I never rooted for Jamie Fox's character, I wanted Butler to kill everyone. The director failed to make me see Butler as a villain. If that was the intention, it didn't mesh. Fun movie though.
729 Reviews
There's one big problem...
adamdustin625 February 2019
Great Start, Sagging Middle, Bad Ending
paq552822 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was not unlike other movies where you see the good guy go rogue after rough handling by "the system". But I really liked the development of the characters in the beginning, and I am sure I am not the only one out there hoping that the "Law Abiding Citizen" would be able to pull it off.
Then came the middle where plot points become strained, where we have to take a few leaps of faith and leave the world of genius for one of Hollywood. OK, I'm still there, taking the ride with you.
But then we get to the ending which destroys the film and makes it into brain pablum; mental oatmeal that anyone can digest but no one can get any flavor from. Mr. Genius buys several industrial areas -- but why? Only 2 seemed to be necessary for the plot. And why would Panama know the purchase prices? And down to the cent! Corporations don't need to share that information with foreign governments. Nix that link and this movie would have been more interesting. We're expected to believe a genius would leave the cleaning cart in obvious view in the hallway and right next to the area where he put the bomb? We're expected to believe the genius wouldn't have trapped his escape route. And we're expected to believe they transferred this bomb from Point A to Point B without setting it off and in record time, all while Foxx waits in the cell, and Scotty Junior brings up the rear, unseen and unheard.
I wanted Foxx's arrogant character to lose his daughter, to feel what this man went through, and then I wanted him to get away with it.
Anyone agree?
Then came the middle where plot points become strained, where we have to take a few leaps of faith and leave the world of genius for one of Hollywood. OK, I'm still there, taking the ride with you.
But then we get to the ending which destroys the film and makes it into brain pablum; mental oatmeal that anyone can digest but no one can get any flavor from. Mr. Genius buys several industrial areas -- but why? Only 2 seemed to be necessary for the plot. And why would Panama know the purchase prices? And down to the cent! Corporations don't need to share that information with foreign governments. Nix that link and this movie would have been more interesting. We're expected to believe a genius would leave the cleaning cart in obvious view in the hallway and right next to the area where he put the bomb? We're expected to believe the genius wouldn't have trapped his escape route. And we're expected to believe they transferred this bomb from Point A to Point B without setting it off and in record time, all while Foxx waits in the cell, and Scotty Junior brings up the rear, unseen and unheard.
I wanted Foxx's arrogant character to lose his daughter, to feel what this man went through, and then I wanted him to get away with it.
Anyone agree?
Great Idea, Poor Ending
mike-384216 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is a great idea. A technical genius who is somehow able to commit revenge murders from his jail cell. He doesn't hide the fact he's a killer; in fact he announces each murder just before it happens.
Technically everything was possible and the method very cleverly hidden so I was kept in suspense until the last 20 minutes when the cat was let out of the bag too early. The ending is a let down. It's true Hollywood: Technically improbable, illogical, and in my opinion it spoils all the character development made until that point and wastes the opportunity for a much darker ending with a more satisfying outcome.
All that said I really enjoyed it. I would recommend it to anyone not disturbed by moderate violence. Go see it!
Technically everything was possible and the method very cleverly hidden so I was kept in suspense until the last 20 minutes when the cat was let out of the bag too early. The ending is a let down. It's true Hollywood: Technically improbable, illogical, and in my opinion it spoils all the character development made until that point and wastes the opportunity for a much darker ending with a more satisfying outcome.
All that said I really enjoyed it. I would recommend it to anyone not disturbed by moderate violence. Go see it!
Great Movie just don't watch the end.
leathalsac29 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't have high expectations for this movie and only went because my friend made me. That being said I loved it. I actually wanted to applaud and cheer at one point and I never do that. Clyde now ranks as on of my favorite characters ever. Now for the bad part. Jamie Foxx was horrible!!!!!!! I don't understand why directors and casting directors like to put bad actors against good actors. It seems to be an ever increasing trend in Hollywood. we saw it in "the Italian job" and we see it here. Jamie's acting was the worst I had seen in a long time. He showed no emotion at all. I would have liked to see a better actor cast but hey who am I? Also, listen up producers, the ending was ridiculous!!!! I mean come on. you build this character up only for a huge let down. That was by far one of the most irresponsible endings to a movie I have ever had the misfortune to see. When I tell people to see this I am recommending that they leave at a specific point about 15min before it's over and imagine your own ending because no matter what it will be better. Endings like that is the reason people watch independent films. This movie could have been an all time classic but for Jamie Foxx and the writer's lazy ending. It still may because I loved most of it. I pray someday producers figure out that we want something a little different and allow things to end the right way, the responsible way for their viewers.
Thank you,
Thank you,
The last 15 minutes, is still hunting me
kiarash_torkian19 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was great, the fact that Clyde found all these loop holes in the justice system, and his development to see what he had done through these ten years had completely nailed me throughout the movie. This movie was a no doubt nothing lower than 9 without that ending. It's like the director, accepted the first plot ever decided, went on with the first scene recorded and completely ignored the after effects.
1. Clyde was a mastermind, in engineering, a spy, and a lawyer, and just the fact that a simple lawyer can out smart him is just an insult to the entire movie and the audience.
2. Clyde left the cleaning cart right where the bomb was placed.
3. Clyde placed the bomb in such an obvious place, as soon as Nick and his teammates walked in, they noticed the briefcase. If he had placed a big giant sign with a big red text on it saying "The bomb is placed here" wouldn't have made it anymore dumb.
