All The King's Men Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
720x392 | 1341.96 MiB | hidivx | |
|
592x324 | 912.11 MiB | divx | |
|
320x176 | 343.43 MiB | ipod | |
|
320x176 | 358.78 MiB | hpc | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Time brings all things to light.
In the 50's, in Louisiana, the smart populist, manipulative and wolf hick Willie Stark is elected governor with the support of the lower social classes. He joins a team composed of his bodyguard and friend Sugar Boy; the journalist from an aristocratic family Jack Burden; the lobbyist Tiny Duffy; and his mistress Sadie Burke, to face the opposition of the upper classes. When the influent Judge Irwin supports a group of politicians in their request of impeachment, Stark assigns Jack to find some dirtiness along the life of Irwin, leading to a tragedy in the end.
| Sean Penn | Willie Stark |
| Jude Law | Jack Burden |
| Anthony Hopkins | Judge Irwin |
| Kate Winslet | Anne Stanton |
| Mark Ruffalo | Adam Stanton |
| Patricia Clarkson | Sadie Burke |
| James Gandolfini | Tiny Duffy |
| Jackie Earle Haley | Sugar Boy |
| Kathy Baker | Mrs. Burden |
| Talia Balsam | Lucy Stark |
| Travis Champagne | Tom Stark |
| Frederic Forrest | Willie's Father |
| Paul Desmond | Slade |
| Kevin Dunn | Alex |
| Kevin McCarthy | Editor |
| Steven Zaillian |
5.90 out of 10 (3875 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Even without Sean Penn's miserable acting this would have been a lousy movie.
posted on 18 Aug 2009I 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.
Great movie, worth renting
posted on 16 Aug 2009Great movie, worth renting. (even if you're not a big fan of Sean Penn).As mentioned by user Soldiandro, this is a Southern film and 3 of the main 6 characters are British. It's a shame that one of them (Jude Law) obviously thinks that "us Southerners" all sound like Forest Gump. I really got tired of him trying to speak with a Southern draw, and just wished he would speak w/ his own accent-- Sort of like how watching "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" in English doesn't really bother you, even when you know that wouldn't be possible-- Hopkins didn't even try the "draw", and so he was more realistic.Even so, great film and Penn was magnificent. I was worried that this was one of those films that looked great on the previews, but wouldn't keep my interest, and I was wrong. Watch it.
Dreadful "Remake" of Robert Rossen's 1948 Best Picture.
posted on 14 Aug 2009How many times this year will today's Hollywood know-nothings take the classic films of yesteryear and remake them into dreadful, awful, insulting trash? Is there perhaps a remake of Casablanca planned for maybe Cindy Lauper and Adam Sandler? Sean Penn, regardless of his personal politics, is just plain dreadful and silly; going around screeching like a madman, as if anyone would listen to this pint sized jerk except maybe Newsweek or the New York Times. Citizens of rural Louisiana 60 years ago? No way on earth! It takes a man, not a boy-man, to fill a man's shoes. Broderick Crawford played Willie Stark in the 1948 Academy Award winning (best picture, best actor) original. He's a tough act to follow; but... but most people these days didn't see the original and you can bet Columbia Pictures hopes they never do. Only one man alive could possibly have stepped into Crawford's shoes and play Willie Stark with conviction. That man is James Gandolfini. The makers of this alleged remake are so brain-dead they actually have Gandolfini in the movie --- but playing the wrong role. Besides that, the new picture lacks the award winning direction of Robert Rossen as well as the superior black and white cinematography of the original. As Humty Dumpty might say: All the king's horses --- and all the king's men --- couldn't put Columbia Pictures --- back together again.
Beautiful Powerful Moving
posted on 06 Aug 2009Just returned from seeing a very moving experience. "All The King's Men" is better than what I expected and will go on to become a screen classic. Sean Penn is a genius and is one of the most riveting of all screen actors.Everyone in the cast is splendid. I was deeply moved by the cinematography. I live in Louisiana, in New Orleans specifically, and the poetry that is Louisiana has never been more ethereally presented; thank you Pawel Edelman. Louisiana is like no other place. Seeing the live oaks in City Park moved me to tears. I've been afraid to go there since Hurricane Katrina came this way thirteen months ago. The "slow" pace of the movie is not a discredit to the director. There is a lot of story here and it can not possibly be taken in in one viewing. I look forward to seeing it again on the big screen and also owning the DVD edition when it hits the stores.I have one recommendation to anyone reluctant to see this movie: read the review in The Los Angeles Times by Kenneth Turan.Patricia Clarkson is our hometown gal. I truly hope that her portrayal of Sadie Burke will garnish her a nomination for at least best supporting actress.What can one fault in Jude Law's performance? Accents? In New Orleans we hear so many accents one would think that they're in Brooklyn, N. Y.
