Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

ridge-m-1 Don't lose any sleep over the low rating of this film on IMDb. Most would be critics on this site are incapable of recognizing motion picture art.This remake of "ATKM" is one of this viewers favorite movies though it misses the mark of a would be masterpiece. Steven Zaillian and his crew did a wonderful job recreating the ambiance of Depression Era Louisiana. He was less successful in transforming the Pulitzer Prize winning novel of Robert Penn Warren into a screenplay but that is a herculean task.Although the novel is more about the life of Jack Burden, even he states that he is unable to separate his existence from Willie Stark's. Make no mistake, Warren based Stark on Huey "The Kingfish" Long, the smartest most capable as well as the most flamboyant politician of his time and that includes FDR. Sean Penn is absolutely brilliant and spellbinding as Stark and for those that say his performance is over-the-top, that is an oxymoron. The Kingfish's style was over-the-top which was a component of his brilliance as a politician. Jude Law inhabits the character of Jack Burden. Having read the novel, JL brings the character to life as he is portrayed by Warren. He should have been nominated for Best Supporting. The other over-sized presence in the picture is that of Anthony Hopkins as the judge. Another spot-on portrayal of the character if one is able to forgo the Louisiana drawl. In supporting roles, kudos to Patricia Clarkson as Sadie Burke who tears up the screen with her scenes as well as the underused talent of Sugar Boy as played by Jackie Earle Haley. Although Jackie's Sugar Boy is somewhat of a radical departure from the novel, he successfully creates his own persona. Warren's Sugar Boy would not be a character one would wish to watch on screen.Now for the casting disaster and one of the major flaws of the script. Kate Winslet is a wonderful actress. The project she worked on just prior to "ATKM' was a picture called "Little Children" for which she won an Academy Award as Best Actress. The film itself is thought-provoking and utilizes the talent of Jackie Earle Haley to a much greater degree which won him an Oscar as Best Supporting Actor. However, she cannot credibly play Anne Stanton because she is not beautiful. Warren portrays Anne Stanton as a goddess, the penultimate female from the genes of Louisianan aristocracy. Caroline Renee Christmann was perfect for the look of Anne Stanton at age 9 (unfortunately she did not grow up to be that angelic looking). She was the love of Jack Burden's life who did marry another beautiful woman but since it was based purely on physical attraction, it did not last. Winslet was the right age but not a proper fit for the role.Many that should know say Mark Ruffalo is a good actor. After all he has been nominated for three Oscars. The problem with his character in this movie is that the screenplay does not provide enough character development. He is transformed as one of the best doctors in the state to an assassin by virtue of one phone call. The picture as edited is a little over two hours long. Another 20 minutes of character development would have helped immensely.Then there is the "Chinatown" ending. Dramatic, yes, rewarding no. Does anyone remember the story is about Jack Burden but since when would Jude Law receive top-billing over Sean Penn. Warren's resolution is more rewarding and not nearly as bleak.As is stated earlier, excellent picture with outstanding photography and acting with a plot based on one of America's greatest novels. There was a masterpiece to be made but unfortunately it was not realized.

ThatMOVIENut Not a remake of the 1949 film, but a more faithful adaptation of Robert Warren Penn's iconic novel, Steve Zaillian's (Schindler's List, Searching For Bobby Fischer, The Interpreter) take tells the story of politician Willie Stark (Sean Penn). Set in 50s Louisiana, the film documents Stark's humble beginnings, rise to power as governor, and final downfall, from the perspective of journalist Jack Burden (Jude Law), who gets drawn into Stark's ever murkier world.Crucified by critics on release, I found this to be a very 'split' film. The good first: It's photographed and scored beautifully, and despite accents, the all-star cast are predictably effective, with Penn delivering the needed bombast and passion of the corrupted governor. Law is good too as a disillusioned journalist fighting his own demons, especially an old flame and her brother, played by Winslet and Ruffalo respectively, also solid. We even get Hopkins and the late Gandolfini in supporting roles as a powerful judge and Stark's first ally, though both don't get much to do and feel more like novelties.Now, its narrative is where things get really hazy: Drifting between political corruption with Stark, and Burden's own personal story of manipulation and loss, the shift is not handled very smoothly at all. The story seems meandering and unfocused most of the time, with Burden's tale taking a little more precedence over Stark's. Not only does this cut away from some great potential allegory and parallels with modern politics, but it feels like the shades of grey are where Zaillian should be most at home. In 'Schindler's List', he handled that extremely well, but here, once he gets into office, he pretty much right away becomes a two faced weasel, which regardless of accuracy to the novel, doesn't make for terribly dramatic or smooth screen storytelling.As for Burden's story in and of itself, it's okay, but again, it feels like its detracting from where the story should be focused on. Yes, there is some parallel between how both men let down people, and they are tied together because they factor into Stark's political schemes, but it just drags and, again, doesn't feel like that's where the heart of this story should be. What works in a book doesn't always translate to screen, and this type of sprawling, laid-back narrative feels better consumed over the course of chapters.In the end, the film isn't boring or lazy, and I don't think it's the abomination the critics branded it as, but it just feels like Zaillian is juggling too many things. Had he focused the story on Stark and really gone into examining the backstabbing nature of politics, we could've gotten something, while not incredibly original, much more effective and gripping. As it is, it just amounts to a whole bunch of 'okay', and nothing more.

hctp67 I just can't imagine how this film did not generate more money at the box office. Look at the star-studded cast: Sean Penn, Kate Winslet, Anthony Hopkins, Jude Law, Mark Ruffalo, James Gandolfini, just to name a few. You have three Oscar winners in that crop of stars. I mean on name recognition alone more people should have gone to see it. Penn did a great job in his role as Willie Stark. Penn is an avid political activist and it was great to see him play a politician in one of his films. His role as Harvey Milk was better than this but still the Willie Stark character was one that no one else would have played better. I had to read the book for an English class back in high school and I have to say that while the book was better, the film was great as well. The film has an interesting storyline just like the book and each character in the film plays the one that they should have played. Anthony Hopkins was great as Judge Irwin but it was quite different to see Hopkins play someone other than a villain. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone has an interest in politics and is a fan of Penn's because he really played this part incredibly well.

Frank1992 I saw this on DVD, and I still am not 100% sure of what happened! LOL There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with the acting. Sean Penn, Jude Law, Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, Patricia Clarkson, Mark Ruffalo, and all the others did a fine job, but I do not know how they understood what they were doing! Much of the plot is very ambiguous. At the end of the movie, SPOILER ALERT, Judge Irwin commits suicide. After that, Jack's mother blames him for killing his FATHER. This seems to imply that the judge was his father, but what does that mean for Anne? Are they siblings? Was the Judge only looking out for her? In addition to that, I do not know if Willie Stark was cheating on his wife with Sadie Burke or not. Someone please explain it to me because I have no clue. I am about to try to find a plot synopsis and, hopefully, that will help. If this movie had won for best screenplay, I would have been appalled. So, due to its terrible ability at explanation of storyline, I give this movie a 7 out of 10.