Movie Review

Movie Review: Law Abiding Citizen
Directed by F. Gary Gray
Three and a Half Stars:  “an explosion of a movie that ends in a fizzle”
Review by Michael Kitz

Law Abiding Citizen is one of those vigilante justice movies that starts off excellent, and then all goes to pot by an ending that stabs the plot in the back and destroys any semblance of credibility.
Clyde (Gerald Butler), a wealthy inventor, witnesses his wife beaten, raped and then, along with his only little girl, murdered during a home robbery.  The home robbery was perpetrated by two men, one young and the other old, neither of whom attempt to disguise themselves. The older robber, Darby, goes on a psychotic rampage of which its clear that the younger robber is horrified by. Nick (Jamie Foxx), the prosecutor of the murders with a “96% conviction record”, swings a deal to ensure conviction where the actual killer/rapist essentially walks, and the bystander accomplice gets the death sentence - typical travesty result of a dysfunctional justice system.  Nick tries to convince himself that he has done the right thing because “some justice is better than no justice”; while the powerless surviving victim Clyde must watch the prosecutor and his families murderer shake hands for the cameras from afar. 
Fast forward ten years, the perpetrators—the one with a conscience is condemned to lethal injection while the and the heartless psychotic is free to rent whores, snort coke and enjoy the comfort of a dirty wife-beater (essentially the American Dream) --both die cruel and unusual deaths on the same day - this is 20 minutes into the movie and you wonder where the next 90 minutes are going.
Turns out Clyde is not quite the mild mannered inventor you're lead to believe, but something quite different, and with an agenda involving anyone and everyone involved in the injustice of the judicial conclusion of the trial. Clyde has everyone in a panic as he toys with them, eliminating whom he pleases, when he wants, exploiting the flaws, loopholes, and abuse of the justice system that most everyone in the judicial system has taken advantage of for their own personal reasons—all while he is locked up in solitary confinement. This part of the story is truly riveting: you really don't know what will happen next, the points about justice and the brilliant instruction of tough lessons keeps you on Clyde’s side. Although it does stretch credibility a bit at times, you buy into it.
Gerald Butler is great as the mysterious, semi-psycho avenger. Likewise Jamie Foxx comes off well as the arrogant, self-serving prosecutor whose big ego clouds his judgment. 
But then the story takes a sharp turn, secrets are revealed, the “good guys” get the upper hand, and we have a Hollywood type ending - all quite a let down.
These types of rip-off  ridiculous endings on an engaging and interesting film has happened far too often, so please bear with me as we look at this trend, it’s causes, and why it is so damaging to filmmaking in this country. The poorly conceived and unfortunate conclusions that Hollywood (and by that name I am provoking the idea of filmmaking for money first rather than filmmaking as artistic expression) forces upon a story and the audience do not bode well in the long run. 
Often, since Hollywood's objective is to make movie viewing satisfying (thereby making it predictable, or in a psychological thrillers case, ridiculous), widely approvable (thereby avoiding unpopular or uncomfortable truths to play out to fruition and reinforcing false principles), understandable (thereby providing pat answers and shallow explanation for every motive or event), and provide shock and awe spectacle (thereby limiting subtlety, suggestion, and viewer participation through their need to exercise their own imagination.) a movie will be drained of it's artistic or social worth.  This is one of those sad examples wherein the original content is either watered down, completely contradicted, or simply lost.
The irony is that the best, most beloved, and/or most effective movies are usually none of these things.  But the risk is too great to allow these tried and true money making rules to be ignored so we are forced too often to experience great ideas and brilliant stories to be thwarted by financial considerations and/or typical Hollywood bias.  The original ending of this film would have actually made for a much more effective and believable conclusion, but cold-feet and the need to indoctrinate rather than expose won out again. 
Vigilante movies are best when true justice is achieved in an imperfect world, when our desires are fulfilled through fiction so that reality need not be an outlet for them.  The harm done by this film (and films that end up like this one) is that the entire third act is detrimental to the stories points regarding our system of justice and punishment and the make-up of the characters involved.  The last twenty minutes of this movie has more holes than Swiss cheese used for target practice, and the disappointment is all too familiar.
Someday I hope it may be possible to create good endings to all the great movies destroyed by misguided Hollywood and its disappointing formula of production (without having to remake the entire piece because usually the acting, directing, cinematography and editing are very good).  When that possibility becomes a reality we're going to have a lot of satisfying work ahead of us. And I get dibs on the patent.