Contrary to some of the bad reviews out there, this is a good film. Not great but an enjoyable ambitious yarn that suggests just enough to make you think. It does have grave defects which I put entirely at Zaillian's feet, but it is worth your while to see it.
First off, the film is perfectly coherent. I did not read the book but I had no trouble following the story or the time shifts. What it lacks is cohesiveness (more on that later).
The actors' accents were not distracting to me. I can't tell a Louisiana accent any way so for me, accents are not a big deal. Differences between Penn's and Law's accents and delivery are actually an asset because they reinforce their class differences. If there's a problem here, it's that some of the actors don't even try to sound Southern at all (Winslet and Hopkins). Hopkins started out with some sort of Southern drawl and then gave it up altogether later. But as I say, it's not a big deal for me.
Next, THE GOOD STUFF:
-- I am a fan of Jude Law and for me, his sardonic, sly take on Jack Burden is the best thing in this movie, though I have to say his efforts are undermined later on by the inexplicable script (more later). Law is an honest, gifted and clever performer, and he plays his Burden as an outside observer whose idealism is used as an excuse for moral irresponsibility. Burden is drawn like a moth to Stark's flame and he lays aside his scruples in Stark's service (but it is not clear whether Burden had scruples to begin with or whether he lost them with Stark). Law makes you sense Burden's growing self-hate and hints that what he actually resents is his privileged heritage. You also sense that somehow the key to Burden lies in his blighted relations with Anne Stanton, but this is under-developed as well. Law gives a thoughtful controlled performance. Sadly the story does not give it more substance.
-- The film looks beautiful; each scene is gorgeous. Trouble is, the scenes don't quite flow and the film feels oddly static.
-- This is NOT a message movie. It doesn't offer easy answers. Instead, it does make you think and ask questions. On the other hand, I am not sure what exactly it's trying to say and what questions it intends to raise.
THE BAD:
-- Sean Penn is miscast. I actually like the actor. I don't agree with his politics but they don't bother me. However, he is wrong here. He is supposed to the a man of the people and a natural leader, but that's where he is least convincing. In his public speeches, he is a one-trick pony, playing off people's anger at the establishment and nothing more. But there should be more, shouldn't there, something that makes people including Burden love him? Also, Penn's over-the-top gesticulation may be true to Huey Long, but they are distracting on screen. In the private scenes, Penn is fine, excellent even. He suggests the insecure little guy, the loser at heart that knows deep down he's out of his league. But then that has always been Penn's forte.
-- The script *SPOILER* -- this is by far the gravest defect. It's as though Zaillian could not decide whether to tell Stark's story or Burden's story. He ends up with both and succeeds with neither. You don't see at all how power corrupts Stark. One day he is a clean-living guy, passionate about advancing the causes of the poor. The next he's having affairs and taking bribes. With Burden, you don't see why he should do the things he does for Stark. When his actions killed the man closest to him, he merely shrugged it off and explained it in a voice-over. It is exasperating There are hints about his thwarted relations with Anne, but this is left frustratingly vague. Why did Anne end up with Stark? Was it to get back at Jack? Why did Adam get tangled with Stark in the first place? There's not enough in the film to indicate anything. I suspect much of the story ended up on the cutting room floor because Zaillian bit off more than he could chew.
First off, the film is perfectly coherent. I did not read the book but I had no trouble following the story or the time shifts. What it lacks is cohesiveness (more on that later).
The actors' accents were not distracting to me. I can't tell a Louisiana accent any way so for me, accents are not a big deal. Differences between Penn's and Law's accents and delivery are actually an asset because they reinforce their class differences. If there's a problem here, it's that some of the actors don't even try to sound Southern at all (Winslet and Hopkins). Hopkins started out with some sort of Southern drawl and then gave it up altogether later. But as I say, it's not a big deal for me.
Next, THE GOOD STUFF:
-- I am a fan of Jude Law and for me, his sardonic, sly take on Jack Burden is the best thing in this movie, though I have to say his efforts are undermined later on by the inexplicable script (more later). Law is an honest, gifted and clever performer, and he plays his Burden as an outside observer whose idealism is used as an excuse for moral irresponsibility. Burden is drawn like a moth to Stark's flame and he lays aside his scruples in Stark's service (but it is not clear whether Burden had scruples to begin with or whether he lost them with Stark). Law makes you sense Burden's growing self-hate and hints that what he actually resents is his privileged heritage. You also sense that somehow the key to Burden lies in his blighted relations with Anne Stanton, but this is under-developed as well. Law gives a thoughtful controlled performance. Sadly the story does not give it more substance.
-- The film looks beautiful; each scene is gorgeous. Trouble is, the scenes don't quite flow and the film feels oddly static.
-- This is NOT a message movie. It doesn't offer easy answers. Instead, it does make you think and ask questions. On the other hand, I am not sure what exactly it's trying to say and what questions it intends to raise.
THE BAD:
-- Sean Penn is miscast. I actually like the actor. I don't agree with his politics but they don't bother me. However, he is wrong here. He is supposed to the a man of the people and a natural leader, but that's where he is least convincing. In his public speeches, he is a one-trick pony, playing off people's anger at the establishment and nothing more. But there should be more, shouldn't there, something that makes people including Burden love him? Also, Penn's over-the-top gesticulation may be true to Huey Long, but they are distracting on screen. In the private scenes, Penn is fine, excellent even. He suggests the insecure little guy, the loser at heart that knows deep down he's out of his league. But then that has always been Penn's forte.
-- The script *SPOILER* -- this is by far the gravest defect. It's as though Zaillian could not decide whether to tell Stark's story or Burden's story. He ends up with both and succeeds with neither. You don't see at all how power corrupts Stark. One day he is a clean-living guy, passionate about advancing the causes of the poor. The next he's having affairs and taking bribes. With Burden, you don't see why he should do the things he does for Stark. When his actions killed the man closest to him, he merely shrugged it off and explained it in a voice-over. It is exasperating There are hints about his thwarted relations with Anne, but this is left frustratingly vague. Why did Anne end up with Stark? Was it to get back at Jack? Why did Adam get tangled with Stark in the first place? There's not enough in the film to indicate anything. I suspect much of the story ended up on the cutting room floor because Zaillian bit off more than he could chew.