Law Abiding Citizen (2009)
Started by Anthony Smith3 · · 👁 9 views · 172 replies
#42 ·
The movie is actually great right up until the moment they reveal everything.
Then you get that desperate attempt to fix the ending using a typical Hollywood trope.
What a waste.
Then you get that desperate attempt to fix the ending using a typical Hollywood trope.
What a waste.
#43 ·
The movie is solid for the most part—until it hits that dragging finale where they force this overly saccharine happy ending on you... still, it's worth the watch 👍
Rating: 7.5/10
Rating: 7.5/10
#44 ·
goldenhound32 said:If you have the movie, go watch it.I find it completely unrealistic that anyone could dig out those massive tunnels right next to a prison.
Is that all? 🙂
And what about Chester—that blond kid? The guy is literally sending emails to his girlfriend after she’s already dead. Just... lol.
Furthermore, a bomb powerful enough to wipe out everyone on two floors of a building like that wouldn't leave the prison itself untouched. Fox News should be calling them out for that level of negligence.
I agree he killed the guy with the bone. How did he know he'd get the bone? Because he ordered food from one specific restaurant. He set the whole thing up.
I believe that email was sent before she died, but while she wasn't home.
Besides, that bomb was Napalm; they made that point explicitly. Napalm won't do much to stone (which most prisons are built from), but it'll tear through wood and people without a second thought.
That guy was shooting at the police from the roof because that's exactly what he was doing, idiot. It's a standard move. Plus, he thought they were coming for him and apparently decided he wasn't going to surrender alive. And as far as I know, he didn't run out of ammo. He grabbed a second pistol in the car. And he used it to make threats.
#45 ·
Look, the ending is a bit of a letdown. Honestly, they could have just thrown him in a standard prison without any tunnels and called it a day. If he plants a bomb in someone's cell to blow them sky-high, isn't that just murder? Why wasn't he picked up for the Butler killing in the first place?🤷
But honestly, the movie is great. I don't get why everyone is obsessing over logic gaps in a flick like this. It’s meant to be pure entertainment. Besides, how was he supposed to know he'd end up in that specific prison or land in the exact solitary cell where digging a tunnel would actually work?
But honestly, the movie is great. I don't get why everyone is obsessing over logic gaps in a flick like this. It’s meant to be pure entertainment. Besides, how was he supposed to know he'd end up in that specific prison or land in the exact solitary cell where digging a tunnel would actually work?
#46 ·
I agree—the roommate was definitely taken out brutally. I went back to check, but the explanation is already there: it was premeditated. Still, he was basically a CIA think tank guy.
I also agree the movie is fantastic right up until the tunnel reveal. That’s when the quality drops from greatness down to a solid three out of ten.
Even though that kind of ending was predictable—not necessarily because of Hollywood mainstream tropes, but because of that typical American structural functionalism (the message to the average American that they can, and must, trust the system) and sheer pragmatism (the Mayor calling a session to find extra-legal solutions to "Clyde's problem" and Nick setting up Clyde in solitary)—I was really hoping for something more along the lines of Fincher.
Here’s what I was actually looking for: Clyde kills them all—including Nick's family—except for Nick himself. This would drive Nick into the same existential void Clyde is trapped in, forcing him to drop his "cool, powerful" persona and descend to the level of a criminal. Then, Nick kills Clyde, but it's too late; everyone has already been punished, and Clyde has achieved his goal. All that's left for Clyde is death, which serves to push Nick outside the law and deliver one final blow to the last remaining villain (that little cog in a broken system).
Anyway, that’s how I pictured the end halfway through the film, and I have to admit—I was pretty disappointed. 😢
I also agree the movie is fantastic right up until the tunnel reveal. That’s when the quality drops from greatness down to a solid three out of ten.
