Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Please don't spend money on this.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

I always find it difficult to knock independent films since they frequently display a vision or a touch of originality that other more larger budget films do not care for. To make a film is difficult but to make one on such a low budget is almost an ordeal; so independent film-making from my point of view, should always be given some benefits of the doubt as they do not have such a large margin or error to work with. Here, Canadian director Kari Skogland has taken on a fascinating subject matter and attempted to make it into a taught and interesting thriller with a message; unfortunately, he fails to do so on the scale I expect he wanted to.At a time when the Washington sniper was at large, it seems interesting how this film managed to sneak under the radar the way it did. The film opened in a mere 49 cinemas in Italy and pretty much went straight to DVD in America; bar a film festival premiere in Palm Springs. At a time when Schumacher's Phone Booth (itself being put back due to the Washington sniper) and Moore's Bowling for Columbine attempted to tackle the idea of America's gun obsession, I am surprised Liberty Stands Still was the ghost film that it was. The film is outgoing; giving us two protagonists to map onto: there is Liberty (Fiorentino) who despite being the victim and embodying an innocent persona, is 'guilty' merely for the fact it is her company that made the gun that had Joe's (Snipes) daughter killed by another child. This is an interesting dilemma for the audience: do we side with innocent but on a larger level guilty female or black male victim who has suffered great loss. As far as prioritising its lead characters, Liberty Stands Still does a better job than Phone Booth which gives us the option of: obnoxious everyday man vs. psychopath; but this is just about all Liberty Stands Still does better than Phone Booth.The film is surprisingly unexciting; maintaining a steady if not unspectacular atmosphere throughout. Its attention to pace and subject matter directly on screen is another area that plods along at a gentile rate. The film's one item of suspense that it would like to think has us on tenterhooks the entire time is in the form of a bomb in a hot dog stand Liberty is ankle cuffed to. Hitchcock once said if there are two men in a room, at a table with a bomb underneath and it explodes, that is action; but if it does not explode, that is suspense. Well, delete 'two men' and replace with 'one woman' and replace 'table' with 'hot dog stand' and you have the premise for this film. Given that quote, the bomb is supposed to have us feeling uneasy and nervy but we are told it is powerful enough to destroy an entire two blocks or something; this raises two questions: If the bomb is detonated at any time during the film, the film ends there and then because I assume that since we're seeing the action in the immediate vicinity of the device; if it does go off the screen would just go black and that's the end. Secondly, I never for one moment got the feeling Joe was a mass-murderer nor would he ever detonate the bomb since he would also be killing himself. Joe is focused on Liberty and the fact she works for the company - he's not interested in everyone else.So in this sense, the film's main weapon of suspense it has; its 'ace' so to speak is a bit of an anti-climatic Macguffin since you don't get the feeling Joe is as crazy as, say, the sniper in Phone Booth who would have put a round between Farrell's eyes if he'd wanted to. Consequently, when various people wonder up to Liberty like police men or people looking for burgers or indeed Bill (Scarfe) who for some reason gets involved in the game, the atmosphere is anticlimactic: Joe cannot shoot these people because he will give away his position and he won't blow the bomb since the film will end there and then. That said, one such person is shot next to Liberty but the film is so wrapped up in its false knowledge that it has us on the edge of our seats that it doesn't even play out events in a realistic manner to the shooting. Where were the ambulance crews and police cars swarming around; someone maybe rushing to her without her giving so much as a chance to shout at them.Liberty Stands Still is a film that although has one man stand up against the society that sold the person the gun that killed his daughter, it does not ever give its characters much to speak about. I hate to talk of Phone Booth again but if Farrell's character was being made aware of his sins and being corrected, fair enough since there is evidence to suggest that; here, Joe and Liberty banter about this and that before her husband gets involved and Joe has to shoot some policemen on other roofs. Where wrongs should be made right and characters change, the film beds down into a negotiation situation more than anything else. The film has us believe that no one would notice the gun fire and ricochets that occur at certain times; nor does the film create much atmosphere as the music we hear is of the weird and electronic variety; totally zoning us out of anything we should be feeling. Whilst not a bad film, Liberty Stands Still feels like a genuine missed opportunity; an opportunity that given what was happening in Washington and Columbine at the time, could've changed how American's look at their gun ideas even more than what they eventually did.

Kari Skogland does an excellent job keeping this taut thriller shot in Vancouver together. If you know who Linda Fiorentino is, then that's enough reason right there to watch and she doesn't disappoint - in fact she carries most of the movie. And you may be a Wesley Snipes fan, but odds are you've not seen him do something like this before. There's also a bit role for Oliver Platt and a tonne of extras or 'almost extras', and the way Skogland sets her shots is attention-getting.Now you're going to run into the pro-Columbine people who say 'but you should have presented both sides of the issue'. To these spineless mugwumping weasels I say the following: in perhaps no country save South Africa is there as much violence as in the US. The likelihood of getting shot and killed in the US is more than four times as great as in Europe.Those are not opinions either, so there's no point complaining people have to present both sides of the issue. Those are facts.This movie is scary; it is raw; and it's made (and written) by someone with conviction. See it and be convinced.

Linda Fiorentino really steals the screen in this film. She holds her own with Wesley Snipes. The film has political message about guns, gun control, and violence. Of course, it must be written from a leftist liberal point of view. Wesley Snipes' character has a grudge against guns. Along the film, we learn his motives and why he is so angry and vengeful but we never really know the whole story. There are lot more questions that go unanswered. I found the ending scene to be more confusing. I get the message that guns are bad. For the beginning part of the film until the television stations begin with K that I knew it was West Coast. I thought it was set in New York City but it turns out to be in Los Angeles and I later learned that the film was filmed in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada which is often substituted for other cities. Anyway, Oliver Platt has a supporting role as Liberty's husband. Although we rarely see Liberty interact physically with Snipes or Platt's characters except on cell phones. This film was probably in production long before the events on September 11, 2001 and I can see why it was not promoted. Anyway, I wish Linda Fiorentino would come back to acting. She can hold her own against anybody.

the suspense generated by this movie lies solely in viewers contemplation as to when they will turn it off... when i think about the number of people associated with the development of this project, and the fact that not one of them stood up and demanded in no uncertain terms a rewrite, it makes my head and stomach hurt... without a doubt, this movie has value... in terms of revealing everything that can go wrong... this is not meant as a joke... from the story to the editing, to ninety five percent of the acting... placing an actor in slow motion does not make them appear better than they are... was this stylistic?... i can only imagine that someone thought, strike that, many people thought they were making a movie that meant something... unfortunately, the effort trivializes and even comes across as parody... the central dramatic question posed... how will liberty get herself out of this one? doesn't need to be answered... because the film makers had no clue... and so her sniper simply let's her go?... for a film that was intended to make people angry about unscrupulous arms dealings, second amendment proliferated and protected violence, etc... all it does is make one angry about the time they lost from their lives watching this... ugh...