A low-key and seemingly missed thriller. Wesley Snipes provides a slow and unusually underplayed performance, with no physical fighting or glib one liners. In fact it's an extremely mature performance that shows what an overlooked actor he really is. An interesting and original storyline keeps you engaged and the continually moving camera, quick editing and fast paced story, heightens the tension as the pressures build. One of the surprising things about this film is the extremely small scale on which the movie is based, the focus switches between one room and a hotdog stand, with cuts to locations to bring in incidental characters. A thriller based around a clever idea, filled with tension, but just lacking an edge.
88 Reviews
If Snipes sniped at a sniper, could the sniper snipe a Snipes?
=G=11 August 2002
Not in "Liberty Stands Still"; a taught drama in which Liberty (Fiorentino) is a powerful, well connected corporate type who is held hostage in public by a sniper (Snipes) secreted in a building and armed with a sniper rifle, a remote controlled bomb, a cell phone, and oodles of hi-tech gadgetry. The film is a stylish and highly improbable chess match drama in which Snipes spends much time talking with Fiorentino via cell phone as he asserts his agenda and Los Angeles gets busy trying to deal with the threat. Character development is spread over the run time and the conclusion is somewhat less than satisfying. However, the kinetics, visuals, drama, and spy stuff are sufficient to make "Liberty...." a worthwhile and interesting escapist guy-flick. (B-)
Note - Though filmed in Vancouver according to this website, the film shows frequent aerial shots of L.A.
Note - Though filmed in Vancouver according to this website, the film shows frequent aerial shots of L.A.
The Beginning Of DTV Snipes
tarbosh2200013 May 2010
This is it... The beginning of the end of Wesley Snipes. He has gone straight to video. He hadn't crossed into Seagal territory yet - at this stage of his career. But he did later. Trust me. The plot is about Liberty (Fiorentino) who is the wife of a gun manufacturer (Platt). She is held hostage outside, in a Los Angeles park, by Joe (Snipes) who is blaming his daughter's death on her.
How heavy-handed could this movie get? This is "subtlety" at it's worst. In a nutshell: "don't blame the person who pulled the trigger, blame the manufacturer." Besides that, the performances are strong. Snipes is always good. Fiorentino puts some energy into her role, but it still looks like she's sleepwalking. Overall, it's for Snipes fans only.
For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com
How heavy-handed could this movie get? This is "subtlety" at it's worst. In a nutshell: "don't blame the person who pulled the trigger, blame the manufacturer." Besides that, the performances are strong. Snipes is always good. Fiorentino puts some energy into her role, but it still looks like she's sleepwalking. Overall, it's for Snipes fans only.
For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com
Audience Captured
asmeltzer936924 September 2002
There's an interesting audience response to this movie. The director has captured the audience in the movie theater and forced it to take
a look at the handgun issue...not by getting the audience's attention with car chases and breasts heaving up and down while sexy things run, like in an action film, but with a hostage taking. And everyone's in the trap, including the audience.
The hostage and the guy pointing the gun (Wesley Snipes) are trapped in their standoff for most of the film. Meanwhile layers peal away as we begin to understand more and more about the source of the pain and the reason for the target of the desperate action.
The audience likes to be on the side of some main character who is outside of the stand-off, the person that will cause strength and good to prevail; but the director has ingeniously put the audience identification into the stand-off: equally into the emotional trauma of both the hostage and the hostage taker. Eventually you begin to feel the absurdity and desperation of the situation; eventually you realize that both feel trapped, and consequently the audience has little relief from the situation.
There's no Arnold Schwarzenegger coming to the rescue by blazing bigger more illegal weapons, and that is exactly what is intended, in my opinion. The big pay-off in this film is that it actually makes the audience think! Uncomfortable for some, but certainly worthwhile as a political statement and interesting filmmaking.
a look at the handgun issue...not by getting the audience's attention with car chases and breasts heaving up and down while sexy things run, like in an action film, but with a hostage taking. And everyone's in the trap, including the audience.
The hostage and the guy pointing the gun (Wesley Snipes) are trapped in their standoff for most of the film. Meanwhile layers peal away as we begin to understand more and more about the source of the pain and the reason for the target of the desperate action.
The audience likes to be on the side of some main character who is outside of the stand-off, the person that will cause strength and good to prevail; but the director has ingeniously put the audience identification into the stand-off: equally into the emotional trauma of both the hostage and the hostage taker. Eventually you begin to feel the absurdity and desperation of the situation; eventually you realize that both feel trapped, and consequently the audience has little relief from the situation.
There's no Arnold Schwarzenegger coming to the rescue by blazing bigger more illegal weapons, and that is exactly what is intended, in my opinion. The big pay-off in this film is that it actually makes the audience think! Uncomfortable for some, but certainly worthwhile as a political statement and interesting filmmaking.
The end does justify the means, but only after the fact
redcrystal24 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
First, I'm a poor man's film critic. I like most of the movies I've seen, whether they deserve it or not. Except Leonard Part 6 (don't ask).
I liked this movie, not because of its actors (who did better than I could have done), or its script and dialogue (that was better than I could have written), or its overall production quality (that revealed no amateurish mistakes which I'm sure I would have made). I liked this movie because it clearly did, here in IMDB, exactly what Joe wanted to have happen - we're debating the wisdom of the Second Amendment, amongst other things, only we're carefully wording our positions to sound like a critique of the movie, or its plot, or the script.
To all of the other commentators out there: please stop whining about whether it's Yet Another Liberal Film From Hollywood. You have as much right to say what you want as they do. I think even the non-liberals are a little desensitized to the "everything in the media/movie business is slanted to the left" hew and cry. I know I am, and I'm not a liberal, but merely a thinking man (or so I hope). Just make your case, and stop worrying about Them.
[WARNING -- SPOILERS AHEAD]
Joe wants many things, not just the second amendment debate. I don't know, if my daughter was shot by a punk with a gun that I knew was almost hand-delivered to him by another man that I knew was corrupt... I can't say that I wouldn't feel some desire to make the corrupt man pay for his sins with his life. True, two wrongs don't make a right, and it still wouldn't have brought back my daughter, yet having the desire and acting on it are two different things. I'm sure I would want revenge, though I may not act on it. Joe wanted revenge, and clearly he was willing to act on it.
Did nobody catch the subplot (you know, the subtle one that was sort of shoved into your face with the dialogue)? That Victor Wallace was heavily guarded and a difficult target? That Liberty was the one that had the predictable schedule, whereby Joe might use her to draw out Victor? That Victor wrote his wife's life off from the first moment, and that Joe knew he would? That the only way Joe could get to Victor was to accuse him of being less than a man -- NOT by using his love for his wife during her time of greatest peril.
So why not a simple hostage scene, which would have given us, the paying audience (even if you watched on Cinemax, you paid for it) with the desired Fiorentino/Snipes combustion? Because Joe wanted his daughter's death to mean something more than simple revenge, I guess. Liberty suggested to Joe, "would your daughter want this?" But then, would his daughter want another little girl to be the victim of another punk with a gun, if there was something -- ANYthing -- that could be done to change it?
Or, for another reason: had Joe merely kidnapped Liberty, then Victor's henchmen, and the henchmen of the people in Victor's back pocket, would have eliminated Joe, and Liberty, and the supervisor of the building, and the neighbors, and anyone else standing too close... and the police (who Joe alleged were corrupted by Victor) would have blamed it all on Joe.
Whether you agree with gun control, or think that Joe was right when he said "I'm could be just another legal gun-owning American fighting the government's oppression of my freedom," or think that the answer lies somewhere a field, this movie, regardless of it's overall view-ability value, should inspire thoughts
Joe hit where he could, where it would hurt, and where it would make a difference. He knew it would also cost him his life (too many powerful people would want him dead, anyway). But, as he said, "It's a start."
