User Reviews

You may think this film is a thriller about the death penalty, but it is not. It looks like it, true, but the end reveals it is something completely different. It is about the way the media can be manipulated in any direction, provided you are intelligent. Once a brilliant university professor was confronted in a TV debate to the governor of Texas about the death penalty. The governor asked him to give the name of one executed person that was innocent and could be proved so. The professor could not answer such a question for the simple reason that there is no post mortem investigation in the case of an execution, except… And the professor started, with his main assistant in his fight against the death penalty, to think of how to prove that point. In the mean time he is tricked by some dumb girl student into doing exactly what he should never have done: have sex with her. She sue him for rape, even if later she will drop the charge. The damage is done. He is kicked out of academia. His wife takes his son away and gets a divorce. She sells the house. He cannot even get a job as the manager of a technical store. He is reduced to nothing, to being a rapist forever. But he does not want to move. His main assistant in his fight is going to die of leukemia. When he learns that, the plan to trap the governor germinates in their minds and they put it through. He is going to be accused of the murder of his assistant though it is not a murder. The evidence it is not is a tape, the recording of what really happened. But it will come in three pieces. The man will be sentenced to death. Three days before his execution he asks a famous journalist from New York to come and take the first and last interview he is going to give her in six hours spread out over the three days before his execution. The first excerpt of the tape we have mentioned will turn up in the journalist's motel room on the second day, before execution, too short and a copy. Worthless. Then after some adventure the journalist manages to recuperate what she thinks is the whole tape that proves what she was thinking, after some personal experimentation, is right: the woman killed herself, but who worked the camera? A man that is seen at the end of the tape, a man the journalist has seen here and there and in whose shack she has found the tape. But that too is too short though not worthless. It creates havoc and it proves an innocent man can be sentenced to death. During that time the $500,000 for the interview travel to Mexico and the ex-wife for the son. The father had been vindicated in the mean time. But the journalist finally receives the last excerpt of the tape, the end of the suicidal demonstrative séance and there the professor is shown coming at this very moment, just after the death of the woman, just as if he had been behind the camera all the time and he turns that camera off, after checking the woman is dead. The media had been manipulated about the guilt of the man and about the fairness and justice of the death penalty, then about the man's innocence and the suicide of the woman, and yet the truth was that the death had been planned in such a way that the execution would demonstrate how an innocent person can be sentenced to death. Manipulation all along by a woman who wanted to make her natural death useful for the cause she advocated and by a man who did not have the courage to move on and start a new life after having been destroyed by an unscrupulous student and by his own dumbness: students are out of reach as long as they are within grading distance. He preferred to make his death (which becomes a very special suicide) useful for the cause he advocated and for his own son. But the film is short because two men helped the woman and staged her death and the man lied all along the way of his confession and ordeal. The media are so naïve that they believe anything provided it smells slightly sulfurous or sulfuric.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines, CEGID

*** SPOILERS WITHIN ***

*** SPOILERS WITHIN ***

*** SPOILERS WITHIN ***

I just returned from this movie, and I can say without a doubt this is one of the most thought-provoking films I have seen, not just about the death penalty, but about other things: the strength of people's beliefs, how far they're willing to go to achieve them, how they want to be remembered, what qualifies as a "good" life, and most importantly the choices we make in life.

People who come out of this movie seeing this as merely a piece against the death penalty are missing out on the deeper issues within this film. The issue of the death penalty, while certainly an important one, is not what this movie is about. This movie is about the things previously mentioned.

In the film, David Gale is a philosophy professor and in a flashback we see him before he is on death row, giving a lecture to his class. He says that one's life is not about his or her dreams, but about the choices made, moments which show true character. And later on, we see how one choice, a moment of weakness, can ruin all those that came before and set in motion everything else that follows.

The thing which most impressed me was the strength of Mr. Gale's beliefs. To sit on death row for six years, knowing what he knows, and to remain silent all that time, knowing the consequences if he speaks. That more than anything is a testament to the conviction of his beliefs, a conviction that I know I don't have.

