What can be said about All the King’s Men, that has not already been said about moldy cheese? Why is it that studios keep deciding to remake critically acclaimed classic films? Could this movie have been better if it were a shot-by-shot remake like 1998’s appallingly bad Psycho? It never fails to disgust me to see a remake of a film that was so nearly flawless when it was originally released. Not too long ago The Manchurian Candidate was remade, and it too was a catastrophe. In that instance, it was not only a classic, but also on countless notable “100 Greatest Films” lists, including my personal favorite by The American Film Institute.

Based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Robert Penn Warren, All the King’s Men stars Sean Penn as Willie Stark, the common man’s best choice for politics, who rises from a rural county seat all the way to governor. Along the way, he is corrupted, and turns into one of the misguided politicians he first set out to combat. Jude Law plays Jack Burden, Willie’s right-hand man who mysteriously aids the governor even when it hurts those closest to him. Anthony Hopkins portrays Judge Irwin, who raised Jack as his own, and Kate Winslet is Anne Stanton, Jack’s love interest. Warren’s novel is loosely based on the life of Louisiana senator and governor Huey Long.

The original film won the Academy Award for Best Picture and Broderick Crawford (playing Willie Stark) won for Best Actor. With this in mind, how did Steve Zaillion, the director of this wretched remake think he could improve upon the original? Was it with the forced performance and unnatural accent of Sean Penn? Or perhaps with the equally miscast Jude Law, who remains static and detestable throughout? It certainly wasn’t the advancements in special effects, as no amount of computer graphics in a remake can improve upon a film that never used any in the first place. Most of the characters in the film are despicable, even when Stark is supposed to originate as a decent everyman, and the supporting roles are entirely forgettable. Sean Penn’s long speeches try so desperately to be authoritative, but result in laughably atrocious arm-flailing and spit-flying whines. The dialogue is occasionally intelligent and well-written, but sounds drab and uncaring when uttered by the spiritless cast. Running two hours long, the pacing is disastrous, plodding painfully slow at certain points, and confusingly skipping over blocks of time at other points.

If there’s anything positive to say about the film, it’s that it looks good visually. A high production value and appropriate cinematography lend to moody sets and the dark, shrouded scenes. The score too is brilliant, however it is sadly misplaced. Thunderous brass and stirring violin riffs remind you that the film doesn’t live up to the dramatic music. What was once a straightforward corruption story, the film is muddied with flashbacks and dream sequences. Although the film is oftentimes compared to Citizen Kane, easily the best corruption movie ever made, it’s unfair to make that comparison, since Citizen Kane is also easily one of the best movies ever made in general. That being said, it would be doubly unfair to compare this rehashed salmagundi to anything even remotely as good as its predecessor. All the King’s Men tried so hard to be good, the political messages tried so hard to be poignant and the film succeeded in absolutely no way.

-Mike Massie