4. Clyde leaves the place, and while on the road he checks the camera and sees the mayor and every member in the room. Why didn't he just blow the damn thing up?
5. The first thing I was confused about in those scenes, was why doesn't he switch the camera to room the bomb was places to see a quick situation on it. Oh wait a genius spy didn't think of that.
6. He leaves the area before Nick even discovers what kind of bomb it is, and what to do with it. But for some reason, they get to his cell ahead of time while Nick is in his "I have learned my lesson" appearance.
7. Clyde dies that day, in fact the prison literally explodes and not any kind of research to what happened? Who killed him and why was a bomb in prison? No I guess they might have been busy watching Nick's daughter playing on stage.
1. Clyde was a mastermind, in engineering, a spy, and a lawyer, and just the fact that a simple lawyer can out smart him is just an insult to the entire movie and the audience.
2. Clyde left the cleaning cart right where the bomb was placed.
3. Clyde placed the bomb in such an obvious place, as soon as Nick and his teammates walked in, they noticed the briefcase. If he had placed a big giant sign with a big red text on it saying "The bomb is placed here" wouldn't have made it anymore dumb.
4. Clyde leaves the place, and while on the road he checks the camera and sees the mayor and every member in the room. Why didn't he just blow the damn thing up?
5. The first thing I was confused about in those scenes, was why doesn't he switch the camera to room the bomb was places to see a quick situation on it. Oh wait a genius spy didn't think of that.
6. He leaves the area before Nick even discovers what kind of bomb it is, and what to do with it. But for some reason, they get to his cell ahead of time while Nick is in his "I have learned my lesson" appearance.
7. Clyde dies that day, in fact the prison literally explodes and not any kind of research to what happened? Who killed him and why was a bomb in prison? No I guess they might have been busy watching Nick's daughter playing on stage.
A really good thriller, then... fail!! (Spoilers Below!)
DrStranglove18 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Look at it this way, what if in 300 King Leonidas in the last scene jumped out, tripped, and fell on his spear? That is what happens in this one.
A really good thriller but fails in the end when the super smart bad guy (Butler) does some very out of character things. It had a great all but the last 5 to 10 minuets. Then in the last few scenes, he misses key details and uses a conventional way to try to kill off city hall. What happened to the uber tech that Clyde was building? What happened to the Hans Gruber'esk bad guy genius? Sorry... fail!
After sitting through a really good first 90 minuets of Butler outsmarting and out playing the semi-crooked ADA (Fox), Butler suddenly and inexplicably resorts to a suitcase bomb full of eventually gasoline to try to blow up city hall. Also, again after time and again being one or even ten steps ahead, Butler then completely misses that cops etc have been in his lair and moved all kinds of item around. This would be like Batman not knowing someone had been in the Bat Cave, and the film failed at that point. For me, it lost something when the super smart lost out by becoming common in the last scene of the last act.
A really good thriller but fails in the end when the super smart bad guy (Butler) does some very out of character things. It had a great all but the last 5 to 10 minuets. Then in the last few scenes, he misses key details and uses a conventional way to try to kill off city hall. What happened to the uber tech that Clyde was building? What happened to the Hans Gruber'esk bad guy genius? Sorry... fail!
After sitting through a really good first 90 minuets of Butler outsmarting and out playing the semi-crooked ADA (Fox), Butler suddenly and inexplicably resorts to a suitcase bomb full of eventually gasoline to try to blow up city hall. Also, again after time and again being one or even ten steps ahead, Butler then completely misses that cops etc have been in his lair and moved all kinds of item around. This would be like Batman not knowing someone had been in the Bat Cave, and the film failed at that point. For me, it lost something when the super smart lost out by becoming common in the last scene of the last act.
Ending spoiled the whole movie
sanjeevpuli2 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Until last 15 minutes I was thinking that iam watching a awesome movie.
DA is guilty to the most than others in this movie because he cares about is his win percentage but not justice,movie ends with making him a winner.
Unsatisfying ending
rasa0627 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was fabulous until the last 10 minutes. it was full of action and real characters. The characters had flaws. Through the entire movie Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) was not a character that I liked or sided with, while Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) was human and easy to empathize with. Although the entire movie required suspension of disbelief, the ending was unfulfilling and implausible given the rest of the movie. It was as if the villain was actually Rice with his corruptness, while Shelton was indeed a law-abiding citizen driven to vengeance by the corruptness of Rice and the justice system. The real disjustice was the ending of this movie. I kept expecting the intelligence shown by Shelton throughout the movie to come to a head in the ending. I was highly disappointed by the anti-climatic ending. Stop the movie about 10 before the end and create your own ending; it will be better than what was on-screen.
Brilliant Movie Until the End
view_and_review22 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
After hearing about this from a teammate, a friend, and a coworker (not all the same person), I decided to watch it.
This is a tale of revenge. A middle aged man by the name of Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) witnesses his wife and daughter get brutally murdered at the hands of two criminals. This atrocity happens very early in the movie and sets the tone. Asst. DA, soon to be DA, Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), tries the case and doesn't secure a verdict satisfactory to Clyde. That leads him to take matters into his own hands.
The movie was quite inventive and clever, even if Clyde was mad with vengeance. You couldn't help but root for Clyde to some degree as he wrought death and havoc upon those responsible for his family's killer's light sentence. He started his warpath with the most responsible parties, i.e. The criminals, then he extended out from there. Each move made tactical sense until towards the end. I ask you: after the two scumbag criminals, their lawyer and the judge... who is the MOST liable for the lack of justice? Obviously it would be Nick Rice, the prosecutor who consented to the light sentence. So why then wasn't he immediately targeted?
