Law Abiding Citizen

Imagine a drunk fan watching a football match and forgetting who he is cheering for. At least that’s how Gray's film seemed to me. It tries to look very serious, but as a result ends up with proven truths and clichés. A well-creased punk who drinks coca-cola while dreaming of absolute anarchy. But if I think away from the really poor imitation of playing with the motif of system corruption, then this is quite a suitable thriller. Neither Butler nor Fox give us anything more than we are used to seeing, Gray is gracefully satisfactory, and Law Abiding Citizen rides more on a wave of positive impressions. If only the film sometimes didn't pretend to be a smarty-pants and didn't act like a glued monkey... (13/11/2009)

Wimmer's screenplay isn't particularly great, but it’s central idea is really good. Moreover, the excellent Gerard Butler immediately got not only to me, but also to my sister, and we were on his side throughout the whole movie. Personally I understood why he was doing it. Hell, I'd do the same thing. Unfortunately, the closer we get to the conclusion, the more the creators make him a negative character so that they could slip into an established template. Not that this suddenly makes the whole movie bad, it just takes a certain aura away from Butler. Something is stolen from the film that could have made it an unforgettable spectacle. It's not what you know, Clyde. It's what you can prove in court. (16/01/2010)

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)

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)

The fusion of classic "revenge movies" with modern hi-tech toys promised all sorts of things, only to fall short of the promise itself. This is due to Gray’s routinization, which doesn't exceed the scope of the trailer in terms of action. Additionally, Wimmer's thought castration tries to combine themes of revenge (on whom and why?), the indictment of the judicial system, and family drama so clumsily and desperately that I now suspect the editor of sabotage, resulting in half an hour of footage disappearing into the void. The film has no gradation, no logical progression, and no tension to speak of. There are just a couple of crashing cars, a gloomy Butler (a good thing), a slimy Foxx (the last good thing), and the status of the year's greatest missed opportunity. (08/12/2009)