|
D
|
A
|
N
|
G
|
E
|
R
|
S
|
E
|
E
|
K
|
E
|
R
|
S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
© DSFC |
THE
LIFE OF DAVID GALE
|
|||||||||||
| POOR EXECUTION | ||||||||||||
| by
jim Is there anything worse than a movie that thinks it's smarter than it is? I doubt it, and this week I've had this displeasure of seeing two. The other review is here also, I'm sure you'll recognize it. Actually, thinking about it, there is something worse. When said movie involves a whole bunch of people who should have known better. THE LIFE OF DAVID GALE is, on every level, a failure. The primary blame should fall on the shoulders of two people, actually four. The first is writer Charles Randolph, a former philosophy professor, the other three are the trio of casting directors assigned to this film. The story is of David Gale, a Texas University philosophy professor (shocking, eh?) and noted death penalty abolitionist, who finds himself, ironically, on death row after being convicted of murdering a colleague. Only days remaining until his execution, Gale sends for controversial New York reporter Bitsy Bloom to give her an exclusive interview. Bitsy is a stereotype of the "Big City" reporter. She's at once a hard-nosed, ambitious bitch and a passive, dispassionate stoic. Mixing clichés, Randolph? You should've be advised against that one. When she arrives in the deep south, she is mean to the annoying intern assigned to go with her (a completely superfluous Gabriel Mann), helpless and paranoid when her car has trouble, and completely apathetic about the journalistic opportunity before her. She doesn't know why she's there and doesn't seem to care either. Of course there's a mystery to be solved, but the film never provides us with any suspense. A crime thriller with no suspense? No red herrings? I mean, seriously, the ending is so clearly projected, that the fact that the revelation unravels at a deadly slow pace and in very spread out segments, adds insult to injury. Those casting directors must have really patted themselves on the back after landing high quality talent like Kevin Spacey, Kate Winslet and Laura Linney. That's a pretty prestigious cast with a combined total of six Oscar nominations and two wins. The problem is the material doesn't warrant this quality of cast. Kevin Spacey seems totally asleep at the wheel. It's like he decided to uses equal parts Lester Burnham, Prot (from K-PAX), and his John Doe character from SE7EN, to play David Gale. Hey, if the writer wasn't trying to create a truly complex David Gale, why should Spacey do it for him? Next is a very thin looking Kate Winslet, who seems uncomfortable from the very start. The role is paper thin and only occasionally is Winslet provided with the opportunity to do more than play passive indifference. The only times she shows any real emotion, it is so out of sorts for the character, you just pity poor Kate. It is rare that I'm not utterly blown away by Winslet, and even this time it isn't her fault. A good casting director would have tapped Ashley Judd for this role, it's more up her alley. Note to Kate Winslet: I know the media likes to jump all over your "weight problems", but honey, I think I speak for most of us when I say we prefer you with a little more meat on your bones. Be happy, you're perhaps the greatest actresses of your generation. Finally, we have Laura Linney, so real in YOU CAN COUNT ON ME,but who has lately toiled away in underwhelming projects like this one. Between this and THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES? Honey, show some self respect. To be fair, Linney is probably giving more to this role than Winslet or Spacey did and she isn't quite as miscast as Gale's friend, co-worker and victim (or is she?). Director Alan Parker has had a pretty hit and miss career, he seems to often be attached to "prestige" projects, with varied results. GALE is flat and motivated as a whole, and Parker does little to infuse a sense of energy or terror to it. The truth unfolds in such a matter of fact manner, that you never find yourself anywhere near the edge of your seat. You are never surprised. Some basic mistakes are in the format. The story is told through flashbacks and instead of wondering how these characters get into the previewed situation, you can pretty much guess it once the film proper begins. Parker also, inexplicable inserts words, either typed or written throughout some transitions. They are ineffective in creating atmosphere and only help the film achieve the high level of cheese it amounted to. When the film finally ends, with a message that lacks even the subtlety of a jackhammer, you are supposed to feel...something...I think that the "creative" minds behind this thought they were making a dramatic, exciting, political film with a clever ending. They didn't. Not at all. |
 SHE KEEPS GOING...  HOTTEST GIRL IN THE MOVIE: KATE WINSLET  NOT SO BAD HERSELF: RHONA MITRA  ...AND GOING |
|||||||||||
