did anyone else piss money away on law abiding citizen?

[Just!n]

hey p-boi, here's a quick movie quiz for ya!

q: what's the first rule when scripting a movie protagonist?

a: making sure he/she isn't an insufferable cunt!

whups! guess the screenwriters for law abiding citizen didn't pass! okay, i'm the least perceptive smart movie fan in the universe. i follow plots and understand motivations without needing to ask a billion questions, but at the same time i really don't give a fuck about subtext and allegory and all that artsy nonsense. that being said, law abiding citizen is the most overt film i've ever seen in my whole stupid life.

like, okay, you know how you'll watch a movie and maybe you'll be like "well if he just does "x" he can end the "whatever." that's what happens in law abiding citizen LITERALLY WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE MINUTES. jamie foxx' plays a douche lawyer who prioritizes family and justice beneath his career and as a result, one of the guys responsible for the murder of gerard butler's wife and kid cuts a deal and walks with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. 10 years later (or something) butler starts enacting revenge upon everyone who wronged him, STARTING WITH THE CRIMINALS. HE LITERALLY INFILTRATES A PRISON AND RIGS THE DEVICE THAT ADMINISTRATES LETHAL INJECTION SO THAT IT DELIVERS AS MUCH PAIN AS POSSIBLE. instead of being like "woah okay buddy you're right it was totally a misappropriation of justice. i fucked up. my bad," jamie foxx gets all stoic and lawyery and tries to prosecute the guy who just defaced an execution and followed it up by TORTURING THE OTHER CRIMINAL AND SENDING A DVD OF THE TORTURE TO JAMIE FOXX'S INAPPROPRIATELY MATURE 10-YEAR-OLD KID.

eventually the movie realizes how insufferable jamie foxx is, and they go to great lengths to establish that butler isn't just ONE MAN OUT FOR JUSTICE AGAINST A CORRUPT SYSTEM, but a bonafide lunatic, but by that point you've already telegraphed every death because, like, right before jamie's attractive assistant dies she delivers a monologue about whether sacrificing her personal life for a career was the right decision and how maybe trying to get the best of butler isn't a good id-OH WHUPS HER CAR JUST BLEW UP THANK GOD FOR THE NARRATIVE EXPOSITION HAPPENING 30 SECONDS PRIOR!

the movie ends with butler wanting to blow up city hall, but since YOU CAN'T FIGHT CITY HALL he ends up a victim of his own hubris (or something. what the fuck does "hubris" even mean?) and jamie foxx becomes the DA (the old DA was killed by a functioning johnny 5.) and us god-fearing patriotic americans are left imparted with the knowledge that SHE AINT PERFECT BUT SHE GETS THE JERB DONE re: our legal system.

score: negative hyperbolic derision / 5

[B]

q: what's the first rule when scripting a movie protagonist?

a: making sure he/she isn't an insufferable cunt!

We always argue about this, but this is totally not a rule. Movie protagonists should literally be EVERY kind of person.

I think the first rule of scripting a protagonist should be the first rule of writing an effective wrestling heel: they should believe what they say, and what they say and do should feel like the right thing to them. It's what makes characters identifiable (and sometimes likable, like Max in Where the Wild Things Are) simply because they're honest. There is not one person in the world who is ACTUALLY a self-righteous lawyer trying to stop a corrupted madman, or whatever. The first rule of writing movies should be "if the movie you are writing is stupid, stop."

[Just!n]

you know why you're wrong? because protagonists aren't heels. it doesn't matter whether they're technically right, because the demeanor with which they carry themselves dictates how they'll be received. flawed protagonists are fine so long as there's grounds upon which we relate.

do you honestly want to cheer for a lawyer who follows judicial protocol and prioritizes his chance to win a case not only over his family, but the desperate pleas of his client (gerard butler wouldn't have targeted jamie foxx if he'd just pursued the maximum sentence against both men responsible for the death of his wife/child. he literally says this during the film.) and then, within the very same movie, do you want to root against the blue-collar guy who's house was vandalized and who's wife and daughter were murdered in front of him? and then, robbed of justice by the legal system SPECIFICALLY JAMIE FOXX), kills the criminals by his own accord?

it is a bad movie with an awful protagonist who never gives the audience a single reason to care about his well-being. late in the movie foxx realizes that there's more to life than being a lawyer, but by that point you're totally in a "welcome to an hour ago, when ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS WEREN'T DEAD BECAUSE YOU STUBBORNLY REFUSED TO DROP A CASE."

i can name 10 movies immediately with awful protagonists. most of them are from tarantino films. i get the concept of an anti-hero. law abiding citizen was just a Poorly Written Film.

