The Night Listener (2006)

User Rating:

5.9/10   

Director:

Patrick Stettner

Writers (WGA):

Armistead Maupin (screenplay) &
Terry Anderson (screenplay) ...

Release Date:

4 August 2006 (USA)

Genre:

Mystery | Thriller

Tagline:

Listen for the truth.

Plot:

In the midst of his crumbling relationship, a radio show host begins speaking to his biggest fan, a young boy, via the telephone. But when questions about the boy's identity come up, the host's life is thrown into chaos.

Plot Keywords:

Wisconsin | Radio | Airplane | New York | Blind Woman

Awards:

2 nominations

Cast

Toni Collette	...	Donna D. Logand
Robin Williams	...	Gabriel Noone
Joe Morton	...	Ashe
Bobby Cannavale	...	Jess
Rory Culkin	...	Pete D. Logand
Sandra Oh	...	Anna
Rodrigo Lopresti	...	Young Man at Party
John Cullum	...	Pap Noone
Lisa Emery	...	Darlie Noone
Guenia Lemos	...	Female Neighbor
Marcia Haufrecht	...	Pant Suited Woman (as Marcia Halfrecht)
Nick Gregory	...	Flight Attendant
Ed Jewett	...	Mail Clerk
Becky Ann Baker	...	Waitress
Billy Vann	...	Taxi Driver

MPAA:

Rated R for language and some disquieting sexual content.

Runtime:

USA:81 min (DVD version) | USA:91 min (Sundance Film Festival) | USA:82 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby Digital

Certification:

USA:R (certificate #42175) | Ireland:16 | UK:15 | Singapore:M18 | Finland:K-15 | Portugal:M/16 | New Zealand:M | Netherlands:12

Filming Locations:

Montgomery, New York, USA

Company:

Hart-Sharp Entertainment

Trivia:

At 5 minutes and 58 seconds into the film, Armistead Maupin's real-life husband, Christopher Turner, appears playing Jess's (Bobby Cannavale) friend that Gabriel (Robin Williams) refers to facetiously as "Lucifer" (Jess corrects him and says, "Lucien. He's just a friend").

Goofs:

Errors in geography: The zip code for the Montgomery, Wisconsin address starts with a '2', but all Wisconsin zip codes start with 5.

Quotes:

[first lines]
Gabriel Noone: [Black screen. Sounds of squeaking chair as someone sits down, microphone squealing, paper rustling, and a thump] Ready?
[Sound of one breath blown into microphone]
Gabriel Noone: [Unknown woman mumbles]
Gabriel Noone: Yeah, let's try it like that.
[Paper rustling]
Gabriel Noone: [Unknown woman mumbles again]

Movie Connections:

References "Star Trek" (1966)

Soundtrack:

Deck the Halls

Really Good Stuff

When it comes to movies I can be pretty picky, and I'll complain about anything and everything that is done wrong. While every movie has its flaws, The Night Listener had an exceptionally low count.

If you read the last review (it was hard, since half of it was written in caps and it contained no actual information about the movie), you may have been led to believe that this movie was not too well done. Unfortunately, if you read more than 3 lines into that same review, you discovered the poster's reason for disdain: he/she does not like the fact that the director is gay (or that the production team smokes crack...apparently).

So, despite the fact that I have never written a review before, I thought this movie deserved one based on its merits, not the sexual orientation of its director. Let's go over a quick checklist first: 1. Great plot? Absolutely. I won't give a shred of it away, but the plot is highly compelling and definitely not what one would expect based on the commercials. This is a thriller, not a horror, and it should be approached as such. The story really will amaze you, even more so because it's true (and the plot did stay quite faithful to the actual events).

2. Wonderful Acting? Oh Yes. Robin Williams long ago broke free from the chains of the comedy type-cast, and he has since flourished in serious roles for which many people would have wrote him off just a decade ago. He once again achieves high form in his role in The Night Listener, playing a radio host who becomes increasingly troubled by and entangled in a case of...well, I'll let you see for yourself.

3. Excellent direction? Certainly. Now, unlike the other poster to which I referred, I actually know something about direction. I've been sutdying the art of direction at school now for 3 years. Of course I really don't think that makes a lick of difference (the only thing that matters is if YOU like the direction), but I thought I should simply establish once again that I'm basing my opinions here on something both substantial and relevant...for example: not the sexual orientation of the director (or the alleged drug habits of the production team, LOL).

Patrick Stettner's direction was moody and dark, and he allowed the angles and lighting to help create those so-sought-after feelings of "tension and release" rather than the messy, fast-paced camera-work and quick cuts we're so often subjected to today. Some people can truly show you a story through their camera, while other's feel as if they have to make the story with the camera. I really appreciate when someone these days has the courage to just use the camera as its supposed to be utilized, which is as an eyeball through which we all see.

4. Lighting, cinematography, and editing? Great all around. I've already wrote so much, and I could go on about these last three things for another ten paragraphs, so I'll just wrap it up.

In short, go see this movie. Don't listen to people who have alterior motives for trashing it, especially if they're so stupid that they unknowingly reveal that motive 1/4 of the way through their post. Enjoy the show! -Ben