Movie Review: ALL THE KING’S MEN (2006)
All the King’s Men (2006) – *1/2
I’m not one to think that all remakes are a bad idea. In fact, remaking the Best Picture winning film All the King’s Men was something that, if done with an eye for epic political drama, could have succeeded.
Steve Zaillian’s adaptation of the novel All the King’s Men is not the film it could have been. It’s not even the film it should have been. It’s not a remake, per say, but rather a different (at times too timely) interpretation of the Robert Penn Warren novel. Instead of adding some much needed weight to the story, which is where the original needed improvement, the film feels like a hollowed out version of the first adaptation. Even a heavyweight ensemble can’t stop that.
Willie Stark (Sean Penn) is the treasurer of a rural Louisiana county. Stark’s raving mad about a school construction contract that was given to a friend of the county commissioners instead of the low bidder. His speeches (unseen by the audience) cause editors at the big-city paper the Chronicle to send Jack Burden (Jude Law) to cover Stark’s story.
The wealthy, idealist Burden falls for the status-quo shacking honesty of Willie Stark when Stark is picked to run for governor. Stark, however, was only selected because the school construction he rallied against caused the death of three children. That makes him an everyman hero that can split the “hick” vote and swing the election to a guy named Harrison.
Stark surprises Louisiana’s political elite by winning the election with a tenacity unseen in state politics. Soon the people’s governor resorts to strong arm tactics to get his work pushed through the legislature. This doesn’t sit well with conservatives like Burden’s godfather Judge Irwin (Anthony Hopkins). With Burden now one Stark’s payroll, he’s chosen to take down his godfather in order to save Stark from impeachment. Burden soon finds that loyalty to one man or another isn’t something that you can afford when working in politics.
Writer/director Zaillian too has trouble with loyalty. Zaillian refocuses his version of All the King’s Men on the Jack Burden character, the point of view from which the novel is written. In that he mangles the narrative, adding flashbacks where there should be straight storytelling. The screenplay holds out on giving too much of Burden’s life away hoping for it to serve as the film’s dramatic tension.
Rightfully so, the original adaptation gave Willie Stark, the charismatic and populist politician a more central position. With Sean Penn as the lead, one would assume that was how Zaillian’s film would have approached the story. Yet, most of what made Stark likeable/unlikeable in the first film is tossed aside for the sake of inflating the socialist folk hero image.
Many performers, like Penn, are left playing what seem like mere bit roles. The heir to Meryl Streep’s thrown, Kate Winslet, is under utilized. That makes her moments on screen feel awkward and forced. The same can be said for Patricia Clarkson, Mark RuFfalo and James Gandolfini. Law and Penn do what they can under the circumstances, but no one can really shine in a film that doesn’t even make you understand them.
I don’t think I would have understood any of the characters had I not seen the original film. Zaillian’s often pretentious approach lacks the subtlety necessary to make the unspoken exchanges exist even on a recognizable level. Most of the occurrences in this story just have to rely on subtle storytelling. I guess that is why the 1949 adaptation wasn’t an epic film.
Not many films can be subtle and epic at the same time, but that’s what was required to make this remake successful. All the King’s Men is a momentous failure in that respect. When you remake a film the caliber of 1949’s All the King’s Men one little screw up looks like a big mistake. With all the mistakes and missteps in this Zaillian version, you might say I did get my epic after all: an epic blunder.
Get Email Updates
