User Reviews

There are lots of movies about the rise of some obscure person into the celebrity life, and the person turns out to be an ambitious and unscrupulous phony. Some of them are pretty good -- "Citizen Kane," "All About Eve." Some are mediocre -- "Keeper of the Flame." This is one of the best.

The acting honors generally go to Broderick Crawford and he's not bad. He's rather like a switch who can toggle either into thoughtful candor or blustering Hickhood. (He used the latter persona to good effect as a New Jersey junk man later.) He also had a third position, the incredibly dumb goof, which he never used after becoming a serious actor, but see, "Larceny, Incorporated" for an example of what I mean.

If there's a problem with the script it's not his fault, although it involves his character. Hung over, still a bit drunk, Crawford steps on stage and instead of his usual boring "tax" speech he gives a redneck-rousing go-getter. And he never changes after that. Rather too quick a transition.

The direction is very good. There's a scene in which Mercedes McCambridge enters the hotel room in which John Ireland has been cooped up for four days in a depressed state. "Whew, lots of smoke," she says. "And lots of whiskey." The scene is almost perfectly staged, with Ireland crumpled on the bed in the foreground and reaching for his liquor out of the frame, while McCambridge busies herself emptying ash trays in the background and staring at her face in the mirror. "Smallpox," she says. (She's not nearly as attractive as Crawford's new girl friend, JoAnne Dru, nee Joanne Letitia LaCock, a name that could have come straight out of Andy Warhol's Factory.) Everyone's acting is quite up to par. It's John Ireland's best role. He was never Hollwyood-handsome with those squished up eyes, that deep hole between them, and that protruding nose beneath.

But the honors really should go to Mercedes McCambridge. Robert Rossen, the director, allows her a few seconds here and there to be unique. When Ireland slaps her face hard, she doesn't cry. She replies with a mixture of contempt and not entirely displeased surprise at having provoked him to violence. And that little speech about smallpox as she compares her face in the mirror to the glamorized portrait of Joanne Dru.

I won't go on, I don't think. If you haven't seen this, you really ought to. So should everyone inside the Beltway. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's been attributed so often to Lord Acton that I'm beginning to believe he said it.

Recently I saw a pretty uninteresting movie, All the King's Men, starring Sean Penn, Jude Law, Anthony Hopkins, and Kate Winslet. I wasn't that impressed and I was embarrassed to see that it was actually a remake, I didn't realize there was another classic out there that had won best picture. But when I saw the remake, I was kinda scared to see this version due to the fact that maybe I was just not into the story, but it turned out to not only be a good film, but a great one that had no need to be a remake almost 60 years later.

Willie Stark is a crooked lawyer who decides to run for senator, swearing up and down the people that he is just like them and making crazy promises, he gets elected and finds that it's harder than he realized to keep those promises. Things start to fall apart more and more when his son gets into some serious trouble causing bad press, the people are not satisfied with his duties, and his marriage begins to fall apart as well eventually leading up to a horrific ending to his term when he is threatened with impeachment.

All the King's Men, the original, is a great movie that I would recommend for the classic lovers. The remake, trust me, it isn't worth watching, but in some sick way I am grateful for it, because I would have never had the opportunity to see this film. We have terrific performances and a great story that anyone could get into, not to mention the Oscar praise it got was well deserved. Sit back and enjoy the movie, the classics are always worth it.

8/10

Viewed this film years ago and always liked the acting style of Broderick Crawford. He had a rough and tough voice along with his face and built, and in this picture he gave an outstanding performance. Crawford played ( Willie Stark),"The Vulture",'67, who set out to become a governor and promised the working people everything that they ever wanted. Willie's big project was a hospital that would meet the needs of everyone that needed help and free of hospital fees. This film also has great character actors who went on to be come big names on the Silver Screen in Hollywood. This picture is one of Crawford's best films and it is truly a great Classic Film of the late 40's.

You know what I really appreciated about this political story? The filmmakers went overboard NOT to paint the main character as either a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. It winds up, then, being more a human-interest story. In other words, there was no political agenda....unlike most films, especially in the last 50 years.

At any rate, Broderick Crawford does an outstanding job portraying the self- proclaimed "hick" Willie Starks, who rises from nothing to become governor of a state and then gets carried away with power and ego.

Mercedes McCambridge is equally riveting as one of his aides. She was a great actress, one of the most intense females I've ever seen on film. I'm sorry she didn't achieve stardom and make more movies than she did. She certainly had the talent. In fact, she won an Academy Award for this performance.

John Ireland also does very well here as another person helping "Willie." Add some good cinematography and you have a fascinating film start-to-finish. I look forward to viewing it again.

