This Oscar best picture leaves me wondering about the Academy's voters. There were several more deserving films than this.
"All The King's Men" is the convoluted story of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford), a man who starts out in politics with good intentions, but who later becomes corrupted by power. The story shows how a populist leader can morph into a dictator. The film is humorless, cynical, and very, very talky.
With his New York accent, Crawford is not at all convincing as a political hero for backwoods, hick Americans. And who would vote for someone so lacking in charisma and charm? But then none of the characters in this bleak film are sympathetic. Everything about it is spiritless, cheerless, pungent, and mocking.
The story spans a long period of time. That's okay, but it makes for shallow characterizations of secondary characters. The film's plotting has a jerky, discordant quality consistent with a film that has been extensively edited.
Acting is average, and not at all inspiring. John Ireland is so lifeless he seems to be sleepwalking through his role.
The B&W cinematography is not bad. But there's nothing special in the visuals, which are largely overridden by a script that is dialogue driven.
The film's only strength is the story's theme: voters are gullible and easily manipulated. That, in the sixty years since this film was made, is a message that would seem to be timeless.
"All The King's Men" is the convoluted story of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford), a man who starts out in politics with good intentions, but who later becomes corrupted by power. The story shows how a populist leader can morph into a dictator. The film is humorless, cynical, and very, very talky.
With his New York accent, Crawford is not at all convincing as a political hero for backwoods, hick Americans. And who would vote for someone so lacking in charisma and charm? But then none of the characters in this bleak film are sympathetic. Everything about it is spiritless, cheerless, pungent, and mocking.
The story spans a long period of time. That's okay, but it makes for shallow characterizations of secondary characters. The film's plotting has a jerky, discordant quality consistent with a film that has been extensively edited.
Acting is average, and not at all inspiring. John Ireland is so lifeless he seems to be sleepwalking through his role.
The B&W cinematography is not bad. But there's nothing special in the visuals, which are largely overridden by a script that is dialogue driven.
The film's only strength is the story's theme: voters are gullible and easily manipulated. That, in the sixty years since this film was made, is a message that would seem to be timeless.