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

By: Damo

Damo — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:35:02 +0000

Spoilers ahead:

The problems are many, but these are the worst:

Clyde is apparently some time of spy that does, and I quote, "bad things so people can live the American dream". He is a spy that essentially kills people - but yet seems totally horrified at the fact that the justice system is not perfect - TALK ABOUT HYPOCRITICAL!

Secondly, he somehow managed to build massive tunnels under the city, without detection, all by himself. Sure he had ten years, but you would need 100 to get anywhere near to what he built. His motivations also seem to get more and more obscure as the plot goes on.

The movie was fun to watch though, if a little silly. C-

By: RRuin

RRuin — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:16:15 +0000

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.

By: RRuin

RRuin — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:16:15 +0000

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 a pretty taut little thriller. Then the “Rice sees the light and loves his family more than ever” ending? I really kind of wanted that cello to explode.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:44:06 +0000

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.

By: Theproducer

Theproducer — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:56:54 +0000

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.

By: Williams

Williams — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:12:18 +0000

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.

By: Aleric

Aleric — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:29:29 +0000

How can it make no sense whatsoever, but yet you just escribed it well in this article?