Watching “Phone Booth” (Fox) is an experience much like what I’d presume toilet-training a child is like. You know when the kid pees on the seat that he’s not doing it right, but when he actually makes it into the toilet, he’s hitting his stride.

“Phone Booth” is a film that cooperates sporadically, but at times pees on the floor.

“Phone Booth” is about a self-involved publicist (Colin Farrell) who is cheating on his wife (Radha Mitchell) in the midst of his highly artificial career. After calling his girlfriend from the film’s crucial title reference, a mysterious stranger (Kiefer Sutherland) calls him and says he’ll kill him if he hangs up.

There are many huge plot holes in the film aside from the inconsistencies that consume some of the feature. For instance, the film starts with a blue-sky credit sequence with title cards that say that you’re about to embark on a whimsical romantic comedy. This transforms into a completely unnecessary narrative explaining the increasing usage of cell phones and the background of the title reference itself.

“Phone Booth” wants the audience to participate in a “I would’ve done that” game in which the police are more stupid than the general public. You’ll wonder why the police are so slow to come to various conclusions, but then you’ll also remind yourself you’re watching a movie.

The movie is a cross between “Panic Room” (also co-starring Forest Whitaker) and the original 1968 “Thomas Crown Affair.” “Phone Booth,” much like “Panic Room,” isolates the protagonist into a small space, battling wits with the slightly dim adversary. The movie deserves praise for its not-so-original usage of clipped editing techniques (best used in “Affair”) to simultaneously tell its story without actually cutting between characters.

This split screen technique, although noticeably flawed, is intelligently used to keep a linear tension throughout most of the film.

Part of what works in “Phone Booth” is Colin Farrell’s performance. He has been compared to screen legend Marlon Brando and has received praise for making other bland films such as “Daredevil” and “The Recruit” watchable. While he displays a dimension of acting that would typically be far from a film like “Phone Booth,” I don’t think I’d compare him to the likes of the star of “On the Waterfront.” He’s really more like a young Alec Baldwin.

Sutherland, doing something excruciatingly difficult by performing mostly with his voice, at times veers off into Hannibal Lecter territory where, if you’re seeing the movie with a group, you’re sure to lean over and say mockingly, “Good morning, Clarice … ” Sutherland is actually pretty good, doing the same as much of his co-stars by overcoming the faults of the script.

What doesn’t work so well is that other than Farrell, Sutherland and Whitaker, the other performances are pretty much mailed in.

I’m having a thought here. It’s a conversation between director Joel Schumacher and Katie Holmes, who plays Farrell’s mistress.

Schumacher: “Katie, I really want you to go out of your element to play this character.”

Holmes: “How do you mean?”

Schumacher: “Well, you know … in a lot of your work, you really play the same character.”

Holmes: “I don’t know … I was pretty strange in ‘Disturbing Behavior.’ Or what about ‘The Gift’ — I even performed topless!”

Schumacher: “I think what I’m talking about is your voice. I want you to do something … different with it. Try Minnie Mouse as inspiration.”

Holmes succeeded in her pursuit of satisfying her director in her Novocained portrayal, delivering her film school lines at the level of high school theater.

As much as I hated myself in the morning after seeing it, and as much as it’s easy to make fun of, Lord help me, I’ll admit that “Phone Booth” is worth seeing. It’s a nice little escapist film that will surely keep most entertained for an hour and a half or so, despite its massive flaws.

For those keeping score, due to this film originally slated to be released in 2002 (it was delayed because of the sniper attacks in Virginia, Maryland and District of Columbia), the claim still remains that the mainstream has yet to produce a good movie that 2003 can call its own.