Review: ‘Law Abiding Citizen’ Takes Action, Forgets Logic

Posted by Robert Levin (rlevin@filmschoolrejects.com) on October 16, 2009 Share

lawabiding-header

Law Abiding Citizen is a well-directed, entertaining movie that suffers from one unfortunate affliction: It makes absolutely no sense. There’s a certain amount of suspension of disbelief required by any sort of big budget urban thriller with lots of explosions, stern bureaucrats, macho posturing and self-righteous vengeance. Anybody who’s seen the Death Wish series or any other B (or lower) grade revenge pictures knows what I’m talking about. But this film, from director F. Gary Gray and screenwriter Kurt Wimmer, asks for far, far too much of it.

It stars Jamie Foxx as Nick Rice, a self-serious Philadelphia district attorney who consents to a plea bargain with the murderers of Clyde Shelton’s (Gerard Butler) wife and daughter because of insufficient evidence for a criminal trial. Big freaking mistake. Ten years later, the murderers suffer heinous graphic deaths, the last of which involves a gruesome dismemberment carried out on one of the multiple industrial properties Clyde’s spent the last decade purchasing. After he’s arrested, confessed and “safely” behind bars he continues making threats and, lo and behold, the objects of his threats keep dying.

The entire picture turns, then, on one simple question: How’s he doing it? Is the entire thing a coincidence? Does he have an accomplice? Or maybe he’s just a psychic? Or, is he God? There are so many possibilities here, such an opportunity to go to a weird psychedelic place, and the movie completely squanders them. A tame version of Saw, with Clyde setting up puzzles and Nick racing to solve them, the movie lacks even the ingenuity of the original. It needs Clyde’s talent to be more than a flashy MacGuffin, and that’s all it ends up being.

So we’re left with a movie that has style to spare but nothing to substantiate it. The filmmaker crams elements of nearly every sort of urban thriller into his visual approach. There are low angle shots of overcoat clad characters walking in front of the city’s mammoth City Hall, with steam from their breath protruding out, that have the brisk snappy feel of an old-fashioned political conspiracy story. At other times Law Abiding Citizen resembles a gritty prison drama, particularly during one scene set behind bars that’s marked by an unexpected and unembellished stabbing. As the raised camera follows a car racing down a lamp lit thoroughfare at night the film takes on the feel of a flashy high end crime drama. At still other moments, Gray borrows the tropes of the modern espionage picture.

They’re all presented with the highest production values and the filmmaker has a particular knack for conveying the brutality of sudden, extreme graphic violence. Further, Butler is genuinely creepy as a sociopath, a characterization colored all the more so by the fact that he so bastardizes understandable motives. Foxx again shows himself to be a credible leading man, handling the role of the put-upon, ever-so-slightly-out-of-his-league-tough-guy. He knows how to act scared without seeming it, which is a unique talent.

And yet it’s impossible to accept one minute of Law Abiding Citizen. It’s so preposterous, so repetitive in the cycle of Butler threat-Foxx action-Butler threat and so condescending in the ways it flouts logic that it can’t be fully enjoyed, even as a brainless lark. It’s a blatantly manufactured piece of work, an assembly line caliber product that borrows so heavily from better movies that it often seems more like a walking compendium of film references than a coherent movie on its own. The characterizations and plotting are so chaotic that one feels driven to uncover the mystery mostly to confirm that it’s as ridiculous and convoluted as it seems promised to be. Without giving anything away suffice it to say that the ending, when all is explained, won’t let you down.

The Upside: F. Gary Gray is a fine action director and he keeps the film moving at a brisk pace.

The Downside: The screenplay makes no sense whatsoever.

On the Side: This has been a busy year for Gerard Butler. Law Abiding Citizen is his third film in 2009.

Grade: C+

Related Posts with Thumbnails


Read more articles by Robert Levin

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Williams
    It makes no sense whatsoever? This movie was well-directed and well-shot, and given Shelton's (Gerard Butler) background as a spy that specializes in killing without being in the same room as the victim gives both mystery (compelling and self-sustaining) to the overall film and credibility to Butler's character. Shelton had 10 years to figure out how his vengeance would fold out, and a dead wife and child to keep him focused that long. The spy element makes Shelton an almost unbeatable opponent, as he forces his opponents (namely Jamie Foxx's character, Nick Rice) to question their logic while he operates in a seemingly unpredictable manner--like a spy would. He finds and points out the loopholes and inconsistencies of our justice system, while simultaneously using those loopholes and inconsistencies against his opponents. What Nick Rice and his colleagues assume only backfires; their assumptions cause them to take unjust and illegal measures to stop Shelton, who obviously predicts that they would. Shelton's quest for vengeance goes wrong because of something logical and human: he made a mistake in his planning, probably because he wasn't expecting anyone to get the upper hand. That is where Nick Rice triumphs, as he begins to think outside of the box and avoid faulty assumptions that got him in the whole situation in the first place. Brainless? Flouting logic? Condescending? Ridiculous? How so, when the film points out holes in our justice system? It takes brains to do that, not brainlessness. The film is clearly saying that the justice system wronged the wrong one, among all the people that are wronged everyday (how much suspension of disbelief do you need for that?). Shelton is the guy who decides to strike back, using the resources he had when he was employed in espionage. Law enforcement rarely expects someone to retaliate as hard and as strategic as Shelton did. I beleive if Shelton was working with more like-minded people, a lot more damage would have been done. But, of course, this is just a movie that asks for too much suspension of disbelief, as Robert Levin suggests. I guess there's nothing believeable about injustice and one man's short-lived vengeance against those who he believed have wronged them; maybe those things only happen in fairytales. And for the record, I don't think Saw was mature enough to handle the use of espionage, prosecutors, and the comment on our justice system.
  • Aleric
    How can it make no sense whatsoever, but yet you just escribed it well in this article?
  • Theproducer
    I feel your right. He can compile this movie review so well withought telling us trully how it made no sense...Even though I thought the movie wasn't all that good, with no clear revelation to the purpose of what the moview wanted to portray.
  • Cole_Abaius
    I can't speak for Robert, but I think the biggest logical leap of the movie comes with accepting that Jamie Foxx's character is as big an idiot as he is coupled with...

    SPOILERS AHOY

    ...the way the ending turns everything in the other direction. Rice is a smart guy to be where he is in life, but he never displays that intelligence when dealing with Clyde. You end up rooting for Clyde the entire time, but as soon as Rice gets the magical email that makes him a genius (time for a paper-shuffling montage!) the movie turns on a dime and Rice allows Clyde to commit suicide. Which, the way he does it, is third degree murder.

    I liked the movie, but that ending drags it way down. And, yeah, the reveal of how Clyde is doing everything does take a bit more suspension of disbelief than it should have.
  • I like the movie, but agree totally with you on the ending. It literally crashed and burned with Rice suddenly getting that email. And yes, the paper shuffling montage was truly lame and it let the air out of an entertaining little check your logic at the door thriller.

    SPOILER ALERT!





    Then the "Rice sees the light and loves his family more than ever" ending? I really kind of wanted that cello to explode.
blog comments powered by Disqus