Search - The Life of David Gale (Full Screen Edition) on DVD

Good Enough

Wyatt G | Boulder, CO | 02/14/2006

(3 out of 5 stars)

"This movie may not have been a masterpiece but it was definately entertainining and had a cool ending. Former professor, David Gale (Kevin Spacey), is facing the death penalty for murder. After speaking with him several times, journalist Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet) is convinced that Gale is innocent, and tries to stop his execution. I don't want to give much else away because the way the story unfolds is suprising and fun. Some of the plot elements were kind of unrealistic, but this really wasn't a bad movie."

Not as predictable or flawed as many seem to think

doppelganger | 04/18/2004

(4 out of 5 stars)

"scanning the negative reviews posted here, the nay-sayers seem to be divided into two camps: those who say the movie was too predictable; and those who say they can't believe the ending. presumably, one reason the latter group is incredulous is because they didn't see it coming. funny how you get completely opposite views.me, i didn't see the ending coming, but i do think it made perfect sense. many objected that spacey and linney undermined their own cause by their "stunt". i don't agree. first, the full story wasn't meant to be disclosed to the public, only to the reporter. second, and more important, the ending was not done solely to prove a point, as many have suggested. in fact, linney was already terminally ill and spacey's fortunes had fallen to the point where he had little to live for. the so-called "stunt" was really a way to make their lives - and their inevitable deaths - more meaningful. making a point about capital punishment was only one part of it, the public dimension. there were very real private considerations as well.many also commented that the ending didn't make sense. i think it does. spacey knows that he's used winslet to convey his public AND private message (to his son). it's to assuage his guilt that he sends the tape at the end. how does he know that winslet won't tell all? because she's proven that she can be trusted to respect the confidentiality of her sources: if she won't betray "kiddy porn scum", why would she betray an innocent man?but even if the public doesn't know the whole truth, won't spacey still be an "anti-captial punishment nuthead" (to paraphrase one reviewer) in winslet's eyes? maybe. and only she would know. but judging from her reaction at the end, i'd say, if anything, she felt great compassion and understanding for spacey. compassion for his suffering. understanding of his actions. and i don't know what the reviewer was watching who said spacey had a "dull" look in his eyes when he gazed in the camera in the last scene, but i can't recall the last time i saw a look of such profound sadness. it was a very moving moment.there are many other objections that don't stand up under scrutiny. for example, one reviewer commented that the linchpin of the story was the tv confrontation between spacey and the governor of texas where spacey supposedly wasn't able to name a single innocent man who had been mistakenly killed. the reviewer couldn't believe spacey didn't have a comeback since there apparently have been cases where just such a travesty has happened. leaving aside the question of whether this is the "linchpin", if you listen closely to this scene, the question wasn't "name one man who has been mistakenly killed?"; it was "name one man OUT OF THE 131 WHO HAVE BEEN PUT TO DEATH IN TEXAS DURING MY TENURE who was innocent?". there's a big difference between these two questions. the gov was answering for his state's record, under his watch. he's saying "show me where I'VE made a mistake. if you can do that, then maybe i'll reconsider MY STATE'S policy." this makes sense. why should the gov of texas answer for other jurisdictions or administrations? he should, and only can, answer for his own actions. which is exactly what he does.another reviewer objected that it was obvious what spacey was up to when he hired an "incompetent" lawyer to defend him. "the film is too predictable", he cried. actually, the lawyer wasn't incompetent at all. if he wasn't effective, it was BY DESIGN: he was in on the scheme from the very start. this is revealed near the end when we see the relation between the cowboy and the lawyer, especially the transfer of money. counsel "botched" the defense because that's what spacey wanted.so maybe the plot wasn't so "predictable" after all? there are other objections like these that also fall apart on closer examination. i could go through them one by one, but i don't have the time or space to do that. MY only objection is that the film does occasionally go over-the-top in making its points. it does get a little preachy. this is more an aesthetic and artistic flaw, however, than an ideological or polemical one - more how the message is conveyed than what the message is. good film. definitely worth a rental, and maybe even a purchase if you're a big spacey fan. to the naysayers i'll just say: watch the film again, and then tell me if you still think it's "too predictable" or flawed."