MOVIE REVIEW: Even with all-star cast, ‘King’s Men’ only an average telling of book
Wanna get dirty? Then go into politics. In a nutshell, that’s the message of this film. As it shows the moral deterioration of a simple country man who climbs the political ladder, “All the King’s Men” depicts the tragic and powerful influences of society while weaving a thick tale of political treachery. At least, that’s the idea.
Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Robert Penn Warren, “All the King’s Men” is a remake of the classic, multiple Oscar-winning 1949 version. (There was also a made-for-TV film in 1958.) Although the material of this story is gripping and wonderfully complex, we have been sadly reminded, once again, that remakes are awfully ambitious. Sometimes too ambitious. And gathering a group of A-list actors does not always guarantee success.
With a screenplay written by Steven Zaillian, who also directed the film, “All the King’s Men” ends up suffering from lots of different things. A discombobulated storyline, uneven plot and character development, and a lacking sense of emotion are some of the most easily identifiable issues here.
The story begins with the average-joe journalist, Jack (Jude Law, “Closer”) assigned to report on the progress of a passionate idealist running for city mayor in the backwoods of Louisiana. This idealist is Willie Stark (Sean Penn, “The Interpreter”) and after he loses the election he gets roped into a scheme to run for governor, unwittingly serving as the political decoy for the current governor’s campaign. Thanks to an eruption of truth and vociferous speeches, the tides turn in favor of Stark, enabling him to rise further heavenward on the political stage, which causes his ethics to plummet in the opposite direction.
It seems a mystery why this film was not the masterpiece that so many people (including me) thought it would be. Zaillian, who won an Oscar in 1994 for his amazing screenplay adaptation of “Schindler’s List”, should have been the perfect candidate for this project. And the prestigious cast of actors (including Kate Winslet, “Finding Neverland”; Anthony Hopkins, “Proof” and Patricia Clarkston “Good Night, and Good Luck”) are all capable of giving the most stellar performances. But the whole film remains average and nobody gives a performance that shines.
A lot of this blandness, in the acting as well as the screenplay, is just due to poor casting. Although all the actors get an A for effort, none of them really fit the roles they portray, except maybe for Clarkston. And when so many British actors are squeezing out Southern accents, it’s easy to notice that something isn’t exactly right. Penn is usually well-suited for any role he adopts, but his turn as a regular man who becomes increasingly hungry for power comes off as overzealous and overacted.
This film has plenty of visual allusions to the concept of time and how time has the subtle and surprising aptitude to change people. But as time goes on, and as everyone changes for the worse, we aren’t as riveted as we want to be.
Casey T. Allen is the Statesman movie critic. Comments or extra-butter
popcorn can be sent
to caseyal@cc.usu.edu.