Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Phone Booth

This is topic Phone Booth in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000530

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-16-2003, 08:24 PM:

This film really wants to be Dog Day Afternoon, but doesn't quite succeed. This isn't to say that it's bad (I actually enjoyed it), but just that it doesn't quite measure up to the '70s classic.

Colin Farrell is great and I loved the cinematography, which is (intentionally) very disorienting, with alternating use of very short and very long lenses.

My only major complaint with this film is that the trailer gives everything away and those who have seen the trailer probably don't have much desire to see the whole thing.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-16-2003, 10:16 PM:

HI Scott,

It was a very good thing Fox had pulled "PHONE BOOTH" from the original release date because of the sniper shooting in our natio's capitol a few months ago and stopped all showings of the trailer when the shootings began.. Because it has been a while since I saw the trailer, I have almost forgotten what I saw exept Colin Farrell talking to Keefer Sutherland on the phone.

Fox is very famous for giving away important information in their trailers. They did it with "CAST AWAY" and ruined the enjoyment of the film for me. Grrrrrrrr

-Claude

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-17-2003, 08:47 AM:

Fox did the right thing by delaying the release until the sniper thing was resolved. Hopefully the film will do well with the current release date.

Again, I enjoyed "Phone Booth," but I think that I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't seen the trailer.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 03-20-2003, 07:07 PM:

The film runs fast at 81 minutes. Joel Schumacher has made a interesting little thriller. The only problem I had with the film was, we do not have those kind of Phone Booths on the
streets of Manhattan. [Roll Eyes]

It's like in Die Hard II, when Bruce is talking to his wife
at a phone booth at Dulles airport. The phone booth had a
phone company sign that is a west coast company. [Big Grin]

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 04-05-2003, 02:40 AM:

I just got back from this. I saw at the Century 21 in San Jose. The movie was framed just a little low -- I could actually see the frameline at the top of the screen (just barely). Other than that the presentation was very nice.

I liked this movie. The concept has a bit of a Hitchcockian feel to it, although even at a mere 81 minutes it felt a little too long. I liked all of the use of split screen and the picture-in-picture stuff.

It would have been nice if they had made Keifer Sutherland's voice actually sound like it was on a phone, but then I suppose the lack of lower frequencies would have caused it to sound less menacing. And it bothered me a bit to see those brief shots from Colin Farrel's point of view when he was looking up at the buildings that were obviously shot with a consumer video camera. Yuck. I also found it hard to believe Stu could take out his cell phone without anyone seeing him.

Some people might say the movie is unrealistic because there are no phone booths left anymore, but I actually know of a couple right here in Silicon Valley, even in this day and age (yes, real full stand-up phone booths).

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-05-2003, 10:39 AM:

I enjoyed the film. I can't say people would think the film was unrealistic since it says at the beginning of the film that it is the last phone booth to be removed amd replaced with a kiosk. I liked the way they did Kiefers voice because it made you think it was in your own head. The analogy of this film is this. "The truth shall set you free" One thing is for sure. I never associated this film with trying to be Dog Day Afternoon a film I have seen many times. It never crossed my mind while watching it. I give this film *** out of four stars.

Posted by Daniel Burns (Member # 1549) on 04-06-2003, 09:43 PM:

Did anyone else notice the sniper cocking his "bolt action rifle" many times without shooting the thing? He would heve had to take out his round and insert another to do what he did. Maybe I'm wrong and don't remember it right, but I'm sure I'm not.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 04-06-2003, 09:57 PM:

Yeah, it seemed to me that he cocked it one too many times as well, but he could have quietly removed the round just so he could get to cock it again, because as he said, it's scary.

Oh yeah, anybody else think the red dot/laser sight was cheesy and obviously added at the last minute? It also kind of messes up the story, since you pretty much see Forest Whitaker looking at it once, yet all the cops act as though they aren't sure if there is a sniper or not. Somehow I think if they saw a laser target dot wandering around, there would not be much question of there being a sniper.

Posted by Don Bruechert (Member # 1538) on 04-08-2003, 12:16 AM:

Of course, always seeming to be the one that goes against the grain, I didn't care for this movie. The picture in picture features that you all liked seem to me too much like cheesy TV stuff, and even with the sound turned up rather loud, the gunman sounded like God and the people talking in those insets were barely understandable (DTS). I also thought the red laser dot was cheesy, and din't look like a laser dot, but more drawn on there. I also thosught the plot got kind of borning after a while, but I did like the way they added little things as they went - the gun up at top was kind of a neat add. And since when do uniformed cops play around in the telephone company distribution interface? I would have assumed they would have had some people there that at least looked like what they were doing, or some "suits".

Posted by Ryan Powers (Member # 1059) on 04-08-2003, 01:54 AM:

Consolidated Theaters; The Arboretum Theater: DTS sound Attendence about 20 at begining about 16 at ending.