Story of Willie Stark, who starts out running for an Assemblyman in the south up against the local political machine, who eventually rises to governor of his state supported by the machine and every interest, Stark originally set out to fight, in the meanwhile ruining the lives of his family & associates. Crawford is very powerful in his role as Stark, delivering a very convincing performance. McCambridge is also excellent as Stark's conniving political aide (and mistress), Ireland effective as the reporter, from whom the story is viewed. Very good direction by Rossen, who turns the likeable Stark, into a despicable fink by the film's end. Sharp editing also by Clark. Nice moral play to watch. Rating, 10.

While I admit that CITIZEN KANE portrays the corruption of power better than any motion picture ever made, let's also be fair, because any Hollywood movie will suffer when compared with it. A more appropriate comparison would be the recent docudrama of Huey Long, KINGFISH. While John Goodman is excellent as Long and the movie worthwhile, it reveals just how good a film ALL THE KING'S MEN is.

Of course, Robert Rossen's picture has a drab look. It should. It suggests the drab appearance of most U.S. states (anyone who has visited Kansas will know why Dorothy and L. Frank Baum wanted to go over the rainbow) and the use of common townsfolk rather than Hollywood extras adds to this look, as do the drab locations (check out something like the Marlon Brando movie THE CHASE, a movie that should have a drab look, but instead looks like a glossy Hollywood backlot). Thank God Columbia, a studio that loved locations because it had no back lot, financed this movie!

I wouldn't call this film realistic, but I've read the pulitzer prize winning novel, and I wouldn't call it realistic either. Every page brims with beautifully poetic language which the movie often incorporates and which Rossen makes sound more like natural conversation than it really is. Compared to the book, the film, I think, reveals its real weaknesses: it does simplify moral issues and also reduces some of the characters to the level of melodrama (Willie Stark, in the novel, resembles more someone like Andy Griffith's character in A FACE IN THE CROWD: a charming good ole boy you want to love, but who will knife you in the back the next minute). Broderick Crawford, with his Bronx accent, hardly suggests either a hayseed or, as he calls himself "a hick," but he has a bullying power that I think is brilliant for the role. Personally, I'm glad neither Spencer Tracy nor John Wayne (both of whom Rossen wanted) got the part.

And I think this movie holds up very well, even in our post-Watergate era of cynical politics: like the novel, it shows how the populist leader can easily be a tyrant. This message is not in CITIZEN KANE: the lofty Kane was never one of the people; he just wanted to be one of the people. Considering how much Hollywood in the era of Harry Truman embraced the populist sentiment with the films of John Ford and Frank Capra, considering that dictators like a Hitler and a Stalin like to present themselves as one of the people and enjoyed popular support, considering how much Americans love politicians who are charming rather than substantial, I'd say Rossen's film hasn't dated at all.

All the King's Men was a gutsy film in its day, and wonder of wonders it still plays this way after all these years. It's probably, with the exception of Beat the Devil, the most ragged film to ever achieve classic status. Directed by Robert Rossen, adapted from a novel by Robert Penn Warren, and strikingly photographed in cinema verite style by Burnett Guffey, it tells the story of the rise and fall of a Huey Long-like politician who starts out as a good guy, if a bit of a bully, and winds up a very bad guy, and even more of a bully, as he takes political control of his state.

There are dozens of things wrong with the movie. It feels rushed, as if edited down from a much longer film. The editing creates an uncomfortable, jarring effect that makes it difficult at times not only to watch the movie but to follow it. It has some dreadful acting among many of its major players, while several of the smaller roles are quite well cast with interesting faces, which creates a tantalizing effect, as if the good stuff, the interesting inside dope stuff that we really want to know about, is too hot for the movie to handle, so we have to settle for a glance, a gesture, a heavy overcoat, and draw our conclusions accordingly. There's a cheap look to the film, not only in scenes where things are supposed to look shabby, like ramshackle farmhouses, but in the mansions of the rich and the governor's office. Nor is there much specificity in the movie. In the novel the state was clearly Southern, while in the movie it could just as well be California or Illinois. And the frenetic pace of the film seems tied to the staccato delivery of Broderick Crawford in the leading role, as if Crawford himself had produced, directed and written the movie to fit his personal idiosyncrasies like a glove.

