Film review: ‘Law Abiding Citizen’ - Entertainment, Movies - Navy Times

Film review: ‘Law Abiding Citizen’

As a social statement, “Law Abiding Citizen” is a flawed attempt at holding the legal system accountable for its shortcomings.

As a movie, it’s a ridiculous execution of a misguided concept.

So there’s that. But it does have a couple of things going for it: Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler. Two lesser actors and the thing would practically be unwatchable. With them, it’s a revenge fantasy in which we’re not sure whom to pull for; instead we just root for the movie to end.

Clyde Shelton (Butler) is an inventor who is tinkering around one night when men break into his Philadelphia home, beat him and kill his family.

The killers are caught, but Nick Rice (Foxx), an assistant district attorney, cuts a plea bargain to get one to testify against the other.

Years pass. The execution of one killer goes horribly wrong; soon the other suspect turns up dead. Shelton is arrested, and although he lets Rice know he’s responsible, he does so in a way that won’t quite allow Rice to convict him. The guy’s been doing his homework.

Shelton further maneuvers the justice system that has so let him down to get himself placed in solitary confinement. For the audience, this means a lot of shots of a brooding Butler, leaving the actor with little else to do but appear to be thinking. Or scheming. Or something. But just because he’s behind bars doesn’t mean Shelton can’t continue his campaign against the system. Much to Rice’s consternation, he is somehow able to bring a reign of terror down on the city; Rice is powerless to stop him.

So, as Rice and his co-workers race to figure out how Shelton is manipulating events from behind bars — there’s clearly more to the guy than previously thought — the body count piles up.

Which poses a problem for the audience. When Shelton is getting revenge on the people who killed his family, it’s possible to understand Shelton’s motives. Even Rice acknowledges as much.

But when Shelton goes after people he perceives as being compromised or corrupted (or both), he’s less easy to sympathize with. Yes, the system is imperfect, and yes, that’s frustrating. But grounds for the murder of those who work within it?

That’s what siding with Shelton means. Or do we side with Rice, who represents to Shelton (and to us) the system, with its strengths but also its weaknesses?

It’s to Butler and Foxx’s credit that we care enough to even ask the question. Even then, it’s hard to care all that much.