At first I was thinking that Clyde had something more in store for Nick. I was thinking: he's going to destroy his life. Get him fired, make him lose his family and then land him in prison somehow. But, as the movie went on, Clyde was targeting everyone BUT Nick. It really didn't make any sense. Then the ending plain sucked. The dialog between Clyde and Nick was too cheesy; in fact, this was not a good Jamie Foxx performance. It was obvious that he was trying to play the cocky DA but he mailed in the performance.
Back to the ending... it was not well thought out.
Nick and co. Discovered Clyde's bomb and they brought the bomb back to Clyde's cell to make him do himself in, but that was beyond absurd!!
Let's see: 1.) transporting armed napalm 2.) having no idea when he'll detonate it 3.) getting it back to his cell (of course through the secret entrance) 4.) staying in the cell until he was ready to detonate it 5.) escaping before being blown up too.
Who came up with this!?
I have a better ending: A.) Nick Price straight up kills Clyde or B.) Clyde kills Nick Price as the final sacrifice and either gets away or gets caught and takes his death penalty having gotten the vengeance he sought. I assume this was supposed to be a happy ending because the good guy gone bad was killed, but I couldn't help but feel that the ending was incomplete. At the very least the ending was ambivalent; no way to say that good triumphed over evil. Nick essentially did Clyde a disservice, shrugged it off, and then got to play hero in the end by killing Clyde.
I demand a rewrite.
This is a tale of revenge. A middle aged man by the name of Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) witnesses his wife and daughter get brutally murdered at the hands of two criminals. This atrocity happens very early in the movie and sets the tone. Asst. DA, soon to be DA, Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx), tries the case and doesn't secure a verdict satisfactory to Clyde. That leads him to take matters into his own hands.
The movie was quite inventive and clever, even if Clyde was mad with vengeance. You couldn't help but root for Clyde to some degree as he wrought death and havoc upon those responsible for his family's killer's light sentence. He started his warpath with the most responsible parties, i.e. The criminals, then he extended out from there. Each move made tactical sense until towards the end. I ask you: after the two scumbag criminals, their lawyer and the judge... who is the MOST liable for the lack of justice? Obviously it would be Nick Rice, the prosecutor who consented to the light sentence. So why then wasn't he immediately targeted?
At first I was thinking that Clyde had something more in store for Nick. I was thinking: he's going to destroy his life. Get him fired, make him lose his family and then land him in prison somehow. But, as the movie went on, Clyde was targeting everyone BUT Nick. It really didn't make any sense. Then the ending plain sucked. The dialog between Clyde and Nick was too cheesy; in fact, this was not a good Jamie Foxx performance. It was obvious that he was trying to play the cocky DA but he mailed in the performance.
Back to the ending... it was not well thought out.
Nick and co. Discovered Clyde's bomb and they brought the bomb back to Clyde's cell to make him do himself in, but that was beyond absurd!!
Let's see: 1.) transporting armed napalm 2.) having no idea when he'll detonate it 3.) getting it back to his cell (of course through the secret entrance) 4.) staying in the cell until he was ready to detonate it 5.) escaping before being blown up too.
Who came up with this!?
I have a better ending: A.) Nick Price straight up kills Clyde or B.) Clyde kills Nick Price as the final sacrifice and either gets away or gets caught and takes his death penalty having gotten the vengeance he sought. I assume this was supposed to be a happy ending because the good guy gone bad was killed, but I couldn't help but feel that the ending was incomplete. At the very least the ending was ambivalent; no way to say that good triumphed over evil. Nick essentially did Clyde a disservice, shrugged it off, and then got to play hero in the end by killing Clyde.
I demand a rewrite.
Like a great relationship gone bad
happygrl1227 February 2011
This reminds me of the start of a great relationship, starts out wonderful, continues to grow, and then out of nowhere, BAM, it ends and you are left wondering what just happened.
As so many other reviewers have stated, it starts out with great suspense, originality, and creativity, and somewhere in the last 20 minutes, you are left wondering, did it really just end that way? Ouch! I found myself incredibly disappointed.
We all love Jaime Foxx's funny side, but really wanted to see something else happen to him in this film. I get the idea of the end, that he learned his lesson so to speak, but it was still really weak for what it could have been.
However, I'll still give it an 8 as it kept me quite intrigued throughout...so hard to find these days in a quality film.
As so many other reviewers have stated, it starts out with great suspense, originality, and creativity, and somewhere in the last 20 minutes, you are left wondering, did it really just end that way? Ouch! I found myself incredibly disappointed.
We all love Jaime Foxx's funny side, but really wanted to see something else happen to him in this film. I get the idea of the end, that he learned his lesson so to speak, but it was still really weak for what it could have been.
However, I'll still give it an 8 as it kept me quite intrigued throughout...so hard to find these days in a quality film.
Failed "protagonist"
defaceclothing31 December 2018
At no point do I ever side with the so called "protagonist" played by Jamie Fox. This movie does not convey the "hero" to have any values that you would want to root for. Other than that glaring problem, Gerard Butler does a great job playing the vigilante
One Protagonist, One Antagonist...
adam_9525 January 2010
I am just not sure which is which.
I am trying to avoid spoilers here, because it is a definite film you must check out because it is a great new take on the prison based thriller genre, which provides 90 odd minutes of great entertainment with lots of twists and turns to keep the story fresh.
My main criticism is that the story seems to twist and turn so much it gets itself into a nasty tangle. The base of any thriller for an audience, is to want the protagonist to prosper at the downfall of the antagonist, but at the end, i was unsure which of one of the two mains, Nick Rice (foxx) or Clyde Shelton (butler) i should be 'cheering' for.