As luck would have it, these 'wrong' things make All the King's Men work better than a smoother, fancier, more refined approach could ever have done. Its newsreel intensity makes it feel real. The bad performances by relatively unknown actors likewise gives their characters the effect of being actual people who, after all don't always behave or speak as they ought to. In the unattractive sets we see things that look like life rather than movie life, as rich men's homes are not always pleasing to behold, and state capitals and court houses often have a rundown look. Brod Crawford plays his role as a grade B heavy, with perhaps a scintilla more charm, and his bull-necked King Of Alcatraz style of acting suits his character well; and if one finds Crawford too typically a Hollywood bad guy I recommend the documentary film Point Of Order, in which Sen. Joe McCarthy, with no dramatic training whatsoever, could well be Crawford's soul-mate, or at the very least his brother.

Why do these elements work so well in All the King's Men and not in other movies, where a mess is just a mess? I think the political nature of the film made it controversial from the get-go. It probably was severely edited to take out 'offensive' material (i.e. anything that might appear to reflect badly on an actual person). The quick, driving pace gives the film at times the sensibility of a tabloid, certainly not Rossen's intent, but luckily this let's-rip-the-lid-off-of-everything feeling that the movie just naturally has suggests perhaps an even deeper problem at the core of its story than just one crazy man's ambitions gone wild, and as a result the film is in many places suggestive, and seems profound when what lies behind this impression is perhaps a deliberate vagueness on the part of Rosson & Co., which in turn forces the viewer to try to sort things out for himself, using the movie as a series of signposts, and what results is a more profound experience than the film itself: the film one plays in one's mind.

Broderick Crawford always said that the greatest thing about winning the Oscar and the acclaim that goes with it for his performance of Willie Stark was that it broadened his casting potential. For a dozen years or so he played nothing but dumb henchmen and sidekicks to various star. He was quoted as saying he was not the world's greatest wit, but he hated always playing half a one. Though he eventually returned back to the ranks of featured performers, the Oscar for Best Actor in 1949 assured him better roles the rest of his life.

Of course Crawford's Oscar was not the only one that the film got. It was also the Best Picture of 1949 and in her screen debut, Mercedes McCambridge got the Best Supporting Actress nod. McCambridge was maybe the toughest woman ever portrayed on film so far, a hard nosed political operative who's carrying an empress size torch for Crawford who can't see her in that way at all.

As I said before All the King's Men though suggested by the life of Huey Long is not that life at all. Willie Stark is his own unique character. For one thing the unnamed state that All the King's Men took place in is not necessarily the American south. If it were you might see a black face or two in the film. Huey Long in his rise to power in Louisiana used economic populism in his rise to power. He did not like the race issue, felt it was not the future for the south. In that he was far seeing, but if he had to, Long could race bait with the best.

Do you remember in Streetcar Named Desire, Tennessee Williams has Stanley Kowalski reference Huey Long by telling Stella and Blanche in no uncertain terms like Huey Long says, he's king in his own castle. Streetcar is set in New Orleans and Williams well knew the power of the Long name in Louisiana.

Secondly, Stark's family consists of his wife, adopted son, and father who lives with them. Or rather lives on the old homestead as Stark decides that plain Jane Anne Seymour ain't quite what he needs for a first lady of the state. Although Huey Long was not a model husband to Rose McConnell Long, he never would have thought of divorcing her and leaving her with their three children for a nano-second.

Long's family also consisted of a lot of brothers, eight in fact. Huey's brother Earl was three times Governor of Louisiana and his life story is told in the film Blaze with Paul Newman and Lolita Davidovitch. Huey's son Russell unlike being a crippled football hero as John Derek is here was elected at the age of 30 to the United States Senate in 1948 after World War II service with admittedly not any qualifications other than his name. But that name in Louisiana is to this day mighty potent and Russell Long had a distinguished career in the U.S. Senate for over 40 years. In fact when Huey was assassinated in 1935 and Rose McConnell Long received a temporary appointment to fill his seat, the Long family established a unique record of father, mother, and child to serve in the U.S. Senate. And a bunch of Long brothers and other relatives held various elective posts in Louisiana for generations.

Like Long however Stark is a self made man with an all consuming passion to get ahead in life. He was born in the most humble of circumstances to a piney woods sharecropper family and lifted himself up to be Governor of his state with national ambitions. And like Long, Stark establishes a political machine in his state that bordered on fascism.

Which is why the novel by Robert Penn Warren sold so well in 1947. Maybe it took a war with fascism to educate the American public as to exactly what Huey Long might have represented in the Thirties. Didn't matter in Louisiana though because Earl Long was elected in 1948 to one of his terms as governor as was Russell to the Senate.

All the King's Men entertains us with a fascination for the characters created by Warren and brought to the screen so vividly by Director Robert Rossen. The whole film is narrated and seen through the eyes of John Ireland who as a reporter discovered Stark running for local office in his backwoods county. Ireland was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor in what was probably his career role, but lost to Dean Jagger for Twelve O'Clock High.

