Identity Thief

The concept of this film holds some promise. After having his identity stolen, Sandy Patterson's (Jason Bateman) life is falling apart as he is being held responsible for the crimes committed and debts inured by a career criminal that specializes in credit card fraud. The traditional methods of fixing his credit after ID theft takes years and the authorities won't do anything to help him unless the perp is caught red handed, so Sandy takes a cross country trip on his own to apprehend the fake Sandy. Because Sandy is a unisex name, the thief that stole his identity is a woman (Melissa McCarthy). When they're forced to drive from Florida back to the real Sandy's home in Denver, hilarity supposedly ensues. Unfortunately, the great potential of this film is never realized. Identity Thief is a flawed movie from opening to closing credits. The story itself is straight forward: good guy hunts down bad guy, good guy captures bad guy, good guy drags bad guy back for justice, and in the process bad guy makes many attempts to escape. The screenwriters must have assumed that this story line was too simple so they introduced multiple subplots. These minor plots distracted from the over all story - especially Sandy's desire to enact revenge on his sleazy boss (Jon Favreau) - a concept that worked much better in 1997's Nothing to Lose. Since the victim taking a road trip with the perpetrator concept was too ordinary, their trip is complicated by not just one, but three additional characters hunting down the criminal Sandy, and a police force that interrupts the revenge plan sub-plot. First is a pair of gang hitmen (Genesis Rodriguez & T.I.) sent to kill Sandy for selling bad credit cards to their boss. The other is a bounty hunter known only as Skiptracer (Robert Patrick). These pursuits result in gun play, several punches to the throat, multiple car crashes, and a snakebite. And that punch to the throat is overplayed. First time it was funny, the second time not so much, and every punch after that was just annoying. The biggest error in this movie is the complete unlikability of either of the main characters. Bateman as Sandy is pathetic. He is a pushover who inspires zero empathy. At the beginning of movie, he willingly hands over his social security number, birth date, and enough other pieces of information that even the least ham-fisted criminal could steal his identity. Throughout most of the movie I couldn't help but think, 'he deserves this.' McCarthy as Sandy is a vile and repulsive character. She's an obnoxious and vulgar alcoholic who seems to be doing everything in her power to make people despise her. Like her male counterpart, with people chasing her down to either kill her or throw her in jail, I kept thinking, 'she deserves this.' By the time either character shows any redeemable qualities, it's all ready too late - I can't stand either of them. The only reason I want the real Sandy to succeed is for the sake of his wife (Peet) and friend (Cho). As much as the hitmen/bounty hunter threads distract from the main story, I actually enjoyed the scenes with them more than the ones without them. Even as side characters, they were more compelling than Bateman or McCarthy. Their interactions were funnier than most of the rest of the film - especially the scene where Patrick shoves T.I. into a car trunk and when that trunk is later opened by police. I find it sad that these small roles were more convincing and enjoyable than the movie's protagonists. I wouldn't say Identity Thief is a horrible movie, but in no way is it a good movie either. This is one that is best to wait until it is available on Redbox or wait until it's broadcast on a premium cable channel.

Prometheus

The hype surrounding Prometheus has long been that it is a prequel to the Alien franchise. Director/Producer Ridley Scott admitted that the movie would be set in the same universe as the Alien series, but Prometheus would have it's own themes and mythology.

At first, Prometheus seems to stay true to the idea that Alien and Prometheus truly are separate entities. The opening sequence is wholly terrestrial with stunningly beautiful scenery. It shows a UFO that is more in line with pop-sych sightings than anything from the original Alien trilogy, and it introduces the first alien creature - one that does not resemble the creepy xenomorph we were introduced to in 1979's Alien.

The first few minutes of film prescribes to the extraterrestrial seeding origin of life theory - drawing heavy inspiration from the ancient astronauts pseudoscience. Scientists Elizabeth (Rapace) and Charlie (Marshall-Green) discover evidence in an ancient Scottish cave that points to a species of aliens that came to our planet and visited every pre-civilized culture on Earth. They interpret this evidence as a road map and embark on a quest to meet their makers.

Enter the Weyland Corporation. These two scientists convince the insanely wealthy Peter Weyland (Pearce), founder and CEO of Weyland Corporation, to fund an expedition to a distant Earth-like planet to seek our creators, beings they call Engineers.