So the debate has been going on, anyway. True, it's people that kill people, not guns, not bullets, not pits, not your heritage to your murderous ancestors, not teachers failing to enact safety measures, or anything else ourselves.
It's merely a sad truth that there are people who will kill other people, using any means they can. What we have to do is find a way to better teach a would-be killer that they let themselves down the most if they kill, whether by violating their own values, or by letting down the people that matter to them.
Joe took the violent man's way out. Funny thing -- so did the American colonists when they decided to set themselves free. That second amendment was awfully important back then.
So, did the end justify the means? Joe said "yes." What do you say?
It's a movie without a definitive answer (even if you think there was one), but one with a definite result after the fact. I have to admire it for that.
I liked this movie, not because of its actors (who did better than I could have done), or its script and dialogue (that was better than I could have written), or its overall production quality (that revealed no amateurish mistakes which I'm sure I would have made). I liked this movie because it clearly did, here in IMDB, exactly what Joe wanted to have happen - we're debating the wisdom of the Second Amendment, amongst other things, only we're carefully wording our positions to sound like a critique of the movie, or its plot, or the script.
To all of the other commentators out there: please stop whining about whether it's Yet Another Liberal Film From Hollywood. You have as much right to say what you want as they do. I think even the non-liberals are a little desensitized to the "everything in the media/movie business is slanted to the left" hew and cry. I know I am, and I'm not a liberal, but merely a thinking man (or so I hope). Just make your case, and stop worrying about Them.
[WARNING -- SPOILERS AHEAD]
Joe wants many things, not just the second amendment debate. I don't know, if my daughter was shot by a punk with a gun that I knew was almost hand-delivered to him by another man that I knew was corrupt... I can't say that I wouldn't feel some desire to make the corrupt man pay for his sins with his life. True, two wrongs don't make a right, and it still wouldn't have brought back my daughter, yet having the desire and acting on it are two different things. I'm sure I would want revenge, though I may not act on it. Joe wanted revenge, and clearly he was willing to act on it.
Did nobody catch the subplot (you know, the subtle one that was sort of shoved into your face with the dialogue)? That Victor Wallace was heavily guarded and a difficult target? That Liberty was the one that had the predictable schedule, whereby Joe might use her to draw out Victor? That Victor wrote his wife's life off from the first moment, and that Joe knew he would? That the only way Joe could get to Victor was to accuse him of being less than a man -- NOT by using his love for his wife during her time of greatest peril.
So why not a simple hostage scene, which would have given us, the paying audience (even if you watched on Cinemax, you paid for it) with the desired Fiorentino/Snipes combustion? Because Joe wanted his daughter's death to mean something more than simple revenge, I guess. Liberty suggested to Joe, "would your daughter want this?" But then, would his daughter want another little girl to be the victim of another punk with a gun, if there was something -- ANYthing -- that could be done to change it?
Or, for another reason: had Joe merely kidnapped Liberty, then Victor's henchmen, and the henchmen of the people in Victor's back pocket, would have eliminated Joe, and Liberty, and the supervisor of the building, and the neighbors, and anyone else standing too close... and the police (who Joe alleged were corrupted by Victor) would have blamed it all on Joe.
Whether you agree with gun control, or think that Joe was right when he said "I'm could be just another legal gun-owning American fighting the government's oppression of my freedom," or think that the answer lies somewhere a field, this movie, regardless of it's overall view-ability value, should inspire thoughts
Joe hit where he could, where it would hurt, and where it would make a difference. He knew it would also cost him his life (too many powerful people would want him dead, anyway). But, as he said, "It's a start."
So the debate has been going on, anyway. True, it's people that kill people, not guns, not bullets, not pits, not your heritage to your murderous ancestors, not teachers failing to enact safety measures, or anything else ourselves.
It's merely a sad truth that there are people who will kill other people, using any means they can. What we have to do is find a way to better teach a would-be killer that they let themselves down the most if they kill, whether by violating their own values, or by letting down the people that matter to them.
Joe took the violent man's way out. Funny thing -- so did the American colonists when they decided to set themselves free. That second amendment was awfully important back then.
So, did the end justify the means? Joe said "yes." What do you say?
It's a movie without a definitive answer (even if you think there was one), but one with a definite result after the fact. I have to admire it for that.
Nice idea, but only works in parts
mjw230521 January 2007
Linda Fiorentino (Liberty Wallace) an international arms dealer who sells to anyone...no questions asked. While out to meet her lover, she receives a phone-call; the sniper (Welsey Snipes) who she is talking to has her in his sights, and if she fails to do as she told, she will die; and if her phone goes dead she will detonate a bomb that will destroy a city block.
The idea is good, and a strong sense of tension is built up by the performances of Fiorentino and Snipes, but after a clever and intriguing build up the film does eventually fall flat. By the end you may feel that the film makers missed a good opportunity to both make a statement and make a cracking film.
6/10 If you like the concept - try phonebooth, it is better executed.
The idea is good, and a strong sense of tension is built up by the performances of Fiorentino and Snipes, but after a clever and intriguing build up the film does eventually fall flat. By the end you may feel that the film makers missed a good opportunity to both make a statement and make a cracking film.
6/10 If you like the concept - try phonebooth, it is better executed.
Eh - it was okay for a rental
lchmielewski27 January 2005
While this movie was mildly entertaining, there is a reason it went straight to video. Like phonebooth (but without the Colin Farrel nametag), it really lacked a strong plot. Depending on which way you saw each character, the movie could be pro or anti gun control - if you really look deep. You have a woman who runs a gun company and a psycho with a gun (obtained illegally as he has a criminal record) further gun control would not keep him from obtaining a gun.
The movie, while running the same "plot line" as Phonebooth, was not a ripoff of the movie, considering both came out the same year and, in fact, the production of Liberty started before Phonebooth was even cast.
The movie, while running the same "plot line" as Phonebooth, was not a ripoff of the movie, considering both came out the same year and, in fact, the production of Liberty started before Phonebooth was even cast.
The hot dog stand in the park
jotix1005 July 2005
Kari Skogland's "Liberty Stands Still" kept reminding us of a similar film, Joel Schumacher's "Phone Booth". The clue for understanding what the director's message seems to be, is seen in the opening credits. We are shown part of the US Constitution. Ms. Skogland is preparing us for what will follow.
The only thing that doesn't make the film as suspenseful, as it could be, is the fact we know from the start who is behind the power rifle in a building overlooking the square where much of the action will take place. We don't believe, for one second, that Joe, could have prepared this caper that has placed two exploding devices in the theater, as well as in the hot dog stand. Wesley Snipes is only seen in closeups.
The other thing that doesn't make sense is to watch a cool Liberty Wallace, a woman who can die at any moment if Joe decides to put a bullet right smack in the red spot over her heart. The way Ms. Fiorentino plays this woman doesn't seem to add anything to the tense situation Ms. Skogland has prepared for us to see.
It's clear to see why this film went to video without showing in theaters, or if it did, it might have lasted a week, the most. As a video, or in cable, one is willing to take the chance. The film is not horrible, by any means, it shows a director who will do better in the future.
The only thing that doesn't make the film as suspenseful, as it could be, is the fact we know from the start who is behind the power rifle in a building overlooking the square where much of the action will take place. We don't believe, for one second, that Joe, could have prepared this caper that has placed two exploding devices in the theater, as well as in the hot dog stand. Wesley Snipes is only seen in closeups.
The other thing that doesn't make sense is to watch a cool Liberty Wallace, a woman who can die at any moment if Joe decides to put a bullet right smack in the red spot over her heart. The way Ms. Fiorentino plays this woman doesn't seem to add anything to the tense situation Ms. Skogland has prepared for us to see.
It's clear to see why this film went to video without showing in theaters, or if it did, it might have lasted a week, the most. As a video, or in cable, one is willing to take the chance. The film is not horrible, by any means, it shows a director who will do better in the future.
Preachy, slightly boring, yet still a bit interesting
Sleel4 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this on video last night. It wasn't even a blip in the movie schedule in Japan, although "Bowling for Columbine" was in most theaters when it came out. There are obvious reasons for the lack of attention "Liberty Stands Still" received.
Some spoilers follow.
First, it was tedious. The drawn out disclosure of why Joe is doing this is supposed to be intriguing, but there is no tension to sustain the intrigue. Ironically, the realism of the offhand way he kills a few of the victims works against the drama of the movie by releasing some of the tension without a buildup to that release. There is another source of tension in the bombs, but since we never actually get to know Russel that well, we don't really care too much about him. He's been committing adultery with someone else's wife, so most people wouldn't have that much sympathy with him from a moral standpoint anyway. The other potential victims of the bombs are either people Skogland portrays unsympathetically or a faceless crowd. It makes it hard to care about whether the bombs go off or not.
That leads to another problem with the plot: there are no sympathetic characters. Again, this complexity is one of the things that works against it as a movie. Even Liberty, who is in the role of Joe's main victim, is shown to be unsympathetic at the beginning (she's cheating on her husband, she's indirectly responsible for gun running and so is supposedly aiding and abetting wars at home and abroad) yet we are somehow supposed to grow to like her at least a little bit by the end of the film. The only admirable things about her were that she tried to find a way out of her predicament, and kept trying to help others even if she was putting herself in danger.
A final major flaw was that the ending was anti-climactic. Obviously Kari Skogland could not make her villain into a demon without undermining her message, so some of Joe's threats are bluffs. He is made to appear serious by killing people earlier in the film, but the people he kills are people that no one could really care about--in many cases we don't know them well enough--or could not support without some ambiguity.
This movie's blatantly obvious message is anti-gun. Unfortunately Skogland displays a very poor understanding of the complexities involved in the question of gun-control. Joe states that the gun industry is huge, while in reality most manufacturers function barely in the black. Profits for the entire firearms industry in 1999 amounted to about $200 million. The CEO of a major corporation makes a median salary of $13 to $14 million and the highest paid make around $180 to $190 million. That's the amount that a single employee of the company makes versus the profits of an entire industry. Making guns is hardly the most profitable of businesses.
The line of reasoning that Joe follows is tenuous at best. By his logic, car manufacturers should be held responsible for the accidents they cause, drug manufacturers responsible for deaths from side effects, accidental overdoses, and suicides; and the power company for deaths through electrocution. I fully agree with one of Joe's statements, that Americans have forgotten about responsibility. Where he and I disagree is that I would not hold the manufacturer of a hammer responsible for a murder committed using the hammer; I would blame the murderer. In addition, we never find out for sure if the death he lays at Liberty's feet was intentional or accidental. He seems to think that issue is not worth considering and this allows him to skirt the issue of personal responsibility in his quest for "justice." While his blindness to the complexities of the situation could be seen as Skogland's presentation of a flawed narrator, given the overall treatment of the film it is likely that the overt message and tortured logic are the writer's own, not just the character's.
While this movie had some potential, it falls flat in many areas. The logic of the plot is forced, the characters are not developed to their full potential, and some of the virtues it does have are undermined by mistakes in pacing. If the promised complexity and ambiguity of the characters had been more fully developed, if the logic and facts of the plot had been more believable, if Skogland had built the dramatic tension in a more adept way, this could have been a better than average movie.
If you want to watch good movie about the issue of gun control, rent "Bowling for Columbine." You may not agree with Moore's message, but if you actually think about what he is saying, you have to admit that he raises some legitimate points. His approach is to ask questions to find the root causes of the problem. Moore raises more questions than he answers and by doing so invites the viewer to help find a solution for the very real problems to which he draws attention. It's not drama, but it is a decent treatment of the central issue in "Liberty Stands Still."
Some spoilers follow.
First, it was tedious. The drawn out disclosure of why Joe is doing this is supposed to be intriguing, but there is no tension to sustain the intrigue. Ironically, the realism of the offhand way he kills a few of the victims works against the drama of the movie by releasing some of the tension without a buildup to that release. There is another source of tension in the bombs, but since we never actually get to know Russel that well, we don't really care too much about him. He's been committing adultery with someone else's wife, so most people wouldn't have that much sympathy with him from a moral standpoint anyway. The other potential victims of the bombs are either people Skogland portrays unsympathetically or a faceless crowd. It makes it hard to care about whether the bombs go off or not.
That leads to another problem with the plot: there are no sympathetic characters. Again, this complexity is one of the things that works against it as a movie. Even Liberty, who is in the role of Joe's main victim, is shown to be unsympathetic at the beginning (she's cheating on her husband, she's indirectly responsible for gun running and so is supposedly aiding and abetting wars at home and abroad) yet we are somehow supposed to grow to like her at least a little bit by the end of the film. The only admirable things about her were that she tried to find a way out of her predicament, and kept trying to help others even if she was putting herself in danger.
A final major flaw was that the ending was anti-climactic. Obviously Kari Skogland could not make her villain into a demon without undermining her message, so some of Joe's threats are bluffs. He is made to appear serious by killing people earlier in the film, but the people he kills are people that no one could really care about--in many cases we don't know them well enough--or could not support without some ambiguity.
This movie's blatantly obvious message is anti-gun. Unfortunately Skogland displays a very poor understanding of the complexities involved in the question of gun-control. Joe states that the gun industry is huge, while in reality most manufacturers function barely in the black. Profits for the entire firearms industry in 1999 amounted to about $200 million. The CEO of a major corporation makes a median salary of $13 to $14 million and the highest paid make around $180 to $190 million. That's the amount that a single employee of the company makes versus the profits of an entire industry. Making guns is hardly the most profitable of businesses.
The line of reasoning that Joe follows is tenuous at best. By his logic, car manufacturers should be held responsible for the accidents they cause, drug manufacturers responsible for deaths from side effects, accidental overdoses, and suicides; and the power company for deaths through electrocution. I fully agree with one of Joe's statements, that Americans have forgotten about responsibility. Where he and I disagree is that I would not hold the manufacturer of a hammer responsible for a murder committed using the hammer; I would blame the murderer. In addition, we never find out for sure if the death he lays at Liberty's feet was intentional or accidental. He seems to think that issue is not worth considering and this allows him to skirt the issue of personal responsibility in his quest for "justice." While his blindness to the complexities of the situation could be seen as Skogland's presentation of a flawed narrator, given the overall treatment of the film it is likely that the overt message and tortured logic are the writer's own, not just the character's.
While this movie had some potential, it falls flat in many areas. The logic of the plot is forced, the characters are not developed to their full potential, and some of the virtues it does have are undermined by mistakes in pacing. If the promised complexity and ambiguity of the characters had been more fully developed, if the logic and facts of the plot had been more believable, if Skogland had built the dramatic tension in a more adept way, this could have been a better than average movie.
If you want to watch good movie about the issue of gun control, rent "Bowling for Columbine." You may not agree with Moore's message, but if you actually think about what he is saying, you have to admit that he raises some legitimate points. His approach is to ask questions to find the root causes of the problem. Moore raises more questions than he answers and by doing so invites the viewer to help find a solution for the very real problems to which he draws attention. It's not drama, but it is a decent treatment of the central issue in "Liberty Stands Still."
From a sniper's perch to a hot dog stand...
moviedude128 October 2003
Why is it that all the trouble these days start when you answer you phone/cell phone?
From the moment Snipes dials in Fiorentino's cell phone, all the suspense begins. She starts by being the one who's in control, but it's obvious she's not. Shackling herself to a hot dog stand was bad enough with a sniper trained on you, but there's also a little surprise for all those involved in her life.
Snipes plays the sniper well. As one who can turn the tables on anyone, he pulls it off superbly. Fiorentino was all right, but I found myself more attached to Snipes, trying to find out why he was doing what he was doing. But the bottom line was if she didn't play his game, she wasn't going to live.
This is the first I've even heard of this movie. I like Snipes and I watched "Phone Booth" just a couple of months ago. I know it's not right to compare the two, but I can't help but draw on the similarities between the two. Kiefer Sutherland was a psycho, too, but he tended to lose his cool once in a while, where Snipes did not. Not only was he in control of the situation, but he was in control of himself, as well. It kind of makes you believe that he could actually pull off what he meant to do.
I don't know, but, for some reason, I didn't find this film very "suspenseful" at all. When I watch these kinds of movies, I find myself sitting on the edge of my seat, holding my breath, but not this time. I found the movie almost like a soap opera, where I could have stepped out of the room for a couple of minutes, came back, and caught right up with where I was at, knowing everything I missed.
From the moment Snipes dials in Fiorentino's cell phone, all the suspense begins. She starts by being the one who's in control, but it's obvious she's not. Shackling herself to a hot dog stand was bad enough with a sniper trained on you, but there's also a little surprise for all those involved in her life.
Snipes plays the sniper well. As one who can turn the tables on anyone, he pulls it off superbly. Fiorentino was all right, but I found myself more attached to Snipes, trying to find out why he was doing what he was doing. But the bottom line was if she didn't play his game, she wasn't going to live.
This is the first I've even heard of this movie. I like Snipes and I watched "Phone Booth" just a couple of months ago. I know it's not right to compare the two, but I can't help but draw on the similarities between the two. Kiefer Sutherland was a psycho, too, but he tended to lose his cool once in a while, where Snipes did not. Not only was he in control of the situation, but he was in control of himself, as well. It kind of makes you believe that he could actually pull off what he meant to do.
I don't know, but, for some reason, I didn't find this film very "suspenseful" at all. When I watch these kinds of movies, I find myself sitting on the edge of my seat, holding my breath, but not this time. I found the movie almost like a soap opera, where I could have stepped out of the room for a couple of minutes, came back, and caught right up with where I was at, knowing everything I missed.
Preachy, slightly boring, yet still a bit interesting
Sleel4 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this on video last night. It wasn't even a blip in the movie schedule in Japan, although "Bowling for Columbine" was in most theaters when it came out. There are obvious reasons for the lack of attention "Liberty Stands Still" received.
Some spoilers follow.
First, it was tedious. The drawn out disclosure of why Joe is doing this is supposed to be intriguing, but there is no tension to sustain the intrigue. Ironically, the realism of the offhand way he kills a few of the victims works against the drama of the movie by releasing some of the tension without a buildup to that release. There is another source of tension in the bombs, but since we never actually get to know Russel that well, we don't really care too much about him. He's been committing adultery with someone else's wife, so most people wouldn't have that much sympathy with him from a moral standpoint anyway. The other potential victims of the bombs are either people Skogland portrays unsympathetically or a faceless crowd. It makes it hard to care about whether the bombs go off or not.
That leads to another problem with the plot: there are no sympathetic characters. Again, this complexity is one of the things that works against it as a movie. Even Liberty, who is in the role of Joe's main victim, is shown to be unsympathetic at the beginning (she's cheating on her husband, she's indirectly responsible for gun running and so is supposedly aiding and abetting wars at home and abroad) yet we are somehow supposed to grow to like her at least a little bit by the end of the film. The only admirable things about her were that she tried to find a way out of her predicament, and kept trying to help others even if she was putting herself in danger.
A final major flaw was that the ending was anti-climactic. Obviously Kari Skogland could not make her villain into a demon without undermining her message, so some of Joe's threats are bluffs. He is made to appear serious by killing people earlier in the film, but the people he kills are people that no one could really care about--in many cases we don't know them well enough--or could not support without some ambiguity.
This movie's blatantly obvious message is anti-gun. Unfortunately Skogland displays a very poor understanding of the complexities involved in the question of gun-control. Joe states that the gun industry is huge, while in reality most manufacturers function barely in the black. Profits for the entire firearms industry in 1999 amounted to about $200 million. The CEO of a major corporation makes a median salary of $13 to $14 million and the highest paid make around $180 to $190 million. That's the amount that a single employee of the company makes versus the profits of an entire industry. Making guns is hardly the most profitable of businesses.
The line of reasoning that Joe follows is tenuous at best. By his logic, car manufacturers should be held responsible for the accidents they cause, drug manufacturers responsible for deaths from side effects, accidental overdoses, and suicides; and the power company for deaths through electrocution. I fully agree with one of Joe's statements, that Americans have forgotten about responsibility. Where he and I disagree is that I would not hold the manufacturer of a hammer responsible for a murder committed using the hammer; I would blame the murderer. In addition, we never find out for sure if the death of a loved one which he lays at Liberty's feet was intentional or accidental. He seems to think that issue is not worth considering and this allows him to skirt the issue of personal responsibility in his quest for "justice." While his blindness to the complexities of the situation could be seen as Skogland's presentation of a flawed narrator, given the overall treatment of the film it is likely that the overt message and tortured logic are the writer's own, not just the character's.
While this movie had some potential, it falls flat in many areas. The logic of the plot is forced, the characters are not developed to their full potential, and some of the virtues it does have are undermined by mistakes in pacing. If the promised complexity and ambiguity of the characters had been more fully developed, if the logic and facts of the plot had been more believable, if Skogland had built the dramatic tension in a more adept way, this could have been a better than average movie.
If you want to watch good movie about the issue of gun control, rent "Bowling for Columbine." You may not agree with Moore's message, but if you actually think about what he is saying, you have to admit that he raises some legitimate points. His approach is to ask questions to find the root causes of the problem. Moore raises more questions than he answers and by doing so invites the viewer to help find a solution for the very real problems to which he draws attention. It's not drama, but it is a decent treatment of the central issue in "Liberty Stands Still."
Some spoilers follow.
First, it was tedious. The drawn out disclosure of why Joe is doing this is supposed to be intriguing, but there is no tension to sustain the intrigue. Ironically, the realism of the offhand way he kills a few of the victims works against the drama of the movie by releasing some of the tension without a buildup to that release. There is another source of tension in the bombs, but since we never actually get to know Russel that well, we don't really care too much about him. He's been committing adultery with someone else's wife, so most people wouldn't have that much sympathy with him from a moral standpoint anyway. The other potential victims of the bombs are either people Skogland portrays unsympathetically or a faceless crowd. It makes it hard to care about whether the bombs go off or not.
That leads to another problem with the plot: there are no sympathetic characters. Again, this complexity is one of the things that works against it as a movie. Even Liberty, who is in the role of Joe's main victim, is shown to be unsympathetic at the beginning (she's cheating on her husband, she's indirectly responsible for gun running and so is supposedly aiding and abetting wars at home and abroad) yet we are somehow supposed to grow to like her at least a little bit by the end of the film. The only admirable things about her were that she tried to find a way out of her predicament, and kept trying to help others even if she was putting herself in danger.
A final major flaw was that the ending was anti-climactic. Obviously Kari Skogland could not make her villain into a demon without undermining her message, so some of Joe's threats are bluffs. He is made to appear serious by killing people earlier in the film, but the people he kills are people that no one could really care about--in many cases we don't know them well enough--or could not support without some ambiguity.
This movie's blatantly obvious message is anti-gun. Unfortunately Skogland displays a very poor understanding of the complexities involved in the question of gun-control. Joe states that the gun industry is huge, while in reality most manufacturers function barely in the black. Profits for the entire firearms industry in 1999 amounted to about $200 million. The CEO of a major corporation makes a median salary of $13 to $14 million and the highest paid make around $180 to $190 million. That's the amount that a single employee of the company makes versus the profits of an entire industry. Making guns is hardly the most profitable of businesses.
The line of reasoning that Joe follows is tenuous at best. By his logic, car manufacturers should be held responsible for the accidents they cause, drug manufacturers responsible for deaths from side effects, accidental overdoses, and suicides; and the power company for deaths through electrocution. I fully agree with one of Joe's statements, that Americans have forgotten about responsibility. Where he and I disagree is that I would not hold the manufacturer of a hammer responsible for a murder committed using the hammer; I would blame the murderer. In addition, we never find out for sure if the death of a loved one which he lays at Liberty's feet was intentional or accidental. He seems to think that issue is not worth considering and this allows him to skirt the issue of personal responsibility in his quest for "justice." While his blindness to the complexities of the situation could be seen as Skogland's presentation of a flawed narrator, given the overall treatment of the film it is likely that the overt message and tortured logic are the writer's own, not just the character's.
While this movie had some potential, it falls flat in many areas. The logic of the plot is forced, the characters are not developed to their full potential, and some of the virtues it does have are undermined by mistakes in pacing. If the promised complexity and ambiguity of the characters had been more fully developed, if the logic and facts of the plot had been more believable, if Skogland had built the dramatic tension in a more adept way, this could have been a better than average movie.
If you want to watch good movie about the issue of gun control, rent "Bowling for Columbine." You may not agree with Moore's message, but if you actually think about what he is saying, you have to admit that he raises some legitimate points. His approach is to ask questions to find the root causes of the problem. Moore raises more questions than he answers and by doing so invites the viewer to help find a solution for the very real problems to which he draws attention. It's not drama, but it is a decent treatment of the central issue in "Liberty Stands Still."
One Limey's perspective
filehopefully22 January 2004
This film may not be perfect, but it certainly deserves praise for trying to make a statement that all the gun strokers will loudly object to. There should be more responsibility on the part of both Gun manufacturers and Gun owners.
Full marks for Wes putting his career on the line to make such an unpopular statement.
One accusation that many Gun owners make about such films is that they are typical Hollywood propaganda. Sorry - the sort of films Hollywood likes to make are films such as Red Dawn, The Green Berets, Commando, Independance day ect. where they can make a buck by glorifying firearms and having lots of colourful explosions accompanied by corny one-liners.
Gun ownership is not the only cause for the murder rate in the states as Bowling for Columbine points out. Canadians do not shoot each other with anywhere near the same regularity as Americans do, despite having a similar rate of gun ownership. The Swiss don't kill each other either.
Oh, and Datroy. Those 9,974 incidents include imitation firearms and only need be reported, not even verified. So if someone thinks they saw a gun and reports it, that's an incident. There were under 70 gun related murders for a population of over 50 million. In comparison, the US of A had over 10,000 murders. That's a per capita ratio of 25:1, well done.
Lastly, I believe the "hate america" website you allude to is the FBI website. I've also yet to see a drive-by baseball batting.
Full marks for Wes putting his career on the line to make such an unpopular statement.
One accusation that many Gun owners make about such films is that they are typical Hollywood propaganda. Sorry - the sort of films Hollywood likes to make are films such as Red Dawn, The Green Berets, Commando, Independance day ect. where they can make a buck by glorifying firearms and having lots of colourful explosions accompanied by corny one-liners.
Gun ownership is not the only cause for the murder rate in the states as Bowling for Columbine points out. Canadians do not shoot each other with anywhere near the same regularity as Americans do, despite having a similar rate of gun ownership. The Swiss don't kill each other either.
Oh, and Datroy. Those 9,974 incidents include imitation firearms and only need be reported, not even verified. So if someone thinks they saw a gun and reports it, that's an incident. There were under 70 gun related murders for a population of over 50 million. In comparison, the US of A had over 10,000 murders. That's a per capita ratio of 25:1, well done.
Lastly, I believe the "hate america" website you allude to is the FBI website. I've also yet to see a drive-by baseball batting.
Finally...
shanayneigh14 August 2002
Finally we get to see Wes in a drama again. He has great potential as dramatic actor, just check out "The Waterdance" (1992), but he has restricted himself into the action genre. Nothing wrong with that, I think a lot of his action films are excellent, I would just like to see him in some more dramatic roles. He excelled in the Waterdance, along with Eric Stoltz and William Forsythe, and he does a pretty good job in this film as well.
The reason why I think many of my friends were disappointed with this film, is because it was labeled as an "Action movie" by the film company. Nothing could be more wrong. It's a political drama. I actually think it would work extremely well as a stage play, given the fact that it's set, with a few exceptions, in a secluded area with very few people in the cast. A funny/smart/creative thing is that the main characters never really have a direct dialogue, face to face. This, I think, heightens the tension.
Solid acting, good direction by Kari Skogland and a strong script by the same (which I think could've had a lot more "sting" to it).
The reason why I think many of my friends were disappointed with this film, is because it was labeled as an "Action movie" by the film company. Nothing could be more wrong. It's a political drama. I actually think it would work extremely well as a stage play, given the fact that it's set, with a few exceptions, in a secluded area with very few people in the cast. A funny/smart/creative thing is that the main characters never really have a direct dialogue, face to face. This, I think, heightens the tension.
Solid acting, good direction by Kari Skogland and a strong script by the same (which I think could've had a lot more "sting" to it).
A waste of time...
morfeus6 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
God, I wish, I could get back those two hours I've spent watching this ridiculous piece of...cinematography. Almost every aspect of this movie is remarkably bad. First of all, it's the plot. I mean, c'mon, watching this movie is like watching 2 hours long politically correct (which in fact allows discrimination of white gun-owners) anti-gun commercial. So, let's see, what do we have here. Oh, it's the black guy, whose daughter was shot in school by some fun freak (bet he was from Alabama, right?). So the only way a father can retaliate is by kidnapping a businesswoman, who's in gun business (guess he didn't have the stomach to deal with a man) and playing some sick twisted psychological games with her. Anyway, afterwards he shoots a major gun manufactures and commits suicide. What can be more of a self-advertising for anti-gun groups? Acting is average. Fiorentino is not bad, but this part is just not her type, IMHO, she should stick with femme fatale parts. And Wesley Snipes as crazy-yet-honest-gunman-blinded-by-rage-but-still-politically-correct ? Give me a break! He is good as Blade, but this character is too complicated for him. Anyway, the movie as as whole is awful.
And this being an awful movie, the question is - do you feel lucky, that you came across my review and decided not to watch this garbage, punk? :)
And this being an awful movie, the question is - do you feel lucky, that you came across my review and decided not to watch this garbage, punk? :)
Watch the movie twice before you comment...
RatherThanWords26 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I feel sorry for people who come to read reviews of this movie before actually watching the movie itself. It seems as if the people that disliked the movie just let the entire premise of the movie wash over them and didn't pay attention to details. Snipes is an ex-CIA operative seeking revenge on gun manufacturers for the death of his daughter in a school shooting. Of course, we all know that guns don't kill people, so it is snipes who wishes to incite a debate on the second amendment in order to bring about greater awareness of gun control, using the major arms dealers as pawns to push his message.
**SPOILERS AHEAD (But do read if you would like insight into the movie) ***
1) Snipes never kills an innocent person. The cop was crooked (remember the part where he bought the drugs). The senator's son was crooked, and also were the agents out to kill liberty. He proves that he is an excellent shot, but never kills any of the swat team even though he has perfect opportunities. (He wounds one and hits the wall by another) THIS WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT! He meant to miss.
2) There is a reason that he shoots himself. If you don't believe me listen to liberty's comment on how her father was her hero. Also refer to the part about how snipes has his trust in liberty. (The tape is being played in the background as he shoots himself to emphasize the point)
***END SPOILERS***
There are more, but of course you'd have to watch for them yourself. I think this was an excellent movie that was both well thought out and presented a good message. The cinematography was at times reminiscent of an indie film, which I thought was very well done. It's a shame that a group of people who didn't understand the full meaning of the film would lower it's rating.
**SPOILERS AHEAD (But do read if you would like insight into the movie) ***
1) Snipes never kills an innocent person. The cop was crooked (remember the part where he bought the drugs). The senator's son was crooked, and also were the agents out to kill liberty. He proves that he is an excellent shot, but never kills any of the swat team even though he has perfect opportunities. (He wounds one and hits the wall by another) THIS WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT! He meant to miss.
2) There is a reason that he shoots himself. If you don't believe me listen to liberty's comment on how her father was her hero. Also refer to the part about how snipes has his trust in liberty. (The tape is being played in the background as he shoots himself to emphasize the point)
***END SPOILERS***
There are more, but of course you'd have to watch for them yourself. I think this was an excellent movie that was both well thought out and presented a good message. The cinematography was at times reminiscent of an indie film, which I thought was very well done. It's a shame that a group of people who didn't understand the full meaning of the film would lower it's rating.
Wesley snipes
Rogue-3227 August 2002
A potentially brilliant film in which Wesley Snipes and Linda Fiorentino deliver whipsmart performances; unfortunately, once the premise is set up, there's really nowhere to go - the film would have been better served if it had been edited down perhaps by half an hour. Snipes is riveting and intelligent as a man who has long since gone far, far beyond grief at the shooting death of his young daughter and Fiorentino, as always, brings her jaded-but-not-heartless vibe to the mix.
Wesley does serious!!!
Van_Zan10 May 2002
A film where Wesley Snipes doesn't beat anyone up or use any martial arts is a rarity in itself. In not using Snipes' best (and some would say only) asset this film gives itself quite a mountain to climb. Unfortunately it falls a great deal short of the peak and careers into a chasm.
Fiorentino is the eponymous heroine chained to a hot dog stand. Inside the stand is a bomb. Snipes has a rifle trained on her and scene is set. Cue loads of pretentious guff about the US constitution and the right to bear arms between arms dealing Liberty and grieving father Snipes.
Unfortunately there are too many scenes of dialogue between Snipes and Fiorentino. Acting is definitely not Snipes' forte and this is an acting intensive role. Their characters are never interesting and the bond that predictably develops between the two is forced. Therefore their many scenes are tiresome and irritating. Nothing quite ever happens with those on the outside and it all takes the form of one long badly given lecture on the evils of firearms.
Fiorentino is the eponymous heroine chained to a hot dog stand. Inside the stand is a bomb. Snipes has a rifle trained on her and scene is set. Cue loads of pretentious guff about the US constitution and the right to bear arms between arms dealing Liberty and grieving father Snipes.
Unfortunately there are too many scenes of dialogue between Snipes and Fiorentino. Acting is definitely not Snipes' forte and this is an acting intensive role. Their characters are never interesting and the bond that predictably develops between the two is forced. Therefore their many scenes are tiresome and irritating. Nothing quite ever happens with those on the outside and it all takes the form of one long badly given lecture on the evils of firearms.
Fiorentino rocks! Snipes delivers!
Vomitron_G4 May 2006
Some people are saying that Kari Skogland could be the next Kathryn Bigelow. And LIBERTY STANDS STILL just might be the turning point that could make it all happen. This was Kari's first movie with a bigger budget and a few well-known names in the cast. But since this movie dates from 2002 and Kari since then never did make anymore movies with a big cast, I begin fearing that her rise to fame simply will not happen. Still, I wish her a lot of good luck, 'cause with LIBERTY STANDS STILL she made a damn good movie.
It's about a man, who calls himself Joe, and appears to have excellent shooting skills and a lot of connections. He takes hostage Liberty, the wife of a corrupt arms-dealer. He does that by cleverly having her cuffed to a hot-dog stand in a park which contains a bomb. Meantime Joe himself has a sniper-rifle pointed at her from a nearby building and keeps in contact with her through a cellphone. Now that's what I call an original hostage situation. I won't tell anything about Joe's motivations or demands, 'cause I don't want to spoil the plot. But I can say that the movie pulled me right in from the start and kept my interest 'til the end. And that was a pretty difficult thing to do, since the movie's story almost entirely takes place in real time on one location and the protagonist (Linda Fiorentino) can't do anything throughout the whole movie except standing still, being cuffed to a hot-dog stand. But a lot of things do happen, and I must say that Linda Fiorentino was perfectly cast and very believable as a women that would keep her head cool under such extreme circumstances. Then there's Wesley Snipes as Joe, the sniper. And, man, he was good. He never leaves the room he's in but delivers his lines with great finesse. And the conversations he had with Liberty over the phone were almost debates with good arguments from both sides. Now I was expecting the predictable with Joe starting to loose it at one point or another, making him do irrational things and making mistakes (something that usually happens to the bad guy in these type of movies). But Joe never broke a sweat and kept thinking clear until the end. Also Oliver Platt was decent as ever, as Liberty's husband, the man you would rather not want to have as a husband.
Director/writer Kari Skogland clearly doesn't like guns and with this movie criticizes the American Second Amendement (the right for all people to buy and own guns, I believe). And her message comes across very clearly with a lot of good points. I didn't think it became tedious at any point and it didn't feel like the viewer was being force-fed with liberal ideas concerning the subject. So all those non-liberals should stop complaining about the movie's message. Freedom of speech, remember? But I can clearly see why any right-winged gun-nut hates this movie. But I do think that this movie might just be a little bit too politically correct when it comes to who dies and who stays alive in the end. But that's just a minor complaint.
LIBERTY STANDS STILL simply is a decent, tense and thought-provoking thriller that, for once, doesn't rely on spectacular action-scenes or big explosions. Just a rather original hostage-story, a good setting, a decent cast, good filming and editing and an enjoyable electro-soundtrack by Michael Convertino (which reminded me of early music by The Chemical Brothers).
It's about a man, who calls himself Joe, and appears to have excellent shooting skills and a lot of connections. He takes hostage Liberty, the wife of a corrupt arms-dealer. He does that by cleverly having her cuffed to a hot-dog stand in a park which contains a bomb. Meantime Joe himself has a sniper-rifle pointed at her from a nearby building and keeps in contact with her through a cellphone. Now that's what I call an original hostage situation. I won't tell anything about Joe's motivations or demands, 'cause I don't want to spoil the plot. But I can say that the movie pulled me right in from the start and kept my interest 'til the end. And that was a pretty difficult thing to do, since the movie's story almost entirely takes place in real time on one location and the protagonist (Linda Fiorentino) can't do anything throughout the whole movie except standing still, being cuffed to a hot-dog stand. But a lot of things do happen, and I must say that Linda Fiorentino was perfectly cast and very believable as a women that would keep her head cool under such extreme circumstances. Then there's Wesley Snipes as Joe, the sniper. And, man, he was good. He never leaves the room he's in but delivers his lines with great finesse. And the conversations he had with Liberty over the phone were almost debates with good arguments from both sides. Now I was expecting the predictable with Joe starting to loose it at one point or another, making him do irrational things and making mistakes (something that usually happens to the bad guy in these type of movies). But Joe never broke a sweat and kept thinking clear until the end. Also Oliver Platt was decent as ever, as Liberty's husband, the man you would rather not want to have as a husband.
Director/writer Kari Skogland clearly doesn't like guns and with this movie criticizes the American Second Amendement (the right for all people to buy and own guns, I believe). And her message comes across very clearly with a lot of good points. I didn't think it became tedious at any point and it didn't feel like the viewer was being force-fed with liberal ideas concerning the subject. So all those non-liberals should stop complaining about the movie's message. Freedom of speech, remember? But I can clearly see why any right-winged gun-nut hates this movie. But I do think that this movie might just be a little bit too politically correct when it comes to who dies and who stays alive in the end. But that's just a minor complaint.
LIBERTY STANDS STILL simply is a decent, tense and thought-provoking thriller that, for once, doesn't rely on spectacular action-scenes or big explosions. Just a rather original hostage-story, a good setting, a decent cast, good filming and editing and an enjoyable electro-soundtrack by Michael Convertino (which reminded me of early music by The Chemical Brothers).
A so-so misguided drama
rspress13 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
While a somewhat interesting drama at times it is often ruined by the preachy tone it takes with guns.
In this film the root of all evil is the second amendment. All the other ones are good but the founding fathers blew it on the second one. It is Hollywoods attempt to help spur gun control. The problem with the film is that it mentions nothing about personal responsibility and this was done on purpose. If the matter of personal responsibility were brought up then Hollywood would be one of the biggest offenders. With the high body count films....including this one Hoolywood is selling violence, gun violence for profit. If personal responsibility were brought up Hollywood would have to asks to many questions of itself. So it was dropped from the film entirely. So we have an ex-CIA sniper blaming everyone for his daughters death..despite the killer, never-mind the he was the killer of many, many people...it was his job.
We also get the blurring and distorting of the second amendment, which means that because our government has guns we should as well, lest we become under the thumb of another tyrant. Much like King George was to the colonists. It does not mean only a militia should have guns, which is what some would have you believe. When constitution was written nearly all citizens had guns...they had to, they need to put food on the table by hunting for it. Gun violence is by and large committed by those who do not follow the law or have personal responsibility. That said I am all for gun locks. If you have kids in the home and your kid dies because you did not use one you should be punished.
I think if this film would have added personal responsibility into the mix it would have been a much more interesting film. Instead Hollywood will not have anything to do with personal responsibility, it is bad for the bottom line and looking in the mirror they my find that they are the biggest offenders when it comes to gun violence. Funny how when Oliver Stone was called on this very fact he brought up personal responsibility. Tickets please!
In this film the root of all evil is the second amendment. All the other ones are good but the founding fathers blew it on the second one. It is Hollywoods attempt to help spur gun control. The problem with the film is that it mentions nothing about personal responsibility and this was done on purpose. If the matter of personal responsibility were brought up then Hollywood would be one of the biggest offenders. With the high body count films....including this one Hoolywood is selling violence, gun violence for profit. If personal responsibility were brought up Hollywood would have to asks to many questions of itself. So it was dropped from the film entirely. So we have an ex-CIA sniper blaming everyone for his daughters death..despite the killer, never-mind the he was the killer of many, many people...it was his job.
We also get the blurring and distorting of the second amendment, which means that because our government has guns we should as well, lest we become under the thumb of another tyrant. Much like King George was to the colonists. It does not mean only a militia should have guns, which is what some would have you believe. When constitution was written nearly all citizens had guns...they had to, they need to put food on the table by hunting for it. Gun violence is by and large committed by those who do not follow the law or have personal responsibility. That said I am all for gun locks. If you have kids in the home and your kid dies because you did not use one you should be punished.
I think if this film would have added personal responsibility into the mix it would have been a much more interesting film. Instead Hollywood will not have anything to do with personal responsibility, it is bad for the bottom line and looking in the mirror they my find that they are the biggest offenders when it comes to gun violence. Funny how when Oliver Stone was called on this very fact he brought up personal responsibility. Tickets please!
A hot dog stand and a man with a rifle.
michaelRokeefe22 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Liberty Wallace(Linda Fiorentino)and her husband(Oliver Platt)are partners in the business of weapons manufacturing. A mysterious gunman calling himself Joe(Wesley Snipes)calls Liberty on her cell phone luring her to a hot dog stand to which she is coerced into chaining herself. Joe tells her that if she hangs up her cell phone or it runs out of power a bomb strapped to the hot dog stand will go off. Joe is trying to make a point telling her that his daughter was killed in a school shooting with the same model high power rifle that is being targeted on her. Liberty is given the chance to actually die a hero if she is willing to make public dirty dealings her husband has made with political implications. When Mr. Wallace is informed of his wife's hostage situation; he must decide to protect himself, save his company or keep his wife from being killed. Also in the cast: Martin Cummins, Steve Pascal and Jonathan Scarfe.
Don't overlook this stunning film!!!
laresistanz24 September 2002
I was expecting a Wesley Snipes action film, and what I got was a Wesley Snipes ACTING film. This film is one of the best among a small cadre of films that actually takes on the gun lobby directly. Joe (Snipes) after losing his daughter to a students' shooting spree in a public school (a direct reference to Columbine), sets about to make an point of our misconceptions about the American birthright, the owning of guns for personal use. In taking hostage the gun manufacturer, Liberty Wallace (Linda Fiorentino), he causes her to reexamine her culpability in
supplying guns to America's youth and the vacuous way she lives her own life. Although I understand the comments on this site that misunderstand the
point of this film, I think they should rethink it. Obviously, they were expecting light action fare, and this film asks them to reexamine core values, not to buy candy and popcorn. One of the more intelligent films
for both of these underrated actors.
supplying guns to America's youth and the vacuous way she lives her own life. Although I understand the comments on this site that misunderstand the
point of this film, I think they should rethink it. Obviously, they were expecting light action fare, and this film asks them to reexamine core values, not to buy candy and popcorn. One of the more intelligent films
for both of these underrated actors.
On Commanding Your Environment.
rmax3048234 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This film was shot in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, but a TV newsman identifies it as Los Angeles. Why would the writers lie so openly? The city square in which Linda Fiorentino is handcuffed to a bomb-laden hot dog stand and frets simultaneously in the cross hairs of a sniper rifle, looks nothing like Los Angeles. The location here is wet, cold, full of naked deciduous trees, and at mid-day the sun is lower than it ever is in Los Angeles. The police patrol cars are labeled "Metropolitan Police." I'm not deeply in love with Southern California and its rampant anomi, but if you're shooting a movie in Vancouver or Toronto, why not label the city? Show its landmarks, use real street names, introduce some local color? Be PROUD, Oh Canada! Because otherwise, what you get is what you see here -- a faceless urban setting full of generic urbanites.
Well, I'm glad I was able to get that off my chest. I'd like to thank you all for reading that uncrafted expression of exasperation so carefully. Thank you. And I'd like to thank my parents, who made it all possible.
Speaking of rants, the movie has a slight anti-National-Rifle-Association slant, or so it seemed, because so many of life's evils, from school house slaughters to back-room BJs in the White House, are attributed to a misinterpretation of the second amendment.
That's where Linda Fiorentino comes in. She's being held hostage in a public square because she's married to an international gun dealer who has corrupted half of the legislature, and she's been wheeling and dealing in illegal gun trades too. She's a self-indulgent, arrogant woman. I was glad when her captive told her to undress in the public square. It was GOOD to see her humiliated like that, but I wish she had turned around and faced the camera.
The guy at the other end of the bullet trajectory is Wesley Snipes, whose daughter was killed during one of those school room massacres. He's out not just for revenge on the gun dealers. He wants a confession on national television about the corrupt relations between gun manufacturers, politicians, and the CIA.
The plot could lead to an exceedingly static and boring situation -- a woman shackled to a hot dog stand, a man covering her with a rifle, and a lot of talk. But it holds up because, however murky all the machinations and motives are, the screenplay has enough jolts of adrenalin built into it that the viewer is kept alert.
