This strikingly bad movie right out of Screenplay 101 is one of the most shallow "mysteries" I've ever seen. Even though I saw it at an free advance screening, I still wanted my money back--they should've paid me to watch it!
The characters are not characters, they're nondimensional, unbelievable, and uninspired walking attitudes--undermotivated attitudes at that. Spacey, despite being a smart guy, is not believable as a celebrated intellectual because his role is written as an un-self-aware jackass. Kate Winslet is embarrassingly wasted as a reporter of so-called integrity, objectivity and ostensible investigative acumen, none of which she displays at any point in the picture. Laura Linney is a mere functionary at first, and though she has a couple of affecting scenes later on, she lends way too much of her talent and courage into service for a dog film. Any character conflict, such as it is, is pointlessly contrived.
The dialogue is clumsy when expository (characters telling other characters what they already know so that we'll know it too) and self-congratulatingly hyper-glib at all other times. A death-penalty debate scene--meant to seem typical, I guess--comes off like a high school debate (though admittedly, that's the level a Texas governor might argue at), and it seemed that even Spacey's character wasn't fully informed, as he failed to make essential and well known points that would have easily counteracted his opponent (such as the fact that `presumption of innocence' provides that one need not prove an executed person was innocent, merely that they were unfairly found guilty; or that thanks to DNA evidence, many such executed persons have posthumously been found to be innocent; or the fact that Jesus preached against the `eye for an eye' attitude).
The annoying little tricks used to enhance suspense were trite and worn out 50 years ago, such as the suddenly appearing train cutting off a pursuit and an overheating rental car (which the screenwriter puts in early so as not to make us feel cheated, I suppose, but why in the hell didn't they just get a new rental?). Curiously, though, when one character needs to borrow a motel TV, he conveniently finds it to be unsecured. When's the last time you saw a motel TV that wasn't nailed down?
The biggest flaw in this painful film (honestly, I was squirming from the very first scene) is its utter predictability. An ad for it said "Don't reveal the surprise ending!" The "surprise ending" was apparent within the first 30 minutes to anyone who's seen a few movie and TV mysteries. Considering how obvious it all was, the film should never have presented itself as a mystery at all, but merely a meditation on capital punishment; then the "shocks" might've had merit. But because you're in mystery-watching mode from the beginning, that part of your movie-going brain that is well versed in irony has already skated ahead of the filmmakers. The film undercuts its message severely in this way by forcing us to engage an unengaging puzzle rather than contemplating the facts of the debate.
Moreover, it makes the most fatal error any "message film" can: it's simply bad. Good intentions do not excuse bad storytelling. Rather, tell a good story, and its dramatic weight will help the message sink in. I recently reviewed Vittoria De Sica's "The Bicycle Thief", a film that delivers a striking message by basically not doing so; it just tells a sad, striking story, and we get the point, don't we?
"The Life of David Gale" would be bad even by TV-movie standards. Why three actors of considerable talent would commit to this crud is the true mystery.
The characters are not characters, they're nondimensional, unbelievable, and uninspired walking attitudes--undermotivated attitudes at that. Spacey, despite being a smart guy, is not believable as a celebrated intellectual because his role is written as an un-self-aware jackass. Kate Winslet is embarrassingly wasted as a reporter of so-called integrity, objectivity and ostensible investigative acumen, none of which she displays at any point in the picture. Laura Linney is a mere functionary at first, and though she has a couple of affecting scenes later on, she lends way too much of her talent and courage into service for a dog film. Any character conflict, such as it is, is pointlessly contrived.
The dialogue is clumsy when expository (characters telling other characters what they already know so that we'll know it too) and self-congratulatingly hyper-glib at all other times. A death-penalty debate scene--meant to seem typical, I guess--comes off like a high school debate (though admittedly, that's the level a Texas governor might argue at), and it seemed that even Spacey's character wasn't fully informed, as he failed to make essential and well known points that would have easily counteracted his opponent (such as the fact that `presumption of innocence' provides that one need not prove an executed person was innocent, merely that they were unfairly found guilty; or that thanks to DNA evidence, many such executed persons have posthumously been found to be innocent; or the fact that Jesus preached against the `eye for an eye' attitude).
The annoying little tricks used to enhance suspense were trite and worn out 50 years ago, such as the suddenly appearing train cutting off a pursuit and an overheating rental car (which the screenwriter puts in early so as not to make us feel cheated, I suppose, but why in the hell didn't they just get a new rental?). Curiously, though, when one character needs to borrow a motel TV, he conveniently finds it to be unsecured. When's the last time you saw a motel TV that wasn't nailed down?
The biggest flaw in this painful film (honestly, I was squirming from the very first scene) is its utter predictability. An ad for it said "Don't reveal the surprise ending!" The "surprise ending" was apparent within the first 30 minutes to anyone who's seen a few movie and TV mysteries. Considering how obvious it all was, the film should never have presented itself as a mystery at all, but merely a meditation on capital punishment; then the "shocks" might've had merit. But because you're in mystery-watching mode from the beginning, that part of your movie-going brain that is well versed in irony has already skated ahead of the filmmakers. The film undercuts its message severely in this way by forcing us to engage an unengaging puzzle rather than contemplating the facts of the debate.
Moreover, it makes the most fatal error any "message film" can: it's simply bad. Good intentions do not excuse bad storytelling. Rather, tell a good story, and its dramatic weight will help the message sink in. I recently reviewed Vittoria De Sica's "The Bicycle Thief", a film that delivers a striking message by basically not doing so; it just tells a sad, striking story, and we get the point, don't we?
"The Life of David Gale" would be bad even by TV-movie standards. Why three actors of considerable talent would commit to this crud is the true mystery.