From the first moment you see the craft Prometheus floating through space, the look and feel of the movie begins to seem reminiscent of earlier films in the franchise. The exploration of the domed structures is similar to the reconnaissance in the underground Antarctic pyramid from Alien vs. Predator. The phallic symbolism is as apparent in Prometheus as it was in the first Alien movie. The Engineer ship is the same as the aliens ship. The snakes in the oily goo look like the chest bursters. There are face huggers and ugly baddies. And an android with ulterior motives.

In fact, motives play a huge role in Prometheus. Damon Lindelof and Jon Spaihts (screenwriters) and Ridley Scott gave each of the characters a reason to be on that voyage. Everyone serves a purpose even if that purpose is to be the first to die.

I don't want to spoil too much of the plot or ruin any of the surprises because there are a few decent plot twists that breathe new life into the Alien franchise that was missing in the utterly bizarre Alien Resurection and the hokey pair of AvP films. While Scott would have you believe this movie was intended to be a prequel in only the vaguest sense of the word, the final scene makes it abundantly clear; we are watching something that belongs in the Alien mythos.

Prometheus is a must see for SciFi fans and those that enjoy scary movies. Some of the biggest moments of terror were rehashed from earlier Alien movies so those moments that were intended to be the most frightening have lost a bit of its bite. But there are some genuine shocks and scenes that are still tense and horrifying.

While the movie has superb cinematic sequences and a captivating story, it won't find broad appeal beyond genre fans. It's not the kind of movie that my wife would enjoy and it is definitely not for the squeamish.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

If you are planning on seeing The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, prepare yourself for two things.

First, it is a deeply disturbing movie. As one of the protagonists mentions early in the film, the characters involved are "thieves, misers, bullies - the most detestable collection of people that you will ever meet." Both Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) the discredited journalist and Salander (Rooney Mara) the hacker hired to help catch a killer of women are faced with violence and pain. They suffer torture, mental abuse, and sexual assault. Their investigation uncovers a series of ritualistic levitical murders. From the disorienting opening sequence (typical of director Fincher's work) set to Trent Reznor's version on Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song, through the use of Enya's Orinoco Flow during a pivotal scene, much of this movie seems to wallow in the depravities of man.

The second thing you should be prepared to endure is shameless product placement. There's no attempt to disguise or subliminally allude to corporate sponsorship. Brand recognition is not subtly flashed across the screen or quietly hinted at - it is brazenly displayed leaving no doubt who helped fund the film. In the first fifteen minutes alone, I noticed blatant plugs for Marlboro, Apple, Coke, and Google. As the movie continued, companies like McDonalds and Nokia found some convenient advertising.

While this is not a movie for those with a week stomach, it is well done. David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac) knows what he's doing. He is skilled at coaxing stellar performances out of actors in films typically burdened by dark subject matter.

The Swedish setting is beautiful at times yet maintains a haunting quality. Reznor and collaborator Atticus Ross (the same duo that scored Fincher's last movie - The Social Network) composed a stunning soundtrack that fits the mood and sets the pace throughout The Dragon Tattoo.

If I offer any recommendations it's tepid at best. My biggest reservations with Dragon Tattoo - aside from the film's graphic nature - are parts that did not make the leap from book to movie. While Mara does a fantastic job portraying the broken and emotionally fragile character of Salander, we fail to see why she's so messed up - quirks that are aptly explained in the book. I will also warn that parts of the movie were extremely difficult to watch - especially the scene where Salander carries out revenge on her sadistic state-appointed caretaker.

Over all, I was impressed with what Fincher accomplished, however The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not a film I'd ever want to see again.

Piranha 3D

I always wondered if I could write a movie review with five words or less. Piranha 3D seems like a perfect opportunity to try.


Gratuitous. Predictable. Don't bother.


Huh... looks like less than five words.

The Expendables

You are a fool if you watch The Expendables expecting to see award winning acting, a flawless script, highbrow entertainment, or a realistic portrayal of the mercenary lifestyle. The performances are typecasted, the action is over-exaggerated, and the movie is inherently flawed.

And it is great summer fun.