[Just!n]

fucking i can validate bad lieutenant as being a protagonist.

it is easier for me to argue for the eponymous character in a movie featuring NUN RAPE than it is to defend jamie foxx in a terrible movie with seemingly no applied foresight.

[Just!n]

like, i'm not comparing UK office to US office or some shit. goddamn.

[Rusty Cooledge]

I just picture B in the corner smirking and winking after every post rather than responding.

Didn't see this movie because I don't see movies that look retarded. You'd be surprised how much flak I catch for this. UGH COME ON MAN JUST GIVE IT A CHANCE

[A Link To The Matt]

The first rule of writing movies should be "if the movie you are writing is stupid, stop."

But then we never would have gotten Jackass number 2

[Randy]

i submit this as another entry into the "making references to wrestling does not make it less stupid" exhibit.

[Alan]

i thought butler was the protagonist

[A Link To The Matt]

Alternate post:

But then we would have never had oscar award winning Norbit

[B]

The idea I was going for is that you shouldn't always have to cheer for the protagonist. A bad person can be interesting and participate in a compelling story. It's the movie as a whole that should be telling a story, not the main character.

And honestly I'd rather have a consistently unlikable character than an unlikable character who does one nice thing near the end of the movie and that means you're supposed to like him. That's the worst, cop shows do that all the time. A character is a shithead for 200 episodes, and then in one episode he's like "oh here little boy have a balloon" and smiles and misses his wife or something and we're supposed to like him.

[Rusty Cooledge]

ugh you just spoiled the character arc of rusty cooledge

[A Link To The Matt]

B has been watching law and order: SVU again

[B]

Mark Harmon on whatever one of those shows Mark Harmon is on (NCIS I think), Dr. House, and the mean doctor guy from Scrubs are all great examples of this. dick dick dick dick dick dick dick HAS COMPASSION FOR SPECIAL PATIENT dick dick dick dick dick dick dick MAD BECAUSE HE CARES ABOUT HIS JOB dick dick dick dick dick DEAD SON etc.

[A Link To The Matt]

Let's not forget david carruso.


I agree with you on house, but I think doctor Cox had much more of a reason for being a dick other than just being a dick. But I get your point I think

[Just!n]

Mark Harmon on whatever one of those shows Mark Harmon is on (NCIS I think), Dr. House, and the mean doctor guy from Scrubs are all great examples of this. dick dick dick dick dick dick dick HAS COMPASSION FOR SPECIAL PATIENT dick dick dick dick dick dick dick MAD BECAUSE HE CARES ABOUT HIS JOB dick dick dick dick dick DEAD SON etc.

these are all dudes who are dicks but also are right in the end. jamie foxx is WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG AND STUBBORN.

[DGMacphee]

Haven't seen the movie. Probably won't ever. Looks like dogshit.

This thread is pretty interesting. For every specific example Justin brings up, there's an example from a good film as counterpoint. Like when Justin mentions that if the protagonist hadn't done such-and-such in the first five minutes, none of the events would have transpired and the villain wouldn't have killed all the protagonist's pets, etc, etc, I thought of No Country For Old Men.

But Justin's not wrong about this movie and I get what he's saying. Even though an archetype or situation from a bad film appears in a good film, it's just a case of it being done better in the good film. What I understood from Justin is that all these situations and archetypes in Law Abiding Citizen are over-simplistic and it trivialises how human beings behave and how a complex systems like the Justice System works.

[David]

I agree with B that a protagonist needs to be likeable in any way.

What I see as the problem with Law Abiding Citizen is not that Jamie Foxx is an asshole. It's that Law Abiding Citizen is trying to make the audience feel for Jamie Foxx and, because he is insufferable, it doesn't make sense. Because it's not trying to defy the conventions of this type of movie, Jamie Foxx's character is in the wrong movie.

and jamie foxx becomes the DA (the old DA was killed by a functioning johnny 5.)

There is just no way this section of the movie happens the way I am imagining it.

[Rusty Cooledge]

I agree with you on house, but I think doctor Cox had much more of a reason for being a dick other than just being a dick. But I get your point I think

The old chief of medicine on the other hand is just a worthless horrible old shit head until Private Dancer shows up and he's all "omg this poor patient..." and we are supposed to be like "dawww".

[A Link To The Matt]

Don't forget that he's a country singer who calls his wife bunny. Yeah, Dr. Kelso is a piece of shit for no reason, and his character development to awwww, always pissed me off, because, dammnit, Dr. Kelso is a piece of shit for no reason and that he should remain.