I was a little apprehensive but interested about the main character being held hostage in a phone booth for the entire film. I mean as soon as the phone rings and the initial plot is revealed, what could possibly happen in order to not put the audience on hold until some elaborate ending? It is obvious the challenge for this film was to create a one man show by isolating the character in a claustrophobic and vulnerable setting to build as much suspense as possible. For the most part, this was technically achieved, but by doing so it leaves the story with very little alternatives and resorts to a predictable outcome. Do you honestly believe the villain would kill off the only character he would be in contact with? If I was in charge of this movie, I would say a BIG yes. Wouldn't it be exciting to see Colin's character killed right from the start? This tactic worked very well for "Scream". Seeing as though they spoiled so much in the trailer for this film, a big shock like this would have brought upon true terror and would have thrown a major wrench into this reliable machine in which no body would have seen coming. All you would need is another heart throb to keep secretive from the press and advertising that way the ladies are still satisfied and to keep the guys on the edge of their seat. Oh well, what do I know. I am no Joel Schumacher, then again he did do "Batman & Robin" and "Bad Company".

So any way, as I watched Phone Booth, I was intrigued by it's opening. I was surprisingly impressed by the directing and acting by Colin Ferrell and thought to myself as soon as I heard the menacing voice of Kiefer Sutherland that this film really has something. Just as the suspense really started to build, and the popcorn was on cruise control from the bag to my mouth the actual plot behind the madness for Colin's character was unveiled. It left me with no other choice then to take a sip of my coke and put the popcorn down. I don't know what genius that thought this was a good excuse to hold the main character hostage, but it might as well be Alf for not dialing 10-10-220.

From this moment on the film spirals out of control as Kiefer Sutherland turns from menacing to kind of dorky as he laughs at his own lines and cheers on Colin's witty one liners to the police. At this point the entire row of people behind the group I was with got up and walked out. I thought to myself, I don't blame them, but they are going to miss the big predictable plot twist at the end. So I kept myself occupied with all the mistakes that have already been pointed out here. The cocking of the gun twice with out firing. The laser beam that looked really fake and many more that show up at the ending which I can't say with out revealing to much. And what an ending it was, or should I rephrase that by saying what a lack of an ending there was. Was anything really accomplished by the time the credits rolled? I say yes, thankfully it was said at the very beginning that this was the last phone booth in New York. I can only hope so, because Phone Booth 2 doesn't have a very good ring to it... no pun intended.

*1/2 out of four

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 04-11-2003, 12:50 PM:

I heard somewhere that the film was completely done with Ron Eldard being the sniper and then Joel Schumacher changed it all after it was finished. That would some shots they used, but I wonder how the movie would've been with his voice instead.

Oh, and he works the bolt 2 or 3 times in a row without firing a shot that I could tell. It was just for the intimidating sound. Of course, they show a rifle up in the room when the cops get there, and they show Kiefer carrying a case at the end, so he must've had two guns. One to shoot and one to cock repeatedly. [Smile]

Posted by Mark Maxwell (Member # 1355) on 04-16-2003, 01:16 AM:

This movie was great. As far as the sniper pulling the bolt back a couple of times between firing, he mentionted the first time he did it that the sound scares people. A solid round being ejected and hitting the floor probably wouldn't be picked up on a phone, and most people don't know about bolt action rifles, so there would be no point in adding the extra sound effects. In the fast and the furious this guy was amazed about a Toyota Supra that had a JZ motor when that is the base nonturbo motor. What I like about the movie is that once he enters the phone booth it is in real time. And for a movie about a guy standing in a phone booth, there is great suspense. The only think i didn't like was the fact that this guy had killed 2 guys before who did bad things, but he went to the extreme to off a guy who wanted to cheat on his wife. Still, Collin Ferrel did a gret job holding the movie togeather. Even though I loved Daredevil, it was good to see him make up for his role as Bullseye.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-09-2003, 01:49 AM:

[bs]

You'd have more chance of finding WMDs in Iraq than a coherent plot development in this mess.

Do bullets from long-range sniper rifles really fragment on impact so much that it is impossible to identify the weapon which fired them? Why did Farrell's wife and girlfriend (not to mention half the population of New York) continue to stroll around on the open street even after it had been established that there was a sniper on the loose? Why did the 'phone buggers find out how to decrypt the call just as the script had nowhere else to go? Why did... you get the idea.

Acting was overly melodramatic and generally unconvincing (except for the police chief, who was quite good), continuity was lousy, photography OK. I spent most of the 81 minutes wishing the sniper would blast Farrell away and have done with it! Despite my anti-firearm tendencies I'd have pulled the trigger without much hesitation.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 06-11-2003, 05:41 PM:

The 'Ghetto-Fabulous" street girls were the best part! Otherwise, thought this was a waste of time and of film.