*** Official "THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Lou Sytsma]

Patrick is there anything new that comes out that you don't catch?

You seem to be everywhere.

 

[Rob P S]

Roger Ebert gave it a rare zero-star rating.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert...-david21f.html

 

[OcieB]

yeah i read that earlier. i love this...
its not a spoiler to the movie, dont worry.

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.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

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.

 

[Chris Atkins]

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.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

The audiences who I've seen watch the trailer just laugh at it...

 

[Ryan FB]

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.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

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.

 

[Robert Crawford]

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

 

[Patrick Sun]

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.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

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.

 

[Ryan FB]

I think Zack's repeated "Why, Bitsey, why?" line at the end was one of the most unintentionally hilarious lines I've ever heard. I was having to (poorly) stifle my laughter during that scene, and I was torn between wanting to laugh, wanting to leave, and wanting to scream at everyone who made this horrible movie possible.

I still have trouble thinking that there are actually people out there who enjoyed this movie and were actually shocked by it's gratingly predictable "twists".

I wonder if the script simply consisted of placeholders for them to insert the awful dialog into at a later time, for example (might be a slight spoiler):

Bloom: [inquiry about innocence/guilt]
[Laughable flashback sequence flashing words across the screen]
Gale: [bad philosophical joke]
Constance: [blatant foreshadowing/whining about not having any death row cases where they could prove the person was innocent]
Gale: [more blatant foreshadowing/whining about not having any death row cases where they could prove the person was innocent]
[Cut to TV debate with stereotypical "ignorant person who doesn't get it" Governor character]
Gale: [obvious Hitler quote trap]
Governor: [falls into obvious trap]
Gale/Governor: [continued blatant foreshadowing]

The dialog bordered on painful to listen to at times. For example, soon after seeing Bloom's car overheat in the introduction, the continued forced conversations about the state of the car throughout the movie. Apparently nobody who worked on this project valued a little thing called "subtlety". Usually on films that are supposed to have twist endings, subtle elements are the things that really sell it, that hint at an underlying truth but don't give it away and beat you over the head with it on the first viewing before they reveal the twist. They let you marvel at the craftsmanship of the film upon repeated viewings, where you know the twists and can pick up on the subtle hints that were present before but you just didn't realize they were there. When done well, this yields great films like Se7en, Fight Club, The Usual Suspects, The 6th Sense, and so on. When done poorly (and without so much as a pretense of real subtlety), as in this movie, it ruins the entire thing. What aggravates me the most is, Spacey should know this from the other movies he's worked on where its been used to great effect. Instead he's just seemingly gone along with what everyone else who felt they had to speak down to all their viewers and bludgeon them with the message. So much talent going to waste...

 

[Jason Whyte]

I think Zack's repeated "Why, Bitsey, why?" line at the end was one of the most unintentionally hilarious lines I've ever heard

Oh you're being nice. Every time the name "Bitsey" gets mentioned, it's done in such a poor way that it evoked laughter out of me every time.

Alan Parker's The Life of David Gale is a disaster zone, falling ALL over the map of narrative, character development and goofy political agendas. There's not a single convincing moment in the film to be found, and it feels at least an hour longer than its actual length. What's even more odd is this trash is released almost exactly a year after the medicare-brewhaha known as John Q which also drove me nuts by preaching to the viewer about the poor not getting treatment, all the while moronic characters spout out goofy dialogue to a laughable finale.

Ryan makes a terrific point about the car. Why, for example, does the movie open on a shot of Bitsey (hehe, I laughed again) running away from a car that's obviously overheated, all to make a pseudo-foreshadow to the fact 20 minutes later in?

A scene where Bitsey tries to reenact the murder scene bordered on insanity. I caught myself tilting my head like a dog, completely speechless to think of how Parker had to say something like "Okay, Kate, you're going to reenact the murdered woman, by telling your partner you're going to put a plastic bag over your head, say you're going to count to three minutes, then squirm and cavort all over the floor. Okay? Action!" What's unbelievable to me is how after she removes the plastic bag from her head after her "experiment", she tells why she did it. Hey Bitsey, how about just figuring it out instead of committing the dumbest suicide in history?

Stylistically, the film is a nightmare. The twangy music score repeats constantly throughout the film, the wild-angle editing to jump time frames, the needlessly frequent references to the David Gale family photo, getting Michael McKean to flash his crooked yellow teeth every chance it gets, and the film's final reveal, which plays like a B-minus horror film where the sting will just piss you off.

If I ever watch this film again, I'll bring a bottle of bourbon and a bottle of vodka, to make a drinking game for every time Bitsey makes a head-turn/tilt or for every time David Gale makes a goopy sad face.

Other than that, the film's pretty good.

Jason

 

[RichM]

I agree with all the above. Save your money this movie is not worth it.

Like the others I found the movie very predictable and about as subtle in getting its message across as a sledgehammer on concrete.

However, my wife said she did like it. So some will find some redeeming values in it.

 

[Holadem]

I still have trouble thinking that there are actually people out there who enjoyed this movie and were actually shocked by it's gratingly predictable "twists".

I will be the brave one and say that I actually enjoyed this movie.

I am really glad I watched on opening night, because I certainly wouldn't have, if I had read the reviews here beforehand.

Many flaws, but I don't regret watching it. Oh well

--
Holadem

 

[BrianShort]

Can somebody please spoil the entire film for me? I dont have any interest in seeing it anymore, but would like to know about all the rediculous plot twists

Brian

 

[Patrick Sun]

Did Laura Linney have a body double (I suspect so)?

 

[Ryan FB]

I will be the brave one and say that I actually enjoyed this movie.

Hey, at least somebody is

 

[Robert_Z]

I don't understand all the bashing of this movie. I watched it tonight, and not only was it not bad, but it was actually pretty good. By no means is it a 4 star movie, but to give it zero, or even one star is a joke.

If anybody out there decided to skip this flick because of negative reviews, I encourage you to watch and decide for yourself. You may be surprised.

 

[PaulP]

Sorry to ressurect this thread but I don't like making new threads if old ones exist. Anyway, for whatever reason I stumbled upon some "worst films of 2003" lists and they all invariably have Gigli and The Life of David Gale as a one-two combo. What's up with that? What's with all the "David Gale" hate? To put it anywhere near Gigli is just wrong. Re-reading this thread I can only just sit back in amazement. Obviously, everyone's entitled to their opinions, and mine is that this was a very good film. Granted I've only seen it once when I bought the DVD (didn't play anywhere near me and i'm a huge Spacey fan), but after seeing these lists I think I'll watch it again. There's an Alan Parker commentary on the disc I haven't listened to anyway. But I'm just amazed at the 99% negativity and just insipid hate of this film. It was good. Very few "films" deserve such bashing, and "David Gale" is not one of them...