|
|
 |
02-21-2003, 08:30 PM
|
#1 of 23 
|
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 1998
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,912
|
Patrick is there anything new that comes out that you don't catch?
You seem to be everywhere.
Every man is my superior, in that I may learn from him.
|
|
|
|
02-21-2003, 09:34 PM
|
#2 of 23
|
|
Member
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Join Date: Mar 2002
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 1,920
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-21-2003, 10:10 PM
|
#3 of 23
|
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 108
|
yeah i read that earlier. i love this...
its not a spoiler to the movie, dont worry.
Quote:
|
The secrets of the plot must remain unrevealed by me, so that you can be offended by them yourself, but let it be said this movie is about as corrupt, intellectually bankrupt and morally dishonest as it could possibly be without David Gale actually hiring himself out as a joker at the court of Saddam Hussein.
|
S&S Greatest Films Club: 60 viewed. Last Viewed: L\'Avventura(B+)
in no particular order: my top 20
my DVD collection
\"\'Gentleman, you can\'t fight in here, this is the War Room!\'\" - Dr. Strangelove
\"\'You ever been in love, Mac?\' \'No, I\'ve been a bartender all my life\'\" - My Darling Clementine
\"\'If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone.\" - The Godfather: Part II
|
|
|
|
|
02-21-2003, 10:12 PM
|
#4 of 23
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 4,037
|
A search on Ebert's website shows he's only given 26 zero-star ratings since 1985. If he's to be believed, this is probably going to be the worst movie of the year.
|
|
|
|
|
02-21-2003, 10:54 PM
|
#5 of 23
|
|
Member
Join Date: May 2002
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 3,859
|
Ebert panned both David Gale and Gods and Generals, mostly on idealogical, philosophical, and moral grounds.
Which means, I guess, that people who don't share Mr. Ebert's opinions will love both films.
|
|
|
|
|
02-21-2003, 11:31 PM
|
#6 of 23
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 2,814
|
The audiences who I've seen watch the trailer just laugh at it...
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
02-22-2003, 01:27 AM
|
#7 of 23
|
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Local Time: 04:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 281
|
Ugh. I just got back from watching this and I could not believe how bad it was. Yes, that's completely aside from any philosophical stance on the death penalty*. This movie redefines the word "terrible" on almost every level. The dialog, the characters, the plot, the editing...everything was awful. This movie wouldn't even be worth a rental, much less 1-130 minutes of your life. How in the hell they got Kevin Spacey, one of my favorite actors, dragged into this utterly God-awful movie is beyond me. Kate Winslet is terrible and unbelievable. The entire thing from start to finish, is absolutely the most predictable, contrived, banal, hackneyed, trite, and condescending piece of crap I've ever watched. It drives home it's theme with all the subtlety of beating you over the head with a sledgehammer. I can't really go into detail about how truly bad this movie is without revealing plot details, but then again if you haven't figured out the ending in the first three minutes you need to seriously look into the possibility that you're a total moron.
I haven't yet read Ebert's review, but I would definitely give this a 0/10. This movie doesn't even deserve an F for effort. Avoid at all costs.
I think I'm going to go watch Se7en and American Beauty now in order to cleanse...
*NOTE TO THOSE WHO WILL IMMEDIATELY POUNCE ON MY REVIEW SAYING I'M A FROTHING AT THE MOUTH SUPPORTER OF THE DEATH PENALTY: I'm not.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
02-22-2003, 02:02 AM
|
#8 of 23
|
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 700
|
Quote:
Ebert panned both David Gale and Gods and Generals, mostly on idealogical, philosophical, and moral grounds.
Which means, I guess, that people who don't share Mr. Ebert's opinions will love both films.
|
In the case of David Gale, I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. Based on his other reviews I've read, Ebert strikes me as a pretty liberal guy, I certainly don't think he's a strong proponent of the death penalty. From what I've read of the reviews, even people who agree with the movie's politics are calling it a lousy movie. And both David Gale and Gods & Generals are getting trashed pretty thoroughly on RottenTomatoes.com.
|
|
|
|
|
02-22-2003, 02:25 AM
|
#9 of 23
|
|
Crawdaddy
Administrator
Location: Michigan
Join Date: Dec 1998
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 18,319
|
This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "The Life of David Gale" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "The Life of David Gale" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Crawdaddy
G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.
|
|
|
|
|
02-22-2003, 07:50 AM
|
#10 of 23
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 38,686
|
Yes, make no mistakes, this movie is pretty extreme in terms of what these cardboard characters are willing to do to make their point. And that does make it very silly.
|
|
|
|
02-22-2003, 10:11 PM
|
#11 of 23
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Local Time: 03:50 PM
Local Date: 11-18-2008
Posts: 2,776
|
There's an interesting movie to be made out of some of this material (certainly not all of it); however, the twists are neither all that surprising and shockingly unbelievable.
Spacey isn't very good in this either. His drunken monologue about Socrates as he stumbles around Austin (Sixth Street?) is not a career high point.
The unbelievable moments are too plentiful to ennumerate here. For example, they need to get Winslet and the intern out of town, so they send them to Houston to pick up a suitcase with $500,000 cash to give to Gale's lawyer. First, what magazine is going to pay in cash like that? And if they would, why would they entrust the money to the reporter? It isn't logical, except the movie needs this to happen or other things won't work. The movie is a series of one implausibility after another.
|
|
|
|
|
