I've never seen the original 1949 film, so the 2006 remake of All the King's Men is my only reference for the story. And while I watched the film in its entirety, if pressed, I wouldn't be able to give you a very detailed plot synopsis. To be blunt, it's pretty boring, and none of the characters motivate you to pay close attention.Sean Penn is an over-the-top Southern politician with dreams of grandeur. I've never found him to be very trustworthy in his roles anyway, so it's not a stretch to believe he manipulates and panders to his audiences and those in his close circle, while hiding his ulterior motives. In tow are journalist Jude Law, girlfriend Patricia Clarkson, and political crony James Gandolfini. James seemed to be on a constant verge of cracking up, Patricia seemed miscast, and Kate Winslet, who got on the promotional poster, has an infinitely smaller part than her counterparts. I don't know why she was cast either, since her role consisted of very little acting, except maybe she, her publicist, or the studio were drawn to cast her for one scene of partial nudity. The big scene in the film—Sean Penn is making a political speech and no one is listening to him, so he lays on the heavy religious rhetoric and shouts and gains everyone's attention and support—felt extremely forced and uncompelling. How can the audience get excited about Sean's big scene when it feels like it was the fortieth take and everyone was tired and knew what to expect? While James Horner's theme was supposed to sound ominous, all I heard were the similarities to Hans Zimmer's music in Green Card, which had an entirely different meaning. All the King's Men isn't a movie I wish I'd never seen, but it was very forgettable and hardly the money that went into it. A Face in the Crowd, a different story but with similar themes, is an infinitely superior film.DLM warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. In the first and last scenes, the camera spins in a continuous circle, and it might make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

I've had the advantage of seeing this for the first time (March 2014) well after the hype. Having watched the 1949 version a couple of year's ago I naturally found myself comparing the two films. As good as the original was considered in its day, when it was far closer in time to the both the book published in 1946 and the real life events the book was based on, it feels overblown and overacted. (Unfortunately I find this to be true of most English-language films made prior to the late 60s.) By contrast I found the 2006 film fresh, naturalistic and believable. Sadly I believe this is one film quite unfairly killed by its critics. It deserved far better, and I hope all those involved in bringing it to the screen have enough good judgement to value their participation. Understandably not the financial backers! If you haven't seen it, treat yourself. For a more enlightened experience check out the Wikipedia entry on Governor Huey Long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long) first.

Director Steven Zallian appears NOT to have got the best out of his stars, Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, Mark Ruffalo and James Gandolfini. They all give us below par performances. Sean Penn (an excellent actor) is terrible in this. He is in the lead role and is so bad...he is almost funny. When a movies lead actor is not functioning, the movie is in dire straights...before the cue ball has been touched. Its very possible that the other principle actors were so surprised by Penns inadequacies, that they just switched off. After the first scene, Zalliain should have had a long chat with Penn, and told him to play the character he was supposed to be playing (maybe he did !!). Whatever..this is a very poor motion picture. In the D.V.D. extras one of the actors said he felt he had such a great time...and the parties were amazing (or words like that). Under another director this could have been a pretty good movie. As it is, this is messy and not worth watching.

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.