Awful!!
posted on 06 Aug 2009Robert Penn Warren wrote a GREAT book... I have his desk, his typewriter, his library at my museum. I also lived in Baton Rouge for some years and know the colorful story of Huey Long, whose life Warren based his novel on. Long was a very colorful man...lived in the 1930s not the '50s. The whole business of "every man a king" went along with 'a chicken in every pot'...this was the depression...the poverty stricken people needed hope of any kind...which is what gave Long the edge.Anyway, ...besides the mistake of setting this movie in the 1950s....which doesn't make any sense at all.....this was one of the slowest, most boring movies I've ever watched (on DVD at home). I took the dogs out for a walk and came back and didn't miss anything...nothing much happened. I'm not sure how anyone could take Warren's great book, and the life of one of the most colorful governors this country has ever seen, and make such a horrible, boring movie out of it.I agree with the comment on the accents...Vivian Leigh, an Enlgish actress, did a much better job faking a southern accent in Gone With the Wind, than Kate or Jude Law did here...they were terrible. Sean Penn kept slipping out of his Looosiana accent...and others didn't even make an effort...The one nice thing was the scenes.. filming in the Louisiana state capitol, filming in New Orleans, was nice...they could have done a much, much better job of setting the scenes...they might have filmed in the Gov.'s mansion that Huey built....they might have tried shooting some of the scenes in the day light...since the scenery was the highlight of the film...they might have tried to do a better job of it.All four thumbs down on this.....
Actually The Canadians Are Spot On
posted on 02 Aug 2009This film is actually pretty dreadful on many levels. First the music is thuddingly melodramatic; it's like the producers saw the dailies and said "well...there's not much going on, but we'll fix it with the music". The pacing is often glacial, but most disastrously, the film is FATALLY MISCAST. Sean Penn is screeching and braying as Willie Stark, and during his long speeches about "the hicks" he gestures like John Belushi doing Joe Cocker. He simply is nothing, physically or temperamentally like Huey Long on whom the character is based. On the other hand, I bet Penn would have been great as the journalist Jack Burden, and certainly far superior to the miscast Jude Law who is unbelievable as an investigative journalist. Ironically James Gandolfini gives a good impression of what Willie Stark should be in the secondary role of Tiny Duffy. And Jackie Earle Haley is chilling and most effective with virtually no dialog as Sugarboy, Willie's gunsil. Almost every other actor, Hopkins, Winslet, Ruffalo is wasted in this totally unnecessary remake of a very good 40's film.
overstuffed movie but with a big story
posted on 25 Jul 2009Sean Penn's and Jude Law's performances are brilliant, although the film is choked by too many subplots and a lack of rhythm too often surrounding the story; message is greatly important - on the other hand the novel the flick is based upon was considered a masterpiece - but everything develops the right way; it would also have the ingredients of a politician drama but doesn't get to be so dramatic, in spite of the intensity and dynamism of its actors. Unfortunately Mark Ruffalo, usually very passionate and intensive in his acting, is this time clumsy and not that brilliant. I'd say "All the king's men" is a good flick, with an excellent cast but some imperfections.
Sure, a rating of 1 star is as valid as 10 stars.
posted on 23 Jul 2009I read the 17 September comment and found several others that mimic the same mantra. "Movie-goers who didn't like the film hate Sean Penn."First we have to make the assumption that these Penn-haters have decided to spend at least twelve dollars to watch someone they hate for two hours.Don't you think you might be a bit presumptuous to play political strategist here? Certainly some enjoyed the film that Penn has poured millions into - much of which went to pay the salaries of the star power that might have outclassed his own performance, but that doesn't translate to the tastes of the rest of the world.I happen to think that the film was a pretentious and self-absorbed showcase for himself and the amazing star power he surrounded himself with was insulation or, insurance if you will, that frankly wasn't enough to salvage his awful characterization.I happen to be from Louisiana (which is precisely where the story is based on) and his characterization of a Southern gentleman was comical. Even an over-the-top politician in the South still carried himself with style back then as now. The accent... well, that's just embarrassing.For technical achievement and supporting roles, I didn't think the film rated any less than a three but I certainly wouldn't presume to alert the film-going public that there is some sort of IMDb anti-Penn conspiracy. It's more likely a bunch of people who just came home from paying thirteen dollars for an over-hyped movie that didn't deliver -- and that my friend is why it fizzled and we have very little about the film.