If you’re looking for big explosions, over-the-top gun play, car chases, and brutal brawling, you won’t find it in Eat Pray Love. The Expendables is perfectly geared toward the mindless escapism of summer blockbusters. It is a quick paced tour de force of action and nostalgia. The collection of former action headliners with modern action stars is the casting dream of genre fans. From the first peek at teasers and trailers, intelligent people everywhere knew that The Expendables was going to be a campy movie. Yet is the kind of film that forced itself into many must see lists despite its predictable banality.

The movie centers on Barney Ross (played by Stallone - who also wrote and directed), the leader of the titular mercenary crew. He and his gang of brutes are hired by Mr. Church (Bruce Willis in a short cameo) to assassinate the dictator of a fictional island nation in South America. After a trip to the island turns dangerous, Ross declines the job. Thankfully, Ross has a heart to heart man-talk with a former Expendable, Tool (Mickey Rourke – who gives the film the closest resemblance of genuine acting) sowing some seeds of discontent in Ross’s brawny mercenary heart. He’s convinced to return to the island alone to save the girl. After being betrayed by another former team member, Gunner (Dolph Lundgren – who still can’t act) Ross boards his plane to find the rest of the team waiting.

The remaining scenes devolve into a predictable string of gunfire, fists, and massive explosions. I hate to spoil the plot, but everybody dies except the heroes. If that is a surprise to you, you’ve been living in a cave for the last 30 years.

Stallone’s script is filled with foreshadowing, but not the clever hints that something might happen. It’s the blatant we’re eliminating any possibility of a plot twist kind of foreshadow. The final product that we see on screen has been parsed with several cuts and last minute revisions. By the end of the movie, I couldn’t help but notice that something was missing. Entire scenes were noticeably deleted or never shot (most obvious is the absent passage from switching the team’s plane into auto-pilot to their arrival outside the dictator’s palace). And the acting is atrocious - but with a former NFL player, former MMA fighter, former pro-wrestler, and the aforementioned Lundgren…. Shoddy acting is to be expected.

The movie wasn’t all bad. There were several fantastic one-liners (especially a cheap-shot at the governator after Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character exits the church meeting with Stallone and Willis). Jason Statham and Jet Li both submit captivating performances. Li’s talk about being short is one of the funniest bits of dialog in the film. The fight sequences are choreographed with expert skill. And the action is paced quick enough to keep you entertained.

My father-in-law gave it a 2 and a half rating. I give it three out of five. And while I did enjoy the movie, I can’t help but think of the many ways that it could have been better.

Inglourious Basterds

Welcome to Quentin Tarantino's version of World War II. It's not real history. He takes a few creative strides that come closer to wishful thinking than reality.

But there is much to learn from this alternate take on the great war. Here's my list.

1. The Nazi occupation of France was set to a soundtrack akin to spaghetti westerns and 70's era kung fu. With a touch of Jazz and David Bowie.
2. Some of the Nazis were murderous and vile. Others were effeminate bi-polar creeps.
3. Hitler had a temper problem.
4. Don't trust Nazi films starlets. They're not too bright.
5. Nazi war heroes are hopeless romantics. If their charm doesn't woo you, they'll just shoot you.
6. Seeing people drink beer from a glass boot never gets old.
7. If you must have a nick-name, you better have a cool one.
8. Nitrate film is highly flammable. And deadly.
9. Pissed of Jewish mercenaries cuss. A lot.
10. I laugh during awkward moments of cinematic brutality.

That last one has nothing to do with the movie, but it is true. And Inglourious Basterds has no shortage of uncomfortable sequences of violence. The movie opens with exterminations, and ends with execution. Between those bookends, Tarantino's cup of death and disfigurment runneth over. Brad Pitt, Eli Roth and their gang of "Basterds" (Jewish American soldiers hellbent on a mission to kill as many Nazis as possible) indulge themselves in a cavalcade of scalping, carving, fists, bombs, and bullets.

Through it all, we cheer on the righteous vengeance of the basterds and a Jewish girl with a grudge (Mélanie Laurent) who owns the movie theater that houses a Nazi movie premier and the final scenes of carnage. Tarantino creates no sympathy for the Nazis and treats them with contempt. He then gives us an ending to the war that never happened.

It is a better movie than I expected. Far less disturbing than I've come to expect out of Tarantino - who gives as a well written script, excellent production, and a superb cast.

