ALL THE KING'S MEN (2006)

Sean Penn

ALL THE KING'S MEN (2006). Director: Steven Zaillian.

Willie Stark (Sean Penn) rises up from the Louisianan swamps to the governor's mansion, accompanied by reporter and associate Jack Burden (Jude Law). Jack has a father figure in Judge Irwin (Anthony Hopkins), and has long carried a torch for Anne Stanton (Kate Winslet), whose brother, Adam (Mark Ruffalo) is wooed by Stark for an important medical position. But then Jack helps Willie get information that the latter uses to blackmail the judge ... This remake of the 1949 All the King's Men is inferior in every way. Sean Penn [Mystic River] plays with his customary dynamism, but his gesticulating in certain sequences borders on the ludicrous and his southern accent is so thick that there are times you can hardly understand him. While Jude Law [Black Sea]  has his moments, through most of the movie you get the impression that he just wants to go off somewhere and get a good night's sleep. The father-son dynamic between the two men is lost because Penn and Law look around the same age, although Penn is the older by twelve years. Events that are played up in the original movie are so downplayed in the remake that it's as if they never happened. We hardly see Stark's wife, his son has been written out of the movie altogether (eliminating a development that was a key plot point in the original) , and Mercedes McCambridge's character in the original, now played by Patricia Clarkson [Far From Heaven], is practically reduced to a walk-on. Jackie Earle Haley is scary in every sense of the word. Badly directed (despite some pseudo-artistic touches), and with a poor script, as well as a cast that has done much better work in other films, All the King's Men is a tedious misfire.

Verdict: Stick with the original. **.

2009 OSCARS

2009 OSCARS Sunday February 22nd, 2009. 81st Annual Academy Awards.

Usually I find watching the boring, ad-choked Oscars about as appealing as getting root canal surgery. A friend of mine told me that tonight they were trying something completely different -- the Oscars would be presented as part of a story or film -- so we decided to give it a look see. The TV was turned on a bit early and let me tell you that 15 minutes of fawning "journalists" interviewing the "stars" as they arrived was more than enough. The Oscars began at 9PM but by 9:30 it seemed as if they'd already been on for an hour and a half. The ads, the introductions, the mostly tedious speeches as endless relatives and co-workers are thanked and thanked ...

Worse, the show was no different than it was in the past. Except for one thing: the deletion of clips. Yes, instead of showing clips from each nominated film and performance, past winners were presented on stage to tell each nominee how wonderful he or she was. It was at times maudlin and even insincere. But it also didn't make any sense. Does the Academy imagine that everyone has seen every film? Frankly, I've seen few of the nominated films and I would have loved to see clips of a few of the performances (and I've no doubt the actors feel the same way!). Didn't it occur to the Academy that some of the millions of people watching might see something they liked so much in one of the clips that they'd buy a movie theater ticket or DVD. I mean, isn't that what it's all about -- getting people into theaters? (The Oscars have less and less to do with art.)

Hugh Jackman made a pleasant and competent host, but his big "musicals are back" production number was pure kitsch. Some of the awards were duller than ditch water and should have been covered in a separate ceremony. I didn't think much of the songs that were nominated for "Best Song," although they had a good beat and instrumentation. I liked Best Actor Sean Penn's speech for the most part, and I especially liked the heart-felt speech given by Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black. I thought Queen Latifah did a nice job singing "I'll Be Seeing You" as photos of recently departed Hollywood folk flashed across the screen (you could hardly see the first, Cyd Charisse, however).

The Oscars were actually over by 11:55, which I didn't think would be possible.

Verdict: **. Not enough highlights-- and no clips!

MYSTIC RIVER

MYSTIC RIVER (2004). Director: Clint Eastwood.

Since he's always been perceived as a Hollywood conservative it's amusing that Eastwood teamed up with two famous Hollywood liberals, Sean Penn and Tim Robbins, to make this acclaimed but disappointing feature. Three little boys playing in the street are interrupted by an intense fellow whom they imagine is a cop. He takes one of the three into his car and the boy isn't seen until he escapes from the creep three days later. Flash forward to when all three men are grown and the daughter of one of them – Sean Penn's character – is found murdered in a park. That same night Tim Robbins – he was the boy who was kidnapped and molested years earlier -- comes home to his wife covered in blood. Much of what happens next is quite predictable, and the script offers few real surprises to a wide-awake viewer. Eastwood directs with professional assurance if not a lot of inspiration; mostly he just lets the actors do the work. Tim Robbins is simply superb, completely losing himself in his tormented character, but Sean Penn, generally one of our best actors, is getting sloppy. Penn never seems to get a handle on his character and falls back into a standard bag of tricks that are highly unsatisfying. Kevin Bacon is okay as the third grown-up kid, now a homicide investigator. Mystic River is an awkward blend of mystery with mobster drama and doesn't quite work as either despite some interesting moments and performances from Robbins and a generally fine supporting cast. The ending of this film should horrify, sadden and appall, but it does none of those. Apparently Eastwood is another one of these directors who wrongly fears that emotional intensity reduces a film to a mere soap opera.

Verdict: Mystic River isn't much of anything. **.