A Masterpiece!

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

It's long and it's convoluted, but for this viewer at least, it works. Yes, I have my reservations, but I don't understand why when All The Kings Men was first released, it apparently got an almost universal thumbs-down from the critics. I have just read what the New York Times had to say about it, and I agree with many points the writer made, but this film is by no means the near-disaster it seems to have been made out to be. (A relevant point is that although I had heard of the original 1949 film of Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel) living here in Britain, I had never heard of Steve Zaillian's version. Even a search for reviews by our British newspapers turned up nothing, and I doubt it was even released here). Nor is it, as generally seems to be assumed, about Huey Long, the controversial Thirties Louisiana governor who was gunned down in the State legislature (or whatever the building is called). It is interesting to note having only heard what was generally said of what kind of a man Long was, I had believed him to be a monstrous demagogic crook who got his just deserts. Well, they say history is written by the victors and that piece of utterly biased received wisdom is a case in point. Yes, Long handed out jobs to his supporters and their relatives and he wheeled and dealed with the best of them, yes his terms as a governor and senator were tainted with corruption, and yes he bullied to achieve what he wanted done, but then so did and do a great many other state and federal politicians. It's not as though the term 'pork barrel politics' is no longer used in the U.S. – ask yourself why not. It went on then and it's going on now – well, my, where exactly was George Dubya's 'bridge to nowhere' supposed to take the good folk who use it? Long wasn't the exception, he was pretty mainstream in his tactics and behaviour, but what cooked his goose and ensured that received wisdom accepts he was nothing but a lowdown crook was that he was, in all but name, a socialist in a country which generally loathes socialists and all they stand for. Long was brave enough to take on big business and the money-men in order to improve the lives of the 'hicks' of his state – be built roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, instituted free education and healthcare – and big business and the money-men did not take kindly to being made to fund these schemes through taxes and to see their hegemony challenged. Zaillian's film – and it's NOT a remake of the 1949 version as is all too often unkindly claimed – and Penn Warren's novel base the central character of Willie Stark on Long, but this is not an account of Long's life as is so often assumed. In fact, it isn't really about Stark (Sean Penn) at all. Halfway through the film the focus shifts to Jack Burden, the former newspaperman and incipient alcoholic, who witnesses Stark's rise to prominence and becomes his fixer. Burden is a mess, doing, a man from 'good stock' who does Long's bidding almost without question even though he doesn't like what he is asked to do. Penn Warren's novel and these two film versions of it are about corruption, but it is the corruption which permeates Jack Burden rather than the corruption of the governor. This second version of All The Kings Men is a major slice of Southern Gothic which examines the corruptibility of everyone, not just Long and Burden. There's Anne Stanton, the daughter of a former governor and the childhood friend of Burden's with whom he is in love, who has an affair with Long in order to get funding for a social project with which she is involved. There's Adam Stanton, her idealistic brother who loathes Long and his politics, but who is seduced into running a major medical centre built by Long despite that loathing. Zaillian's film of Penn Warren's novel is far better than many critics would have you believe. My reservations are that characters and their motivation could have been fleshed out more, especially the central character of Jack Burden. What is it in his make-up which ensures that he does Long's dirty work, eventually even being responsible for his own father's death as he tries to get Long of the hook. That is never explained, and I should have liked it to have been. It's not for everyone. If you have a soft spot for films such as Independence Day or Dinner With Smucks, you will quite likely hate it. If, though, you like great acting, a good story and excellent cinematography, and don't mind the tale being told at length, this is for you. Don't believe the critics. They aren't always right.

"All the kings men" may be the biggest snub in Oscar history. I cant say i remember any of the bad press or reviews. Im not even sure when i first heard about it, but i certainly remember the first time i watched it. As far as movies go its just about perfect. I really don't understand how anybody could have a negative opinion of this film. Sean Penn is amazing as Willie Stark. His performance must be ranked with the all time greats. The script,score,directing,editing, and supporting cast are all equally magnificent. From beginning to end this film does not disappoint. If you appreciate cinema this is a must see. Don't let the bad reviews fool you this film is a masterpiece.

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

Oversimplifying? Perhaps. But I frankly don't see an awful lot of reason to dislike this. Just to get it out of the way, I didn't know about the other two film versions, nor the novel, before I watched this. I don't know the actual real-life Governor that the book, and from that, the movies, was based upon, so I cannot comment on anything relating to that. The plot is excellent, I was hooked all the way through. Ditto story-telling, if the narration, which I understand is quite true to the original text, was used a tad more frequently than necessary. The pacing is great, this never gets downright boring. This ought to surprise you a couple of times, as the mystery is gradually unraveled. The acting is phenomenal, Penn disappears into the role for the entire two hour duration, Law and Hopkins shine as always, and really, everyone is spot-on in their performance. While I get if some Southerners are frustrated that most of the cast is not actually from that part of America(indeed, a couple of them not even from the US), I still say they do good. The accents are pretty well-done, though you do need to pay close attention, and maybe also have subtitles, to pick up everything that is said. This is well-edited and has solid cinematography. The score is well-composed. There is a little sexual content, partial nudity and violence. I recommend this to any fan of anyone who helped make it, and/or drama-thrillers. 8/10