THIS MOVIE WAS AWFUL!!!


Anyone agree?

reply

I'm going to make a film about the Italian mafia, set in Italy.

My stars will be:
Billy Bob Thornton, Walt Goggins, Gaylord Sartain, Reese Witherspoon, Dolly Parton, and Julia Roberts.

Anyone see a problem with that?

If not, you probably don't see anything wrong with All The King's Men either.

The cinematography in this film is great, but I would agree with the person who started this thread. The casting for this movie was horrendous and ultimately killed the movie.

Sean Penn, Jude Law, and James Gandolfini make Kevin Costner sound like Sam Elliott. The only one who did a terrific job with the accent with Kate Winslet.

A couple of genuine Southerners like Glenn Morshower and Kathy Baker weren't enough to save this dog.

--- Making hay while the sun shines ---

reply

I think that this movie was damn good, from start to finish, a good adaptation, a solid cast, great camera work. I can see how others do not like this movie, it is a kind of movie that is 50/50 in terms of hate it or love it. like most political movies it takes a grain of salt and you do not need to love it, but let it be that some people like some movies and others do not. it is not an indictment of how intelligent a person is, it is just taste is all.

Lets show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown

reply

I totally agree, and I was shocked. It took me like 5 days to get a copy from blockbuster...so I figured it would be decent. Its the kind of film that pretends to be smarter than it is. The only light side to the film was Sean Penn's portrayal of the southern politician.

reply

(crazy southern accent) NAILLLLL EM UP!!!

reply

I agree... I was salivating until this finally got out of my Blockbuster queue. I always loved the story about Huey Long, and thought with such a powerhouse cast it couldn't be bad. I was wrong. Jude Law was ok, and Kate Winslet was great as always, but they didn't really use her well. Mark Ruffalo is a personal favorite, and of course you can't go wrong with Hopkins. What, then, ruined it for me? Sean Penn. He was terrible in the role. Not only is his southern accent horrible (I would have assassinated him too if he sounded like that!), but he overacted and made the role way beyond anything it could have been in real life. He ruined what could have been at least a decent movie. Of course, I hate how he shoves his political views down our throats, but he's always performed SOMEWHAT solidly in previous films (though I feel he's a bit overrated usually). The overarching political message seemed a BIT biased towards today's political environment and less about the bossism and corruption of the actual time. I think the scripting was ok, the camerawork was awesome, and the story could have made for a solid movie. But putting Sean Penn up front really ruined it. I think putting so many solid players also hurt it a bit, as the whole point of the Huey Long story is that the little guy is most likely to do better, even though power corrupts equally.

reply

You are saying so is because, let me guess, the movie has Sean Penn and you are a stupid Bush supporter?

reply

This movie has nothing to do with Bush. The book was written in the 40s. Christ, don't even bring that into this.

reply

NO! sean penn's acting was brilliant!

reply

I think assessing this movie as a political statement is ignoring the more relevant issues that should be regarded in film evaluation. Whether it was crafted with a desire to suggest something politically relevant is less important to me at the outset than whether I feel it is a competently made film.

I feel that it was a terrible, terrible movie. I found Sean Penn's performance, while occasionally interesting, to have been too polarized and too simplistic. I felt that Jude Law turned in a particularly wretched and boring performance. In fact, the entire subplot between Kate Winslet and Jude Law, which the director or screenwriter apparently never saw fit to resolve or even adequatedly address, was one of the most boring story arcs I've suffered through in my time as a moviegoer.

Anthony Hopkins as pretty good, though. Still wouldn't stop me from classifying this movie as a colossal waste of time, money, and potential influence.

reply

I must confess that having viewed this film carefully I would have to say that it is awful. Sean Penn's performance is also awful. His speechifying brings to mind the screechings of an Islamic terrorist. "All the King's Men" was inspired by the life of Huey Long,and Huey Long deserved much better. He was a brilliant man and a brilliant speaker. If you want to know about Huey Long (the good and the bad)..read T. Harry Williams' biography of him and view the PBS documentary.

reply

not great though I think winslet is just awful again. she always plays the same way, endlessly craggy judgemental moody and passive aggressive. she is a pretty face with absurd confidence based on very little actual talent

reply

"not great though I think winslet is just awful again. she always plays the same way, endlessly craggy judgemental moody and passive aggressive. she is a pretty face with absurd confidence based on very little actual talent"

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.




Red: Only guilty man in Shawshank.

reply

[deleted]

For the record, I hate Bush. I hated him from his first day in office. Dislike FOX news and everything FOX puts out except House.


I saw this movie without any previous conditioning, I just picked it up in hollywood Video one day and thought it sounded good. Boy, was I wrong. Sean Penn, while usually a good actor, was horrible. The plot... Wait, what plot? The only good scene is in the end where Willie Stark gets shot. After I saw it, I realized that i didnt even remeber what it was about. Cinematography was excellent, but the plot and charcters were wooden beyond beleif.



It shows that when you put a bunch of famous, A-list, actors on screen together, You get a mishmash of horrendous acting and pretty faces. Like Ocean's 12.

reply

johno21-1 I disagree with your opinion- but thats fine your welcome to it ofcourse. I would like to know HOW anyone can think that this film is awful?

I dont see how it is possible to argue there is ´no plot´, maybe you could explain what was missing for you. I sympathise with the view of Sean Penn- acting the role of an over-the-top character is very difficult to nail and maybe he doesnt quite do it (but then he was wooden in Mystic River and got an OSCAR for that).

All in all I liked this film. I didnt think it was the best film ever- like every book adaptation, they always seem to feel a little shoe-horned. But it was well enough acted and beautifully shot and scored.

reply

i just found it quite hard to follow, and it reminded me of Napolean Dynamite in the way there was a 'Plat', but that plot was realy just random events. the ned half hour made sense, (from when Stark proposes the hospital to where the doc shoots him) and that I actually liked a bit. But the rest, for me at least, just wasnt that good.

Ive never read the book, maybe its like if you havent read thebook its vonfusing (like the Davinci code). I did like the score and cinematography. Very vibrant to dark and forboding.


Have A Nice Day!

reply

[deleted]

I'm gonna have to disagree with it being awful. I don't think it's an amazing movie but the cinematography is good, the acting is pretty good (I don't know much about accents so whatever), and it had its inspirational parts. I gave it a 7 out 10.

reply

Calling this movie awful is an insult to awful things. The direction, writing, acting, cinematography, and ESPECIALLY the music were all abysmal. This movie made me embarrassed that I was watching it.

reply