Here's what none of the reviewers seem to recognize. They have clearly never read the excellent books by T. Harry Williams or Alan Brinkley. The movie sets out to do what educated liberal elites always want to do: discredit Populist politicians who propose redistributive policies to help the poor.Long was flamboyant and self-interested (aren't ALL politicians?) but he made his early living as a lawyer defending black and white workers against large corporations or banks. His policies pulled Roosevelt much farther to the left than he'd otherwise have gone, since Long planned to contest the Democratic nomination for FDR's reelection. High taxes on the rich, breaking up monopolies, giving the veterans of WWI their long overdue bonuses, passing Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act--all these were championed by Long and his mostly Midwestern progressive allies in the Senate.Elites will always try to make Populists look venal and stupid, to evade the threat of their redistributive policies. Be aware that this is a work of fiction. It is not about the real Huey Long, just as the George C. Scott demonic interpretation of William Jennings Bryan in Inherit the Wind is not about the real Bryan. Both these men were great reformers who were great threats to the wealthy and powerful. That's why they are demonized by Hollywood corporations. Read some actual scholarly books (including Michael Kazin's book on Bryan) and don't be deluded by movie brainwashing. From these comments, the latter is highly effective for people who don't read.

This movie is especially timely with the political season we're in. Sean Penn is a phenomenally talented actor. He takes the role of Willie Stark, making him so believable and enduring you end up falling in love with the guy. In telling this story about a country hick who becomes one of Louisiana's most powerful politicians has pitch perfect acting from all the stars in the picture. Big names like Kate Winslet, Mark Ruffalo, Jude Law, but seeing Sean Penn bring to life Willie brought me a new appreciation of Penn's acting ability. This movie is entertaining. I didn't see it when released and it's availability on cable never persuaded me to invest the time until this week. I thought it was one of the best movies I ever saw. It is a big sweeping movie that uses "technicolor" to it's best advantage. It is beautifully filmed, very visually appealing with direction that makes the distinguished cast tell a deep story simply and beautifully. The movie has style and flow. All The Kings Men is Sean Penn's to proudly own. Sean Penn has never disappointed me, however he is so real in this movie. His portrayal of Willie makes me want to vote for him for president of the United States this November.

Where do I begin ? The list is really long.It's a complete shame for (Steven Zaillian), an honored scriptwriter, to write a mess like that. The characterization is lost. I didn't understand the character of (Willie Stark), or what was meant through him. He's a good man, using bad means. OK, but so all the politicians, good politicians for that matter. So why the fate he met ? Politics turned him from someone who loves his wife and doesn't drink, into a womanizer and a drunken. But not thief. If that movie talks about how politics is somewhat dirty then it's so naive. And if it tells about the transforming of one man from pure idealistic into something else, then it flops.Then, that character played by (Mark Ruffalo) ???? Who is that guy ? He's some sad doctor, who plays the piano, and that's it !! First off; why he's sad ? The movie gives no answer ! Plus, how in god's name he went to kill as easy as that ?? So someone told him that the project he works in is a lie, and he's maybe going to jail, so he doesn't make sure of that or quit, No sir, he goes to assassinate the manager, and in public, to be a killer instead of a possible imposter ?? Now this is a higher level of "fabricated", being one of the weakest motives ever made in a movie to date. That awful writing made poor (Ruffalo) look like an idiot for all the time !What was (Jude Law)'s problem from the start ? What was the thing that pushed him to hate the rich people, and be unified with (Penn), deserving a wink from him ? How (Penn) left (James Gandolfini) beside him after uncovering his actual agenda ? Then, suddenly, we know that (Law)'s little old fellow reporter (Patricia Clarkson) is having an affair with (Penn) ?, Suddenly (Penn) has an affair with other girls, many other girls, and suddenly with the lead's girl ?? When things run in that manner; it's clear that this movie has an affair with TALKING, NOT SHOWING ! I didn't like that melodramatic third act : "He's your father, he killed himself, because of you, then your friend is going to kill your boss, then gets killed" (???!). And that last shot, with a flashback for (Penn) making a fiery speech to some hick voters ?? I didn't know, is it a way to ask god to have mercy upon the right goals ? Or is it to take a revenge at that lair ? Or is it to elegize a noble man who had left us so early ? I don't know, and maybe this movie doesn't as well ! Let alone that shot at the climax, Oh that shot, where the blood, of both the poor and the rich, is shed and connected together on the symbol of the state ? What the heck is that ?!! It's the top of this movie's stupidity and pretension !The movie is full of dialog. Meaty, sometimes too sophisticated for its own good, dialog. (Sean Penn) makes a speech every 15 minutes, in a way gets on the nerves. The music at nearly every scene's end gets a crescendo, which naturally refers to suspenseful next event that never happens (mostly you get another speech for Penn !). Furthermore, repeating the same move over and over produced a bore. And the direction, by (Zaillian) himself, led everything blandly; I think if it was made in the 1940s, it would have had artistically interesting traits (else shooting one scene in black and white pointlessly !). (Penn) is an alive actor no doubt, but that script is dead. It's insulting to work with it or agree to do it in the first place. His voice was too weak to be thunderous; so he was shouting and shouting hysterically in a way over his abilities. And physically he wasn't anyway convincing; lacking the loin's charisma of his character, looking like (or very much being) a thin actor who wears a fake ludicrous paunch.The movie tries to be a bit Shakespearian (Macbeth, Julius Cesar,..), a bit noir (a narration by cynical journalistic detective), and a bit satiric, but that mix didn't work at all. It's where the movie thinks more than does, and the drama can't inform a meaning, any meaning. So is it about : as long as the sonata is good, don't think about its writer's sins ? Nobody is perfect (Penn, Hopkins,..) ? Politic sucks ? (Rather this movie sucks !). Frankly I didn't catch on the meaning of the movie's title either. Ahh, this is WHOLLY clueless !I know that somewhere there is an impressive smartass who will figure it all out, and tell us how this is a great movie in terms of so and so, clearing up the deep and genius meaning behind it. But for me I hated what I saw, not finding a solid and enjoyable thing in it. And with the names of the stars, the scriptwriter, it becomes worse, ending up as heavy factitious crap. In other words : it's more messy than (Penn)'s hair in his second scene, and more puffy than his fake paunch ! (All The King's Men) fails at being anything, unless a forced Hindi melodrama. On second though : the worst Hindi melodrama is more clear and meaningful than that !

This film features some of my favorite actors, but the entire thing doesn't work. I suggest reading Todd McCarthy's review in Variety. It sums up all of the film's numerous weaknesses and accurately describes the questionable Southern accents of the leads. I love Sean Penn, but somehow, even the mighty Penn cannot make this film work.Like Variety said, something about it wasn't real. There are several distinct scenes where you can sense you are on the set and the director has yelled "Action!"... and the actor goes through with his scene because he knows his lines and his marks... but that's it. It's really a tragedy; it should have been a great movie.The other thing is... you'll get lost with the plethora of characters and you will spend 2/3 of the movie trying to figure out what the relationships are... and then you'll forget half of them, which is too bad, because some of them will come back and you'll have to recognize them all over again. Overall, a big mistake.