At the time he was married to Joanne Dru who is also in the film and she was grateful to not be doing another western. She plays Ireland's love who later falls for Stark. As Henry Kissinger said about his romantic success, "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" and I think Rossen was trying to prove it here. She got her career role here as did her brother Sheppard Strudwick who alone sees Stark for what he is.

It will be interesting to see if the new version of All the King's Men measures up to this one.

This interesting film providing powerful performances deals with a corrupt politician's ascension to power and his subsequent fall, he is called Will Stark : Broderick Crawford in his break-through character . As it follows the rise of a Louisiana farm-boy from honest and angry politician hopeful to powerful but sinister governor . This ruthless , corrupt politician won't stop at nothing to get his purports and at whatever cost . Freely based on on the life of Huey Long and told by a newsman : John Ireland , who's followed his career . Stark while appearing to improve the state , rules dictatorially and tyrannically , betraying constituents and friends and proving once again that power corrupts . Time brings all things to light . Some people will do anything to gain power . Some will dobanything to keep it . He might have been a pretty good guy .. if too much power..and women..Hadn't gone to his head ! He thought he had the world by the tail , till exploded in his face with a bullet attached!.

This is a provoking and thoughful studio with potent morality concerning the misuse of power , giving a raw and shocking portrait of the human ambition . Seen today, this graphic and classy movie retains its potency, intelligence and relevance. Broderick Crawford and Mercedes McCambridge won Academy Award for their work in this rendition of Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel that was also adapted in 2006 by Steven Zaillian with Sean Penn, Jude Law , Kate Winslet , Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo , Patricia Clarkson . This starring character is actually inspired by by egoistic and corrupt Louisiana state governor Huey Long that has been magnificently realised as a movie by Robert Rossen. This 1949 vintage retellling is better than the 2006 modern adaptation , displaying a very good main and support cast, such as : the burly Broderick Crawford who captures the selfish and ambitious politician to the last shady scowl , John Ireland is pretty good as the ingenuous journalist who helps him , Joanne Dru as his girlfriend and Mercedes McCambridge who in his first major character delivers an awesome acting as the cunning political aide and others in minor roles as a very young John Derek , Shepperd Strudwick , Anne Seymour, among others .

It contains an atmospheric and adequate musical score by Gruenberg , as well as an evocative cinematography in black and white by the great cameraman Burnett Guffey and capturing perfectly the sad ambient of the Great Depression . The motion picture was was directed by Robert Rossen who also wrote It . It won the best picture Oscar in its year , as well as best actor for Broderick Crawford and best supporting Mercedes McCambridge on her film debut . Robert Rossen was a good screenwriter and filmmaker who made nice films , such as : "Body and Soul" , "Lilith" , "The Hustler", "Alexander the Great" , "They came to Cordura". Rating : 7.5/10 . Better than average .

"All the King's Men" was based on a novel by Robert Penn Warren, which in turn was based upon the career of the controversial politician Huey Long. The Long figure here is Willie Stark, a farmer from a poor rural district in an unnamed state. Stark begins his career as a campaigner against corruption in local government and qualifies as a lawyer so that he can help his impoverished neighbours, but is unsuccessful in an attempt to become county treasurer. He is persuaded to run for governor, unaware that he has been nominated by supporters of the incumbent in the hope that Stark will split the vote and thereby harm the chances of the opposition candidate. In the course of his campaign, however, Stark discovers hitherto untapped powers of oratory and becomes a popular figure; he finishes second in the poll, only losing narrowly. Four years later he runs again and wins.

The story is told from the point of view of a young journalist, Jack Burden. Burden comes from one of the state's aristocratic "old money" families, who generally despise Stark as a vulgar populist. Burden, however, initially admires Stark as a man who will get things done. Other important characters are Burden's equally aristocratic girlfriend Anne Stanton, her brother Adam, a doctor, and their uncle, a judge.

Burden resigns from his newspaper to become a worker on Stark's staff, and the film tells the story of gradual disillusionment with Stark who, once in office, becomes as corrupt and autocratic as the politicians he once campaigned against. Judge Stanton, appointed as the state's Attorney-General, resigns when he realises that Stark is protecting an associate who is guilty of embezzlement. Stark's private character also deteriorates when exposed to the temptations of power; once a teetotal family man he becomes a drunken womaniser, taking (among others) Anne as his mistress.

