and are there personalities more immune or less immune to its temptations? Do the ends justify the means (when the "ends" refer to building schools, roads and hospitals) or do corrupt or evil "means" sully virtuous "ends"? The producers of this film, in the special interviews, seem to emphasize the accomplishments of the "Kingfish"; perhaps they're "channeling" Lenin who famously, and ominously, said: "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs".