I liked American Beauty quite a bit - it had a great meaning to it. That said, I will be skipping The Life of David Gale. I also thought it looked good from the previews. I’m glad I read
kaylasdad99’s spoiler.
Ugh, I was looking forward to this too. I like Alan Parker. I like Kevin Spacey. I like Kate Winslet. I like Laura Linney. I HATE that ending (yeah, I couldn’t resist). It’s playing at the same theater I’m planning to see Dark Blue at, and I am tempted to sneak into David Gale without paying, just to see the train wreck. What a blot for all the people involved.
I still haven’t forgiven Spacey for “Paying it Forward.”
I must be retarded because I have read eberts review and I didn’t see anything to make me believe that his rating of zero stars had anything to do with the ending. The only reference to the ending that I saw in there was that he was mad at a small scene at the end.
I didn’t understand Ebert’s ranting about Texas at all. What was his point, exactly? That the Texas death penalty is terrible… so doing a death penalty movie based in Texas is bad? But it would have been okay in Illinios? I just didn’t get it.
Choosing Texas does seem a trifle unimaginative, like setting a story about alternative rock in Seattle.
No, he’s saying that basing a movie that marginalizes the anti-death penalty sentiment - as, based on the ending, I feel David Gale does - in Texas, the Capital Punishment capital of the United States, is irresponsible.
My sole reason for being even remotely interested in seeing this was the fact that it was filmed at UT. Given that spoiler, I think I can save my money and be content with the memory of the day the South Mall was closed off for filming.
His reviews of bad films make for some good reading; here are some highlights:
My all time favorite Ebert quote might be “Mad Dog Time should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor.”
It seems Kevin Spacey The Struggling Character-Supporting Actor was brilliant and picked great material. ( ** Swimming With Sharks, Glengarry Glen Ross, The Ref, The Usual Suspects, Se7en, LA Confidential, American Beauty **
Kevin Spacey The Oscar Winning Leading Man…not so much. ** The Big Kahuna, Pay it Forward, K-Pax, The Shipping News ** and now, so it seems, ** David Gale. **
After reading kaylasdad99’s spoiler all I have to say is Oh…My…F***ing…Gag. And I’m against the death penalty.
I haven’t seen the movie (and since I currently have a sinus infection which fills any desire I might have for masochism have no desire to do so) so I’m not sure which specific arguments are raised against the death penalty, but does the ending sound hypocritical to anyone else?
[spoiler]I hope this is clear, but I just got done working a sixteen hour shift and I’ve got a couple beers in me. If it’s unclear I’ll come back later and clarify if necessary.
In effect the two jackasses in the film are guilty by means of accessory of the exact thing that they are criticizing and basing their argument for the abolition of the death penalty on, namely that if we kill one innocent person that is one person too many. Since Spacey’s character is innocent and he willingly allows the state to execute him he is cooperating in what he considers an immoral system, thereby making the state kill an innocent.
The likely argument for why this is justified is that by doing so he is exposing the flaws in the system which will hopefully promote change. The problem is that that is a utilitarian approach and the anti-death penalty view promotes an absolutist stance when it comes to the execution of innocents (one is too many). You might find a utilitarian approach from the pro-death penalty crowd in that we may kill a few innocents but we execute many more people who are guilty and therefore deserving of death so it all evens out (although you’d be hard pressed to find someone to vocalize such a line of logic), but seeing something similar come from the anti-capital punishment crowd is… well, someone’s got their head up their ass.
Simplified: the movie rejects the argument that it is okay to hurt innocents if it is for the greater good, but, from what I’ve read, its trick ending to argue against the DP does exactly that. Spacey’s character, by allowing to have himself killed, is an implicit operative in the exact thing he is fighting against. He willfully allows society to kill an innocent.[/spoiler]
Oh, and the Washington Times hammered it also (What? People leave that rag in the break room and I’ve got a know-thine-enemy complex).
Hey, did you have to put a spoiler (even a mild one) in the thread title??? I don’t like knowing there are twists, I don’t like knowing there are mistakes, and I really don’t appreciate knowing anything about the ending to a movie.
If someone has posted something like this, sorry. I don’t want to read the thread for obvious reasons.
There is no spoiler (even a mild one) in the thread title.
“Ebert give “The Life of David Gale” Zero Stars based on unrevealed ending…” does not reveal that the film has a twist ending, merely that Roger Ebert thought the ending, be it twisty or twist-free was bad.
Anything else is a personal inferrence on your part and not the fault of the person who posted this thread.
No offense, but people who scream “spoiler” at even the tiniest and most insignificant scrap of information are a pet peeve of mine.
Well, sorry, but people who reveal information that I don’t want to know are a pet peeve of mine.
The OP could have easily just titled the thread by the movie title or even Ebert gives Life of David Gale zero stars. Either way I wouldn’t have clicked on the thread and I wouldn’t have known something I didn’t want to know. Now if I see the movie (and I probably will) I will see it knowing it the ending is not revealed. That is a very different experience than seeing the movie without that information.
You do realize “unrevealed” refers to the fact that Ebert doesn’t reveal what the ending is in his review, right? Please tell me you realize that.
Uh, the ending isn’t revealed in Ebert’s review. The movie indeed has an ending.
If not I would be completely confident in my justification in making rude jokes along the lines of, “The movie has an ending? I’ve been spoiled!”
Nope, didn’t. I assumed the thread title meant that Ebert didn’t like the movie 'cause the movie ended without revealing something important.
Guess that’s what I get for assuming. Sorry, and I take back my mini-rant. In my defense, I didn’t want to read the thread because I really, truly don’t want to know anything about movies before I see them.
Well, it goes without saying that revealing spoilers about a film in a thread title is a no-no and only an idiot or someone evil (or possibly an evil idiot) would intentionally do such a thing.
Hell, even within a thread I think that if spoiler isn’t in the topic title spoiler tags should be used. It’s only common courtesy.