I liked this movie because of the juxtaposition of sort of mythological California and the whole mystery surrounding California with the very pragmatic realism that now envelopes modern California. The mythology of California is juxtaposed with the pragmatic reality that has been imposed upon the cultural domain, wherein once upon a time mythology was revered, now the practical has complete dominion and dreaming and capturing a lost mythology is suspect and only madmen contemplate such fanciful non pragmatism. I give this movie a thumbs up.

King of California ("KOC") is one of those movies where if you don't pay attention, you might miss the punch-line.Basically what is boils down to is this: The slight zaniness of Charlie (Michael Douglas) in his search for long lost treasure, is a metaphor for the long-standing allure California has had on hundreds of thousands (millions) of people over the years.Like moths to a flame, the intangible allure which is the promise of a better life, has drawn legions of seekers to California over the years.But the genius of KOC is that it waits to the ending scenes to confirm for us the viewers that Charlie's obsession is, by the standards of the allure of California, 100% correct, 100% valid and in his instance, it actually pays off for his beloved (and loving) daughter in the end.Think carefully about the symbolism of the illegal immigrants emerging for the ocean in the movie's final scene and also about the scene in which Charlie last appears and you'll make the connection regarding the utter immersion which the allure of personal fulfillment compels people to. People want the dreams of their lives to be fulfilled and they will indeed throw caution to the wind seeking it.The symbolism of the Costco (so much is there, it has everything) is also a metaphor for California itself.I'll leave the rest to the viewers, but I'll just say that Evan Rachel Wood is very believable as a loving daughter and Willis Burks's ingenuity in the Costco scene is for me a modern version of the can-do pioneering spirit which carried people westward in the past.

Can totally confirm that last comment.. Didn't exspect that much before renting that DVD, but after all it was quite a nice surprise to see Michael Douglas' extraordinary performance and that of Evan rachel Wood, which is also one of the greatest performer nowadays. No clichés, no unnessesary over-the-top changes in storytelling, just a nice little film, calm and professionally narrated about father and daughter and the apparently mazy visions which turn out to be not just visionary. Everyone did a great job on this, and hopefully there'll be more brilliant moments in film history in the near future..

Michael Douglas has just been released from a mental hospital. During his years as an inmate, he read a great deal about California history, especially the stories left by monks of lost treasure. One monk in particular, left behind a diary of his journey in 1651 in which he lists clues of the treasure's whereabouts. Douglas returns home and enlists the aid of his estranged daughter, Evan Rachel Wood, in his besotted quest. She supports them with her job at McDonalds. They pawn or sell everything except their house in order to buy the equipment necessary to track down the lost doubloons -- back hoes, scuba equipment, and so forth.It's a gentle family comedy, not a zany laff riot. There are no pratfalls, little vulgarity, and nothing raunchy or violent. The model of madness is fey and whimsical. There's nothing dangerous about the deranged Douglas. He's funny.And it's Douglas's kind of role too. He's superb at wild-eyed restraint. At one point he's about to drive away in Wood's heap of a car and she rushes out to stop him. She shines a flashlight through the window and when he explains the purpose of his midnight trip his eyes are so wide open that the irises are surrounded by white, as in a cartoon. I looked in the mirror and tried to do it myself and couldn't.Wood is less effective. She looks and sounds as if she'd just been extraordinarily renditioned from the streets of Sherman Oaks. She was stunning as an early adolescent in "Thirteen," where she embodied a sort of savage innocence, whereas here she's a generically beautiful young woman.The script depends a lot on the performances because there really isn't much to the story except air. One mildly amusing incident follows another, and they'd all be pointless if they weren't built around Douglas's obsession with the monk's leavings.The dialog is warm and funny without the willingness to crack the viewer up with laughter. Everyone seems so charming and good natured. Here's an example of one of the more ludic lines.Wood: (Shouting) "You think the world is only here for your own amusement!" Douglas: (Shrugs) "Look at the world." Now, an exchange like this must necessarily make a great big thud unless it's carried off perfectly, with neither party acting as if they realized its absurdity. And they do it.There was one sad underlying impression that I'm not sure the writers/director meant to elicit. I mean the striking contrast between the landscape descriptions from the monk's diary. They're all about pure valleys and unspoiled heaving hills and rivers and caves and rocks. The landscape that Douglas and Wood explore is mottled with housing tracts and strip malls. These developments seem to have been caught in mid flight, while spreading like some malignancy across the natural features of the land. Douglas needs to break into CostCo and drill through several feet of concrete to find the monk's river, now driven underground, hidden under a multitude of shelves with boxes of consumer crap. There's nothing especially funny about purity lost.