source: All the King's Men

Steve Zaillian did a masterful job of direction. Each frame of the film looks like a classical painting with the use of light and shadow. This is a real Oscar candidate for Best Director, Best Actor, and Cinematography. I was blown away by the overall look and feel of the film. There are so many themes at work that it will take a second and third viewing for me to completely grasp the interplay between good people who do nothing and bad people who accomplish their greedy motives by building hospitals and roads and schools while at the same time lining their pockets. Its a film about morality, temptation and God. It's also about the "Burden" that comes from losing one's self little by little as you slip deeper and deeper into the pot of boiling water. The film is a primer on what not to do with one's life. Everyone should see it if only for that reason alone.

Yes, the cast accents are wildly variable. Yes, the release print might have been too long (see DVD deleted scenes). But this pic was unfairly stigmatized by critics with an imperfect grasp of the book, the Broderick Crawford film version, and the art of screen adaptation. Forget the hype: It satisfies. Much of the bad press can be traced to a certain august TV film critic and his fawning junior partner. As in old politicians, infirmity and illness are distilling some of this guy's worst tendencies, tolerable when he was young and balanced by a superlative partner, whose amateur critic status ran intellectual rings around this former writer of godawful screenplays. Time for this dinosaur to roll over into extinction; but what rougher beast will be born on TV in his place?

I saw the original "All the King's Men" in the fifties and I thought it was a brilliant masterpiece. I was very excited when I read that it was coming-out as a new movie, so you can appreciate my feelings when I saw the disaster starring Sean Penn. The new version contains most of the elements of both the original film and the book (I also read that), thankfully leaving out the John Derek character, but the high tension later version, containing the god-awful overacting by Sean Penn left me cold. Broderick Crawford was a very good character actor, not a star, but he fit the part of Willie Stark perfectly. He was calm and intent as the situation called for, but was vicious and wrathful when aroused. Just as in the book, he could be generous and even lovable, but he could also be just as maniacal as Jekyl & Hyde. The present movie's Willie Stark is not the same caliber.

This cast was poorly used. All are excellent actors, but except for Sean Penn, were miscast, in my opinion. The soundtrack was so poor that we were forced to use sub titles while viewing it on DVD. And, that may be due in part, to British actors attempting to portray Southerners ! Whose idea was that ??In addition,the script was very convoluted, but that may be expected in light of the original material. One of the best parts, however, is the additional features on the DVD that chronicle the life of Huye Long,the Louisiana politician whose life Willie Stark is based on. Truly, real life is more fantastic than the fiction ! All things considered, however, I wouldn't entirely pan this movie and would suggest renting it at least, because it is very entertaining and a hell of a lot better than most stuff on TV !

Despite 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.

A long, long time ago back when I was in high school, a teacher, not one of mine, gave me a copy of All the King's Men to read. From page one with a car moving down a highway I was hooked. Over the years, the book has been a favorite. I saw the Broderick Crawford film on TV and always loved the scene early where Crawford is having dinner and eating like a pig foreshadowing the pig he was to become. Now we have the Sean Penn remake and Penn is brilliant, and Jude Law is exceptional as Jack Burdon. So what happened? If you know the novel well, the film is almost flawless. Gandolfini, Hopkins, and Clarkson do some great here. It's the screenplay. It is disjointed: it lacks coherence which is too bad. The actors turn in some of the best performances I have seen. The cinematography is wonderful. Read the book, twice; then watch a fine film. How is it Penn didn't get an Oscar?

I was able to view this version and the 1949 version on the same day, thanks to TCM on satellite. This remake is nearly 18 minutes longer and seems to have much less of the story. Sean Penn simply is not believable as a back-country hick with the charisma to become governor. Broderick Crawford had it perfect in the original version, but then he did get an Oscar. Perhaps it was editing, but this version simply seemed disjointed and incomplete compared to the 1949 version. The best I can say about the remake is that, unlike the original, it did not try to pass off California as Louisiana. (Being a native Californian who lived in the Deep South for four years, I know the difference.)

this remake of the 1949 film is not as good as that version,but its' still watchable,particularly for the performance of Sean Penn.he transcends the material.watching him here,i can't help but think he may be the greatest living actor of his generation,at the very least.Jackie Earle Haley(whom i had heard a lot of good things about but had never seen before)is also exceptional in a small role,as is Patricia Clarkson.the rest of the supporting cast are also good.really all of the actors are better than the movie they are in.this is really an actor's film.the film itself tends to drag and be long winded and veer off track,losing momentum which it never fully gains.if it weren't for Penn's bravura performance,this would likely be a skippable movie.but he(and by extension,the rest of the cast)salvages the film.for me,All the King's Men (2006) is a 6/10

Saw a sneak preview last night, words cannot describe how convoluted the script is. Normally great actors do lousy jobs at conveying their roles here. Don't let the big names in the cast fool you, stay away from this yawner. The plot is hard to follow, not because of a complex story but because the screenplay was half-baked. It seems almost as if the writer just gave up. Why do we continue to remake great films into pathetic ones, Hollywood? Please use new ideas. Do not ruin memories of great films with more recent movies of terrible ones. Remember I saw this film for FREE and I am still upset that I wasted 2 hours of my life. If you pay for this, be forewarned.