Even though that kind of ending was predictable—not necessarily because of Hollywood mainstream tropes, but because of that typical American structural functionalism (the message to the average American that they can, and must, trust the system) and sheer pragmatism (the Mayor calling a session to find extra-legal solutions to "Clyde's problem" and Nick setting up Clyde in solitary)—I was really hoping for something more along the lines of Fincher.
Here’s what I was actually looking for: Clyde kills them all—including Nick's family—except for Nick himself. This would drive Nick into the same existential void Clyde is trapped in, forcing him to drop his "cool, powerful" persona and descend to the level of a criminal. Then, Nick kills Clyde, but it's too late; everyone has already been punished, and Clyde has achieved his goal. All that's left for Clyde is death, which serves to push Nick outside the law and deliver one final blow to the last remaining villain (that little cog in a broken system).
Anyway, that’s how I pictured the end halfway through the film, and I have to admit—I was pretty disappointed. 😢
#47 ·
Ethan Parker47 said:I agree—the roommate was definitely taken out brutally. I went back to check, but the explanation is already there: it was premeditated. Still, he was basically a CIA think tank guy.
I also agree the movie is fantastic right up until the tunnel reveal. That’s when the quality drops from greatness down to a solid three out of ten.
Even though that kind of ending was predictable—not necessarily because of Hollywood mainstream tropes, but because of that typical American structural functionalism (the message to the average American that they can, and must, trust the system) and sheer pragmatism (the Mayor calling a session to find extra-legal solutions to "Clyde's problem" and Nick setting up Clyde in solitary)—I was really hoping for something more along the lines of Fincher.
Here’s what I was actually looking for: Clyde kills them all—including Nick's family—except for Nick himself. This would drive Nick into the same existential void Clyde is trapped in, forcing him to drop his "cool, powerful" persona and descend to the level of a criminal. Then, Nick kills Clyde, but it's too late; everyone has already been punished, and Clyde has achieved his goal. All that's left for Clyde is death, which serves to push Nick outside the law and deliver one final blow to the last remaining villain (that little cog in a broken system).
Anyway, that’s how I pictured the end halfway through the film, and I have to admit—I was pretty disappointed. 😢
Well, he isn't Joker.😁
#48 ·
Exactly. Joker is ten times better than Clyde 🙂
He actually achieves his objective, unlike Clyde. When Clyde claimed he was going to dismantle the entire system, I genuinely thought that was where the story was headed. Instead, he just starts killing random people. I was expecting some brilliant narrative progression, but what I got was just a plot device to show how Clyde pulled it all off. Honestly, the Saw movies are three times more genius than this.
He actually achieves his objective, unlike Clyde. When Clyde claimed he was going to dismantle the entire system, I genuinely thought that was where the story was headed. Instead, he just starts killing random people. I was expecting some brilliant narrative progression, but what I got was just a plot device to show how Clyde pulled it all off. Honestly, the Saw movies are three times more genius than this.
#49 ·
Regarding those perceived inconsistencies in the movie, my suggestion is to watch it again, and then watch it once more with subtitles. No one is born knowing English; you have to watch a massive amount of films to actually coordinate everything being said.
Then you run into something like V for Vendetta (there are other Depp movies where he speaks similarly), and even subtitles won't help because they fail to translate half of it.
Then you run into something like V for Vendetta (there are other Depp movies where he speaks similarly), and even subtitles won't help because they fail to translate half of it.
#51 ·
This movie is the perfect example of how just a tiny bit of extra effort—or lack thereof—can turn what should’ve been a masterpiece into a total pile of garbage.
#52 ·
I thought the movie was alright. Honestly, the first half really grabbed me, but then the second half was... hmm (let’s be real, most big blockbusters from the last decade follow this exact same pattern). I have two main gripes—first off, why did he just start killing people left and right for no reason? Like, I get his whole deal, but what did that little blue-haired kid ever do to him? Poor little guy. And my even bigger issue is that whole tunnel-digging subplot... it felt totally forced and just lacked any real creativity. That said, there are some genuinely tense, well-shot moments in there. Definitely worth a watch if you have the time.
