Anybody else bother to see this? I had a feeling it would be bad because Jamie Foxx is so full of himself, but the trailer intrigued me enough to want to find out what happened.
So, the acting was just plain awful. I thought Gerard Butler was OK given what he had to go on, but I didn’t get the sense that any other actor in the film gave a rat’s ass about their performance. Some of the writing was just plain silly. And I kept getting the feeling that the movie had some kind of moral message it wanted to get across, but as I left, I had no idea what the lesson of the story was. Oh, and some of the violence in the movie was WAY out of synch with the way the rest of the movie was portrayed, and was clearly induced only to have shock value.
Don’t get me wrong; I was entertained. Just not in the way the film makers had in mind, I suspect.
I don’t know that my movie critic skills are esteemed enough to warrant basing your decision on my opinion. But if you have any concerns about spending money on a movie ticket, I might point you toward Rotten Tomato’s 24% freshness rating for consideration.
I, too, was confused about the possible moral of this movie. That vigilante justice is good? That it’s bad? That the judicial system is corrupt and imperfect? That patient detective work and footschlogging can eventually find the tiny hole in any scheme? That people haven’t heard of 24-hour watches for danger suspects? That the idea of spying and assassination to advance democracy is an inherently flawed plan?
That said, I was entertained by the movie. Definitely a little confused at how some of the events were meant to have happened (especially the car-bombings and the killing of the lady judge), but I was entertained for 90 minutes or so.
All I saw was the trailer, but all the kills seemed very hard to believe. I’m really sick of movies where they’re able to pull off all these elaborate plans without a hitch. I guess if the action or other elements make up for that, it could be a passable movie. Nothing I want to see in the theatre though.
It’s a pretty bad film. It’s not a cat and mouse game, since Butler’s running everything and Foxx just runs around looking dumb. And neither one of them is interesting enough for you to care about them.
And then at the end, when you find out how he’s doing what he’s doing, it’s so dumb and so lame…
Definitely, and quite the crowd shocker/pleasure in my theater. The weaponization of the steak was pretty clever and shocking too.
I didn’t get it either. Apparently the moral for Butler was “don’t make deals with murderers” since when Foxx says it Butler says “finally”. But previously when he tried refusing one of Butlers deals a shitload of people got blowed up. :rolleyes: The movie played like it was going to have a Se7en type ending with a big twisty symbolic act but that never happens.
The movie was entertaining and interesting in a lot of ways but the morality play aspect never gelled.
I just saw it, not a regrettable 1:40 that I had to kill anyways. I think the movie did it’s job as a decent 2 hour distraction.
[spoiler]I was thinking way too much about who the accomplice might be, and I liked my percieved ending better than the real one anyways. I was hoping the curly haired cop was the accomplice. Or maybe Chester, the off screen boyfriend.
What got me was, after they talked to the “spy” I was thinking that everything was intentional, to a fault almost. Then, he leaves the cleaning cart outside the room with the bomb, and the bomb can just be picked up by any idiot? Then Jamie Foxx strolls out of the solitary dungeon and into the parking lot in 25 seconds?
Meh. I did get a twisted sense of satisfaction out of the torture part, they really didn’t pull a single punch there at all.[/spoiler]
It played here, and since Ebert gave it a mildly favorable review, we went to see it. Excatly what we expected: Enjoyable, then forgettable. Worth seeing if nothing better’s on. Won’t bore you.
Was I along in wondering if the entire point was to get the prosecutor to stoop the the level of being a vigilante? After all Rice had no (legal) reason to kill Shelton in the end. He could just as easily have the bomb squad disarm the bomb (or chuck it in the river) and had prison guards waiting in his cell instead of the bomb. Granted that would have made for an extremly boring ending.
I finally had the chance to watch this movie after it being highly recommended by several friends (I need knew friends).
SPOILERS AHOY
I think I was so disappointed because although fairly silly it had a pretty good premise but descended into outlandish Hollywoodisms, the exact moment I lost interest is when the main characters met the antagonists ex-colleague and he explained that he was some sort of uber-deskjockey spy that absolutely cannot be stopped. :rolleyes:
As I said they had a good premise, that of an ordinary, albiet smart and inordinately determined, man taking revenge on a justice system that he feels has failed him. If they had left it after the first two murders and depicted him fighting the legal system on its own terms just to make a point (the scene with the judge in court was entertaining), ie that its possible to literally get away with murder it would have been a lot more interesting, ie challenging Jamie Foxx’s character to prove that he committed the murders.
They could even have had another twist showing him going from a basically sympathetic character into sadistic monster, that for all its flaws the criminal justice system is necessary and exists for a reason, that individual vigilante justice, while satisfying, is a quick route to anarchy and a very dark place.
I guess I’m just disappointed that movie actually had potential but blew it all for cheap shocks and explosions. And the ‘plan’ was so ludicrous to defy all suspension of disbelief, I mean he was reliant on not one prison officer or security guard glancing into his cell or checking up on him during the hours he was away having his jollies? And thats one of the least implausible aspects, but then we had the Hollywood idea of what intelligence means, a basically godlike ability to predict any and everything and plan forty moves ahead. It just doesn’t work like that (well unless you’re the main character from Limitless I guess and even he made mistakes).
I was convinced though that Colm Meaney’s character was his ‘outside man’, a veteran cop also disgusted with the system having seen too many criminals walk free after his hard work putting them behind bars in the first place.
I haven’t gained any respect for the film since my 2009 comment. I thought the message of the movie was childish - it’s bad to make deal with criminals. Thing is, prosecutors make deals because there’s no other way to make the system work with limited resources (of which the most limited is time). Sure, it would be great to patiently (obsessively, even) dedicate one’s full time and effort to a small handful of cases over a few years as the Butler character does, and if venues were able to hire thousands or millions of prosecutors to similarly dedicate themselves, then every criminal case could be thoroughly dissected and punishments (if deserved) meted out with precision and determination, but by killing nearly all of the DA’s staff, Butler has reduced their resources and cases that were pending now get even less attention, forcing more deals or letting criminals go because of the inability to deliver speedy trials.
Butler’s character is a spoiled brat with better toys. Once he vivisected the guy who killed his family (and arranged for the other guy to get an especially painful execution), that should have been enough. Instead he aggravates the problem he claims to be teaching a lesson about.
Fucker, is all I can say. Selfish childish fucker. He pisses me off.
