Liberty Stands Still

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.

"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.

First, let me say I agree with the fundamental opinion expressed in this movie: That access to arms is stupid and should be limited, if not forbidden (although I do not believe this is possible to achieve any more in the USA)

But, a movie about a grieving man who, in revenge for his sufferings, pins down an employee of an arms manufacturer and then involves her in a debate about the pros and cons of guns, is just not interesting. The setting sounded quite thrilling, but unfortunately, the entire movie is not. If the only way to produce thrills is to have a cockroach crawl around in front of a motion detector and have a sniper threaten to kill and kill a few people, then a movie is in trouble. Especially, because it repeats these cheap tricks too often.

I might agree with the opinion, but to deliver a 90 minute argument in its favour and call it a movie - that is a crime against my taste.

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.

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.