Each Character has their fair amount of being the good guy, but both were more of the bad guy, a very confusing aspect to a thriller.
Never-the-less, there are some brilliant performances and a very entertaining fresh story kept me glued to the screen for the entirety of the movie.
****/5
I am trying to avoid spoilers here, because it is a definite film you must check out because it is a great new take on the prison based thriller genre, which provides 90 odd minutes of great entertainment with lots of twists and turns to keep the story fresh.
My main criticism is that the story seems to twist and turn so much it gets itself into a nasty tangle. The base of any thriller for an audience, is to want the protagonist to prosper at the downfall of the antagonist, but at the end, i was unsure which of one of the two mains, Nick Rice (foxx) or Clyde Shelton (butler) i should be 'cheering' for.
Each Character has their fair amount of being the good guy, but both were more of the bad guy, a very confusing aspect to a thriller.
Never-the-less, there are some brilliant performances and a very entertaining fresh story kept me glued to the screen for the entirety of the movie.
****/5
Promising Beginning, Disappointing Conclusion
claudio_carvalho6 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In Philadelphia, the family man Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is violently attacked at home by two punks and his wife and daughter are rapped and murdered by Clarence Darby (Christian Stolte). The two criminals are arrested by the police but the ambitious D.A. Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) makes a deal with the assassin Darby that accuses his partner to keep his average of convictions in court despite the protest of Clyde. Ten years later, Darby's partner is executed by lethal injection but the defective machine makes him suffer lots of pain. Meanwhile Clyde abducts Darby and executes him in a sadistic way. Clyde is arrested without evidences and Nick negotiates his confession. Sooner Nick discovers that the purpose of Clyde is not only vengeance, but to destroy the corrupt justice system and the head of the city that released the assassin of his family.
Since I saw the trailer of "Law Abiding Citizen", I have been anxious to see this film. Last week, it was released on DVD in Brazil by Swen Filmes and after watching it, unfortunately I found it a blockbuster movie with a promising beginning and a disappointing conclusion. The plot works well showing the deception of an apparently common citizen with the way the corrupt justice system works. Then there is the first inconsistency: why should a man with his background wait for ten years to catch a criminal that had been released seven years ago? Why should he be in jail to destroy the justice system and the City Hall? Last but not the least, why didn't he kill the wife and daughter of Nick Rice to make him feel the same sort of pain and grief that he had been submitted with his decision? That would be the most appropriate revenge for an intelligent man after killing the murderers of his family, but probably the producers were more interested in the box office than in a reasonably more believable non-commercial plot. Only people that do not think might find this movie amazing as I glanced in some reviews. The exaggeration and accuracy of his plans are also annoying and absolutely unbelievable, and the arrogant character performed by Jamie Foxx is despicable to win in the end. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Código de Conduta" ("Code of Conduct")
Since I saw the trailer of "Law Abiding Citizen", I have been anxious to see this film. Last week, it was released on DVD in Brazil by Swen Filmes and after watching it, unfortunately I found it a blockbuster movie with a promising beginning and a disappointing conclusion. The plot works well showing the deception of an apparently common citizen with the way the corrupt justice system works. Then there is the first inconsistency: why should a man with his background wait for ten years to catch a criminal that had been released seven years ago? Why should he be in jail to destroy the justice system and the City Hall? Last but not the least, why didn't he kill the wife and daughter of Nick Rice to make him feel the same sort of pain and grief that he had been submitted with his decision? That would be the most appropriate revenge for an intelligent man after killing the murderers of his family, but probably the producers were more interested in the box office than in a reasonably more believable non-commercial plot. Only people that do not think might find this movie amazing as I glanced in some reviews. The exaggeration and accuracy of his plans are also annoying and absolutely unbelievable, and the arrogant character performed by Jamie Foxx is despicable to win in the end. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Código de Conduta" ("Code of Conduct")
Typical Hollywood BASTARDIZED ENDING!!!
jlamarca18 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Come on Hollywood, this guy was so clever, tactful & brilliant & yet you expect the audience to believer that he wouldn't even have a bloody security system installed on the very building, which was the only means of exit & entry to his prison cell... never mind that the building housed nerve & command center, from which he executed his flavour of justice!
Here's another plot hole of gargantuan proportion(s); how in the heck did Fox get the briefcase/bomb back to the jail cell BEFORE Butler returned? Oh yeah & WHY would Fox willfully allow Butler to detonate the bomb, even though he had discovered the means, by which he was perpetrating his reign of terror?!? That would be the epitome of anti-justice- especially considering he was the acting D.A.! Why didn't they show him being charged & prosecuted for murder?!?
This is a case whereby you actually wanted the bad guy to get the last word in on the matter!!! But no... Jamie Fox had to come out on top! Actually, I think Fox would/should have been the FIRST person on Butler's list! WHY couldn't Hollywood just grant this movie the ending it righteously deserved?!? It was going sooo well! Whoever is in charge of the ending to this film ought to have been on Butler's list!
Here's another plot hole of gargantuan proportion(s); how in the heck did Fox get the briefcase/bomb back to the jail cell BEFORE Butler returned? Oh yeah & WHY would Fox willfully allow Butler to detonate the bomb, even though he had discovered the means, by which he was perpetrating his reign of terror?!? That would be the epitome of anti-justice- especially considering he was the acting D.A.! Why didn't they show him being charged & prosecuted for murder?!?