The film was a great success when it was released in 1949, both critically and commercially. It won the "Best Picture" Oscar, with "Best Actor" going to Broderick Crawford and "Best Supporting Actress" to Mercedes McCambridge as Stark's aide Sadie. Robert Rossen (who also acted as writer and producer) was nominated for "Best Director" but lost out to Joseph L. Mankiewicz. These awards were certainly well-deserved, especially Crawford's as he gives a spellbinding performance as Stark, the simple, bumbling country hick turned would-be dictator. The film has been compared with that other great study of the corruptions of power, "Citizen Kane", although unlike Orson Welles neither Rossen nor Crawford went on to become a great Hollywood icon. Rossen, who died while still in his fifties, only made ten films, none of the others as famous as this one, although some of them are certainly good. Crawford, this film apart, is more remembered for his work in television, especially the police drama "Highway Patrol", than in the cinema.

The film was made shortly after the end of World War II and during the early part of the Cold War. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that Rossen draws clear parallels between Stark's career and those of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin- the balcony oratory, the torchlight rallies, the giant banners with portraits of the Leader hanging from public buildings and the strong-arm tactic used to silence opponents of the regime. (The word "stark" is, significantly, German for "strong").

Yet Rossen is more objective than one might imagine. The film is not just a long diatribe against dictatorship and in favour of democracy. Even when disillusioned Burden continues to work for Stark because, whatever his other faults may be, Stark makes good on his boast to be a man who gets things done. He is responsible for an ambitious public works programme to provide the state with much-needed schools, hospitals and highways, and it is this which accounts for his continuing popularity among the state's poorer inhabitants, especially in rural districts, who refuse to believe stories of Stark's corruption and abuse of power. By contrast, the clique of old-money politicians who controlled the state before Stark's rise to power never did anything to benefit anyone other than themselves. They, moreover, were not only corrupt but also equally capable of resorting to strong-arm tactics, although because of their control of the media these were rarely reported. You could even draw from the film the moral that, as Tim Rice put it, "There is evil, ever around fundamental, system of government quite incidental", and that you might as well vote for the sonofabitch who gets things done rather than for the sons of bitches who don't.

The film therefore effectively has a double meaning. On the one hand, it can be seen as an "it could happen here" warning against the dangers of dictatorship. Some historians believe that, had Long not been assassinated in 1935, he could have become an American Mussolini. On the other hand, it is also a warning against the dangers of democracy, especially the temptation to regard winning elections as an end in itself, a game to be played for the benefit of the politicians rather than for the benefit of those who elect them. (Since the end of the Cold War this has become a temptation to which Western democracies have become particularly prone). It is this complexity of meaning which, along with its great central role, some good supporting performances and an intelligent script, makes "All the King's Men", in my opinion, the greatest film ever made about American politics. 10/10

ALL THE KING'S MEN is certainly a well acted political melodrama from a novel by Robert Penn Warren and BRODERICK CRAWFORD is an ideal candidate for the role of Willy Stark (based vaguely on Huey Long), but I never thought it deserved to win the Oscar for Best Film of the Year. In my opinion, that award should have gone to William Wyler's masterpiece, THE HEIRESS, a film whose reputation increased over the years while ATKM's has diminished.

But putting personal preferences aside, ALL THE KING'S MEN is a riveting drama peppered with some fine performances, including JOHN IRELAND who serves as onlooker and narrator of the tale and MERCEDES McCAMBRIDGE as the cynical Sadie who won a Best Actress Supporting Role Oscar for her work.

Stories of political corruption are nothing new--such material having been handled previously in stories like STATE OF THE UNION and bios like "Wilson" and "Tennessee Johnson", but never with such searing intensity. It begins with an awareness that Willy Stark is a man who wants the truth to be told in a world of dirty politics. John Ireland is the crusading reporter who is on his side in the belief that the man seeking office is an honest man. Ireland also takes time out for a brief romance with JOANNE DRU while the saga of Willie gets put aside for a brief time, but Dru later becomes Stark's mistress.

Willie evolves from a green campaigner to a man who starts making deals and learns the rules of the game. After a couple of failed campaigns, he becomes a winner and presents himself as the champion of the people.

But as times goes, and montage after montage shows us Willie's progress as a champion of the mob, we hear John Ireland's narration saying: "His little black book was a record of sin and corruption." In other words, there's nothing subtle about this tale. It's laid out in pretty direct terms for the viewers to deal with with no particular insight into the power of corruption.

Technically speaking there are problems with the editing. Scenes are cut abruptly short with quick fade-outs as though someone censored parts of the story, and motivations of the quirky McCambridge character are not clearly spelled out at all nor is the romantic relationship with Joanne Dru. Both are glossed over by the script and only hinted at. As a matter of fact, none of the supporting roles--including SHEPPERD STRUDWICK as the man who never trusted Willie from the beginning, are really fleshed out in the script. His involvement in the ending comes as somewhat of a surprise.

