|  | | | Customer Reviews: | | | Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Serious film - joke acting Jan 10, 2010
This a serious film about a serious subject: to what extent should politicians manipulate the public in order to achieve their "higher" ideals ? Unfortunately it is spoiled by a less than serious performance by Sean Penn, who seems to mistake arm-waving for acting, in the central role. I also have to question the decison to cast three British actors, Jude Law, Kate Winslet and Sir Anthony Hopkins, in the three main supporting parts. None masters the southern accent (Hopkins doesn't even try) with a serious loss of credibility. Doesn't USA have any actors from the Southern states who could have fulfilled these parts with more credibility ? Or is Hollywood just flogging "names". I am British, by the way.
 Good adaptation of a classic American novel Oct 22, 2009
I did not have the chance to see 'All the King's Men' in theaters but watched it on DVD just three months after its theatrical release. I read many scathing reviews and so I went out and purchased the novel by Robert Penn Warren to see what I thought of that American classic. I read it and really enjoyed it and keep coming back to it. Also, I like studying the historical figure of Huey Long so I knew I would have to see the film and judge for myself. I have to say that it was quite good, not great, but good. After having watched it a couple of times I really don't mind whether the accents were spot on or not. I would tell any potential viewer that it would be helpful to have read the novel that this is based on because that will fill in many blanks in the movie.
The movie has good acting. I liked Jude Law's melancholy take on Jack Burden and Sean Penn was quite decent as Willie Stark. Anthony Hopkins was also good as the Judge. But the movie should have been longer or a miniseries. As some previous viewers have stated this story is hard to fit in 2 hours. I agree that 4 hours would have been better but movies that long are rarely made anymore so it would have to have been a miniseries ,maybe for HBO. Also a reader of the novel will also say, "I can't believe they left that part of the story out!". But on the whole the movie has a good Southern atmosphere though it should have been set in the 1930s instead of the 1950s, I believe. The DVD has a alternate ending that should have been left in the film because it brings better closure to the characters that you have followed throughout the film instead of the quick theatrical ending. And I have to say that there is a scene between Jude Law and Kate Winslet that really captures the spirit and melancholy feel of the novel. The narration might have been used even more since you get to hear some of Warren's fine prose and it helps you identify with Burden.
I think it was a worthy attempt on Warren's legendary novel but just could have been fleshed out even more for the viewers enjoyment.
The DVD has a good short documentary on Huey Long- the inspiration for the story, some deleted scenes, and behind the scenes footage. I wish there could have been a director's commentary and/or a commentary by someone comparing the movie with the book. For someone interested in seeing more on Huey Long I would recommend Ken Burns excellent documentary on Long which is also available on DVD.
The picture quality of the DVD is excellent as is the sound.
I recommend checking this movie out and deciding your own opinion on the film.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
Robert (Sean) Penn Warren's All the King's Men Mar 18, 2009
Reading Robert Penn Warren's 1946 novel All the King's Men [2006 Movie Tie-In Edition] is like riding an academic roller coaster through early twentieth century politics. The narrator, Jack Burden, is a student of history, and his journey through life illustrates the character of Willie Stark, the Boss, the Governor of whichever southern state it actually takes place in. Burden's narration is lush, vivid, and sometimes bogs down in its own detailed prose as it describes the landscapes and peoplescapes, even delving into philosophical ramblings about the meaning of a specifically placed finger or a supposed wink.
The book, frankly, borders on genius. It's a difficult read, sure, but it's a great story. It's the narration and description that makes it so good, though, not necessary the story itself. We come to know the characters only through that narration, but they are fully realized by the end.
The 2006 movie doesn't have those strengths. It tries to make a standard story out of the difficult prose and narrative. Not that it makes the novel strictly linear, but it leaves out all of the interesting philosophical meanderings. Jude Law (Jack Burden) tries to insert some of the stuff about the Friend of your Youth (one of the philosophical inserts) into the movie, but it falls flat because we don't get enough of it to fully appreciate it. All of the characters are that way, too: they're all one-sided, even bordering on stock characters.
We do see some brilliance in Sean Penn's Wille Stark, however, at least when he is giving speeches. When he comes out of his shell and attempts to connect with the world, his speeches are good. Watching this movie in 2009 is a strange experience, however, for we have seen the inauguration of Barack Obama, whose speeches sometimes mirrored those of Willie Stark, although his aren't nearly as mean-spirited. Stark represents the new kind of politician that cares for the people and wants to get rid of money-riddled politics. Instead, he wants to do good, even though he will still use corruption, for it is only through bad that good can ever come (at least according to Stark).
We have some good themes here, but most of them are minor. The primary theme is about the purpose of political life and whether politics can remain above the fray. The movie hints that politics is about service, but it cannot be above anything. Instead, it is as debased as any other human endeavor. Therefore, the very nature of political service is debased.