This is a case whereby you actually wanted the bad guy to get the last word in on the matter!!! But no... Jamie Fox had to come out on top! Actually, I think Fox would/should have been the FIRST person on Butler's list! WHY couldn't Hollywood just grant this movie the ending it righteously deserved?!? It was going sooo well! Whoever is in charge of the ending to this film ought to have been on Butler's list!
A morality tale with plenty of action
hyprsleepy19 October 2009
This is a movie that's extremely fun to watch in the theaters because you get to hear and see everyone's reaction to each of his killings. The best one had people actually saying loudly "wow" and "oh my god!".
What drew me to the movie was the fact that the hero wasn't going around killing people with his bare hands or face to face. He was doing it with his mind, with careful planning, and deft precision. That was something refreshing to see. I can totally relate to his feelings of anger over the flaws in the justice system and his desire to take matters into his own hands - to make things right.
The ending was disappointing but the rest of the film was not and I liked it overall.
What drew me to the movie was the fact that the hero wasn't going around killing people with his bare hands or face to face. He was doing it with his mind, with careful planning, and deft precision. That was something refreshing to see. I can totally relate to his feelings of anger over the flaws in the justice system and his desire to take matters into his own hands - to make things right.
The ending was disappointing but the rest of the film was not and I liked it overall.
Citizen Abides
ArthurMausser16 October 2009
A solid movie. It was not predictable. The actors were great in their roles except for a sub-par Leslie Bibb (TV actress with waning looks). After the first five minutes I thought I made my assumptions of what was going to happen but I was totally wrong.
Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx work perfect against each other. There are a few lulls in the movie towards the end but overall it was a real good movie.
Perhaps the message of this movie can somehow persuade real change in our legal practices. It is worth seeing. The way the film is shot and the sound effects make this an intense movie.
Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx work perfect against each other. There are a few lulls in the movie towards the end but overall it was a real good movie.
Perhaps the message of this movie can somehow persuade real change in our legal practices. It is worth seeing. The way the film is shot and the sound effects make this an intense movie.
Law Abiding Citizen will not disappoint.
fendij325 September 2009
This movie really takes the cake. It's focused on a father (Clyde) who gets beaten and his wife and daughter are killed by 2 crooks. However the crooks' punishment was dimmed down because of a deal made by the lawyers(Jamie Fox). 10 years later, Clyde decides to take out the entire corrupt justice system.
This movie really keeps you on the edge of your seat, and the main character Clyde really makes this movie something memorable and just extraordinary. You can compare Clyde to the Joker pretty much, but in my opinion 10 times better. Clyde devises sneaky and cunning ways by taking down his victims and the whole sense on whether he is the hero or villain also adds to the excitement. Jamie Fox also does a great job playing his character, a heroic yet corrupt lawyer.
There are a few scenes that will guaranteed make you laugh and a few scenes that will pretty much tell you that Clyde is just one kickbutt character, no questions about it. Every scene you will be wondering what will happen next, because you honestly won't know. The movie has a few twists and turns and will always keep you guessing. If you want to see something that is highly suspenseful, will keep you on the edge of your seat, and includes 2 very unique and questionable characters, then you must see this movie. Law Abiding Citizen will not disappoint.
This movie really keeps you on the edge of your seat, and the main character Clyde really makes this movie something memorable and just extraordinary. You can compare Clyde to the Joker pretty much, but in my opinion 10 times better. Clyde devises sneaky and cunning ways by taking down his victims and the whole sense on whether he is the hero or villain also adds to the excitement. Jamie Fox also does a great job playing his character, a heroic yet corrupt lawyer.
There are a few scenes that will guaranteed make you laugh and a few scenes that will pretty much tell you that Clyde is just one kickbutt character, no questions about it. Every scene you will be wondering what will happen next, because you honestly won't know. The movie has a few twists and turns and will always keep you guessing. If you want to see something that is highly suspenseful, will keep you on the edge of your seat, and includes 2 very unique and questionable characters, then you must see this movie. Law Abiding Citizen will not disappoint.
Seething expose of America's justice system
Leofwine_draca2 September 2012
LAW ABIDING CITIZEN has all the trademarks of a great film. A non-linear plot, plenty to say about the state of the world today, some tough performances and explosive sequences. Best of all, it blurs the line between good and evil so that you're never quite sure who you're supposed to root for, which guy's the villain and which guy's the hero.
Gerard Butler stars as the ordinary man whose family is killed in a burglary gone wrong. Butler then undergoes a startling transformation as he sets up a campaign of revenge against all those who failed to bring the killers to justice. The film goes from there, starting off dark and becoming increasingly more bleak as the running time goes on.
It has plenty of incident to keep it running along, and some great scenes: Butler's manipulation of the prison regulations, for instance, or the way he manages to wage his vendetta from the INTERIOR of his prison cell. But, along the way, the film's sense of realism diminishes until we end up with a completely ludicrous event at the end which is designed to bring closure. It's not on par with, say, EAGLE EYE for suspension of disbelief, but it's getting there. It's just a shame, as with some tighter writing this could have been a truly great movie. It turns out to be an intriguing oddity, instead.
Butler is good as the 'bad guy', effectively channelling some of that Leonidas rage. But, as usual, Jamie Foxx is completely out of his depth as the lawyer. He's a vacuum of talent, an empty space in the middle of the movie surrounded by other, better, more seasoned performers. It's a shame, as the combination of rubbish actor and rubbish ending scupper this movie's best intentions.
Gerard Butler stars as the ordinary man whose family is killed in a burglary gone wrong. Butler then undergoes a startling transformation as he sets up a campaign of revenge against all those who failed to bring the killers to justice. The film goes from there, starting off dark and becoming increasingly more bleak as the running time goes on.
