Liberty Stands Still

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.