The Life of David Gale

Universal Pictures | Release Date: February 21, 2003

6.7	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 95 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

TetsuoFeb 11, 2014

This is Dead Man Walking by amateurs. It's plot is convoluted, the acting is dull, and the ending is an insult. It just doesn't give any arguments regarding the death penalty, all it does is repeat the same message over and over again,This is Dead Man Walking by amateurs. It's plot is convoluted, the acting is dull, and the ending is an insult. It just doesn't give any arguments regarding the death penalty, all it does is repeat the same message over and over again, bludgeoning you over the head. Thankfully this became a box office bomb.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

KenRNov 7, 2020

At the outset, this looked as if it might offer some initial entertainment but that ended very early on - following one perverse scene after another. Grotty writing combined with Alan Parker’s morose direction tried to manipulate our emotionsAt the outset, this looked as if it might offer some initial entertainment but that ended very early on - following one perverse scene after another. Grotty writing combined with Alan Parker’s morose direction tried to manipulate our emotions - to prove that some people with a cause will commit almost any crime to win points their way. This certainly won’t help the Anti-Death Penalty or Anti-Rape causes or much of any other cause - as most of the participant’s actions (on both sides) are presented as moronic, dishonest, vulgar and self-serving. This movie takes a typically ‘modern’ Hollywood approach, in all departments, and fails to connect with any real honesty or believability, instead, aiming for sensationalized crudeness. Performances varying from fairly good to by the numbers doesn’t help. The easily pleased will get caught up - but from the look of the box office returns, there weren’t many of those either.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

BonesJul 6, 2011

the first few minutes of the film are very bearable, and you can see the movie is being supported by actors who are very good at what they do and a nice director. the movie brings so many questions and doesn't answer them, sometimes it's notthe first few minutes of the film are very bearable, and you can see the movie is being supported by actors who are very good at what they do and a nice director. the movie brings so many questions and doesn't answer them, sometimes it's not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case - it's very bad. you feel like it wants to be a very exciting thriller but it fails exactly when it gets to the last scene, after you see it it seems like they wanted to grab everyone's attention and make the film memorable - didn't work on me. not worth watching - next… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

LarsT.Nov 19, 2006

Great film with a great Kevin Spacey.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

RONGIUSep 9, 2010

Sorry for the translation, in mechanical.

The news: "Abuse a child and then kill." For "his" father and "his" mother open the doors of "non-sense of Life." I, as a reaction manifest emotional reading or hearing this news? Anger, rage,Sorry for the translation, in mechanical.

The news: "Abuse a child and then kill."

For "his" father and "his" mother open the doors of "non-sense of Life."
I, as a reaction manifest emotional reading or hearing this news?
Anger, rage, anger, disgust, contempt and then?
And then return to "my" peaceful world, shut off "the others and their problems.

"One more news, unfortunately."
There is only one name to give to my attitude. Indifference.
It 'a very serious illness, experts say.
Symptoms: Do not want to understand, not wanting to speak, not wanting to participate in drama to make an informed choice. The "never happen to me" is the motto of indifference.
Is not a film to change the "certainty" of people.
One film, if done well, can help you reflect, perhaps to illuminate the shadows still unexplored. Discussions, debates, meetings, research, well-being. The target is centered.
Falls into error, I think, who think that "The Life of David Gale" is a film for the Texans, or other states, far from it.
Texas does not need these films. Why? Becouse this people familiar with the offenses that can lead you to lethal injection.
It is, however, a punch in the stomach for the rest of the globe,
this drama lives it only indirectly.

Think, is not fiction stage for the parties involved, who live "intus et in cute" the execution of a sentence, most often immutable.

Time adversary, inquisitorial, indictment, the bench, reading the verdict, death row, employees injection, printing, Forum for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and so on.

It 's a tragedy without end, even turns into tragedy when curtain time and alternate judges as much on the trial. So what about the victims on the attackers.

The Life of David Gale, in my opinion, a good movie. Is in the dialogues that I see so much sap. Are endless dialogues to release particles of emotional intensity, giving strength and character to most of the work.
Philosopher and rookie screenwriter Charles Randolph gives to Alan Parker, director, a strong screenplay.
The film is a work with content suitable for persons who want to think, reflect, ask questions, put a strain on their beliefs.

Who wants to do, sit in a chair, will not be disappointed.
Spacey (philosophy professor) and Laura Linney (Constance) are people "triadic" - body, mind, spirit, are committed to a very noble goal. Fight for "life" of those condemned to death.

Question: - The film's characters are presented as the fanatical extremists of an idea, a proposal or as a people full of passion, transport for that idea? This is important, I think the difference is substantial advantage or disadvantage of static or dynamic of the film, it does not deserve, I believe, hasty judgments.
Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet), a young but established journalist is asked by David Gale, sentenced to death three days before the execution to hear his story. During the three meetings the journalist did not "only limited to listening," onset of action. A story to follow with a final not so obvious.

P.S.

Personally privilege the person who asks questions and I have many reservations for who is considered the holder of certainties. I prefer the question mark (?) That exclamation mark (!). Good Ciak!… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

BroyaxOct 28, 2018

Ce film est long comme un jour sans pain, d'autant plus qu'il est particulièrement assommant dans son discours de donneur de leçon à la petite semaine. La peine de mort, c'est pas bien, c'est méchant parce que les "erreurs judiciaires d'abordCe film est long comme un jour sans pain, d'autant plus qu'il est particulièrement assommant dans son discours de donneur de leçon à la petite semaine. La peine de mort, c'est pas bien, c'est méchant parce que les "erreurs judiciaires d'abord gnagnagna"... Un discours gauchiste et angéliste martelé pendant plus de 2 heures dont on a strictement rien à carrer.

C'est dommage pour Kate Winslet, une actrice très appréciable mais la voir se débattre et servir la soupe à un Kevin Spacey défendeur des "valeurs humanistes" de ces mange-merdes d'Amnesty International, se révèle vraiment déprimant. On baigne ici dans la caricature du méchant, oui vraiment très méchant Etat du Texas qui fait carburer la chaise à plein régime. Mais si vous voulez mon avis, on est encore loin du compte parce qu'en Chine, ils ne s'éternisent pas des années dans le "couloir de la mort". Une balle dans la tête, puis on envoit la facture (de la balle) à la famille.

Donc de toute façon, ce prof de philo David Gale qui aime s'écouter parler pour ne rien dire est l'archétype du coupable innocent victime d'une machination et des circonstances qui tombent mal. Il n'a qu'à s'en prendre à son avocat amérindien aux cheveux longs et aux idées courtes.

Bref, tout cela est chiant et pénible mais aussi plein de prétention et bourré d'intellectualisme à peigne-culs. Mais le réalisateur Alan Parker est coutumier du fait à dire vrai. Je lui conseillerais vivement une consultation chez le Docteur Guillotin pour lui remettre les idées en place parce que là, c'est à en perdre la tête.… Expand