Inglourious Basterds has earned its spot in my top five movies of 2009. My mother-in-law rooted for the Basterds (she generally abhors movies with gratuitous language and bloodshed), and Bekah enjoyed it. That being said, it is not a movie for little kids. Christian was upstairs watching Horton for the 87th time while we watched Basterds. Unless you want your kids to endure years of therapy when they grow up - keep the little ones away.

Zombieland

In the realm of monster/horror movies, the zombie sub-genre is an easy favorite of mine. There's a primal terror in the walking dead - whether as a result of viral infection or Cajun mysticism. We fear the loss of autonomy, we fear being hunted, we fear the unknown lurking around every corner, we fear the unrealistic possibility that a zombie apocalypse might happen in real life.

I love when movies instill that sense of dread. I'm amazed when the same movie that terrifies me also makes me laugh like a ticklish clown that's high on nitrous oxide.

Enter Zombieland.

Zombieland is not the fist movie to combine horror and comedy. It's not even the first to pair slapstick with the undead. Yet it does it so well. It deviates from the pure absurdity of 2004's Shaun of the Dead without devaluing it's predecessor. Zombieland is to Shaun of the Dead what National Lampoon is to Monty Python. Both films are excellent in their common purpose via differing brands of twisted comedic styles. As closing credits began to roll over Zombieland's amusement park, my father-in-law chuckled "that's the funniest zombie movie I've ever seen."

He's correct.

But it's not just a movie about Zombies. And it is more than a funny movie about zombies. It's also a movie about rules. Thanks to my over-developed sense of justice, this is where I think the movie succeeds.

Told from the point of view of a hapless loser/video game geek (Jesse Eisenberg), the nerd survives by compiling an ever-growing list of rules. Simple rules: cardio, wear seatbelts, and beware of bathrooms. These rules are not just demonstrated, but repeated and highlighted through on-screen lettering that is as much scenery as they are props.

Beyond that, Woody Harrelson plays his maniacal self and shows us why his best perfomances happen when his character is slightly unhinged. The movie pulls some hefty punches. From the the opening sequence with a soon-to-be Kibbles & Bits fat kid running accross a football field to the prankings of the con-artist sisters (Abigail Breslin and Emma Stone). From the Dualing Banjo bait/takedown to the quest for a Twinkie. From Bill Murray's genius (albiet predictable) cameo to the climatic roller coaster ride and zombie-clown. Zombieliand is a movie that knows it's identity and flaunts it with admirable bravado.

Granted it comes with the price of prerequsit zombie gore, 30 some odd f-bombs, and the coarse teasing of modern comedy. It's a laugh 'til your bowels hurt kind of movie, a must for fans horror but not recomended for the squeamish.

The Book of Eli

"What movie are we going to go see?" Bekah asked.
"Book of Eli."
"Who's in it?"
"Denzel Washington."
"You know I love me some Denzel. What is it about?"
"30 years after a cataclysmic war..."
"Is it another post-apocalyptic movie?"
I nodded my head, "Yes."
"What is it with you and post-apocalyptic movies?!"


This is how our conversation started as my wife and I left the house on Saturday afternoon. Yes, it is a post-apocalyptic movie, but it’s got Denzel and Bekah is a fan of Denzel.

Now to finish the thought: 30 years after a cataclysmic war, we meet Eli (Denzel Washington). He’s been walking for 30 years because God told him to take the only remaining Bible west to someplace where it would be safe. Religion was blamed for the war and all known religious texts were destroyed. (However, both Mussolini’s biography and Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code survived.)

All is going well. Eli has cat for dinner (which he shares with a mouse), acquires a new pair of boots from a corpse, and falls asleep while listening to Al Green. All Eli has to do is stay on the path. But his MP3 player’s battery dies and needs recharged. He passes through a town that has the ability to recharge electronics and access to clean drinking water (aka – the good stuff). It is at this point that Eli’s path is broken.

The town is ruled by the intelligent yet diabolical Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who is hungry for power. He is an avid reader, and is searching for a Bible. When he finds out Eli has one, Carnegie pursues Eli to forcibly take it. To complicate matters, rebellious girl Solara (Mila Kunis), the daughter of Carnegie’s blind servant wants to go with Eli to where ever he is going. Eli is reluctant (for her own protection) but agrees to her company.