Summing up: Intriguing drama with some technical deficiencies including some choppy editing, but it probably got the award because of its "social significance", at a time when Hollywood was intent on producing such serious, almost documentary films. As for Broderick Crawford, I've liked him much better in other films.

I viewed this film for the first time this past week. It was one of only a few "Best Picture" Oscar winners over the past fifty or sixty years that I had not previously seen. I have found most, but not all, of these films to be absorbing and/or entertaining with the majority deserving of the awards they received. I included this specific film in a personal test that I conducted recently. I initially viewed the current version of this film, which features an impressive cast headed up by Sean Penn, Jude Law, Kate Winslet and Anthony Hopkins. Then I rented this 1949 award winner to compare both versions.

I am aware that when you first see a film or program that you find to be an excellent presentation and then you view a newer version of the same entity, the normal tendency is to find the new version not up to the standards of the original due to the unfairly high expectations. For the test conducted, I switched viewing order of the two versions. I anticipated finding the newer version more rewarding due to the more than half century difference in the two presentations and the fact that Sean Penn and Anthony Hopkins have each artistically created several roles which I have found to be top of the line performances. It did not work out that way in this case. I found the 1949 version withstood the test of time and in my opinion was the superior production. This had to do with several factors, the primary one being that the screen play of the older version seemed to be better paced and the presentation flowed more evenly. I believe this version more closely followed the novel and the depiction of the central character "Willie Stark". The novel loosely based this character on real life Louisiana politician "Huey Long". I concluded that the newer version tried to capture more of Longs' character along with his political successes and failures. In doing so it lost some of the novels flow and impact.

Both versions have excellent casts and the performances given by both Sean Penn and Broderick Crawford (Oscar winning) as Willie Stark are first rate. I consider this version to be a top 25 all time political drama and gave it an 8 out of 10 IMDb rating, but I would recommend both versions for fans of semi-biographical political dramas.

Broderick Crawford turns in a fantastic lead performance but I was ultimately disappointed by "All the King's Men," especially given the hype and weight that follow it. If you read the book first, you'll be turned off by how much the script deviates from it in major, obvious ways. But taken on its own, the movie doesn't hold up well for modern audiences largely because it feels too black & white and because of some of the choices made by the performers and the score. The music is terribly overwritten, as is the case with many movies of this era that haven't aged well. Most of the characters are played with some depth, including Willie and Jack, even if the latter is made into too much of a boy scout in this version. But Anne is played as a nitwit with all kinds of dramatic head twisting while that aforementioned score cranks up and makes her scenes feel like the end of the world has come. This movie is terribly sad and its story is a classic meditation on the corruption of power. But of you really think about it, Willie isn't all bad. Even at his worst, he was still building great infrastructure, good schools and a beautiful hospital that would treat people for free. And clearly the people continue to love him. Throwing in the salacious storyline about his boys murdering man just for standing up to him was pointless Hollywood sensationalism. The scenes featuring Willie's speeches and the montages of clips during the time passages are brilliant and still intense but much of the movie sadly feels dated and overdone. After seeing stuff like "House of Cards," this feels pretty safe.

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.

Maybe "All the King's Men" is a bit long in the tooth now, but until "The Godfather" and "Patton" it was the best film ever made!

The selection of Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark was gutsy, since Crawford can -at best- have been considered "good". Somehow, though, Crawford did not play Willie Stark - he Was Willie! Much like George C. Scott did not play Patton - he Was Patton.

The "you hicks" speech was great. Not until the "Patton" speech was there anything better on film.

Essentially, the thing making the film great was watching Willie "grow up" in the sense of casting aside his idealism for power. Turning point is the cemetery scene, when one of the attendees seeks divine forgiveness for not having voted for Willie.

The turning moment was not unlike Michael Corelone saying "I'm with you Pop" when the Godfather was in the hospital. Michael did not mean physical proximity, but that he then "bought into" the business.

In both cases, the storyline is a reminder about Power and Corruption.

Like most movies made from books, there were some changes that did detract from the story (no where in the movie do we learn that the Judge is Jack Burden's father - yet that is so important). Yet, correspondingly, no one can accuse the book of word economy. It is a powerful story, but overly descriptive.

Crawford's change of expression - the beginnings of insight - are classic.

Definitely worth seeing.

Robert Rossen (The Hustler) had better luck with the story of Louisiana's Governor Huey Long as he managed to capture every Best Director award he was nominated for except the Oscar.

The picture did win the Best Picture Award for my birth year, and the acting awards went to Broderick Crawford (Governor Stark/Long) and Mercedes McCambridge.

