All the King's Men (2006)

Let's be realistic.

Awesome Movie

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Where do I begin ? The list is really long.It's a complete shame for (Steven Zaillian), an honored scriptwriter, to write a mess like that. The characterization is lost. I didn't understand the character of (Willie Stark), or what was meant through him. He's a good man, using bad means. OK, but so all the politicians, good politicians for that matter. So why the fate he met ? Politics turned him from someone who loves his wife and doesn't drink, into a womanizer and a drunken. But not thief. If that movie talks about how politics is somewhat dirty then it's so naive. And if it tells about the transforming of one man from pure idealistic into something else, then it flops.Then, that character played by (Mark Ruffalo) ???? Who is that guy ? He's some sad doctor, who plays the piano, and that's it !! First off; why he's sad ? The movie gives no answer ! Plus, how in god's name he went to kill as easy as that ?? So someone told him that the project he works in is a lie, and he's maybe going to jail, so he doesn't make sure of that or quit, No sir, he goes to assassinate the manager, and in public, to be a killer instead of a possible imposter ?? Now this is a higher level of "fabricated", being one of the weakest motives ever made in a movie to date. That awful writing made poor (Ruffalo) look like an idiot for all the time !What was (Jude Law)'s problem from the start ? What was the thing that pushed him to hate the rich people, and be unified with (Penn), deserving a wink from him ? How (Penn) left (James Gandolfini) beside him after uncovering his actual agenda ? Then, suddenly, we know that (Law)'s little old fellow reporter (Patricia Clarkson) is having an affair with (Penn) ?, Suddenly (Penn) has an affair with other girls, many other girls, and suddenly with the lead's girl ?? When things run in that manner; it's clear that this movie has an affair with TALKING, NOT SHOWING ! I didn't like that melodramatic third act : "He's your father, he killed himself, because of you, then your friend is going to kill your boss, then gets killed" (???!). And that last shot, with a flashback for (Penn) making a fiery speech to some hick voters ?? I didn't know, is it a way to ask god to have mercy upon the right goals ? Or is it to take a revenge at that lair ? Or is it to elegize a noble man who had left us so early ? I don't know, and maybe this movie doesn't as well ! Let alone that shot at the climax, Oh that shot, where the blood, of both the poor and the rich, is shed and connected together on the symbol of the state ? What the heck is that ?!! It's the top of this movie's stupidity and pretension !The movie is full of dialog. Meaty, sometimes too sophisticated for its own good, dialog. (Sean Penn) makes a speech every 15 minutes, in a way gets on the nerves. The music at nearly every scene's end gets a crescendo, which naturally refers to suspenseful next event that never happens (mostly you get another speech for Penn !). Furthermore, repeating the same move over and over produced a bore. And the direction, by (Zaillian) himself, led everything blandly; I think if it was made in the 1940s, it would have had artistically interesting traits (else shooting one scene in black and white pointlessly !). (Penn) is an alive actor no doubt, but that script is dead. It's insulting to work with it or agree to do it in the first place. His voice was too weak to be thunderous; so he was shouting and shouting hysterically in a way over his abilities. And physically he wasn't anyway convincing; lacking the loin's charisma of his character, looking like (or very much being) a thin actor who wears a fake ludicrous paunch.The movie tries to be a bit Shakespearian (Macbeth, Julius Cesar,..), a bit noir (a narration by cynical journalistic detective), and a bit satiric, but that mix didn't work at all. It's where the movie thinks more than does, and the drama can't inform a meaning, any meaning. So is it about : as long as the sonata is good, don't think about its writer's sins ? Nobody is perfect (Penn, Hopkins,..) ? Politic sucks ? (Rather this movie sucks !). Frankly I didn't catch on the meaning of the movie's title either. Ahh, this is WHOLLY clueless !I know that somewhere there is an impressive smartass who will figure it all out, and tell us how this is a great movie in terms of so and so, clearing up the deep and genius meaning behind it. But for me I hated what I saw, not finding a solid and enjoyable thing in it. And with the names of the stars, the scriptwriter, it becomes worse, ending up as heavy factitious crap. In other words : it's more messy than (Penn)'s hair in his second scene, and more puffy than his fake paunch ! (All The King's Men) fails at being anything, unless a forced Hindi melodrama. On second though : the worst Hindi melodrama is more clear and meaningful than that !

Disappointing I'm afraid to say! Although political movies always draw me in, this one did not have what it takes to work its magic on me. I know it has a great ensemble cast and a good story based on a quite popular novel, but I just found it lacking in everything. The movie horribly lacked a focus; all plot lines were blurred that you cannot help asking yourself is the movie about the corrupting power of politics? Is it about Willie Stark (Penn)? Or Jack Burden (Law)? I did not enjoy the performance either. Sean Penn was overacting, and the rest were just lame. I do not want to sound judgmental here but I would certainly like to read the novel to know exactly what/whom to blame.

I just can't imagine how this film did not generate more money at the box office. Look at the star-studded cast: Sean Penn, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, Jude Law, Mark Ruffalo, James Gandolfini, just to name a few. You have three Oscar winners in that crop of stars. I mean on name recognition alone more people should have gone to see it. Penn did a great job in his role as Willie Stark. Penn is an avid political activist and it was great to see him play a politician in one of his films. His role as Harvey Milk was better than this but still the Willie Stark character was one that no one else would have played better. I had to read the book for an English class back in high school and I have to say that while the book was better, the film was great as well. The film has an interesting storyline just like the book and each character in the film plays the one that they should have played. Anthony Hopkins was great as Judge Irwin but it was quite different to see Hopkins play someone other than a villain. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone has an interest in politics and is a fan of Penn's because he really played this part incredibly well.

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