#53 ·
Honestly, I thought the movie was pretty great—definitely worth some of your time if you're looking for something engaging!
You should really check out
I'd give it a solid 8/10
You should really check out
I'd give it a solid 8/10
#54 ·
I just got back from seeing that film, and I am genuinely impressed.🙏
It stands out as one of the finest pieces of cinema I’ve encountered in the last two years—the narrative, the direction, the acting—it all fits together with remarkable precision. There isn't a single dull moment, and the character development is top-tier.
9/10
It is an absolute must-watch.
It stands out as one of the finest pieces of cinema I’ve encountered in the last two years—the narrative, the direction, the acting—it all fits together with remarkable precision. There isn't a single dull moment, and the character development is top-tier.
9/10
It is an absolute must-watch.
#55 ·
Sandra Patel23 said:I just got back from seeing that film, and I am genuinely impressed.🙏
It stands out as one of the finest pieces of cinema I’ve encountered in the last two years—the narrative, the direction, the acting—it all fits together with remarkable precision. There isn't a single dull moment, and the character development is top-tier.
9/10
It is an absolute must-watch.
Clearly, those kinds of studios exist solely to cater to people like you.😁
#56 ·
bluebison8 said:Clearly, those kinds of studios exist solely to cater to people like you.😁
Hold on—just because they sped up the final act and it didn't suit your tastes doesn't mean the movie is a failure. Besides, I wasn't commenting on the ending itself, since that isn't exactly what I was watching.
Furthermore, the killing of Clyde was the only way out—unfortunate, but necessary.
#57 ·
No, the perfect ending would have been for Clyde to just finish them all off, exactly how he planned. But I guess you can't expect that from an American movie. They always let morality and those tired little messages get in the way.
#58 ·
bila sam 593;23913059 said:@Chloe Palmer2
He absolutely used a bone.
I am not entirely certain which version of the film you happened to watch, but I am quite convinced he utilized what we call a "spork"—that little plastic hybrid of a fork and a spoon—which the warden handed to him when he asked for utensils in the first place.
#59 ·
goldenhound32 said:That lethal injection setup looks way too massive for a human; it’s built for a horse. Total fake.
Why on earth would that guy—the one who managed to slip away—start spraying bullets at the police from the roof and basically broadcast his exact location like that? It's fake.
And why would he suddenly forget he was out of ammo, especially after finding that out just five minutes earlier? Fake.
When they first showed up to arrest the butler... why did it take five police cruisers, a SWAT team, and a helicopter? He was just a suspect at that point. Fake.
If there are any tech geeks in here, please explain to me how a flip phone is supposed to be able to fire a shot? Fake.
How was the butler supposed to know they were delivering a steak with a bone sharp enough to kill someone?
Now, hold on just a moment; I recall seeing a movie where even chemical canisters explode, so why shouldn't a smartphone be subject to the same risks? 🤷
#60 ·
hiddenhound3 said:Now, hold on just a moment; I recall seeing a movie where even chemical canisters explode, so why shouldn't a smartphone be subject to the same risks? 🤷
Well, obviously; I'm honestly not sure how much sense it makes to demand total realism from cinema in the first place. 🤣
Sure, there ought to be some semblance of a connection to reality, but let’s not go overboard, shall we? Once those theater doors swing shut, the lights dim, and the feature begins, isn't it best to simply drift away from this somewhat predictable world and escape into a new one where the rules aren't quite so rigidly enforced?
🔗 Similar threads
- Law Abiding Citizen (2009) in Movies · Sep 18, 2009
- The "Invisible" Citizen: When you belong to a place, but the paper says otherwise in Politics · Jul 28, 2026
- New job market openings in Austria for American citizens in Economy · Oct 16, 2019
- Upgrading my 2009 PC build in Desktops · Oct 31, 2016
- Loan availability for American citizens in the EU in Economy · Jul 17, 2013