Law Abiding Citizen

I hereby notify all upstanding citizens that Foxx is about as endearing here as any regular politician and Butler didn’t even attempt to endow his character with the charisma needed to command due respect. And if that weren’t enough, while writing this weak broth made from the first part of Saw, they looked up the term “shocking twist" but mixed up the definition with that for “load of hogwash". (23/01/2010)

Yes, once again I will go against the current...:-) Law Abiding Citizen may have routine direction, an unremarkable antagonist, and an unsympathetic hero, whose value system and careerism could make weaker characters feel disgusted, but all of that is still enough for a decent three stars. But then we have the screenplay, which is unrealistic, megalomaniacal, not addressing many crucial moments, but above all, silly in its overall construction. The difference between a quality thriller and Law Abiding Citizen is the same as the difference between Zinnemann's The Day of the Jackal and its 1997 American remake. Put some high-tech gadgets in there, a few shocking twists, and an appropriate dose of brutality, and the result will surely come. In practice, the viewer is faced with situations where a terrorist places a bomb that he can detonate with a mobile phone, and instead of actually detonating it and delighting in the destruction of his victims, he walks home, so that his opponent manages to deliver the bag with the explosive, which, for a change, he knows can be detonated at any time or randomly explode, to the terrorist's bedroom and maliciously enjoyed watching the terrorist carry out his own sentence... Overall impression: 25%. (05/03/2010)

Law Abiding Citizen had great potential and at the beginning I thought that it would exploit it brilliantly. Unfortunately, however, it soon turns out that it’s nothing but a decent thriller that tries to look smart (and manages it to a certain extent). The screenwriter gave up all attempts to explain certain things, choosing a deux ex machina principle instead. And the claim, that a smart film doesn’t need to explain everything to a smart viewer because they should be well able to figure things out themselves, doesn’t apply. Solid fun, but better not speculate too much about it. (05/12/2009)

Grrr disappointing. The film has a terribly fast pace, by the second minute Butler has a baseball bat in his face and some initial getting-to-know-you takes place via a knife in his stomach, after all why not, but then you find the film deals this half-heartedness and brevity terribly often. You can't begin to empathize with Butler that fast based on one scene where he and his daughter exchange two sentences and his wife calls something to him, because in the next one they take them out "there's just another woman and child in the film". Thus your attention is drawn to just wondering what a pissed off Butler is going to do and how he's going to do it, and thus a film that imho relies on making the viewer feel outrage at a poorly set up legal system becomes a cold viewing experience not unlike, say, installments of the Saw series ("I wonder how he's going to take this one down"), which doesn't work out much either because Butler is full of crap like "...this gonna be biblical." and "...then everybody will die" and then the excited viewer is disappointed when he doesn't do that much. It's a shame to talk about the logic of some of the scenes and the completely out of nowhere ending. All in all, a star for the scene with the phone, a star for the steak bone scene, and a star for Butler. (20/11/2009)

An above average and thoughtful film led by the talented Gerard Butler. I was glowing and gobbling it up the entire time. I was a bit more disappointed with the ending. It's happened a few times before that a brilliant film has been brought down by a pointlessly simple ending. This is a prime example. Otherwise, Butler is great again! He handles every genre with aplomb. 4.5 stars. (12/05/2011)