JohnnyLee1
Memorable for Broderick Crawford's central performance as the demagogue who manipulates his way to the top. But even though the expose is still as relevant as ever the movie is underwhelming in so many ways. Violence and sex are important to the story but are toned right down. Emotions are more seething than real. The women's roles are especially unconvincing. Joanne Dru is often just ludicrous. The voice-over narration is just irritating. Overall, the movie hasn't aged well but is still watchable for its depiction of all the tricks in the politician's playbook.
theclintdavis
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.
dougdoepke
A poor farmer rises to the governorship, but in the process, loses perspective.The movie's a cautionary tale of mixing ego with politics that holds up pretty well, thanks to Crawford's bravura performance. Actually the movie's the best and worst thing to happen to the pudgy actor. The best because it was the role of a lifetime and seemingly one he was born to play; the worst because being an actor of narrow range, he never got anything like it again. Here, however, he dominates the screen like few others in Hollywood annals.Sod-buster Stark's (Crawford) rise to power is convincingly outlined as we watch him huff and puff and bellow louder as the crowds grow. Meanwhile, his political success expands, reaching eventually into the state's old money establishment. What's not so clear is why the well-bred Anne (Dru) switches her affections to the off-putting Stark, especially when he's already married. In fact, the screenplay is spotty in a number of places, probably from having to adapt a large novel to the smaller screen. On the other hand, I can see why itinerant journalist Jack (Ireland) and plain-faced Sadie (McCambridge) are drawn to Stark's growing orbit of political power. Of course, there's the feeling that Jack never fully leaves his conscience behind.As a whole, the movie's a dramatic powerhouse despite the occasional script lapses. Director Rossen makes good use of ordinary folks to flesh out Willie's down home appeal. I guess it's not too surprising that Willie's downfall comes from crossing the state's establishment once too often. But then, what did old money ever do for the "hicks" of the state except allow conditions to deteriorate, giving Willie's populist appeal real impetus. The trouble is that he gets power mad such that state improvements are no longer improvements for the people but symbols of Stark's greater glory.Of course, the movie walked away with a number of Oscars in 1949. I'm not sure, however, that a statuette was the best thing to happen to Crawford's career. Nonetheless, the lesson of Willie Stark remains an enduring one for all levels of government.
secondtake
All the King's Men (1949)The reference to Humpty Dumpty isn't lost here--the hero, a likable protagonist headed for a fall, is the egg, the egg who would be king. We, the people, are the king's men. And all of this is not fantasy, but a fantastical version of the real Huey Long story, the governor and then senator who didn't exactly fall to pieces, but who became a troubling despot of a democratic sort.Long was a come-from-nowhere governor of Louisiana just as the Depression began. His motto: every man a king. Widely admired and hated to this day, he makes natural movie material, and this 1949 version focuses on just that main thread of gutsy idealism and bald powermongering. And the connection between the two, which is a kind of megalomaniacal ego, a charisma borne of blindness (which people admire because it seems so honest), and raw energy. The later movie (2006) is painfully strained and full of itself, and I'd avoid it completely. This one is not a masterpiece, but it has a fast pace, a lot of great acting, and a slightly better sense of authenticity, enough to succeed.Key to its success is Broderick Crawford, whose acting lifts a mundane (if smart) kind of filming to a higher pitch. Director Robert Rossen is totally in control, however, and if there is little magic to the writing or the construction of the film, in film-making terms, the story is told with such compact force, all you notice is Crawford and the twisting turns of events.
AD
