Les fous du roi

As a foreigner with not much ideas about U.S. history and politics, I have watched this movie with no bias and quite some problems to understand many phrases of Southern accents (which are quite fascinating on their own). However, it appeared to me as an interesting and pretty complex political story of the usual fight between rich and poor, honesty and false promises, racism, corruption... you name it. Even though the movie can catch one's attention for its full running time, some of the desired tension and drama are missing, and much of the final outcome is quite predictable. Overall, it's certainly no Oscar candidate, but also doesn't deserve low ratings as some (politically motivated) users distribute.

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 aims at being quality, heavyweight cinema with outstanding performances. Penn sets a standard, delivering one of his most moving demonstrations of carefully chiselled acting skills.

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 unsatisfying.

Zaillian's 'All The King's Men' is a well shot film. I liked how he created the feel of the 50's Lousiana with dark washed-out colours, the costumes, cars, money, interior architecture and the simplistic settings. Some of the visuals are very impressive as they brilliantly highlight the darkness of that era. However, the script seems a little contrived. In spite of having a wonderful stellar cast that includes talents like Sean Penn, Jude Law, Mark Ruffalo, James Gandolfini, Kathy Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson, Anthony Hopkins and Kate Winslet (could anyone ask for a better cast?), none of the characters, (with the exception of Penn's Willie Stark and Law's Jack Burden) are fleshed out enough and none of them, with the exception of Ruffalo's Adam Stanton, are particularly likable. Not every actor masters the Southern diction but I'm glad that they spoke with an accent their more comfortable with than a forced Southern-I'm-chewing-glue-while-talking accent. Yet at the same time it was too obvious especially when Anthony Hopkins spoke with a British accent. All the actors do a fairly good job. The dialogues are a stand-out. I particularly liked how the characters played around with words, mostly the double-entendre. At some points the film moves at an extremely slow pace. We don't see much of the poverty, which Willie Stark claimed to demolish. We do see him build hospitals but a glimpse of the hardship of the poor people would have given us a better understanding of the depth of their difficulties. Instead all we see of them is when they're cheering Stark. In addition to that, the ending is very predictable. In a nutshell, 'All the King's Men' is an interesting but contrived film that could have been a lot better had the aforementioned flaws, especially the sketchy characters, been taken into account for reconsideration.

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.

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.