The movie is a sci-fi homage to the western genre (including a mid-town standoff and ensuing shootout). It is also a morality tale filled with religious allegory. God’s word is presented from two diametrically opposite view points: Eli believes the Bible has the power to save humanity, and Carnegie sees it as a weapon. Eli’s violent methods of self defense (and the lengths he takes to protect the Bible) are a stark contrast to his beliefs. In a short explanation for his actions, Eli admits that after reading the Bible every day for 30 years, he’s missed the message it teaches.

Graciously, the film makers do not use the religious tone to harangue non-believers into becoming God-fearing believers. While the message of the movie is about the power of faith, the only condemnation portrayed is a discourse on modern consumerism. Solara asks what life was like before the war; Eli explains we had more than we needed and we threw away stuff that people now kill for.

Coloring is as much a part of the cast as Denzel or Oldman. The Hughes Brothers drained the film of color leaving mostly sepia tints of brown, gray, and green. It is an interesting lesson in using color to tell a story, but in the long run is a burdensome. The desert landscapes and burnt skies set the mood for the movie but it adds a sense of somnolence to an all ready despondent plot. The Hughes Brothers play this aspect of film making to a maddening degree – exploiting it with wide panoramic shots of clouds, distant injections of barren wastelands, excessive close ups, and silhouetted action sequences.

While the coloring is overbearing, it also highlights moments of poignant grief – most memorably (without spoiling the plot) is Eli reading from Second Timothy chapter four in the final scene.

There are bits of biting humor. Eli smelling roadside bandits. Eli sending Solara to retrieve his sunglasses. The crazy old couple serving tea. And in one of my favorite scenes, Solara asks Eli to read the Bible to her (she – like most people under the age of 30 can’t read because they were born after the war). Eli quotes Psalm 23 which Solara states is beautiful. She asks Eli if he wrote it; he answers “yes” before admitting he’s joking.

However, neither heartbreak nor humor is the vehicle that carries this mission of faith. This is more Bekah’s warning than mine: it is a little violent. And by a little, I mean it is violent on an epically gratuitous scale. Limbs are severed, heads are decapitated, the air is filled with gunfire and explosions, and there are several references to cannibalism. Eli handles his weaponry (machete, bow & arrow, pistol and sawed-off shotgun) with surgical accuracy. Carnegie uses a brutally destructive arsenal to hunt down Eli (rocket launchers and gatling guns). And it is all done with the stylistic finesse of the gospel according to Kill Bill.

Be prepared. The pacing is slow. In the first ten minutes of film, the only dialog is Eli talking to a mouse. The tenor of the movie is also unsettling (likely done intentionally). Watching Eli sharpen his machete while listening to How Can You Mend a Broken Heart is a little disconcerting.

The acting is as good as it the post-apocalyptic genre gets. Gary Oldman is convincing in his maniacal thirst for power. Denzel Washington’s devotion (and ultimately compassion) proves his worth in Hollywood. Even Mila Kunis (despite looking like she’s dressed in the best Banana Republic the apocalypse has to offer) perfectly portrays the dichotomy of naïveté and emotional strength. There are also a couple of great cameos from Tom Waits (musician) and Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange).

Bekah recommends it as a movie worth watching but not one she’d want to see more than once. I want to see it again – if only to see if Denzel’s character stays true to the story’s final twist. The Book of Eli is also a great way to launch conversations about matters of faith. This movie sparked more discussion between Bekah and me than any other movie since... well... that I can remember.

Our dialog continued from the theater to the car (and for most of the drive home from Spokane Valley).

“Would you do that? Would you walk for 30 years?” Bekah asked.
“I don’t know.”
“It was a little too violent... and too much swearing.” Yet she likes the Die Hard movies which expels more bullets than a trigger happy NRA member at a shooting range and drops more f-bombs than a drunken sailor.
“Well,” I rebutted, “most of the violence was in self defense, and the vulgarity was from the bad guys.”
“True. And Eli’s motivation made sense. But still... did they have to show the guys head getting chopped off? And with a machete? It’s just so much more personal.”



PS: for the record, I’ve satisfied my post-apocalyptic fix for a while.

Law Abiding Citizen

Step 1: You watch as home invaders rape and kill your wife and daughter. Step 2: The guy who killed your family goes free due to a flaw in the justice system. Step 3: You seek revenge. On everyone.