accents not an issue
posted on 15 Jul 2009Frankly, I don't understand all the hoopla over Sean Penn being "miscast". Despite the obnoxious way in which he happens to voice many political beliefs that I subscribe to, he (not Jude Law) is "one of our finest living actors." I've yet to see a comment here that suggests someone they thought would be more apt to play Willie Stark.As to the accents in the movie, I found Gandolfini's to be much more distracting than that of Hopkins. Even though Gandolfini doesn't sound like his most famous character in real life (check the credits---he's had a "dialect coach" for years), "Tiny" still sounded to me exactly like Tony Soprano trying to pull off a Cajun accent.All in all, the movie was very good. Whenever a film runs over 2 hours and you don't notice it until you're on the way home, that's a good indicator. And besides, how can a movie that actually makes Kelly Leak look like a competent actor be bad?
The impediment to this film
posted on 13 Jul 2009ALL THE KING'S MEN uses an unfortunate plot device. Instead of showing us the story itself, we have to see the story through the eyes of one of the characters. As usual in these kinds of stories, that character is preachy and not very interesting. The story we thought the movie was going to be about actually only comes in little glimpsesIn this case, that character is Jack Burden, played by Jude Law. Burden is a stereotype of the "man of integrity" who accompanies Penn's Willie Stark on his rise to the top, more to document the dynamics thereof than out of friendship for Stark or out of any sympathy to his goals. He stands by in useless disapproval. We've seen this character many times before; he is John Cusack from CITY HALL and MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL, or Adrian Lester in PRIMARY COLORS, Ron Silver in REVERSAL OF FORTUNE, even Matthew McConaughey in TWO FOR THE MONEY.These characters tend to be the result of screenplays written by reporters or written with heavy involvement from consultants who had played minor roles in the actual events depicted. You can always tell this because their character is always cynical and disapproving, and though they hold some lowly post they are considered by their Captain Ahabs to be invaluable....supposedly. They should be minor characters if they are included at all.Although these characters are never the draw, they tend to dominate the stories. They tend to be the protagonists, making the movies about them and their little journeys, rather then being the movies as advertised. Did you think you were seeing a movie about an unusual politician's rise and fall? Surprise, it's about a reporter who hung around and didn't like any of it.They watch the plans and actions or their charismatic masters/father figures with doubt and distaste, though never lifting a finger to affect the situations, until some final impassioned denunciation in the end where they turn their backs and walk away, in some "emotional" scene the author or consultant probably wishes he'd had the guts to actually carry out.If people walked out of this movie, it was because it wasn't the movie they'd went to see. Rather then being about Penn or his interesting rise and fall, it was about a boring, self involved reporter who was in the background. The death knell for the plot happens when Burden attracts a love interest (Kate Winslet). Who cares? The movie derails and goes sailing down a hillside of boredom, as movies driven by these stereotype yawns always do.I give the film a higher rating than expected for the acting and the cinematography. It is a well made film, it just has a dull, boring lead and story that smothers the more interesting story that was advertised.
Excellent cast but a poor adaptation of the book
posted on 11 Jul 2009This 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 !
what,s going on here!!!
posted on 07 Jul 2009i found the movie nice ,,actually gr8.. Sean Penn wow he is superb except that i felt all through the movie that he is still SAM ,,, of course Anthony Hopkins is exceptional ,,,to me the story i like so much since i read the novel,,,and the pic is gr8 it makes u really feel that u r some kinda in an old age,,,over all the movie is quit nice,,,but i dunno what this rates about ,,may be the end is little bit hard on some ppl i really dunno ,,,but what i am sure of those who like drama this movie will suit them ,,,talking about the accents as some say ,, c'mon it's nothing to talk about ,,it,s not a big deal if they r not speaking a southern accent ,,but i only felt that they used some complex words ,,i guess around 10% of the movie to me sounded like a foreign language, anything but not English :),,also the sound track was one of James Horner's classics ,,nice music,,i guess after all it,s a nice one ..