I just saw this film, and I was so impressed and moved that I'm considering seeing it again. This is a movie that will stick with me a long time.

`No one who looks through that glass sees a person, they see a crime. I'm not David Gale, I'm a murderer and a rapist, four days shy of his execution,' exclaims Gale (Kevin Spacey) to reporter Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet) on one of his last few days of life. While Gale might be right, no one who looks at The Life of David Gale on the silver screen sees a movie, they see a work of art. This isn't The Life of David Gale, this is one of the most meaningful and insightful films created in years. Its gripping screenplay, brilliant acting and creative cinematography explores one of America's most pressing issues in a captivating manner.

David Gale, top of his Harvard class, was Texas' leading death penalty abolitionist and professor at the University of Austin. Now on death row for the rape and murder of his best friend, Constance Hallaway (Laura Linney), reporter Bitsey Bloom interviews Gale on his last three days of life. The film is produced as a series of flashbacks exploring Gale's intriguing life and the crime he allegedly committed.

Gale was written by former Vienna philosophy professor and first-time screenwriter, Charles Randolph. The story is full of remarkable twists and turns constantly forcing the viewers to change their thoughts on who committed the murder. The film is packed with memorable lines, both serious and humorous. When city-savvy Bloom and her intern, Zack, first arrive in small-town Huntsville, Bloom remarks, `You know you're in the Bible belt when there are more churches than Starbucks.' Zack adds, `More prisons than Starbucks.' When Bloom first meets Gale, the prison guards seem unnecessarily rude toward Gale. He remarks `they are practicing being cruel and unusual.' In a flashback, Gale describes the pro-death penalty Texas Governor as being `in touch with his inner frat boy.'

The strongest part of the script occurs toward the end of the film when Bloom begins a race against time to discover what really happened at the crime scene. The last ten seconds expand the film's meaning into a questioning of the purpose of life. This theme is brilliantly touched upon in earlier segments of the movie. During a flashback of Gale teaching his U of A class, he lectures `The only way we can judge the value of our own lives is by valuing the lives of others.' In our hollow world of How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Bringing Down the House and Old School comes this film that is truly meaningful.

While the overall script was extremely powerful, it did have one significant weak moment. On the night before Gale's execution, Bloom discovers some odd occurrences at the crime scene. Instead of spending the night investigating, she goes to sleep. The following morning is a battle against the clock to determine if Gale is guilty; she finally realizes the truth just a few minutes before the execution. The plot would have been notably more gripping if Bloom had spent the night working on the case instead of snoring. Mr. Randolph: Certainly not bad for your first screenplay; it is worthy of keeping you off this reviewer's death row.

Each actor was ideally selected for their respective roles (George Clooney was originally solicited for Spacey's role; thank God he turned it down). Spacey's role as Gale was one of the best in his career. Much of his offbeat, sarcastic and monotonous American Beauty voice seems to emerge when Gale first meets Bloom and explains why he called for her. One of Spacey's best lines ever uttered occurs later in the film when he tries to convince Bloom that he is innocent. He shouts, `I used to be the state's leading death penalty abolitionist and now I'm on death row. Doesn't that strike you as a little odd?' Another memorable Spacey scene occurs in a flashback at the U of A when a seductive female student, Berlin, pleads for a higher grade. Gale approaches Berlin and whispers in her ear, `Okay Berlin, I will give you a good grade, a very good grade, if you would just. study.'

British actress Kate Winslet flawlessly pulls off an American accent throughout the entire film. Winslet's tones of voice and minute expressions reveal a dynamic change in her personality from when she first arrives in Texas to when she leaves. She enters Huntsville conscious of her status and hardened from city life. `I'm a reporter, you're an intern,' she explains to Zack when they first arrive at the scene. Later, she becomes so immersed in Gale's story that she nearly suffocates herself when trying to reenact the murder sequence. This occurs when Bloom infiltrates the crime scene and secures a plastic bag over her head with duct tape to determine how long a person can survive without air.

