paulclaassen Oh, this was utterly boring. One great big talkie, and they talked about stuff I really didn't care about. This was stupid. Just stupid! It became repetitive and boring. I couldn't wait for this tedious slow-moving-nothing-happening talkie to end, and when the ending finally came, I was like "Oh, whatever...next!"

Pjtaylor-96-138044 A simple premise executed simply brilliantly, this taut, tense and genuinely gripping thriller does more with its single location, few key characters and short, concise 88-minute run-time than most pictures of the kind can even hope to achieve - doing so on an independent budget and with a shooting schedule of just ten days (with two days for pick-ups), to boot. On reflection, the narrative and certain character motivations of 'Phone Booth (2002)' may seem a little thin and a few of its bizarrely schlocky and very nineties elements stick out like sore thumbs - including a slightly nonsensical opening and ending which both have no place in a piece of this calibre. It's the in-the-moment intensity that rockets this experience up past most others in the genre, though, as it is an unpredictable, engaging and edge-of-your-seat thrill-ride throughout with a stellar lead performance and a fantastically frenzied pace. Highly entertaining, energetic stuff. 8/10

Nadine Salakov First, i want to say that the Score composed by Harry Gregson Williams is very good and original.The performances are great and natural, but this Flick has a lot of errors, there is way too much swearing, it is not necessary.The scenario with "the caller" and "Stu" is clever, but a lot of things ruined this movie, "Stu" arguing with women he didn't even know is extremely disturbing, we already see that he is a rude person by the way he spoke to the Pizza guy. It's understandable that the Screenplay needed to have someone killed, but they could have had "Stu" argue with another businessman and have "the caller" kill him instead of the prostitutes and pimp scenario, that would've been a much better circumstance.We see that "Stu" is unlikable, so why should we even care about him?! Simply because "the caller" is still in the wrong regardless of "Stu's" wrong ways, "the caller" is trying to do God's job and God doesn't even do that, God gives free will, so "the caller" has no right to hold "Stu" at gunpoint and force him to admit his wrong ways, "the caller" is committing a crime doing that, so he is actually worse than "Stu". The story is good, it is just the prostitutes/pimp, and over-the-top swearing that ruined the movie.

James Hitchcock Alfred Hitchcock made a number of films in which the action is confined, or virtually confined, to a limited area, such as a lifeboat in "Lifeboat" or a single flat in "Rope" or "Rear Window". In the 1960s he had the idea of making a film in an even more confined space- a phone booth(or, as we Brits would say, a telephone box) - but abandoned the project when he could not come up with a satisfactory plot. Larry Cohen, the scriptwriter who had worked with him on that project, later revived the idea, and this is the result.Stuart Shepard, a New York showbiz publicist, has just finished making a call from a phone booth on Eighth Avenue when the phone rings. Stuart foolishly answers it and finds that the caller knows his name. Worse, it turns out that the caller also knows quite a lot about Stuart's private life and business affairs, matters that he was hoping to keep secret. The caller knows that Stuart is planning to cheat on his wife Kelly with a young woman named Pam. (It was Pam whom Stuart was calling from the booth; he dare not do so from his mobile phone in case Kelly checks his phone records). The caller also knows that Stuart has been fooling his clients by pretending to have much more influence in the showbiz world than is actually the case. He wants Stuart to make a public confession of his wrongs against Kelly, against Pam (who has no idea that he is married) and against his clients. Stuart tries to hang up, but the caller warns him that if he does, or if he attempts to leave the booth, he will be shot dead.Things then go from bad to worse. A man named Leon, angry that Stuart is spending so long on the phone and refuses to get off the line, tries to force his way in and starts smashing the side of the booth. The caller, who has a high-powered rifle trained on the booth from an overlooking window in a surrounding building, shoots Leon dead. Stuart still cannot get off the line, even when the police arrive. They suspect Stuart of being Leon's murderer but are unwilling to arrest him immediately as they believe him to be armed, so a tense standoff ensues.The plot is an ingenious one, and director Joel Schumacher manages to generate a good deal of tension. (The plot unfolds in real time; this is one of the few movies which scrupulously adheres to the classical unities of time, place and action). There is a good acting performance from Forest Whitaker as the police captain in charge of the operation. Colin Farrell copes well with the difficult task of working out exactly how Stuart should be played; he cannot be entirely sympathetic, because if he did not have a guilty secret the caller would have no reason to single him out, but he must never be so unpleasant that the audience lose all sympathy with him. "Who cares whether the hero gets shot or not?" is not a good basis for a thriller.The trouble, however, is that the plot is too ingenious. I could well understand why Hitchcock became dissatisfied with the basic idea and withdrew from the project. There is no real reason why Stuart, or anyone else, should spend an hour-and-a-half in a phone booth except to satisfy the requirements of a very contrived and artificial plot.Hitch, I suspect, would also have disliked the way in which Cohen and Schumacher treat the mysterious caller. The great man was fascinated by psychology, especially the psychology of the criminal mind, but this film never explains why the caller acts in the way he does. How does he know so much about Stuart? Why is he so angered by Stuart's minor dishonesties and why does he believe that public humiliation is the only fitting punishment? There is no suggestion that he is a friend of Kelly or Pam, and laughs off Stuart's suggestion that he might be a disgruntled former client. Why does he kill Leon, who does not appear to have done him any personal harm? Why does a man so intent on enforcing the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" pay so little heed to "Thou shalt not kill"? The film-makers simply brush all these questions, and others, under the carpet, hoping that the audience will not notice them.The real answer to all these questions is that the caller has to have this knowledge, and has to act in this manner, otherwise there wouldn't be a film. That, I'm afraid, is simply the lazy man's way of film-making. 6/10