Nail 'Em Up!
posted on 03 Jul 2009If you are a fan of the American classic by Robert Penn Warren, you will be amazed at how accurate this movie stays to this Pulitzer wining novel. This movie not only takes on the dark side of politics aspect of the movie, it also leaves the edge that Warren put into the story, chocked full of poetic lines and deep philosophy. Warren, who was most known as a poet, his lines are visible throughout the film, giving a deeper insight into the life of Willie Stark, who closey resembles Huey Long, the "Kingfish". The movie escalates from humble beginnings with a people orinated Willie Stark, and a handshake with the devil, corruption grows, until Adam Stanton shoots Willie in the Capitol. The only thing brining this film from a ten down to an eight, it's the fact that some of the actor's don't play the time period well, such as Kate Winslet, who seems to be a woman in the 21st century rather than the 30's. Overall, this is a very excellent film to go hand in hand with a very excellent novel. I highly recommend it.
I'm so sorry, but this film just couldn't keep my interest
posted on 03 Jul 2009Well, despite no promising reviews, I did kind of want to see All the King's Men, it had a great cast and over all a good looking story. I figured though to wait for the rent, none of my friends really wanted to see this and I didn't want to see it alone, so I just watched it with my mom this afternoon and I kept dozing off, and it's not because I didn't get a good night's sleep, I tell you! Because my mom even agreed with me that she had a hard time keeping up with the story and wasn't really too interested.Well, it's about this guy, didn't catch his name nore do I think I wanted to, but he is displeased with the way things are being run in his southern state despite some really bad accents. Well, he does get elected and makes incredible promises to the "hick" people, I didn't appreciate getting "hick" screamed at me five million times. But he makes those promises and finds them hard to keep after he is elected and becomes greedy, what a bad bad man.Well, at least that's what I gathered, I swear I made it through 98% of the movie, because a couple times I slightly dozed off. I really don't blame the actors that much, but it was the screen play, the direction, and the story just couldn't keep my interest and I can see why it doesn't have a decent rating on IMDb, the viewers were right, and honestly, I cannot see anyone really loving this film 100%, just trust me on it.2/10
Could have been/Should have been better
posted on 25 Jun 2009Wow... what a collection of excellent actors... an interesting story... a brilliant backdrop.. .this should have been an excellent movie... but sadly it never lived up to those hopes. Perhaps it was a mistake to cast 3 British actors.. not being American I don't want to comment on the accents but they did seem a little over-emphasised to my liking... Perhaps by having so many characters the movie did not allow itself the time to develop each of these leaving me to wonder what was the motive behind some of the key actions in the movie.Is it worth seeing... yes.. the standard of acting is far above the story with Sean Penn being brilliant. Some of the cinematography is excellent and finally it would be an interesting study as to why even when you have all of the ingredients that sometimes the cake doesn't quite come out right.
toys with the perceptions above and beyond most films
posted on 19 Jun 2009This is a film that will stand the test of time and will continue to have screenings and interest for a long time to come. It is full of important themes and the typical issues that cover an understanding of the two traditional approaches to ethics. Do we have a set of moral rules to live our lives or do we do what is practical and change the morals to suit the situation?From the start of the film our perceptions are played with in a challenging way. We are introduced to group of obvious bullies in a car on a night time mission of no good. We have little regard for their virtue. We are transported back quickly some five years and see two of the same same characters in a more 'acceptable' way.Is the main character of the film 'Mr Stark' a force for good, or a figure that becomes increasingly corrupt? I will let you decide.
The storyteller becomes the story down on the Delta
posted on 17 Jun 2009This film flopped at the box office in 2006 and it is easy to see why. Despite a fine cast, excellent cinematography, splendid locations, and plenty of money, it simply fails to tell its story. Robert Penn Warren wrote the novel in the 1940s of the rise and fall of the populist politician "Willy Stark", a thinly disguised portrait of Huey "Kingfish" Long, Governor of Louisiana 1928-1932, who fathered a long running political dynasty there – his son Russell B Long served in the US Senate until 1987. The book provided the story for the academy award winning movie of 1949, written and directed by Robert Rossen. Rossen shifted the focus of the story from the narrator, southern gentleman journalist Jack Burden, towards the demagogic Stark.Here, Stephen Zaillian has put the focus back on Burden and his family, but in doing so has obscured the story of Willie Stark. No satisfactory explanation is given as to how a teetotal political reformer so quickly became a corrupt politician. (Scenes detailing this were cut from the movie and appear on the DVD). For no apparent reason (maybe it was the cars available), this movie is set not in the grim early thirties, but the much more prosperous early fifties.Part of the blame must fall on Sean Penn as Willie. His abysmal diction can be explained