It has plenty of incident to keep it running along, and some great scenes: Butler's manipulation of the prison regulations, for instance, or the way he manages to wage his vendetta from the INTERIOR of his prison cell. But, along the way, the film's sense of realism diminishes until we end up with a completely ludicrous event at the end which is designed to bring closure. It's not on par with, say, EAGLE EYE for suspension of disbelief, but it's getting there. It's just a shame, as with some tighter writing this could have been a truly great movie. It turns out to be an intriguing oddity, instead.
Butler is good as the 'bad guy', effectively channelling some of that Leonidas rage. But, as usual, Jamie Foxx is completely out of his depth as the lawyer. He's a vacuum of talent, an empty space in the middle of the movie surrounded by other, better, more seasoned performers. It's a shame, as the combination of rubbish actor and rubbish ending scupper this movie's best intentions.
Law Abiding Citizen is a thrill ride
writefan15 October 2009
This film is gory, but the gore is mostly suggested rather than shown. You can make up your own mind as to how gory you want it to be. Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) and Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) are excellent as "frenemies." They still sympathize with each other, in a way, as each teaches the other a lesson. Butler is excellent as the crushed father and husband who believes he must use his unique skills and talent to make an example of a justice system that has forgotten the victims. You sympathize with him even as he enacts his vicious lesson plan upon Foxx's coworkers. Foxx is an arrogant self-serving assistant district attorney who is only concerned with his conviction rate as he claws his way up the ladder in the justice system. He has forgotten the victims. But when he has a family of his own, he begins to see Clyde's point, yet he cannot give in to all of Clyde's demands to stop the carnage. Beautifully films in a noir tone with excellent timing on the stunts and effects. Law Abiding Citizen is an adrenaline-pumping experience. Bring your heart meds.
Good but not great due to Foxx and bad ending
DaShAg22 March 2010
Clyde Shelton's ( Gerard Butler ) wife gets murdered in the beginning of the movie and justice doesn't prevail because one of the killers is only sentenced for 10 years. Clyde is angry as hell and will make sure the people responsible for the horrible trial of the killers will all suffer and die. So basically you got yourself a revenge movie here. Clyde is killing them and isn't even hiding it, he admits it. Nick Rice ( Jamie Foxx ) is the DA on the case and needs to find out what the hell is going on. Now the fun part is that Clyde is performing the kills from within his prison cell, he even has to sit out in solitary and is still killing people, now how cool is that.
I totally dig the idea of a highly intelligent man orchestrating kills on specific times and places from his prison cell, all planned ahead of time. If you're a smart ass while watching this movie you'll find out there are a lot of plot holes so I recommend you not to think it all through. Heads up for Gerard Butler, this guy is making some mayor progress on this one after some sh!tty movies last year. I think we'll be seeing more of King Leonidas in the future so hurray to that. On the opposite, Jamie Foxx is on a decline. Ray was an excellent movie but after that it's just bad. As Nick Rice the DA he is just one stone face mofo, no emotion no nothing. Jamie and the ending of the movie are the only 2 things that suck. The movie is just handing out it's surprises like candy, like spoiling your daughter's birthday present a week before her actual birthday. Watch it with a time progress bar and stop the movie before the last 15 minutes, then close your eyes and make up your own ending and I promise you it will be way better then the awful piece of movie you just skipped...
I totally dig the idea of a highly intelligent man orchestrating kills on specific times and places from his prison cell, all planned ahead of time. If you're a smart ass while watching this movie you'll find out there are a lot of plot holes so I recommend you not to think it all through. Heads up for Gerard Butler, this guy is making some mayor progress on this one after some sh!tty movies last year. I think we'll be seeing more of King Leonidas in the future so hurray to that. On the opposite, Jamie Foxx is on a decline. Ray was an excellent movie but after that it's just bad. As Nick Rice the DA he is just one stone face mofo, no emotion no nothing. Jamie and the ending of the movie are the only 2 things that suck. The movie is just handing out it's surprises like candy, like spoiling your daughter's birthday present a week before her actual birthday. Watch it with a time progress bar and stop the movie before the last 15 minutes, then close your eyes and make up your own ending and I promise you it will be way better then the awful piece of movie you just skipped...
Unexpectedly good movie - unfortunately awful ending
shanayneigh22 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Last couple of years, there's been an upswing in vengeful vigilante movies, a genre I'm quite fond of. However, one thing that has marred the movies I've seen in this new wave is the casting of the villains, who have been way too over the top with their drama-class-bad-guy-acting. Some examples are Death Sentence and The Brave One, which are otherwise fine films.
This is not the case with Law Abiding Citizen, which is cast nicely (almost) all the way from the starring role to small supporting roles. One exception though. I can't stand Jamie Foxx.
Also, matters are more in shades of gray, unlike the other vigilante movies where things are more dichotomous.
I'm not the biggest fan of F. Gary Gray. I feel that his previous films have been too clunky, but he does a fine job here.
I have only one issue with this movie, and that's the ending. I couldn't help but rooting for Gerard Butler's character, and I feel like it was a cowardly choice on the part of the filmmakers to have him killed in the end. Some might say that it's poetic justice that he dies as a direct result of his own device, but I just feel that it's the formulaic Hollywood cliché that the bad guy has to go down in the end.
Nevertheless, it's a movie well worth watching! It's not a movie which will reveal the meaning of life, but it's fun entertainment.