Director Allan Parker took this powerful screenplay and perfect cast and created Gale in a strikingly different fashion. Parker worked with both Director of Photography Michael Seresin and Editor Gerry Hambling in 1999 to create the depressing, slow tale of old Ireland in Angela's Ashes. Considering Gale was done with the same key crew members, you would think that there would be strong correlations between the two productions, but this was not the case. Gale explores present-day issues in a fast paced, suspenseful thriller. Parker uses a fresh and different film technique when going between present-day and flashbacks. The camera seems to be spinning 360 degrees as the film cuts between present-day, the flashback and graphics of a variety of buzz words (like `death,' `truth,' `power,' `love,' etc.) until the flashback phases out the other footage.

Parker masters the technique of intercutting to convey meaning. On the day of Gale's execution, Parker rapidly cuts between the jail cook preparing his last meal, reporters discussing the execution, Bloom trying to tell the world of her findings and finally, Gale walking down the hall toward the death room. These visuals, along with the frantic track, `Media Frenzy,' portray the extreme sense of tension. Similarly, in a flashback, shots of Gale having sex with a student at a party are rapidly intercut with the fast-paced dancing of the other partygoers. Parker smartly conveys emphasis through juxtaposing striking images following a scene. After Gale utters to Bloom, `I'm running out of time,' the film cuts to a steak sizzling at a nearby barbecue. Parker is comparing Gale's hopeless and desperate situation to frying dead meat.

The Life of David Gale is a truly remarkable film, one that will force tears out of your eyes and cause your knees to shake throughout the entire 130 minutes. This absolutely riveting film will leave you thinking, for a long time, about the purpose of the death penalty and about the meaning of human life. Beware: The film is so thought-provoking that it just may change your stance on the death penalty issue.

You look at the cast. An award-winning cast in front of and behind the camera. You look at the genre. Crime drama. Sounds promising? You look at the length. At over 2 hours running time, you possibly have some doubts, since so few films in the history of the medium have managed to sustain interest at that length, but, you tell yourself, with such credentials, how can you go wrong? Well, the answer is, it is easier than it looks, for this is a very flawed film, with major timing, casting, and writing problems, that succeeds (ie, remains reasonably entertaining and suspenseful) in spite of itself. And painfully so. Interestingly, the film itself is a throwback to an era a few decades earlier (the 80s) when "trick endings" or "messing with the audience's head" was more popular. There is a reason that kind of film died. Ironically, for a story which itself is about opposing capital punishment, the production of this specific film is proof that these sorts of twisty-turny stories really should be euthanized before film is ever loaded in the camera. The first 20 minutes of the film (literally) is one movie by itself, full of great acting, dialog, and promise. Then, at the 20 min mark, Kevin Spacey's character comes onboard and immediately there are issues. It is not so much that he does a bad job, as it is the casting. The role is the antithesis of the type of role Spacey usually plays (meek and innocent as opposed to powerful and evil) and this creates a "disconnect" with the viewer that becomes progressively more uncomfortable as the film winds down the overlong road it has chosen. The killer (of the film, not of the script) is the last 20 minutes, where (effectively) a third movie starts, completely different from the first two. By this stage the audience feels on a subliminal level like a chicken being plucked and headed for the pot. Clearly, there is something going on here, the dialog and action reveals, but you won't know what until the very end, until the Big Reveal.

In past reviews, this reviewer has been very critical of films that attempt to succeed based almost entirely because of their ability to mess with the audience. This film is no exception to that stance. Overlong, and structurally very damaged, the end result I believe is but a shadow of what the director originally intended. In other words, an experiment gone bad. With hindsight, it is astounding that the film holds interest at all.

I remember in 2004, at the dawn of the Presidential Campaign, there was a vast controversy surrounding Bush' military service, yet the documents used by his adversaries were proved to be false and the case was closed in favor of Bush. The irony is that the accusation was still valid, but since his opponent, a distinguished journalist if I recall, lost all his credibility and had to apologize about it, no one ever mentioned it again, and Bush won by default. And I remember very well my initial reaction, what if the documents were given by the Bush side, this would have been one hell of a strategy, you start a controversy to better discredit it, perverse but ingenuous.