The corruption of power, the sleaziness of the political process, the willingness of people to be used are all explored in this moving film. Again, as in the Hustler, Rossen uses the black and white medium to its full effectiveness as he presents a taut and moving study of the rise of Stark/Long and his downfall.

"Jack, there's something on everybody. Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption. He passes from the stink of the dydie to the stench of the shroud. There's ALWAYS something."

Robert Rossen does a great job directing this movie. But he did an even better job in a literate and crisp screenplay that brings the characters springing to life even better than they jumped off the pages in Robert Penn Warren's book. Rossen captures the essence of each character adroitly with concise yet revealing dialogue.

Beyond Rossen's heroic exploits, the most memorable aspect of the film is the wealth of memorable performances. Broderick Crawford deserved his Oscar and then some for his charismatic turn of the well-meaning-hick-turned megalomaniac governor. Anne Seymour is quietly perfect as his wife. And Mercedes McCambridge nearly steals the film, giving one of the best supporting actress performances --- EVER. John Ireland totally captures the sophistry and spinelessness of the erudite yet ineffective Jack Burden. Other excellent performances are turned in by Shepard Strudwick, Joanne Dru, John Derek, and Will Wright.

All in all, this is a great piece of American filmmaking.

(1949) ALl The King's Men POLITICAL DRAMA

Adapted from the Pulitzer Prize novel of the same name by Robert Penn Warren, co-written and directed by Robert Rossen centering on inspired politician, played by Broderick Crawford as Willie Stark step by step rise to political power who eventually forgetting his values. Has similar ring to the 1957 film "A Face In The Crowd"! I personally, don't care about the film very much, but do see it's relevance, as it still goes on as of right now regarding American politics meaning that it's an important film to all politicians. Winner of three Oscars out of 7 nominations including Best Picture and Best Actor for Crawford.

Contrary to what John Wayne claimed when he read the script, "All the King's Men" is not smearing the American way of life. What it's doing is showing the unfortunate reality of our political system, as idealistic lawyer Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford) runs for governor on a populist platform but falls prey to corruption once in office. Watching the movie, one can feel the tension between the various parties involved in the events portrayed, especially as Willie becomes just like the people whom he previously condemned, covering up misdeeds and granting favors to cronies.

If this seems like it mirrors current events, it shouldn't be any surprise. Of course, these sorts of things are nothing new, as "ATKM" was based on the career of Huey Long. I would actually say that the president who most represents Willie Stark is Bill Clinton, who had good ideas but sold out.

Anyway, this is a movie that I recommend. Also starring Joanne Dru, Mercedes McCambridge and John Derek. I as yet haven't seen last year's remake.

All The King's Men won Best Picture back in 1949 and it kind of sums up the format of the distilled half-rousing political Oscar bait type movies we still get today. It's a pretty good film, as are many of the films that followed it, but it's one that could have been great with a bit more boldness and focus. It's a cramped film, and that's a blessing and a curse. It gives it atmosphere, but there's no depth. The frame is always cramped, the film is constantly bombarding you with engaging sequences and the ensemble is bloated. Each are quite entertaining and interesting on their own but its whiplash pace makes something that should hold more weight feel light instead. The ferocious performances from its Oscar winning leads make up for it though and ideally facilitate the melodrama, if not add any dimensions to the characters. Unfortunately the empty lead was a complete waste of space. I'm not sure if he was even necessary. But otherwise, All The King's Men is a very good film about the folly of power, but you can find better in more ambitious and timely classics such as Citizen Kane and Network.

7/10

There are certain subjects that films in general and Hollywood in particular never handled very well--and chief among them are politics. But even some fifty years after it first hit theatre screens, ALL THE KING'S MEN still has plenty of power. Filmed in a "noir" style and based on the famous novel which was in turn based loosely on the rise and fall of Louisiana's Huey P. Long, the film offers the story of Willie Stark, a small-town lawyer who is nominated for governor by a political party seeking to defeat their opponent by dividing the rural vote. When Willie gets wise to the plot he turns on his false benefactors and rockets to political power--but once in power the honest small-town-joe becomes even more corrupt than those who sought to manipulate him for their own gain.

Broderick Crawford justly earned an Oscar for his performance as Willie Stark, whose ego and thirst for power grows to horrific proportions--and whose corruption gradually taints even the most honorable people around him. The supporting cast of John Ireland, Joanne Dru, Anne Seymour, and Walter Burke (to name but a few) is also quite good. But the real knockout here is actress Mercedes McCambridge as Willie Stark's hard-edged assistant and sometimes lover; it is an astonishing performance which, in spite of its supporting status, remains locked in mind long after the film ends, a role for which McCambridge won an Oscar as Best Supporting Actress.

