Edited by Michael Reuben - 6/21/10 at 8:45am
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!



I pulled the trigger as its still on sale at Amazon.

Finally saw this. I didn't care for it, but that wasn't related to my feelings about Taken. This film treated my suspension of disbelief the way Shelton treated Darby. 
As for comparing the two:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
In Taken the vigilante is the hero, while in LAC the vigilante is the villain, so the fact that the vigilante brutalizes a bunch of innocent people is not so relevant in the latter. The audience is not expected to root for him at all (at least beyond the murders of the burglars who killed his family).
One comment on Taken -- I may have just let the line between movies and reality get too blurred -- in real life there is no way to shoot somebody like that without putting their life at risk. 
Michael, I'm curious as to where you and your wife disagreed about the point at which Shelton crossed the line. IMO there are maybe three places to consider:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
1. He crossed the line by killing anybody. 2. He crossed the line by killing Ames. 3. He crossed the line by killing anyone other than Darby and Ames.

Michael, I'm curious as to where you and your wife disagreed about the point at which Shelton crossed the line. IMO there are maybe three places to consider:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
1. He crossed the line by killing anybody. 2. He crossed the line by killing Ames. 3. He crossed the line by killing anyone other than Darby and Ames.
I'm afraid you waited too long.
It's been almost 8 months and over 40 reviews since then, and I can no longer pinpoint our discussion with that kind of accuracy.
I'm not sure it would matter anyway. If you re-read my review, you'll see that I don't agree with the characterization in your first spoiler, and I suspect a lot of the audience that made this film a minor hit didn't either. In the vigilante genre, the vigilante is never the villain. He may be a tragic hero, as I think Shelton is, but he's still a hero. My entire write-up of the film rests on that premise.

I'm afraid you waited too long.
It's been almost 8 months and over 40 reviews since then, and I can no longer pinpoint our discussion with that kind of accuracy.
I'm not sure it would matter anyway. If you re-read my review, you'll see that I don't agree with the characterization in your first spoiler, and I suspect a lot of the audience that made this film a minor hit didn't either. In the vigilante genre, the vigilante is never the villain. He may be a tragic hero, as I think Shelton is, but he's still a hero. My entire write-up of the film rests on that premise.
Honestly, I find that kind of disturbing. Beyond the third point in my second spoiler, IMO Shelton no longer even qualifies as a vigilante. Tragic Hero -- perhaps.
Maybe, but I know several people that have watched this film in the past year and thought it was a good film and despite his actions still had sympathy for Shelton.
Crawdaddy
Well, "honestly" (
), it sounds like you may finally be getting the point of what I wrote. The comparisons you kept drawing to Taken back when I first posted it clearly showed you were missing it.
I don't know how much more clearly I could have said it: "The sense that there’s a justice truer than the court system goes deeper than any particular set of current events, and clearly it’s lost none of its power to elicit a reaction from an audience that’s almost primal." Just because you or some other viewer decides to call "time out", that doesn't determine when someone stops being a vigilante. The very notion of vigilantism involves pushing aside the duly designated authorities and declaring yourself above the law. Once someone does that, they're the only one who gets to say when enough is enough. I'm not condoning the practice, but anyone who refuses to acknowledge the theme's continued popular appear is fooling themselves.
Quote:
I wasn't drawing comparisons to Taken, I was asking if there were similarities. I hadn't seen LAC yet at that time. 
Quote:
But after Shelton deals with Ames and Darby, he's not out for justice anymore (and IIRC, he says as much). He's not trying to fight crime, or take the law into his own hands. He's playing some kind of twisted revenge game. That's not what defines a vigilante.
Simply pushing aside the authorities and declaring oneself above the law just makes one a criminal. When it's done in the name of fighting crime, that's what makes a vigilante. When Shelton stops targeting criminals, he stops being a vigilante. (It would be different if he *perceived* his targets to be criminals, but he doesn't even seem to be doing that.)
Quote:
Of course I don't require that everyone like exactly the same movies I do.
And I certainly had sympathy for what happened to Shelton; it's just that at some point (a point that will be different for different viewers) it no longer affected my opinions of his actions.

Quote:
Of course I don't require that everyone like exactly the same movies I do.
And I certainly had sympathy for what happened to Shelton; it's just that at some point (a point that will be different for different viewers) it no longer affected my opinions of his actions.
Or in some cases, people look to the film as simply entertainment, therefore, they don't take the film seriously and don't think very long about the film's morality issues.
Well they're no fun to argue with 8 months later. 
At any rate, going back to my first post after seeing the movie -- my not liking it was due to the completely ludicrous plot overcoming my suspension of disbelief, not due to moral issues. They're just conversation fodder. Had the filmmakers come up with more believable plot devices, I might've enjoyed it as an action thriller even if I disagreed with people about the nature of the characters (such disagreements can make a film more interesting, but won't necessarily cover up other faults). As it is, I consider the film a near miss that simply stretched reality a bit too far. (See: Gone Baby Gone for an example of a thoroughly awesome film with characters that people can have conversation-worthy disagreements about.)
Aaron, I think you should take Crawdaddy's suggestion, because the lines your trying to draw don't work.
Simply pushing aside the authorities and declaring oneself above the law just makes one a criminal.
That is correct. From the official point of view, every vigilante is a criminal. Shelton became a criminal the moment he acted against Darby and Ames.
Oops. You're already in trouble. It's the authorities who define what constitutes "crime" and how it should be fought and punished. When you push them aside, that's what makes you a vigilante -- and it doesn't matter for what purpose. (This is first-year law school stuff, BTW.) From the legal point of view, Shelton became Darby's equivalent when he killed Ames. He became a murderer.
OK, now you're in the thick of it. Who's to decide when Shelton stops targeting criminals? The authorities? Shelton no longer accepts their right to decide who is and who isn't a criminal. Shelton? He believes that the judge, the defense attorney, the prosecutor and a lot of other people conspired to deprive him of his day in court and are therefore complicit in giving aid and comfort to people who should be put away for life. As far as Shelton is concerned, he is targeting criminals -- criminals that he's convicted. You think he's wrong and that those people are innocent. That's the question the film puts to viewers. What you find "disturbing" is that you're in a minority of viewers. (BTW, to answer your original question, my wife agreed with him, at least on some of the victims.)
The problem with the argument you're making is that you're using "crime" and "criminals" as if they're self-evident absolutes. Vigilante films do the same thing. They create evildoers so heinous and obvious (like Darby and Ames) that there's never any doubt about the hero's essential righteousness. But a really clever one, like LAC, takes it further. It shows you where such an approach ultimately leads -- what happens when someone decides to apply a self-evident sense of what's right and what's wrong without any restraint. And that's what's making you uncomfortable.
Watch the film again.