by his character being, or pretending to be, one of the common herd (he is meant to have been a lawyer), but only about one word in three comes across clearly. He goes through the film with one fixed grin (and the same suit) – he might as well have been dead from the start. The other actors were OK – Jude Law made a suitably cynical Jack and Kate Winslett was good as a crushed southern belle, despite their English origins. Yet another Pom Anthony Hopkins is at his most genial as Judge Irwin. Patricia Clarkson is actually quite good as Sadie, Starke's secretary and lover, and Jackie Earl Hailey ("Little Children") is just brilliant as Stark's loyal bodyguard. James Gandofini, of "The Sopranos" was born to play sleazy characters, and had no trouble as Stark's offsider Duffy.The Deep South locations, especially the antebellum river mansions in the canefields just south of New Orleans, oozed atmosphere (and humidity), as did Huey's vast folly of a State Capitol in Baton Rouge (which still dominates the town). The 1949 film, incidentally, was made in California.Initially the pace is rather slow and too much time is spent is establishing Stark as the honest politician and great declaimer, addressing sundry audiences of working-class stiffs all over the state. Then as the story involving Jack, his ex-girlfriend, her brother and Judge Irwin is cranked up, Stark, having gone crooked without any explanation, becomes merely a supporting character. Jack has started out the storyteller, "but he rises above his principles" as Willy puts it, and finishes up the story.The DVD contains a 10 minute clip of an alternate ending. This is interesting viewing because it completely changes the feel of the movie. A political tragedy becomes a rather misconceived Agatha Christie type mystery. Zaillian did at least get the ending right.In a film of this kind there is always a tension between the personal and the wider political canvas. Robert Penn Warren managed to strike a balance in the novel, but here neither rings true. A lush failure.
good period docu-drama
posted on 03 Jun 2009All The Kings Men is about LA Governor Stark mid last century who rose to power and was just as corrupt as the people he replaced. Stark talked a good game and probably did some good for the people, but the politics and scams were too much for some of those that were use to power at the time. Stark seemed to be the people's governor, promising good things for the people and promising to nail up the bad people that were in power before. Much of the film revolved around a reporter that worked for Stark and dug up dirt on those that opposed him. He gladly did that until he was forced to dig up dirt on his adopted parents and found out some interesting things. Jude Law wasn't quite as emotional as I expected him to be, a little numb throughout the movie. Technically a good film with good acting and good period scenes.
Confusing and miscast.
posted on 01 Jun 2009The movie is, from the outset, confusing in its development of the story. One is constantly battling to ensure that one understands exactly what is happening. Much of the time, this battle is a losing struggle. The dialogue is extremely difficult to hear, as only Anthony Hopkins speaks clearly. Anyone with the slightest hearing impairment is not going to hear a large portion of the shouted or mumbled dialogue. The less said about Sean Penn's performance, the better; he was not the man for the part. Had I seen the original Broderick Crawford version, or read the book, it might have helped. As it was I cannot say that I derived much enjoyment from this movie, other than the sparkling performance by Anthony Hopkins.
Amazing from many perspectives
posted on 20 Aug 2009What a wonderful film. I have to say, the two highlights were Sean Penn and the filmography. The film begins with interesting angles of the state seal in the floor of the rotunda of the Louisiana Capitol. Third best scene in the entire movie, purely on filmography (as there are, at this point, no characters). Second best is Sean Penn as Willie Stark, riling up the people in his stump speech. I am a Poli Sci major at Tulane (that's how I got a ticket to the premiere), and I'm watching Sean Penn believing he's a real politician, and this guy for sure has my vote. This sequence skips around, Stark giving his stump speech in different places to different groups. I am wanting to cheer and applaud with the celluloid crowd, and only my sense of propriety stopped me from doing so. So bonus points to Sean Penn for making me believe in him (after three campaigns, that's hard). The second to last scene in the movie is hands down the best, and, if I could make one criticism, I might suggest that the movie end there. Dr. Adam Stanton, now understanding that he and his sister have been used by the governor, assassinates Governor Stark as he is lauding his escape from impeachment. Stanton shoots Stark, and Stark's bodyguard shoots Stanton. They fall on the seal (just like the opening), and their blood runs together in the grooves. They even assume a pose like one they took on the capitol steps. It's really fabulous.The film is not laugh out loud funny - the biggest laugh came when Gov. Stark, when asked about his appointment of his former handler to the position of Lt. Governor says, "Well, somebody has to be lieutenant governor," and Louisiana Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu was in the audience - but it does make you think. It reminded me of the book and film "Primary Colors," in it's criticism of politicians. Because Stark did build a highway, did get schools, et cetera. So is he good, or is he bad? "Time brings all things to light."