« Studio 60 and the Business of Entertainment | Main | Fall TeeVee »
October 01, 2006
All the King's Men
Before I get into the movie, let me set the scene. This is the first film I've seen in L.A. since returning to full-time residency. Everytime I was in a small theatre in Chi-town, I'd complain endlessly to my companion about how Chicago didn't measure up to LA's stadium-style seating. (I believe we started that trend, but I can't be sure.)
Right. So then I get to the mall to find the place jam packed with people trying to buy tickets. The line to get into the theatre is even longer - longer because they've only got One Guy taking tickets. Seriously, for the ten dollar charge, you'd think they could afford more employees.
So after dealing with all this external stimuli, we get into the theatre. Alas, despite the bustling and diverse crowd outside, our fellow patrons were primarily your stereotypical older white liberal types. And not that many of them to boot. When the movie started, I thought this was a sad statement on society's lack of interest in serious films.
Except this wasn't exactly a serious film. It was a Serious Film that Screamed Oscar with its Lush Cinematography and Convoluted Storyline and Charismatic Characters.
A flatmate gave me a copy of All the King's Men for my birthday five years ago. I tried several times to read it, but couldn't get past the words - the descriptions go on for days. So the book has disappeared from my library and I never saw the first movie about it. Which all ended up being a good thing - because for me, the ending was a surprise. And the ending, on top of the whole mess of a movie, made it seem worth it.
A few of the actors were rather good. I enjoyed Penn's performance. But I felt like the script never made me understand what was right or wrong about the character - I never saw him transition from a small town do-gooder to a crafty despot. In fact, I was never quite sure that he was nefarious (aside from his womanizing, but that seems par for the course in politician-land).
And I thought Law was decent, although I couldn't understand why the movie seemed to focus more on him then on Willie Stark (Penn's character). And I seriously hate Kate Winslet. Or perhaps I just hate all the American directors who think they can bleach her hair and Americans will think she's the all American blonde. She's not. She's British and a brunette. And maybe I just couldn't get past her really bad dye job. But seriously, she's not a good actor. There must be better actresses out there for all the parts she's getting.
And why, pray tell, must Southern aristocracy be played by Brits? Perhaps because when modern American film makers think aristocracy they can't get past the archetype enshrined by Merchant Ivory productions? For goodness sake, can we please allow some fine Southern actors to portray Southern characters so that if we have to deal with a cacophony of accents they're all bona fide Southern ones rather than a mix of standard English, put-on drawls, and British English?
Just wait for this to come out on Netflix. I'm thinking about putting the 1949 "masterpiece" version on my queue, but it's not gonna jump to the top of the list. People have complained that this version strays too far from the 49 version. I think a more accurate description is that it chooses uncompelling aspects of the book to hang a movie on. Then again, check out this passage from the book quoted by Ty Burr in the Boston Globe:
`The linoleum mat was newish, and the colors were still bright -- reds and tans and blues slick and varnished-looking -- a kind of glib, impertinent, geometrical island floating there in the midst of the cornerless shadows and the acid mummy smell and the slow swell of Time which had fed into this room, day by day since long back, as into a landlocked sea where the fish were dead and the taste was brackish on your tongue." And that's just the linoleum.It's good to know there's a real reason I couldn't find my way into the damn Pulitzer prize winning novel.
Right. Generally, the movie is pretty too look at but too long and convoluted and dwells on the wrong aspects of the story. Unlike my companion, I wasn't annoyed at the idea of flashbacks - I enjoy a nonlinear story as much as the next cinephile. What annoyed me was that they never went anywhere; they were repetitive without enlightening and detracted from the forward motion of the plot. They also took away valuable screen time from getting to know the players. It seems like the writer/director thinks everyone's already read the book and seen the 49 film and doesn't need to get Willie Stark. Maybe he spent too long in the editing room (a year); maybe he should've let someone else edit the damn thing. Maybe a different screenplay should have been green lighted. Oh well. Here's hoping there are some truly compelling movies in the rest of the Oscar hopefuls.
By the way, the rant about how I used to brag about LA movie theaters? Yeah, well this one had me sitting with my knees in my chest. It was the most uncomfortable seat I've been forced to sit in for quite awhile. Alas, I must rescind my former comments about how all LA theaters are more comfortable than Chi-town.
I've never been to a movie with such a low Rotten Tomatoes rating - 4.2 out of 10. A shame really; because the message behind the movie is important and immediate. The stump speeches before Stark becomes governor are almost worth the ticket price; but they're cancelled out by the director's shorthand use of The Hitler Pose to tell us Stark became a despot. I am seriously sick of the Large Building, Upward Camera Tilt, Black Night look to clue audiences into the fact that they should dislike a charismatic, autocratic politician.
Rotten Tomatoes listing
IMDB listing
Review in the Las Vegas Review Journal (which seems to forget that the 49 classic was based on a book)
Bob Bloom's favorable review from Indiana's Journal and Courier
Ty Burr's negative review in the Boston Globe
Posted by cj at October 1, 2006 12:56 AM