I'm not sure if the movie can be appreciated without having read the novel, for the plot gets a bit confusing, but the theme about politics and service is still evident. Watch it for that alone, but only if you generally vote Democrat. I guess a Republican can enjoy it, too, for it points out that even "idealists" are flawed and are really just as corrupt as any politicians.
1 of 1 found the following review helpful:
Not As Good As The Original Jan 30, 2009
ALL THE KING'S MEN (1949) is certainly one of the best movies about American politics ever produced. Adapted by director Robert Rossen from Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, which was inspired by the career of Louisiana's demagogue governor, Huey Long, it won Oscars for Best Picture, Actor (Broderick Crawford) and Supporting Actress (Mercedes McCambridge).
When I first heard that Columbia Pictures was going to remake this classic film, I thought they were nuts. After all, no matter how good the new version might be, it would always be competing with the memory of the original which is shown regularly on TV and is also available on DVD.
Despite a stellar all-star cast and a handsome production, the 2006 remake of ALL THE KING'S MEN was met with a mixed, often negative, critical reaction and flopped at the box-office.
Nevertheless, I wanted to judge this film for myself.
The good news is that writer-director Steven Zaillian's film is not the total disaster that some critics have labeled it. It has many strong points and is definitely worth a look.
The bad news is that it is not as good as the original 1949 version.
The 1949 film was neither time, nor place, specific, but this new version does an excellent job in recreating Depression-era Louisiana. It is also closer to Warren's original book than was Rossen's screenplay.
Among the more memorable performances are Jude Law, as Jack Burden, the role originated by John Ireland in 1949, Patricia Clarkson as Sadie Burke (the Mercedes McCambridge role) and Jackie Earle Haley as Sugar Boy, Governor Willie Stark's bodyguard.
Aside from a sometimes sluggish pace, the movie's main failing is the miss-casting of Sean Penn in the central role of Willie Stark.
Penn is one of our finest actors and he does his best in this assignment, but he, unfortunately, lacks the charisma that Crawford brought to the role in the original.
Penn's Willie is just not likable, and I don't see how he could convince his constituents to vote for him.
Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, James Gandolfini, Kathy Baker and Mark Ruffalo are also in the cast.
© Michael B. Druxman
2 of 2 found the following review helpful:
 Excellent Jan 01, 2009
It may be that judgment colored the comments of most reviewers but whatever colored them, the negative comments are washed away by superb acting and an overwhelmingly fine presentation of a place, era, and way of thinking probably foreign to most viewers, even from the U.S.
Very possibly, as reviewer El Lagarto points out, a central problem is also "the iconic nature of the source material," namely, the biography of corrupt populist Louisiana governor, Huey "Kingfish" Long---the man who called himself a "hick" and rose up by addressing other "hicks"---many of whom had never voted before. I blush to tell, I've never read the famed Robert Penn Warren novel on which this film is based.
But the movie perfectly captures the oppressively hot, humid Louisiana climate, along with the perennially corrupt political environment that endured throughout the 20th century and into our own era. It also precisely frames the grand antebellum plantation houses, wide lawns, live oak-lined dirt drives and swamps of south Louisiana, where the population is concentrated---along with the decadence for which New Orleans, from its very establishment, has always been deservedly renowned.
The Willie Stark that Sean Penn manufactures is a Huey Long-look alike, and is totally believable. He has the accent, the swagger, and the deep south dead pan down cold, along with the ability to spin a highly colorful yarn based on a highly colorful southern analogy. There's no modern politics in this part. It's late 1920s and early 1930s Louisiana, the whole way. In context.
That's undoubtedly another problem for most viewers. The environment established so firmly in this amazing political story is that it is so foreign to that of current-day U.S. population centers. Apparently, few people can believe that anything like it ever existed in the U.S. But Louisiana has always been something of a world unto itself, and this was especially true during the Huey Long era.
The actors, listed above, all contribute to the full-scale replication of that complex world, where a gentleman's honor and appearance account for almost everything. Most of the main characters (good guys and bad, alike) thus live beyond the reach of morality---power-hungry, afflicted with alcoholism, or eternally laboring to hide their personal shame or dirty laundry.
This film's negative reception was totally unwarranted. Overall, it's an amazing dramatic accomplishment. For more than two hours, the movie held us rapt in another time, and a thoroughly fascinating place.
--Alyssa A. Lappen
|
| |
|
![Firefly: The Complete Series [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51734pRq2%2BL._SL75_.jpg "Firefly: The Complete Series [Blu-ray]")
![Gattaca [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VfE5rU9OL._SL75_.jpg "Gattaca [Blu-ray]")
![Resident Evil [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51m8P3lO%2BnL._SL75_.jpg "Resident Evil [Blu-ray]")
![Run Lola Run [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gTXpHYF7L._SL75_.jpg "Run Lola Run [Blu-ray]")
