3/5 is the rating I almost always give to enjoyable trash. Don't mistake it for not beig trash though, it absolutely is.
I suppose that is understandable. Typically movies I find okay in watching, yet ones I wouldn't watch again fall into the 2-3 out of 5 catagory.
I also gave a 3/5 to Red Dawn
I liked Red Dawn. But probably wouldn't rate it higher than 3/5 either. Chances are my 3/5's are higher on the chart than yours are though, judging by our current conversation.
You honestly need slapped over this.
I won't spin this into a one-off, but simply put.. they bring in a
Brother who wasn't mentioned in 1, or 2, EVER.. as the main killer? Its like they literally had NO fucking clue who to make the killer, until it was time for that person to reveal themselves and at that point, someone yelled..
"Make it a Brother no one knew of."
3/5? No. -1/5 is more like it. The worst one of the trilogy, and a clear and blatant attempt to milk more money out of the franchise. Pure shit movie.
Redemption? What redemption? He turned into a fucking monster that murdered completely innocent people who had nothing to do with the deaths of his family. And then SPOILER ALERT, he dies by his own doing. How is that redemption Will?
Murder is murder, regardless what its done for. Self-defense, is still murder in its own right - but about the only type thats considered "okay".
Butler was consumed with rage and anger. He wasn't murdering innocent people, in his mind. He was killing off individuals that were apart of the court, and overall legal system that had connection to his case.
And let's also keep in mind, he didn't start off killing innocent people. He started off by telling them how they could save innocent people, if they'd simply listen - instead of following something by the book. (the guy in the ground, who died due to lack of oxygen.. would've lived, had the Warden not fucked around.)
Again, is that right? No. Murder is murder. But Butler, at that point, wasn't killing. He was proving his point, in a violent and rage consumed manner.
If you actually think this film was an accurate portrayal of our legal system Will...well shit, I've got bad news for you---it's not. At all. Do you have any idea how rare it is for murderers to get off scott clean because of a technicality? Incredibly rare.
I'm not saying murderers get off scott-clean all the time. However, in terms of how this movie potrayed the situation. The true murderer of Butler's Family, did. And due to bad loop-holes.
Why? Because Butler was the only witness? So are you telling me that in real life, if this storyline holds any weight - a murderer could kill an entire family as long as he doesn't leave enough DNA to trace back to him, and if the only person to witness the entire thing, was a surviving member of the Family being murdered.. that the killer could walk?
If that happened to you, could you tell me you wouldn't be just as enraged as Butler's character? Am I saying you'd plot killing several people to prove why the system was shit? NO. But everyone is different. Regardless, if a killer of your loved ones walked free.. you'd want self-redemption and vengeance, too.
Oh please, Butler was the worst of everyone in the entire film, he has the emotional range of a dry paper sack. The performance started off good, and then quickly turned into a poorly developed caricature/stereotype of a character. He spent the majority of the movie killing innocent people. We're supposed to feel bad for this guy? The guy was a fucking psychopath and never once made me care in the slightest bit about what happened to him.
Again, he wasn't killing "innocent" people, through his eyes. He wasn't
killing anyone at all. He was putting them in dangerous situations and giving deadlines and ultimatums.
Does that make him good, or right? No. But he wasn't
killing in the same sense as a common murderer. He was giving them the chance to save everyone, if only they'd listen to what he wanted them to understand - that no one ever gave thought to, until Foxx finally did which ultimately killed Butler.
Which is one of the things that makes the film so shit Will. It has no idea what it wants to be---one minute it's a revenge film, the next it's a crime thriller, then suddenly it's a fuckin' action film? It has no idea what it wants to be, who it wants you to root for. Are we supposed to root for the psychopath who's family was murdered, or the callous lawyer in Jaime Foxx? The film went back and forth between those two playing the protagonist that by the end of the film you're left completely unsatisfied with the results. Butler dies from his own hand after completely ruining any sympathy we might have had for him, while the asshole lawyer goes to his daughter's recital. Are we supposed to care? I know I sure didn't. The only thing that kept this film enjoyable was the over-the-top gore and acting. Gerard Butler was SO over the top here, I thought maybe the film had descended into a parody of itself at some points.
I think the movie was meant to end with Butler being so consumed with hate, anger and the belief that the legal system would never change.. that vengeance and his psychopathic rage, as you'd call it, sent him over the deep in.
But as far as Foxx goes. The more important message was that Foxx finally took into consideration what Butler wanted them to listen to, all along. And, unless I completely missed it, Foxx accepted what Butler was trying to explain all along and then took it into future cases. To help prevent similar miscarriages of justice.
So the message of the film is that it's okay to murder innocent people to satisfy your own anger over the deaths of loved ones? That's the message Will? That's a terrible message if I may say so. The film spends maybe, what, five minutes MAX actually discussing these technicalities and how they're exploited. If that's the entire message and theme of the film, and they can't even spend more than five minutes to flesh it out, I call that an incredibly poorly made film.
To be perfectly honest. I suppose I'm not entirely sure what the message was. I'd like to say it was something along the lines of the simplistic
good will always prevail. And while Butler began as good, in the end, rage filled him with hate and evil. Thus, Foxx prevailed.
If you believe its a shot in the dark, thats because it is. Murder isn't right under any circumstance, shy of self-defense, and even then there is a major grey area. But you have to take this movie at whole-sale for what it was.. a vengeance flick.
Now that I think about it I think I'll knock my rating for the film down to a 2.5. It wasn't quite as enjoyable as other trash might be, like a low-budget slasher film from the 80s.
Not trying to make you dislike it even more, but you've convinced me that through your eyes.. the film is likely no better than a 1.0, or 1.5 at the very highest.
On my chart.. this is how I look at things.
1. Unenjoyable all the way around.
2. Fair, but not worth watching or thinking of anymore.
3. Good, not great but not completely horrible. Okay to watch again to see if the opinion changes.
4. Very good. Worth repeat viewings and recommending. Possibly own worthy.
5. Great. Own-worthy.
That is also a rough view of it, as until now - I never gave 'deep' thought into my rating system beyond; bad, average, good, great, amazing.
(Beyond Law Abiding Citizen. Did you have any other agreements/disagreements with my films? You and Tdigs are pretty much the top two individuals I'm looking to discuss movies with, albeit I'm open for discussion with anyone.)