SUMMARY:

In a story modeled on the rise of former Louisiana Governor Huey Long, Willie Stark (Sean Penn) is a small-town government official who runs for governor as a populist candidate, calling for more state funds for roads, bridges and schools. As he gains more power, he becomes a poster boy for the adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

STEVE SAYS:

Seldom have I been more disappointed in a film than I was in ALL THE KING’S MEN. My expectations were in the stratosphere, given the pedigree of this movie: based on a Pulitizer Prize-winning novel, a remake of an Oscar-winning film; written and directed by the writer of one of the great American films, SCHINDLER’S LIST; a cast of some of the best actors working in film today. How could it go wrong? How, indeed.

Let me say first that the actors can’t be blamed here. Sean Penn, Jude Law, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, Patricia Clarkson, Mark Ruffalo, James Gandolfini...each did a superb job with what they were given. Penn, in particular, was on fire and should be given a shot at this year’s Best Actor Oscar.

The problem is the script. Zaillian is said to have followed Robert Penn Warren’s novel much more closely than did the 1949 film starring Broderick Crawford. But for whatever reason, the story goes off the rails early and never coalesces into a coherent arc. It should be a story about a well-meaning man who wants to do the people’s work but ends up being seduced and corrupted by power. But in Zaillian’s version, protagonist Willie Stark (Penn) is pretty much corrupt from the start. While you are shown his power and ability to mobilize a crowd with his passionate speeches, you also have the feeling that he’s putting one over on the public. In other words, if he’s corrupt from the beginning, where does the character have to travel? ALL THE KING’S MAN ends up being a series of scenes, often disjointed and disconnected, that never come together to make a coherent film.

We are shown that Willie Stark has a wife and son, yet they are little more than extras in this film. Lucy Stark (Talia Balsam) has only a handful of lines. And Tom Stark (Travis Champagne) has even fewer.

There are strong hints of a relationship between Stark and his girl Friday, Sadie Burke, (Patricia Clarkson) although we are left to guess about that, since no evidence of it ever appears on screen.

Zaillian inexplicably updates the story from the 30’s, when it really happened, to the 50’s. Since Stark’s appeal is to the downtrodden and underprivileged, it makes much more sense to keep him in the depression years rather than in the 50’s when happy days were here again. Also, Jude Law's hairdresser should have been told that men in the 50's...or the 30's for that matter...did not have brown hair with blond streaks.

Sean Penn again shows us why he’s one of the best American actors working today. His towering performance is mesmerizing and if you’re a fan of truly great acting, you might want to see this movie, irrespective of its shortcomings as storytelling. Penn commands the screen in every scene in which he appears, which is nearly every one in the film.

Jude Law does the best he can with the role of Jack Burden, a newspaperman who gives up his career to become Stark’s right hand man. Burden is a flawed character who sacrifices every relationship that means anything to him in order to remain loyal to Willie Stark. The role should have been more compelling given the character’s moral conflicts. But like the rest of the film, the role was underwritten.

Anthony Hopkins is simply incapable of a bad performance and he doesn’t disappoint here. His portrait of a morally compromised judge is unforgettable.

I wouldn’t warn you off ALL THE KING’S MEN. But it is a movie that fails spectacularly to live up to its promise.

* * * *

PATTY SAYS:

The film choices under consideration this weekend by the men in my life were JACKASS NUMBER TWO or ALL THE KING’S MEN. However misguided its plot points may be, I am grateful to ALL THE KING’S MEN for saving me from two hours of body excrement humor. For that alone, it gets two kernels.

From my perspective, ALL THE KING’S MEN isn’t a story based on Huey Long. Granted, I went into the theater expecting to see a film about Long’s rise to power. Instead, I slipped easily into the point of view of the Jude Law’s character, Jack Burden. Indeed, Burden, an alcoholic, intellectual child of a gentrified South, is flawed and seemingly incapable of maintaining any relationship save that of his friendship with Stark. There is so much of interest there to explore, however, that I forgave the bait and switch and enjoyed the richness of the subplots. Jude Law was perfectly cast as the pouty Burden, who took love, power and friendship for granted. He played the role with an understatement from which Penn could observe and grow as an actor.

Yes, I thought Penn was so wrapped up in the characterization of Willie Stark that he never quite made him real to me. He remained the sum of his idiosyncrasies that, however consistently portrayed by Penn, did not a real man make.

It was the same with Gandolfini. He seemed so intent on the joke’s delivery that he forgot the punch line. I still enjoyed the dessert, but I came away feeling hungry, having missed the main course.

Sir Anthony Hopkins is the pearl of great price in ALL THE KING’S MEN. His performance was immeasurably greater than the role in which he was cast. He continues to reign as the unchallenged king of the Patty Miller-Marshall short list of fine actors.

Another actor worth mentioning is Kathy Baker. Her character was like many others in ALL THE KING’S MEN in that it did little to move the story line forward, but her rich portrayal of Burden’s mother contributed to the shading of his character.

Like Steve, I’m not sure that ALL THE KING’S MEN was on target if the goal was to make a film about a good man who is corrupted by politics. If one can remain open to another vision, it’s an entertaining and beautifully made film.

* * * *

September 24, 2006