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.

Not a remake of the 1949 film, but a more faithful adaptation of Robert Warren Penn's iconic novel, Steve Zaillian's (Schindler's List, Searching For Bobby Fischer, The Interpreter) take tells the story of politician Willie Stark (Sean Penn). Set in 50s Louisiana, the film documents Stark's humble beginnings, rise to power as governor, and final downfall, from the perspective of journalist Jack Burden (Jude Law), who gets drawn into Stark's ever murkier world.Crucified by critics on release, I found this to be a very 'split' film. The good first: It's photographed and scored beautifully, and despite accents, the all-star cast are predictably effective, with Penn delivering the needed bombast and passion of the corrupted governor. Law is good too as a disillusioned journalist fighting his own demons, especially an old flame and her brother, played by Winslet and Ruffalo respectively, also solid. We even get Hopkins and the late Gandolfini in supporting roles as a powerful judge and Stark's first ally, though both don't get much to do and feel more like novelties.Now, its narrative is where things get really hazy: Drifting between political corruption with Stark, and Burden's own personal story of manipulation and loss, the shift is not handled very smoothly at all. The story seems meandering and unfocused most of the time, with Burden's tale taking a little more precedence over Stark's. Not only does this cut away from some great potential allegory and parallels with modern politics, but it feels like the shades of grey are where Zaillian should be most at home. In 'Schindler's List', he handled that extremely well, but here, once he gets into office, he pretty much right away becomes a two faced weasel, which regardless of accuracy to the novel, doesn't make for terribly dramatic or smooth screen storytelling.As for Burden's story in and of itself, it's okay, but again, it feels like its detracting from where the story should be focused on. Yes, there is some parallel between how both men let down people, and they are tied together because they factor into Stark's political schemes, but it just drags and, again, doesn't feel like that's where the heart of this story should be. What works in a book doesn't always translate to screen, and this type of sprawling, laid-back narrative feels better consumed over the course of chapters.In the end, the film isn't boring or lazy, and I don't think it's the abomination the critics branded it as, but it just feels like Zaillian is juggling too many things. Had he focused the story on Stark and really gone into examining the backstabbing nature of politics, we could've gotten something, while not incredibly original, much more effective and gripping. As it is, it just amounts to a whole bunch of 'okay', and nothing more.

I saw this on DVD, and I still am not 100% sure of what happened! LOL There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the acting. Sean Penn, Jude Law, Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, Patricia Clarkson, Mark Ruffalo, and all the others did a fine job, but I do not know how they understood what they were doing! Much of the plot is very ambiguous. At the end of the movie, SPOILER ALERT, Judge Irwin commits suicide. After that, Jack's mother blames him for killing his FATHER. This seems to imply that the judge was his father, but what does that mean for Anne? Are they siblings? Was the Judge only looking out for her? In addition to that, I do not know if Willie Stark was cheating on his wife with Sadie Burke or not. Someone please explain it to me because I have no clue. I am about to try to find a plot synopsis and, hopefully, that will help. If this movie had won for best screenplay, I would have been appalled. So, due to its terrible ability at explanation of storyline, I give this movie a 7 out of 10.