Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Cortechba Overrated

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

mes-78531 Here's what none of the reviewers seem to recognize. They have clearly never read the excellent books by T. Harry Williams or Alan Brinkley. The movie sets out to do what educated liberal elites always want to do: discredit Populist politicians who propose redistributive policies to help the poor.Long was flamboyant and self-interested (aren't ALL politicians?) but he made his early living as a lawyer defending black and white workers against large corporations or banks. His policies pulled Roosevelt much farther to the left than he'd otherwise have gone, since Long planned to contest the Democratic nomination for FDR's reelection. High taxes on the rich, breaking up monopolies, giving the veterans of WWI their long overdue bonuses, passing Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act--all these were championed by Long and his mostly Midwestern progressive allies in the Senate.Elites will always try to make Populists look venal and stupid, to evade the threat of their redistributive policies. Be aware that this is a work of fiction. It is not about the real Huey Long, just as the George C. Scott demonic interpretation of William Jennings Bryan in Inherit the Wind is not about the real Bryan. Both these men were great reformers who were great threats to the wealthy and powerful. That's why they are demonized by Hollywood corporations. Read some actual scholarly books (including Michael Kazin's book on Bryan) and don't be deluded by movie brainwashing. From these comments, the latter is highly effective for people who don't read.

wmschoell The 1949 version of this story may not have been a masterpiece, but it's certainly a better piece of film-making -- and much better acted -- than this disappointing, sloppy, and comparatively dull remake. Whether or not it's more or less faithful to the novel is besides the point -- this is a MOVIE and it should work as a movie. Penn borders on the grotesque, Law looks like he needs sleep, Clarkson will never win an Oscar for this as McCambridge did in the original because her role seems to have been left on the cutting room floor to make room for more Penn. Important scenes are just sloughed off in non-dramatic fashion so that it's almost like a parody at times. See the original!

ThatMOVIENut Not a remake of the 1949 film, but a more faithful adaptation of Robert Warren Penn's iconic novel, Steve Zaillian's (Schindler's List, Searching For Bobby Fischer, The Interpreter) take tells the story of politician Willie Stark (Sean Penn). Set in 50s Louisiana, the film documents Stark's humble beginnings, rise to power as governor, and final downfall, from the perspective of journalist Jack Burden (Jude Law), who gets drawn into Stark's ever murkier world.Crucified by critics on release, I found this to be a very 'split' film. The good first: It's photographed and scored beautifully, and despite accents, the all-star cast are predictably effective, with Penn delivering the needed bombast and passion of the corrupted governor. Law is good too as a disillusioned journalist fighting his own demons, especially an old flame and her brother, played by Winslet and Ruffalo respectively, also solid. We even get Hopkins and the late Gandolfini in supporting roles as a powerful judge and Stark's first ally, though both don't get much to do and feel more like novelties.Now, its narrative is where things get really hazy: Drifting between political corruption with Stark, and Burden's own personal story of manipulation and loss, the shift is not handled very smoothly at all. The story seems meandering and unfocused most of the time, with Burden's tale taking a little more precedence over Stark's. Not only does this cut away from some great potential allegory and parallels with modern politics, but it feels like the shades of grey are where Zaillian should be most at home. In 'Schindler's List', he handled that extremely well, but here, once he gets into office, he pretty much right away becomes a two faced weasel, which regardless of accuracy to the novel, doesn't make for terribly dramatic or smooth screen storytelling.As for Burden's story in and of itself, it's okay, but again, it feels like its detracting from where the story should be focused on. Yes, there is some parallel between how both men let down people, and they are tied together because they factor into Stark's political schemes, but it just drags and, again, doesn't feel like that's where the heart of this story should be. What works in a book doesn't always translate to screen, and this type of sprawling, laid-back narrative feels better consumed over the course of chapters.In the end, the film isn't boring or lazy, and I don't think it's the abomination the critics branded it as, but it just feels like Zaillian is juggling too many things. Had he focused the story on Stark and really gone into examining the backstabbing nature of politics, we could've gotten something, while not incredibly original, much more effective and gripping. As it is, it just amounts to a whole bunch of 'okay', and nothing more.

Desertman84 All the King's Men is a new film adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize- winning novel,All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren. The story is about the life of populist Southerner Willie Stark, a political character loosely based on Governor Huey Long of Louisiana.Sean Penn stars playing Stark. It also has an ensemble all-star cast that includes Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, James Gandolfini, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson and Jackie Earle Haley after thirteen years.It was directed by Steven Zaillian.The story starts when Louisiana newspaper reporter Jack Burden takes a personal interest in Willie Stark, an idealistic small-town lawyer. Circumstances develop that result in Stark's being urged to run for governor by a local political leader, Tiny Duffy. Burden has been raised around politics. He is the former lover of Anne Stanton, whose father was once governor. Also,he was raised by Judge Irwin, his stepfather.In time, Jack and political strategist Sadie Burke reveal to Stark that he is actually a dupe in the governor's race, expected to split the vote, spout the party line and lose. This opens his eyes to the realities of politics, and how it led him to a tragic life in the end.Inspite if its ensemble cast of talented superstars,the film fails due to a lack of political insight and an overall lack of cohesion in telling the story.Also,the film was tedious and the accents spoken by the characters could have been bothersome to the viewer.Aside from that,it suffers from too much conversation that made the film boring.But nevertheless,one cannot deny the great performances especially that of Penn,who played Stark magnificently. It is still a watchable film from beginning to end.