This is not the case with Law Abiding Citizen, which is cast nicely (almost) all the way from the starring role to small supporting roles. One exception though. I can't stand Jamie Foxx.
Also, matters are more in shades of gray, unlike the other vigilante movies where things are more dichotomous.
I'm not the biggest fan of F. Gary Gray. I feel that his previous films have been too clunky, but he does a fine job here.
I have only one issue with this movie, and that's the ending. I couldn't help but rooting for Gerard Butler's character, and I feel like it was a cowardly choice on the part of the filmmakers to have him killed in the end. Some might say that it's poetic justice that he dies as a direct result of his own device, but I just feel that it's the formulaic Hollywood cliché that the bad guy has to go down in the end.
Nevertheless, it's a movie well worth watching! It's not a movie which will reveal the meaning of life, but it's fun entertainment.
An ending that works (for me)
Bonesnap31 May 2010
Almost everyone agrees. Law Abiding Citizen is a great movie but the ending sucks.
The problem is, with about 30 minutes to go, the movie wants us to stop cheering on Clyde (Gerry Butler) and suddenly start thinking of Nick (Jamie Foxx) as the hero. That's not going to work, the audience has just invested about 90 minutes of wanting Clyde to continue with his vengeance. Damn right too.
The plot should have continued to its logical conclusion. Clyde was trying to teach Nick a lesson, that the system was so broken that it could only be fixed by being destroyed first. Rather than the squeaky-Hollywood-ending-slop they served up, here's what should have happened...
In the solitary confinement cell at the end, Jamie Foxx's character Nick should have taken the cell-phone from Clyde then remote-detonated the bomb at city hall, blowing up the mayor, the brass, the whole rotten system, then gone off to watch his daughter's cello recital.
Now, that ending would have been really insane, but it would have taken the movie to its logical conclusion. Nick's conversion would have been complete. As an ending, it would be right up there with Jimmy Cagney at the end of White Heat, 'Made it Ma, top of the world!' Morally dubious, yes, but it would have given us a bona-fide classic. It would be rating 9.8 here on IMDb rather than this insipid seven-point-bleh.
Oh, and the movie loses a point for Gerard Butler not using his own voice. Gerry is a Scot and has a fine Glasgow accent, he should use it.
The problem is, with about 30 minutes to go, the movie wants us to stop cheering on Clyde (Gerry Butler) and suddenly start thinking of Nick (Jamie Foxx) as the hero. That's not going to work, the audience has just invested about 90 minutes of wanting Clyde to continue with his vengeance. Damn right too.
The plot should have continued to its logical conclusion. Clyde was trying to teach Nick a lesson, that the system was so broken that it could only be fixed by being destroyed first. Rather than the squeaky-Hollywood-ending-slop they served up, here's what should have happened...
In the solitary confinement cell at the end, Jamie Foxx's character Nick should have taken the cell-phone from Clyde then remote-detonated the bomb at city hall, blowing up the mayor, the brass, the whole rotten system, then gone off to watch his daughter's cello recital.
Now, that ending would have been really insane, but it would have taken the movie to its logical conclusion. Nick's conversion would have been complete. As an ending, it would be right up there with Jimmy Cagney at the end of White Heat, 'Made it Ma, top of the world!' Morally dubious, yes, but it would have given us a bona-fide classic. It would be rating 9.8 here on IMDb rather than this insipid seven-point-bleh.
Oh, and the movie loses a point for Gerard Butler not using his own voice. Gerry is a Scot and has a fine Glasgow accent, he should use it.
Great movie - Saw an advance screening
pocolady11 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
WOW! This movie is great. I saw this last night at an advance screening. My friends and I are still talking about it. Keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time. Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx are both great in their roles. Watch the trailer if you haven't yet - the movie is just as good as the trailer.
This movie questions the justice system. One of the many great scenes is when the judge is willing to let a suspected murderer go back on the streets, but then puts him in jail simply because he insults her.
It also questions the line between vengeance and what it takes to get someone's attention to what is right and wrong, what really matters.
A MUST SEE!!
This movie questions the justice system. One of the many great scenes is when the judge is willing to let a suspected murderer go back on the streets, but then puts him in jail simply because he insults her.
It also questions the line between vengeance and what it takes to get someone's attention to what is right and wrong, what really matters.
A MUST SEE!!
Without the ending...
oskar-598-93773 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
...This movie would be a real treat...
I enjoy'd this movie really much and i must say that i find my self wondering - why this good movie had to end so badly. The characters are good and there is no question why... Jamie is good and no need to say that Gerard is one of the best "new" actors in "the market". Also the story is good and even better is the story telling, but this is only my opinion.
The best that i can say is: if you have seen "Taking of Pelham123" and liked that movie, then you will also like this one. And both of these movies have two things in common, they both were good movies, with bad endings...
I don't want to be critical and also don't want to say much good things about this movie, because this one of these movies what go to the department of "have to see it my self" And I'm about 75% sure that you will enjoy this movie. But once again, what a shame about the ending...
I enjoy'd this movie really much and i must say that i find my self wondering - why this good movie had to end so badly. The characters are good and there is no question why... Jamie is good and no need to say that Gerard is one of the best "new" actors in "the market". Also the story is good and even better is the story telling, but this is only my opinion.
The best that i can say is: if you have seen "Taking of Pelham123" and liked that movie, then you will also like this one. And both of these movies have two things in common, they both were good movies, with bad endings...
I don't want to be critical and also don't want to say much good things about this movie, because this one of these movies what go to the department of "have to see it my self" And I'm about 75% sure that you will enjoy this movie. But once again, what a shame about the ending...