We grow to feel some pity for Snipes because of the manner of his daughter's death. That's a serious matter, although not as serious as my son's never having shown any interest in a medical career. Yet Snipes is no angel. He kills people in cold blood. First he nails a cop. "He was addicted and on the take." (So he deserve to be shot to death? Be sure to lock your door at night.) Then he shoots and kills a cheerful and innocent TV reporter for the sin of being born to a father who is corrupt. Wow.
Much depends on the acting of the two principals and, a bit surprisingly, they're both pretty much up to the job. Abject resignation has never been Snipes' forte. He's a fine physical actor. Here, though, he manages to make the character believable. Linda Fiorentino is certainly a piquant woman. Sex aside, she's usually the one in command, like Snipes usually is. And that's how her character begins -- brusquely delivering orders over a cell phone. The real test comes towards the end, when she must project fear and guilt. She makes it, although a viewer can feel the tendons stretching, the ligaments popping, as she does so.
Another movie with an almost identical theme came out in the same year, "Phone Booth." It's either a case of what anthropologists call "independent invention" or what the rest of us call "cheating." If it's the latter, everyone involved in both productions should be shot to death.
Well, I'm glad I was able to get that off my chest. I'd like to thank you all for reading that uncrafted expression of exasperation so carefully. Thank you. And I'd like to thank my parents, who made it all possible.
Speaking of rants, the movie has a slight anti-National-Rifle-Association slant, or so it seemed, because so many of life's evils, from school house slaughters to back-room BJs in the White House, are attributed to a misinterpretation of the second amendment.
That's where Linda Fiorentino comes in. She's being held hostage in a public square because she's married to an international gun dealer who has corrupted half of the legislature, and she's been wheeling and dealing in illegal gun trades too. She's a self-indulgent, arrogant woman. I was glad when her captive told her to undress in the public square. It was GOOD to see her humiliated like that, but I wish she had turned around and faced the camera.
The guy at the other end of the bullet trajectory is Wesley Snipes, whose daughter was killed during one of those school room massacres. He's out not just for revenge on the gun dealers. He wants a confession on national television about the corrupt relations between gun manufacturers, politicians, and the CIA.
The plot could lead to an exceedingly static and boring situation -- a woman shackled to a hot dog stand, a man covering her with a rifle, and a lot of talk. But it holds up because, however murky all the machinations and motives are, the screenplay has enough jolts of adrenalin built into it that the viewer is kept alert.
We grow to feel some pity for Snipes because of the manner of his daughter's death. That's a serious matter, although not as serious as my son's never having shown any interest in a medical career. Yet Snipes is no angel. He kills people in cold blood. First he nails a cop. "He was addicted and on the take." (So he deserve to be shot to death? Be sure to lock your door at night.) Then he shoots and kills a cheerful and innocent TV reporter for the sin of being born to a father who is corrupt. Wow.
Much depends on the acting of the two principals and, a bit surprisingly, they're both pretty much up to the job. Abject resignation has never been Snipes' forte. He's a fine physical actor. Here, though, he manages to make the character believable. Linda Fiorentino is certainly a piquant woman. Sex aside, she's usually the one in command, like Snipes usually is. And that's how her character begins -- brusquely delivering orders over a cell phone. The real test comes towards the end, when she must project fear and guilt. She makes it, although a viewer can feel the tendons stretching, the ligaments popping, as she does so.
Another movie with an almost identical theme came out in the same year, "Phone Booth." It's either a case of what anthropologists call "independent invention" or what the rest of us call "cheating." If it's the latter, everyone involved in both productions should be shot to death.
A "Phone Booth" Ripoff
terenceallen10 September 2004
Liberty Stands Still, even though it wields considerable talent due to having starts such as Linda Fiorentino and Wesley Snipes, is one of those kinds of projects that happens too frequently in Hollywood. The storyline is a blatant ripoff of the plot of the movie Phone Booth. It is very common, given the lack of secrecy and discretion in Tinseltown, and the necessity of promoting and publicizing scripts, for there to be competing projects with the same or very similar plots. The plot for Phone Booth had been much publicized, especially since Will Smith was originally pegged to star in the movie. Even with Smith not making the movie, and Colin Farrell becoming the lead, the plot was novel and well known enough for someone to write something very, very similar.
Both movies involve a lead character who spends nearly the entire film stuck on the telephone as a prisoner to a sniper who threatens to shoot the lead if they move. In Phone Booth, Farrell plays a PR guy who is as cuddly as a piranha. His caller is obviously seeking revenge against him personally. In Liberty Stands Still, Fiorentino plays Liberty, the wife of a notorious arms dealer. Her tormentor, played by Snipes, is seeking revenge for the loss of a child killed by one of Liberty's husbands' guns.
The only major differences are 1) we see Snipes throughout the movie, while Kiefer Sutherland, who plays the corresponding character in Phone Booth, is unseen, and 2) Snipes is using Fiorentino's character to get back at her husband, not seeking revenge against her personally.
Phone Booth is a much better movie, although on its own, Liberty Stands Still has some merit. But if you have to choose, see Phone Booth first or only.
Both movies involve a lead character who spends nearly the entire film stuck on the telephone as a prisoner to a sniper who threatens to shoot the lead if they move. In Phone Booth, Farrell plays a PR guy who is as cuddly as a piranha. His caller is obviously seeking revenge against him personally. In Liberty Stands Still, Fiorentino plays Liberty, the wife of a notorious arms dealer. Her tormentor, played by Snipes, is seeking revenge for the loss of a child killed by one of Liberty's husbands' guns.
The only major differences are 1) we see Snipes throughout the movie, while Kiefer Sutherland, who plays the corresponding character in Phone Booth, is unseen, and 2) Snipes is using Fiorentino's character to get back at her husband, not seeking revenge against her personally.
Phone Booth is a much better movie, although on its own, Liberty Stands Still has some merit. But if you have to choose, see Phone Booth first or only.
"LIBERTY STANDS STILL" was ripped off by "PHONE BOOTH," not the other way around!
ask23000010 March 2005
"Liberty Stands Still" was the original phone-booth-style movie, actually coming out over a year before the much more popular film, "Phone Booth," did. "Liberty" premiered at the Palm Springs International Film Festival on January 18, 2002 and was released very soon thereafter. "Phone Booth," on the other hand, premiered at the Toronto Film Festival on September 10, 2002; got it's first US showing at the South By Southwest Film Fest on March 11, 2003; and and wasn't officially released to the US public until April 4th, 2003--well over a year after "Liberty Stands Still" played in theaters.
Who copied who? I don't know. All I know is that the idea for this type of 'phone booth' thriller movie first appeared to the public with "Liberty Stands Still" in early January, 2002 (maybe even a little before). Who knows when or with whom the idea originated? Maybe Joel Schumacher was sitting on the "Phone Booth" story for a decade before he started trying to get it made. But, as far as I can see, his film is likely to have copied "Liberty Stands Still," not the other way around.
If anyone knows otherwise or has evidence one way or the other, please post who first had the idea and your evidence for why you believe so. This is just a likely assumption. I don't know for sure.
Who copied who? I don't know. All I know is that the idea for this type of 'phone booth' thriller movie first appeared to the public with "Liberty Stands Still" in early January, 2002 (maybe even a little before). Who knows when or with whom the idea originated? Maybe Joel Schumacher was sitting on the "Phone Booth" story for a decade before he started trying to get it made. But, as far as I can see, his film is likely to have copied "Liberty Stands Still," not the other way around.
If anyone knows otherwise or has evidence one way or the other, please post who first had the idea and your evidence for why you believe so. This is just a likely assumption. I don't know for sure.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
