The Life of David Gale review

 Number 801 on the top 1000 films of all time is the psychological thriller 'The Life of David Gale.'

David Gale (Kevin Spacey) and his colleague Constance Harraway (Laura Linney) are two of the biggest anti-death penalty activists in the US. However, when David is found guilty of Constance's murder, he is sentenced to death. Maintaining he has been framed, he asks journalist Bitsy Bloom (Kate Winslet) to prove his innocence.

The Life of David Gale presents a fascinating premise: what happens when the biggest anti-death penalty activist is sentenced to death? It was also a divisive film with audiences loving it, hence its inclusion in this list, but many critics thought it was too clever for its own good.

I am firmly in the audience's camp. I thought it was a clever yet sensitive way of addressing a difficult topic. Many critics took issue with the final twist, but I thought it made perfect sense. Don't worry. I won't spoil it here.

Kevin Spacey and Laura Linney gave great performances. David Gale is objectively a flawed man. He is arrogant and overly-prideful. Not to mention, he thinks with his dick, landing him in big trouble. But he is also a tragic character who is the victim of his own circumstances, which again ties in well with the final twist.

Linney was also impressive. In comparison, Constance is a far more tragic character, and Linney played the role with a great sensitivity. Like Gale, Harraway is firmly principled, but, unlike Gale, she never allows her emotions to cloud her judgement. And all credit for Linney filming her death scene herself, and not using a body double. I won't go into detail, but she declared it was one of the most difficult things she ever had to film. I have no doubt about that.

I also have to shout out Melissa McCarthy who shone in the small supporting role, as Nico - the irreverent goth who gives tours around the scene of Harraway's murders.

I was less convinced by Kate Winslet who was quite melodramatic especially as the film built towards its inevitable conclusion. I was also confused by the inclusion of Dusty Wright (Matt Craven) a former colleague of Gale, as well as a former lover of Harraway.

He is seen aggressively stalking Bloom, but nothing comes from this except for a specific scene, which would spoil the film if I go into it. But if that's the case, then just have that scene, rather than all the shots of him watching Bloom from afar. It was a bit like the film was setting him up as the big, bad villain only to pull the rug from underneath our feet. In that regard, I would agree with the critics that the film was being too clever for its own good.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy the Life of David Gale. It was an interesting and thought-provoking thriller that brilliantly addressed a sensitive topic. 

The Squid and the Whale review

 Number 898 of the top 1000 films of all time is the independent comedy-drama 'The Squid and the Whale.'

Bernard Berkman (Ben Daniels) and his wife Jean (Laura Linney) are two academics going through a messy divorce. Caught in the middle are their two sons Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) and his younger brother Frank (Owen Kline.) Over the course of eighty minutes, we see this family attempt to move past this life-changing event.

This was certainly an interesting film. It portrayed a scenario which would be would be relatable to audiences worldwide. And it did it sympathetically.  But the characters weren't sympathetic. I liked the situation they were in, but I didn't like them at all. Neither Bernard or Jean are likeable at all. Bernard is arrogant, overly-proud and creepy - he stars a relationship with his far younger student Lili (Anna Paquin.) Meanwhile Jean has been unfaithful to Bernard for years on end. She is arguably the main reason that they're divorcing. It's no wonder their sons are so messed up.

Walt and Frank quickly take sides with Walt siding with his father and Frank with his mother. And both boys begin acting up in their own particular ways. As can be expected from boys that age. Even though the film tackles a difficult subject, there is still plenty of humour to stop things from becoming too serious. Any fancy special effects or big sets gave way to introspection and quiet character development. It was moving without being maudlin.

It was an entertaining watch, but more because of the setting and scenario and not because of the characters. 

Primal Fear review

 Number 615 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1996 legal thriller 'Primal Fear.'

Martin Vail (Richard Gere) is an arrogant Chicago lawyer who is well-known for taking high-profile cases, because of the publicity they generate. That's why he takes the case of Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) - a simple-minded 19-year-old former altar boy accused of murdering the beloved Archbishop Rushman - head of Chicago's diocese. However, Vail slowly starts to prove that Aaron is innocent. And he has to prove that in court against the prosecution led by former flame Janet Venable (Laura Linney.)

Based on the 1993 book of the same name, Primal Fear was good enough. That is to say that it is as good as legal dramas go. Legal dramas have a tendency to be overlong with too much talking and exposition. By their very nature, not a lot happens outside of a courtroom, so they're not always the most interesting to watch. And if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I don't think I would have found this film very entertaining. This was his feature-film debut and he received widespread praise for it. I may argue that he was better than Gere and Linney.

I don't think either actor was particularly bad in isolation, but I don't think they were great together. I especially didn't like the plotpoint of them having a past relationship. Vail still has feelings for Venable and tries rekindling the relationship, but is constantly rejected. It all seemed very contrived and forced to me. Gere and Linney didn't have the best on-screen chemistry. And it wasn't believable that the two of them used to be romantically involved. True, it was an obvious source of conflict, but I don't think it worked. Their shared past was left too unexplained and enigmatic. 

To Vail, their relationship was something serious, but Venable thought it was a one-night stand that happened to last for six months. Perhaps if their relationship had been left more professional, I would have enjoyed it more. Instead of romantic feelings, one of them could have done something to have professionally screwed over the other. And that would have been a better explanation for Venable's resentment for her former colleague.

And I didn't particularly like Linney's character. This is no fault of the actress, but I think that Janet Venable was overly-cold, harsh and condescending. She's not supposed to be the devil, but the devil's advocate. There were moments where she could have been portrayed sympathetically, but any of these emotional beats fell flat on their face. 

Like I said, if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I think this entire film could have fallen flat on its face. *spoiler alert* It is initially revealed that he is schizophrenic - he has an alternate personality called Roy who surfaces whenever Aaron is felt threatened. Instead of Aaron who always denied killing Archbishop Rushman, it was actually Roy. Roy and Aaron are polar opposites to each other. Aaron is shy, simple-minded and speaks with a stutter. Whereas, Roy is arrogant, violent and a sociopath. They are completely different, but Ed Norton played the double-role with aplomb. He was convincing as both characters.

Ed Norton was very much the saving grace of this film. It fell short of its massive potential. It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't good.