Kurt Wimmer buckles under pressure; goes with the "safe" ending
cartman44200325 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"Law Abiding Citizen" is a movie that got me angrier than "Transformers 2" and more disappointed than "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End." Yet, I'll probably watch it again. And again.
See, "Citizen" inspires a rare sort of hatred in me. 90% of it is a provocative, fearlessly cathartic and hauntingly relevant piece of social satire mixed with a grade-A action thriller script and top-notch acting across the board. That's why I'm going to watch it again, despite how terrible the ending was.
Without giving anything away, the movie spends all of its time making us know that Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is a meticulous planner who's serious about getting even with the system of justice that allowed his wife and daughter's true killer to go free with a mere 3-year sentence. Literally every move the justice system and his ex-attorney Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) make, Shelton has already set in motion countermeasures for that step and the next three they will take. Rice is characterised as a smarmy, ladder-climbing political manoeuvrer who cares more about his reputation as a prosecutor than dispensing actual justice. Not once during the course of the movie does he ever, ever admit that he was wrong not to pursue full conviction for both the killer and his accomplice, or even conceded that Shelton was cheated out of justice by a corrupt and broken system of law. "Some justice is better than no justice" is the phrase he uses to rationalise his decision. This being a very anti-establishment film, it's clear that the intention was for us to see Shelton as, though a morally ambiguous psychopath, a man who sees the justice system for what it really is: a mere system. A cold, soulless, illogical, by-the-book factory made up of bored and overworked people that treat justice "like it's an assembly line." Rice, therefore, represents the system then, in both occupation and personality: he's incorrigible, he's utterly cocky, and he refuses to acknowledge fault in himself or make any concessions for Shelton. Though he clearly believes in justice, he's still part of the problem. Right?
You're right. That was the intention. However, "Law Abiding Citizen" ends up being just another crime thriller. The "psychopath", the societal outcast, is punished and ceased, while the clean, self- righteous lawyer finishes the job just in time to make it to his little girl's cello recital. No, really. That's where it ends. In fact, once Shelton is killed, it cuts soundlessly to the recital and then goes black. A quiet, abrupt end. Despite everything that had been built up, it just ends.
I find it hard to believe that this was the original ending that the writer of "Equilibrium" intended to have. This movie reeks with the pungent stink of producer tampering. The quality and style of the ending doesn't match that of the rest of the movie. I wouldn't be surprised if that was intentional, if that was Kurt Wimmer's way of spiting whoever forced him to change the ending, the one where the psychopath succeeds in uprooting the corrupt system, succeeds in bringing "the whole diseased, corrupt temple down on (Rice's) head". The ending was far from "biblical". It was a short, quiet, but mostly ugly, cop-out. Because of that, I'm cutting the score I would have given this movie, a 9, in half. It's rounded up because I feel like this movie could've really said something, could have stood out, had it not ended like every other movie that gets cranked out of the old Hollywood assembly line these days.
See, "Citizen" inspires a rare sort of hatred in me. 90% of it is a provocative, fearlessly cathartic and hauntingly relevant piece of social satire mixed with a grade-A action thriller script and top-notch acting across the board. That's why I'm going to watch it again, despite how terrible the ending was.
Without giving anything away, the movie spends all of its time making us know that Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is a meticulous planner who's serious about getting even with the system of justice that allowed his wife and daughter's true killer to go free with a mere 3-year sentence. Literally every move the justice system and his ex-attorney Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) make, Shelton has already set in motion countermeasures for that step and the next three they will take. Rice is characterised as a smarmy, ladder-climbing political manoeuvrer who cares more about his reputation as a prosecutor than dispensing actual justice. Not once during the course of the movie does he ever, ever admit that he was wrong not to pursue full conviction for both the killer and his accomplice, or even conceded that Shelton was cheated out of justice by a corrupt and broken system of law. "Some justice is better than no justice" is the phrase he uses to rationalise his decision. This being a very anti-establishment film, it's clear that the intention was for us to see Shelton as, though a morally ambiguous psychopath, a man who sees the justice system for what it really is: a mere system. A cold, soulless, illogical, by-the-book factory made up of bored and overworked people that treat justice "like it's an assembly line." Rice, therefore, represents the system then, in both occupation and personality: he's incorrigible, he's utterly cocky, and he refuses to acknowledge fault in himself or make any concessions for Shelton. Though he clearly believes in justice, he's still part of the problem. Right?
You're right. That was the intention. However, "Law Abiding Citizen" ends up being just another crime thriller. The "psychopath", the societal outcast, is punished and ceased, while the clean, self- righteous lawyer finishes the job just in time to make it to his little girl's cello recital. No, really. That's where it ends. In fact, once Shelton is killed, it cuts soundlessly to the recital and then goes black. A quiet, abrupt end. Despite everything that had been built up, it just ends.
I find it hard to believe that this was the original ending that the writer of "Equilibrium" intended to have. This movie reeks with the pungent stink of producer tampering. The quality and style of the ending doesn't match that of the rest of the movie. I wouldn't be surprised if that was intentional, if that was Kurt Wimmer's way of spiting whoever forced him to change the ending, the one where the psychopath succeeds in uprooting the corrupt system, succeeds in bringing "the whole diseased, corrupt temple down on (Rice's) head". The ending was far from "biblical". It was a short, quiet, but mostly ugly, cop-out. Because of that, I'm cutting the score I would have given this movie, a 9, in half. It's rounded up because I feel like this movie could've really said something, could have stood out, had it not ended like every other movie that gets cranked out of the old Hollywood assembly line these days.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
