why do you people always type in all caps? are you trying to make yourself important? do people never listen to you in real life? Well, don't get your hopes up, I've never responded (listened) to one of these hyperboles before and I won't again (I was bored today)--just as most people out there don't.
shareI just finished watching the movie and quite enjoyed it. The story was a little too predictable but Sean Penn's acting was top-notch. About all you can expect from something out of Hollywood.
No it wasn't awful but it wasn't as good as expected. 5.5/10.
The film is too much Hollywood to be any good.
One example is the terrible 'dramatic' music all through the film.
Another is the need to bring in all the stars instead of doing a better job at casting.
The story behind it is fascinating. I haven't read the book but I will.
.
[deleted]
I agree: this movie was awful.
shareYes Ryan Gosling, this movie was awful. It was not a stinker, but bad and maybe really bad it was indeed...
Especially Sean Penn's performance, djeez...
I found Broderick Crawford's portrayal of Willie Stark in the original (Robert Rossen, 1949) very convincing and entertaining. Sean Penn was awful, I'm really sorry to say (he played some stark and memorable roles, also like the fact he directs and produces, really do). But Sean Penn came over as a highschool rascal, or a hot shot bravado somebody, not a powerful and charismatic character like Broderick Crawford's performance. He was heavy, grim and serious and a little scary and menacing - Sean Penns performance was jovial and it also seemed to be more comical (so misplaced) than serious.
And did he wear a fatsuit or so (as opposed to having gained weight), his neck is too thin in comparison, it looks like a turkey's neck...
Just caught it for the first time on Cinemax this morning...I rather liked it, a lot.
"Only a fool would say that." --STEELY DAN
I found the movie excellent. It will stick in my memory as much as V for vendetta. I gave 8/10.
shareThis movie was boring and dull. Anyone who thinks Sean Penn was good in it is probably an anti Bush clone who has been brainwashed and stupified :) I think the original movie was better and that one wasn't all that great either. Penn never gets you to like the character even from the begining. His character portrayal of Wille Stark is terrible in the fact that you never like him even in the begining. The story is about corruption of a politician who meant well in the begining but eventually fell, corrupted by the very things he fought against. I dont see this in Penn's portrayal at all, his Willie Stark is obnoxious right from the word go and seems to be evil and corrupted right out of the gate. I tried to watch this with an open mind but still can't say too much good about this film. I don't let politics interfere with my critique of movies, too bad certain actors and actresses can't say the same when they act. I see alot of Penn's hatred of Bush and the Republicans in his acting here and I see it in alot of hollywoods liberal elite these days, its a shame. There are some movies that could have been good but have been destroyed by the personal politics of close minded nazified liberals who only see their viewpoint and attack anyone who thinks differently then them. Hopefully another McCarthy will come to Hollywood and clean up that stinking cesspoll of Anti American Communists who hide behind the very laws and constitution that they would see brought down. Anyone who doesnt like my view point has the right to keep their opinions to themselves ;) By the way, before you attack me on my McCarthy comment, do some homework, alot of the people he exposes really turned out to be communists who did harm to this country, since the fall of the soviet union there are lots of documents to verify this.
shareThank you, Monkey Groin. I choose to waive the right you so graciously gave to me, much as you have. I completely disagree with nearly everything you said. As tempting as it is to argue with you about McCarthyism, I think I'll try and keep this about the movie.
Your complaint about Sean Penn seems completely off base to me, as though you completely misunderstood the movie. I really don't think you got this movie at all.
The point of the movie is NOT that you're SUPPOSED to like Stark and feel sorry for him as he becomes corrupted. Maybe that's what you WANTED the story to be about, but if that's now how Sean Penn played it, there's a good chance that that's not how he wanted you to understand it. So you should at least consider the possibility that it wasn't about what you thought it "should" have been about before you criticize it as a failure.
As I understood it, the movie tried to show Sean Penn's character much in the way Shakespeare showed Julius Caesar - he was both a tyrant and a victim, a sinner and a saint, good and horrible. The point of the movie is that this man had all of these things within him from the very beginning; when he was in a weaker position, it ended up being only the nicer, socially acceptable aspects that came to the surface, but it was all there. The difference between him and other people, is that he was sort of the Nietzschean "superman" who is aware of the constructed nature of morality and wiling to shape it to his own ends, which are ultimately neither good nor evil, but simply are. The movie is kind of explicit about this, in fact, where, when the doctor asks him how we know what the good is, he replies that we "make it up as we go along." It's a disturbing and ultimately amoral position that makes us uncomfortable since it upsets our idea of morality.
The movie is a searing and intense look at whether or not humans are emotionally prepared to take that kind of a leap and truly embrace this sort of postmodern, nothing-is-inherently-good approach to life. Jude Law's Character, as is clear from his narration, at least initially believes that he agrees with Stark's viewpoint as well, which is "something he has in common" with him.
The real story of the film is the development of Jude Law's character, as he sees his amoral attitude borne out in the over-the-top reality of Stark. After Stark ends up sleeping with his childhood sweetheart and effectively having him kill his own father, we're left with a question at the end of the movie of whether or not Law's character can really live according to this.
His disdain for his friend Adam's simplistic moralism contrasts with the terrible pain he can't help but feel as he treads the path of Stark's amoralism. One of the last major images in the film, of the two men's blood mixing on the floor of the state house, is a very powerful symbol, indicating that at the end of the day, whether we lead our lives based on a set of strict morals or go about creating our own rules as we please, in the end we're all pretty much the same.
In my mind at least, this is without question the central issue of this movie, not the sort of physical plot or what happens to Huey Long's political crusade - all of which forms a very colorful and interesting background. The point is that however strongly we may believe in one political or moral ideology, it's never the be-all-end-all.
I'm very surprised that so many people have seen this as a commentary on the Bush administration. I honestly think its central point has nothing to do with that whatsoever. The movie, as I read it, is about universal questions relating to politics, corruption, and the nature of goodness.
If you're looking for a straight-up "what happened" political story, then yes, the movie was bad. Otherwise, the movie was brilliant, and far, far, deeper than most movies we get these days.
I enjoyed this movie, I am not going to pretend I am some sort of smart guy or expert in this or that. What I enjoyed about this film is it shows the dirt under everyone's nails, a dirt of greed, lust, want, need, blindness, loyality. You got the swells with everything and the poor with nothing, how are they not going to be drawn to a man who is from their home? Personally, I do think people can make bad to good given the right person.
.
The minute God crapped out the third caveman, a conspiracy was hatched against one of them!
Great insight, CactusHazretieri!
share