The script doesn't really do full justice to Warren's novel, the film is a bit slow to start, and the story itself feels a bit dry in the telling--but the performances and numerous memorable scenes carry it through to tremendous effect. ALL THE KING'S MEN is so explicit in its portrait of how corrupt politicians manipulate the public that it should be required viewing for every one of voting age. Recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Robert Rossen directed this Academy Award winning(best picture) film that stars Broderick Crawford(Academy Award winning best actor) as Willie Stark, an ambitious local politician who prides himself on honesty and being in touch with the common people. John Ireland plays newspaper reporter Jack Burden, who is sent to cover Willie, and stays for his whole rise and fall from power. Mercedes MacCambridge(Academy Award winning best supporting actress) plays Sadie Burke, an acerbic woman if ever there was one! Willie at first does challenge the corrupt parties that tried to keep him out, but ends up falling into the same trap of preserving his own power, no matter the cost.

Based on the real-life Huey Long, this well-acted and written film pulls few punches in its cynicism, making viewer wonder if politics is inherently corrupt, or it just attracts corrupt people. Story is predictable and obvious to a point, but still just as timely as ever.

Power corrupts and politics is Power. That's the message of this film. Robert Penn Warren wrote the novel in the 30's, the movie was made in the 40's, and here it is 50 years later and the message is just as true then as it is now. Clinton selling pardons to raise money for his presidential library - and his long line of cheap floosies. Pick another politician, one you don't like, same story.

However, this movie has another message, stated by the corrupt politician himself: out of evil comes good. That truth is the only thing that makes Democracy work. Even while Broderick Crawford's character was corrupt, Nixonian corruption – selling out to protect his own power, he still kept his promises: roads, schools, hospitals. He strong armed and blackmailed but he got them built.

Yeah, Democracy is ugly, but no uglier than the human clay it is made out of. As Churchill said, 'Democracy is the worst form of all governments – except for everything else.' Sadly, 50 years from now someone could again watch this picture and still see their own society mirrored in its images. Thankfully, it will still be a great film with solid performances across the board, fast pacing and good writing. There's no wasted motion in this picture.

Hopefully, 50 years from now, good will still come out of evil. However, there is one other truth: if there is too much evil……no good will come out of it. Let's hope there's never too much of it here in America......

The winner of the Oscar for the Best Picture at the 1950 award ceremony is the story of Willie Stark, an honest man from the people, who fights for the rights of the working class and rises in the world of politics to the position of governor, which he then wholeheartedly abuses.

Whether a person has to be corrupt to be successful in politics or politics corrupts people ... this is one of those "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" questions. Whatever it is, it doesn't change the fact that politics is a dirty game in which regular folks suffer the most. What separates this political drama from most political films is that it does not propagate or satirize any specific political option, but is a satire of politics in itself and presents it as a brutal and ruthless game, as it, for the most part, really is.

At a time when people still believed in the illusion of the "American Dream", this film was much more shocking than today, when the real face of politics has been revealed countless times and when theories of political conspiracies have become part of everyday life. But although in that respect, as well as, of course, technical aspects and production, the film is somewhat outdated, as time passes, its essence is becoming more and more relevant. I believe that the novel, the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, is much better than its adaptation and that the fans of the book are somewhat justifiably disappointed and, true, the film seemed to me, who did not read the book, at times hasty and incomplete, but the impact it had at the time of its origin, the Oscar-winning performances of Broderick Crawford and Mercedes McCambridge and the satire applicable to politics of all eras, make it a classic worthy of attention.

7/10.

I've watched this movie many times over the past forty years and with changing opinion each time. There are some wonderful scenes that are tightly written, well-staged, and wonderfully acted, and they add tremendous color and life to the cinematization of a Great American Novel, but as years go by, my respect for the movie as art has diminished. Perhaps in its day, ATKM was a spectacular accomplishment, but I find it nowadays stiff and somewhat disjointed. The problem with trying to make a great book into a movie is that just cobbling the great parts out of the book together doesn't make the movie great. The Robert Penn Warren novel was extraordinarily complex and carefully paced to followed a dumb hick from the cotton fields to the pinnacle (and abuse) of power, but the movie tries to cram the entire story into the standard Hollywood two hours, and to do that, it has to lurch from high point to high point, like climbing all the Colorado Rocky Mountains by trying to hop from one fourteener to another. It just doesn't work. It's tough making a movie from a great book because lovers of the book like me will criticize it because it doesn't meet our expectations of the novel. "All The King's Men" as a book has aged like oak-casked whiskey; as a movie, the cork has leaked.