The review Text copyright Filmverdict 2006. Any film stills are copyright of their respective owners. Used without permission, sorry!
This movie is a real puzzler. Stuffed with awards-worthy talent, directed by an Oscar winner, expected to be a front-runner at the next Oscars... and yet it's pretty dull. The acting is a mixed bag, from Jude Law (who is effectively the main character despite receiving second billing) being quite understated to Sean Penn wildly gesticulating through his role. Some of the characters, who end up being quite important, barely show up and are ill-defined (Kate Winslet, Mark Ruffalo), but I doubt it's the fault of the actors. The film is quite difficult to follow at times, suggesting that some beneficial material has been cut out, but the film that we are left with is still really slow and feels like it needs shortening. One positive, though is the cinematography, which is excellent, and is probably the only aspect of the film deserving of an Oscar nomination. I did quite like the ending, but the lack of interest at that point meant its impact was wasted. The period is evoked very well, too, but the look of the thing isn't ultimately that important, when the narrative lacks interest and is overly convoluted (there are sequences out of chronological order for no discernible reason) like it is in this film. That'll teach me to listen to Jonathan Ross's recommendation.
The summary
All the King's Men sure looks pretty, but despite the best intentions of the filmmakers, it ends up just being a bore.
