MovieChat Forums > Law Abiding Citizen (2009) Discussion > Was the ending really that bad?

Was the ending really that bad?


I never understood why so many people hate the ending. What that tells me is that once viewers latch on to a character, they will continue rooting for that character no matter how morally corrupt that character becomes. I started off rooting for Clyde too but he starting taking it too far. Suffering the unimaginable doesn't justify killing innocent people. Clyde was about to kill a room full of government officials but everyone seems okay with that. Destroying government leads to anarchy which is bad for innocent people.

People need to re-examine Nick's decision to make a deal with Darby. Many people seem to be under the impression that Nick pursued the deal for the sole purpose of maintaining his conviction rate, but I didn't see that way. Nick wanted to put Darby in jail but the DNA was ruled inconclusive. Without hard evidence, it's easy for defense lawyers to get their clients off free. Nick feared that Darby would walk away without any repercussions. I still think Nick should've pursued the trial because that's what Clyde(his client) wanted. However, I don't think Nick's decision was cold blooded the way many people think it was.

I just don't think Nick is as bad as everyone is making him out to be. Nick never killed anyone but Clyde was becoming a mass killer so I don't understand why everyone would still be rooting for him. I was okay with Clyde killing Darby and his accomplice. But he became a monster after that. He had no real reason to kill the lawyer, the judge, the inmate, Sarah, Jonas, and the security guards that were in the car with Jonas. Those security guards had absolutely nothing to do with the Darby case. And the only reason Clyde killed the inmate was because he wanted to move to solitary confinement so he could kill more people. So the inmate basically got killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The system is not perfect but killing everybody in the system won't make anything better. There are plenty of revenge movies where the victim only goes after the people that are responsible. The victim usually leaves innocent people alone in revenge movies. Clyde is different because he started killing innocent people which is why he lost me. This movie is important because it shows that not everybody can maintain good morals after being victimized. The victim can often become a perpetrator after experiencing trauma.

reply

No, you're right...to an extent, anyway. Butler shouldn't have WON, but it seemed like we needed someone else to root for besides Foxx's character.

Whatever went into his decision to not pursue the death penalty, I think you'd be hard pressed to really believe that his ego and ambition were left out of the picture. It seemed like it'd been made pretty clear that it was all about the conviction rate with this guy.

And at the end, we're apparently supposed to relate to him, to feel some sense of satisfaction when he's walking away from the explosion that killed Butler in slow-motion. And then at his daughter's recital...he's there...and the camera lingers on his face, his adoration for his daughter or whatever. Except having had it been so difficult to sympathize with his character, there wasn't much of a transfer of feeling. We weren't in his shoes, you know?
But it seemed like the movie expected us to be...

A MUCH better ending would have been to have Butler choose not to set off the bomb, and have it play out where neither of
them is either the loser or the winner.
It'd be interesting to find out if there was ever any alternative ending.
Aaand I looked it up...there's a rumor that Foxx wouldn't get attached to the movie without his character coming out on top. I don't know if its true or not, but it would help explain what seems like an ill-fitting ending.

reply

The ending is such a joke, that ridiculous recital... like we give a shit. It's almost comical. I'm not sure what the best alternative would be, but anything besides Jamie Foxx's arrogant ass "winning" and looking smug like that. The movie should have had his character slowly descending into madness or something, with Clyde finally actually breaking him, begging at his feet or something. Maybe Clyde kidnaps his family. Maybe he plans to have them discover the tunnel and think there's going to be a City Hall explosion, but he does something much different. I don't know, anything but what we got.

Regardless, If Jamie Foxx's character needed to live, he should have left the film a broken/changed man, not the same cocky douchebag he was in the beginning.

reply

FWIW, I don’t think Foxx has it in him to portray someone descending into chaos. His acting is completely one dimensional, and to an extent Butler’s is as well. Butler does angry and conniving well, Foxx does smug and swagger well. That’s it.

This movie was one example where the acting let it down more than the script. Imagine if Ben Foster and Jake Gyllenhaal were in those lead roles instead. Either role!

You’re right about the ill fitting ending and not giving a shit about the recital.

reply

Yes

reply

I agree, even as the script as it stands with its flaws could have worked a lot better with different actors, and maybe the ending wouldn't have been as jarring. I did enjoy Butler's performance however.

reply

the ending was fine, except for the new DA being stupid about not making deals anymore.

reply

I agree

reply