IMDb user comments for
All the King's Men (2006) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 17:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

166 comments in total

---

330 out of 405 people found the following comment useful :-
Decide for yourself (I question the sincerity of IMDb votes to date), 17 September 2006

Author: gruenig from New Orleans

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.

---

97 out of 134 people found the following comment useful :-
Big, Brassy, Gorgeous Images; Literate Script; Politics: What's Not to Like?, 23 September 2006

Author: Danusha_Goska

The 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.

---

47 out of 62 people found the following comment useful :-
Historically Inaccurate, but it's not a historical movie. It is very entertaining., 24 September 2006

Author: nall-junk from United States

Being 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.

---

41 out of 51 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't believe the (negative) hype, 25 September 2006

Author: peregrine1988 from United States

If 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.

---

93 out of 160 people found the following comment useful :-
Toronto Film Festival: All The King's Men, 11 September 2006

Author: movie_man2006 from Brazil

Director Steven Zaillian presented Toronto with a (sort of) remake of 1949's ''All The King's Men''. Featuring Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, and much others, the movie is a political drama about an electing governor (Sean Penn) that becomes corrupted with his own power. Jude Law plays Jack Burden, a newspaper columnist.

Zaillian, however, seems to be the wrong man for this adaptation. Writer of marvelous movies, such as ''Schindler's List'' and ''Gangs of New York'', Zaillian makes this ''Men'' all wrong. The film is obnoxiously pointless and also features many miscasts. The dialogue is bad (surpisingly, Zaillian wrote the script himself) and there are scenes that are nothing but useless.

Sean Penn is the most outrageous miscast in the picture. His performance is filled with rage from the start. That would be a good thing if the movie's intention were to make the audience frightened right away. However, he was supposed to play a man that might sound fair and right at first, and then go all the way in corruption. However, Penn acts as if he were the devil himself. In several ways, he reminded me of Pacino in ''The Devils Advocate''. And this is the only situation where it is a bad thing.

The soundtrack is great, I enjoyed it a lot, and the movie has some good scenes. Jude Law and Kate Winslet are good in the roles given. Anthony Hopkins is great. And that is about it for the movie's ups.

It is shocking how a movie that had everything to be a major Oscar contender to fail so miserably. In fact, this is the authentically Oscar bait. A movie with a lot of fuzz, but no content.---5/10

---

26 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
A powerful showcase of talent in a gripping film, 24 October 2006

Author: Chris Docker (eyeforfilm) from Scotland, United Kingdom

A 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 is quality, heavyweight cinema with outstanding performances backed up by very professional direction and cinematography. Penn sets the standard, delivering one of his most moving demonstrations of carefully chiselled acting skills but, aided by a tight script and editing that doesn't waste a frame, every other actor also seems to be giving it their all in every frame. At well over two hours, it kept my attention all the way through, and a score by Oscar-winning composer James Horner served only to underline how effectively all these top talents are assembled.

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 slightly unsatisfying.

---

66 out of 108 people found the following comment useful :-
All The King's Men, 18 September 2006

Author: football_chick67 from New Orleans, LA

I saw the New Orleans premiere of this movie, and my friends and I all thought it was amazing. The way it was written by Zaillian (straight off of the book, not an adaptation of the previous movie) was great. And the cinematography added so much to it. Sean Penn is an amazing actor, and that really shows through in the role of Willie Stark. It was kind of funny to watch Anthony Hopkins use an extremely bad Louisiana-British accent. I am a fan of history, so lots of little things worked their way in to amuse me. And seeing New Orleans things and knowing right where they are was a great thing. I recommend people go see this movie, as I plan to go again on Friday when it opens officially.

---

76 out of 129 people found the following comment useful :-
Great movie, highly recommended., 16 September 2006

Author: clearlyvague from United States

I was fortunate enough to catch the premiere of this movie and I am endlessly pleased that I did so.

There have been comments about the miscasting, but from what I have seen, this is mostly relating the movie to the original. All of the people that I talked to said that they liked it and that the actors portrayed the people really well. These comments came from natives of New Orleans.

The movie itself is gripping throughout most of the some 2 hours. The visual and auditory effects do a great deal to enhance the story. It is evident that the actors put a lot of passion into their roles and the fact that they returned to New Orleans for the premiere shows that a part of them went into the movie.

All in all, the cast is great, the sound is great, the movie is great.

---

35 out of 53 people found the following comment useful :-
Powerful interpretation of the Penn Warren novel, 23 September 2006

Author: Ehlersacm from United States

I loved the book and have taught it every year to my AP students. We've been excited to see the film and have had big hopes for it. I find the 1949 film nearly impossible to watch, because they made so many changes to really critical parts of the book.

I think this movie will be a great addition to my DVD collection to help establish setting and so on for future AP English classes.

The script keeps lots of the dialogue, images, and the looping storytelling from the text I understand the compressions they needed to do--and they generally worked.

The acting was powerful: lots of nuances from Jude Law, Sean Penn, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, and the rest. I saw reviews busting on Law for being so beautiful--a tragedy we share, of course--but honestly, I thought he did well at getting to the heart of Jack.

It really helped me to see the locations where they filmed: the statehouse, Burden's Landing, Mason City, and more.

My one quibble is the ending-- I love the book because it tells a tale of redemption, of making things right, of reconciliation--I think the film hints at it, but doesn't quite get there.

---

35 out of 54 people found the following comment useful :-
Solid, old-fashioned picture making and a jolly good show, 10 September 2006

Author: fertilecelluloid from Mountains of Madness

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Steven Zaillian wrote "The Interpreter", one of the most improbable screenplays of last season. This, a remake of a very good movie, he wrote and directed, and it's a meticulous Southern soap opera buoyed by terrific performances from Sean Penn, Kate Winslet, Jude Law and James Galdolfini. Though a period piece, it proves that what we learn from history is we don't learn from history. A tale of the haves (oil men and the judiciary, ably repped by Anthony Hopkins here)) working like heck to keep the have-nots in their place, it is more relevant today than it ever was. Penn plays a naive traveling salesman who rises to the position of "Governor of Louisiana" after he taps into the prevailing zeitgeist. Naturally, his efforts to improve the lot of the working man fall foul of big business interests, so Penn is forced to solicit an ally with the assistance of well connected Jude Law. Films about political machinations are as common as bums, but this rises above its weary brethren by focusing on the personal agendas of its players and wisely sitting on the fence with regard to Mr. Penn's true motives. It takes a while to work through the gears, but once it's cruising, it's a pretty thrilling ride and possesses a refreshing European sensibility in its more intimate encounters. Photography by Pawel Edelman, who shot "The Pianist", serves the material perfectly. Solid, old-fashioned picture making and a jolly good show.

---

---

Page 1 of 17:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history