Sounds like a run-of-the-mill "vengeance is mine" movie plot. After seeing the 20% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, that is what I was expecting. I was anticipating a plot I’ve seen a million times: the everyman seeks vigilante justice when the legal system fails. Even the plot summary on IMDB states "An everyday guy decides to take justice into his own hands."

I was pleasantly surprised by the film, despite the grammatical error in the title. (It should be Law hyphen Abiding, not Law space Abiding. Sheesh.) Citizen starts off with a bang, like a baseball bat to the face. Actually it was literally a baseball bat to the face, but all things considered, I like the simile. The story begins through the eyes of the protagonist Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler of 300) as he watches his wife die and daughter taken away. When the worst of the two criminals flops on the not-as-bad guy, we follow the case into court to watch the plea bargain play out, only to see Shelton in the background watching the evil dude shake hands with the prosecutor Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx from Ray, Collateral, The Soloist, etc). 10 years later, one of the two home invaders is at the end of his death-row sentence. The execution doesn’t go according to plan, and the murders (paybacks) begin. Shelton is arrested, thrown in jail, and continues to kill people from behind bars. Each escalating killing portrays a staggering work of genius and Rice (with police in tow) race to end the massacre and keep Shelton in prison.

Yet, to describe Law Abiding Citizen as the typical revenge flick overlooks some key elements.

1. The movie’s hero (anti-hero?) is not a normal guy. He’s a tinkerer (as one character in the movie states). With a little foreshadowing, the opening sequence shows him to be adept with electronics and robotics. As the story unfolds, we discover the guy is extraordinary, intelligent, and diabolical. While there is an element of righteous anger that motivates his revenge, there is also a mastermind design behind the brutality that could not be carried out by an "everyday guy."

2. Most revenge plots have one bad guy: the person who escaped justice. Once that person has been killed, the hero can carry on with their life in peace. Not this movie. The brutal killings of the two home invaders (the first one startling, the the second graphic – both disturbing) are just the start for this Citizen. The bad guys in this movie are not the people who first committed the crime, but the entire justice system. The courts are corrupt and Shelton wants to "bring the whole system down." So the scope of retribution span beyond the two thugs. It includes their defense attorney, the judge that threw out key evidence, the prosecutor that made a deal with the guilty defendant, the district attorney, the DA office’s staff, and the mayor. Whew. Talk about a hit list.

3. You’re never sure who to root for. At first we like Clyde Shelton. There is an understandable empathy toward his actions. We cheer him on as he tells off the judge during his bail hearing (people in my theater were clapping). We nervously laugh at his steak dinner and later at an exploding cell phone. But at some point, we no longer see Shelton as a grieving father, but a maniacal lunatic. Nick Rice is a workaholic who seems willing to sacrifice his family’s happiness for his own political ambitions. Throughout the movie he stands by his choices maintaining an "I did the right thing" defense when we all know he made the wrong decision. We want him to man up. Eventually we begin to see him as the hero. (I consider this to be great story telling as characters that are too perfect or too flawed are not believable.)

4. It bucks the traditional ending. The moment we expect (Shelton gets the same deal that Rice struck with the bad man at the beginning of the movie) never happens. We want Shelton to earn his freedom for a while, but then we begin to think he belongs in jail.

5. This is not a feel good movie. The first death looks like a clip from a horror movie. The second fatality is a sociopath’s dream. (We’re spared the viewing of the dissection, but we see the results and the gory details are described within the prison interview room.) The third killing is clinical. The fourth is excessively bloody and the next catches you off guard. The final body count is in double digits. The language is vulgar. The cinematography is sharp and gritty. The pace is unsettling and quick. This is not the type of movie you walk away from thinking "I’d do the same thing if a couple of drug addicts killed my family and got away with it."

My only complaint about the movie is the amount of detective work that Nick Rice accomplished. I understand there is a bit of research that prosecutors have to do to build their case, but Citizen had Rice riding along with the police to every crime scene, and to make every arrest. Well, that complaint and the bad grammar in the title.

Overall, Law Abiding Citizen is not one of the best movies ever made. But it is entertaining. And that’s what movies should be about. I give it 6 exploding cell phones out of 10.

It is rated R for good reason.