To a certain extent, I had the same feeling concerning Alan Parker's film "The Life of David Gale", a film that created so many high expectations on me during the viewing that I couldn't believe how wrongly it was concluded. "The Life of David Gale" pretends to be against capital punishment the whole time, yet at the end, the activists prove to be part of such a treacherous and monstrous scheme, that if anything, we can't empathize with them, let alone their fight. The death penalty wins by default. You could even give the benefit of the doubt by thinking that the film is pro-death penalty as it doesn't even exploit the real basis of its activism, which is the sacredness of life. In the film, people are against capital punishment because it can kill innocent people, so guilty people deserve to die? The film totally belies the whole purpose of the plot and the way it builds our empathy towards Kevin Spacey, Laura Linney and Kate Winslet. Either it was dumb, either it was misleading, in both cases, it was pointless.

And what's more tragic in that failure, besides having in its cast such talented actors and a director of Alan Parker's caliber who proved to be capable to handle politically difficult subjects such as "Midnight Express" or "Mississippi Burning", the saddest thing is that one lousy shot was enough to ruin the whole film, I'm talking about the last twist with the videotape. "The Life of David Gale" seemed to go somewhere, with intelligence, until the final revelation that killed off every ounce of credibility. Kevin Spacey was part of the activist murder. They wanted to provide an example of a man wrongly accused and whose innocence would be proved AFTER his execution. Well apparently, he wasn't that innocent, and he invalidates the whole point he was trying to make, since he wasn't innocent, he deserves to be sent in the death row. Naturally, it's up to Kate Winslet to expose the truth or not, but it doesn't matter. Since the point is to convince the viewers, not the film's characters. We already know.

And we know that they are wrong. And it's a shame because this was the core of their fight: in a previous scene, Gale lost a debate because he couldn't come up with a valid example of an innocent executed. Gale had to find a way to be a martyr of his own cause. Talk about a thrilling premise. And then, the last shot on the videotape appears and reveals to us, viewers, that Gale was a morally corrupted guy who didn't hesitate to participate to a killing to make a point. This last scene was obviously aimed to provide a cheap thrill, impressing the audience before the ending credits start. Basically, the director traded the credibility of the plot just for a last 'wow' effect. Spacey and Linney played characters who were obviously more interested in having a point proved than saving people's lives.

At the end, I felt cheated because I did empathize with these characters, I felt cheated by the screenwriter who came up with the last-minute idea. Why did they do that? Is it because Kevin Spacey is associated with so many twist endings, like "Se7en" or "The Usual Suspects" (he's even involved in a middle plot twist in "L.A. Confidential") that the film was calling for one? Well, it worked in these films because the viewer was mislead only to finally realize how he got fooled, but it never implicated his deepest beliefs. In "The Life of David Gale", we don't feel fooled but cheated, characters-wise, story-wise, message-wise. Not every film is entitled to have a message, but when you deal with death penalty, you have a point to make, if not a side to take.

What was the point of "The Life of David Gale", it's not because everything seems to accuse a man that he's not guilty, well, I wish the film wasn't even made if it was to make such a ludicrous point, because if it doesn't bring much to the debate, it doesn't help those who fight death penalty. I give the film 1 star for the last minute, it's so well acted and directed that maybe I could have given more, but I can't accept the actual rating on IMDb. Ebert gave it 0 star, and I've never been so much in the same wavelength than him, I read his review, it was like reading my own mind.

To conclude, "The Life of David Gale" had the casting, the directing, the catchy title and the interesting plot line but it sinned by a cheap, misleading and fallaciously manipulative twist ending, obviously put for the sake of it. To give you an example, imagine if "12 Angry Men" ended with an additional scene where we would learn that the kid, killed his father, proving that we was guilty from the beginning, how would you have felt? Well, the same goes for "The Life of David Gale". What a waste, what a shame!

