Tutti gli uomini del re

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.

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.

I loved the book and have taught it every year to my AP students. We've been excited to see the film and have had big hopes for it. I find the 1949 film nearly impossible to watch, because they made so many changes to really critical parts of the book.

I think this movie will be a great addition to my DVD collection to help establish setting and so on for future AP English classes.

The script keeps lots of the dialogue, images, and the looping storytelling from the text I understand the compressions they needed to do--and they generally worked.

The acting was powerful: lots of nuances from Jude Law, Sean Penn, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, and the rest. I saw reviews busting on Law for being so beautiful--a tragedy we share, of course--but honestly, I thought he did well at getting to the heart of Jack.

It really helped me to see the locations where they filmed: the statehouse, Burden's Landing, Mason City, and more.

My one quibble is the ending-- I love the book because it tells a tale of redemption, of making things right, of reconciliation--I think the film hints at it, but doesn't quite get there.

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.

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.