it was a long actionless movie full of stars but weak on plot? The story was long and drawn out and was about as interesting as watching paint dry?

Completely misconceived. The acting is one-dimensionally histrionic. None of the actors has clue about their character or how to read lines with a sense of truth. Sean Penn is particularly inept and self-indulgent. The 1949 film was a believable masterpiece, and infinitely superior.

The topic should be interesting, the film is not. Penn as Stark also does not grab me.

This movie was awful. Sean Penn was particularly annoying. Was he supposed to be perpetually drunk? That's what he acted like. Waste of time.

When your trailer is better than the rest of the movie, you know the rest of the movie sucks. This is the case with this movie. It's awful because it lacks historical accuracy and little on the book its after. Just watch the trailer and not the flim.

The original was a strong story with great performances and some political commentary, This film has none of that but it does succeed at one thing, this one is longer.

While the original was an archetype, here we find the same story, but the characters have some more deepness. Cast is a very good one, although the conclussion is not so political to become more a human study.

Truly dreadful, and a complete waste of a decent cast. Don't bother.

West how just bolt Hartley Davitson not AMF all the K ings men

Charismatic Southern politician Willie Stark's (Sean Penn) idealism and good intentions give way to corruption after he becomes governor of Louisiana. Unfortunately for Stark, his right-hand man (Jude Law) retains the same good moral fibre he had when the men both entered the political arena.

With an ensemble cast including the great Sean Penn and Anthony Hopkins plus a great Robert Penn Warren story you'd expect this to be better. Instead it's clunky and full of largely meaningless diversions and flashbacks. Plot lines are never fully developed and the dark and dreary setting is only exacerbated by bad storytelling.

This movie desperately wants to be good but unfortunately does not succeed. It was a boring and lost my interest during the first act.

A lot of weaknesses but saved by Penn, Gandolfini, and Hopkins.

What an amzing cast. Too bad they are left to hanging on a slippery rope as they hang themselves. Sean Penn takes the lead, but he is misguided. His performance is way over the top and the film is too unfocused to be very interesting. The original 1949 Oscar winning film is far superior.

So very uninteresting.

Politics is a dirty old business. And it feels even dirtier down south. A fantastic cast, everyone well suited to their roles, but I just didn't grab me. WAS interesting to see James Gandolfini in a different, and not starring, role.

One of the greatest movies i've ever seen .. The one that shapes the world surrounds you after you finish

This film was POETIC GENIUS. i have never seen a better preformance. U ALL ARE SEAN PENN HATERS. HAAAAATTTTERRRRRRRS

I remember somewhat liking this, although I don't really feel compelled to watch it again.

Not as awful as its reputation may suggest, Zallian's 'Men' feels very split. It's photographed and scored beautifully, and despite accents, the cast are predictably effective. However, its narrative seems meandering and unfocused. Drifting between political insight and a personal story of manipulation and corruption is not handled very smoothly.