The first hour is intriguing but the rest of the film becomes boring. At first I didn't understand the final and what really happened. After I searched it basically he helped the woman to suicide and then he got accused on purpose to be killed too on his accusation. All of this to demonstrate that there's errors in justice system. This whole thing is pretty lame, even if he wasn't the one that killed or raped her, he helped and assisted her in doing so. Killing himself to prove that the system will fail is pointless.

Spoilers herein.

This is a suffocating film about suffocation, a simple story about a philosophy professor written by a philosophy perfessor (no foolin), an invented story about another invented story that proves to have been invented because of another story. It is a film about a film.

It features Spacey as the untrusted narrator who tells us a bunch o stuff that turns out to be lies. True to Spaceyitis, we are spoonfed the correct answer at the end. It also features Kate Winslet, who may be our best actor for this sort of folded project. She literally has the job of projecting the movie in flashbacks from the reactions on her face as Spacey `tells' her.

And it has Linney, whose earnest energy with the other two would have make a politician's funeral interesting if that dud Parker wouldn't keep getting in the way. He's nearly as bad as Mark Herman and if it hadn't been for `Fame,' he'd still be pasting up billboards.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Here's a movie that starts out OK. Unfortunately as it goes on, I started to feel less and less interested in the film, which is often the case these days. Spacey is undoubtedly a better supporting actor than lead. He's a pretty good actor, but throughout the movie, he's bland, low-key - probably more a poor choice of direction. Kate Winslet is watchable, but more a Nancy Drew than reporter......implausibilities? plenty - how about the bank issuing $500k cash on the same day and then various characters parading it around everywhere even to other countries, or college professor/administrators drinking and partying publicly with their classes? Car breakdowns, Flat characters, ....

Its a movie where the FF button gets used more and more - the movie is terribly predictable and the music and acting feel manufactured especially as the movie goes on....one scene in particular with Spacey sort of tearing and sobbing stamped express for the audience. little empathy generated to the point where the ending has little effect. The supporting cast do a better job than the leads. There are worse movies out there, but this is one to check out at your local library if possible. Fails as a "thriller" and cant stand-up as a "drama". 4 out of 10.

There are films you dislike and will pick on every petty unimportant failing to slag it off. There are other films you like so much, you are willing to forgive everything. Then there are films like The Life Of David Gale which are such a cut above the rest of Hollywood fare that you will be extraordinarily picky merely because you wish an excellent film and been flawless. So what follows is merely a list of petty complaints (and may contain spoilers). The reader should take it as read that this film is worth every penny and then some of the price of the cinema ticket or bought DVD. Spacey, as always, is impeccable. He has that knack of acting well without apparently acting at all. Kate Winslet, too, was excellent. But now for my list of complaints: as this was a thriller Alan Parkers obviously tried to keep the tension up. But often he did so by adding elements which otherwise make no sense. For example, our first glimpse of Dusty, the mysterious cowboy, was when Bitsey and Zac stop because of engine trouble. But wait a minute: this can neither be coincidence (why would Dusty stop suspiciously on the off-chance that here he has come across the car of two New York reporters come to cover Gale's execution? But nor can it be the case that Dusty was able to follow the rental car all the way to the rest stop. And why would he stop anyway? The answer is, of course, that Parker wants to heighten tension. And why not? you ask. Well, of course he can — but it is not organically part of the film. Another example: Why involve Bitsey in the first place? Why not simply write a letter of explanation and send it to her with the complete tape of Constance's suicide once the execution has take place? She could still be enlisted to write a piece about how innocent people are executed. But of course in that way — well, you haven't got a film. As for the half million dollars: did I miss something? Why was it part of the film? Why was it required by Bitsey and Zac? Why was it sent to Gale's ex-wife? Similarly with Dusty's love of opera: this seemed particularly gratuitous, an element added simply for the sake of effect. But back to my original comments: these are essentially minor quibbles and it is, ironically, a mark of just how good this film is compared to so much other dross that I make them.