Recensioni degli utenti

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

"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.

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.

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).

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.

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.