Charles Bronson does some nasty things in those “Death Wish” films, but there’s no question the audience is rooting him on every step of the way.
Unless Phil Donahue is in the theater.
Gerard Butler, the vigilante at the heart of the new thriller “Law Abiding Citizen,” makes it all but impossible for audiences to rally around him.
To say precisely why would be to spoil elements of the film, but “Citizen’s” problems don’t stop with an inability to connect with Butler’s anti-hero.
The new film proves dumber than a Jim Carrey comedy, more moronic than “Jumper” and “Push” combined.
Who writes this stuff? And what on earth is Jamie Foxx doing wasting his Oscar cred in such slop?
“Citizen” opens abruptly with a family man named Clyde getting conked on the head by two home invaders who proceed to murder his wife and child – off screen, mercifully.
We soon learn only one of the thugs will be heading to death row. The other will serve but a few years thanks to a judicial snafu. It’s the best the assistant DA (Foxx) can do, but that’s not good enough for Clyde.
He spends the next decade, literally, plotting his vengeance. And he isn’t just angry at the killers. He wants to punish the legal system which couldn’t throw the book at both men.
It’s a crude but effective setup for your standard vigilante film, but “Citizen” pushes the genre in ways it never should be pushed.
Even after Clyde is imprisoned for his actions he’s still able to reach out to smite his enemies.
But how is he able to create such mayhem when he’s incarcerated?
Mid way through, a mystery character appears out of some Deep Throat-approved shadows to explain everything. The character needs to hang around another hour to decipher the rest of this mess.
We never get to know Clyde, his family or anyone else, for that matter. The moral quandry faced by Foxx’s character might be intriguing if the screenplay gave it any room to breathe.
Clyde proves to be a rather unlikeable victim, something confirmed early on during a scene stripped right out of a “Saw” feature. The actor also needs to decide once and for all if his accent will be explained away on screen or not. It floats in and out of the film like a ghost, haunting his performance.
Foxx, always magnetic on screen, is left twisting from one scene to the next, alternately sounding credible and weak with neither emotion registering as needed.
“Law Abiding Citizen” will keep your interest until the half-hearted finale, but who could look away from such a creative train wreck?
(Photo: Gerard Butler star in Overture Films´ “Law Abiding Citizen.” Photo Credit: John Baer © 2009 LAC Films, LLC. All Rights Reserved)
Related posts:
on 
on 
on 
on 
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
The plot very simple: the ultimate revenge.
If your wife and daughter were murdered than every decent husband seeks revenge. The revenge should be delivered by the law. Since we are leaving in a society, and we signed a ‘social contract” than we agree that we transfer the judgment to that society.
This movie’s conflict was very real: the bargain between the prosecutor and one of the perpetrators. One of them will get mild punishment if he gives a testimony against the other. This is a classical case if you do not have enough or usable evidence and the prosecutor wants to succeed, like in this movie, to make his conviction record more perfect.
This movie contains a lot of fictional element, but it is just the surface. You have to scratch it to find the real meaning: the law system does not provide punishment to the guilty; it has its intrinsic flaws. These flaws can be objective (the letter of law itself) and subjective (the character of the prosecutors, lawyers, judges etc.).
One of the movie main characters (Gerard Butler) is the ‘law abiding citizen” who has the intellectual and financial means to plan and execute an almost perfect revenge, which could pull down the whole justice system. The scope of revenge is not decided from the beginning: it can be stopped after the murderers die horrible death. But the prosecutor (Jamie Foxx) cannot let it go, he wants to follow the letter of the law, cannot let the killer go free, at least not in this case.
This movie contains a lot of fantasy like elements: it is extraordinary in the means of revenge (but who wants to watch a mediocre story?). The performance of the actors are so excellent, they make this unbelievable story reality.
I recommend watching this movie for everybody, who thinks the society is out of control: it cannot punish the guilty or keep the constitution. Do not be discouraged by bad critics.
I find this critique rather in tune with my perception of the film. To those points I would add the next:
1) Any spirit of justice the film would probably have was killed when THE GOVERNMENT wins and should win by being allowed to do what it wants against the people. Be it Jamie Foxx’s disregard with what is legal and moral, to the calls of the mayor during the final meeting in city hall. It also promotes that the state is above law and morality. This government knows best BS is what has America where it is, and ironically it is to escape that, the reason why America was born.
2) Racist imprint can be alleged by the fact that the survivors are only the black people. Every guilty party of the failed justice system that was not black died.
3) Honestly, any idiot would have guessed the last move, you found my hideout, you know about the bomb from the reaction to my cel, you telling me that Clyde would have thought that everything was business as usual? Also you are telling me someone who covered his tracks this well was not capable of even installing a nanny cam in his near-jail hideout? So even a crackhead could have entered that place like Goldilocks in the house of the three bears.
4) The movie was lost during Clyde’s court appearance when he got in contempt of court. Before that it was a nice critique about an imperfect justice system, the argument could have been around that, but no, the argument ended with Big Brother knows best, Big Brother should do what it wants, the People have no rights.
5) Even the premise of the movies stops making sense, it would be a PR nightmare for the state (in it’s omniscience and omnipotence) to squander all that money, time and other resources to try to get Darby’s killer, honestly.
6) When he gave his first confesion (where he didn’t confess to anything) I actually thought he was gonna get scot free and Foxx was going to be framed, like a way to show again that the justice system has faults.
I just want to finish by stating that this is solely an opinion, I do not claim to be 100% accurate with what I have written here, again, it is just my perception, I can’t wait to hear about yours.
I’ll never look at a t-bone steak the same way after watching this movie. Anyhow, I might be retarded, but I really liked the movie and hated the ending. I did root for this anti-hero up until he killed innocents. Still, his heart was in the right place even if his bombs weren’t. 1.33 thumbs up from me.