3 stars as achieves it's aim. Who doesn't at some point wish to enact a similar revenge in their dreams against some group or other, so the film has a warm cosy guilty feeling as it rolls on. The target here is capitalism, despite the obvious richness the system has achieved for the many, albeit not for all - which is hardly a failure when you consider what the other systems have so far achieved. The film has endless plot holes but these don't really matter. Odd that no gun was turned on the medical vampires and of course being Hollywood the politicians escape attention. I also thought the wife was selfish and very cruel - a huge plot hole. Film is no 'Falling Down' but there is no doubt a certain satisfaction can be felt but really nothing to think too long about afterwards.

This is a story about a morally decent man who has those morals tested by the imorality of the morally corrupt!
Okay then, I was sympathetic with the lead character and his wife for most of the film. I find it disgraceful that when someone is ill they are pretty much shafted by just about every system that is supposed to be there to help. How can hospitals turn away patients midway through treatment when their illness is life threatening. Again morally, people suffering from life limiting conditions should be helped by whatever government and given every assistance to get help and financial aid. So I do understand where Dominic Purcell's character, Jim Baxford is coming from...initially.
However, my sympathy ended with the indiscriminate killings in the finale. The target should have been Jeremy Stancroft alone, which would have been at least understandable, Baxford's deviation from that made him the immoral person in my book. The other victims may or may not have been innocents, but they had families and were not directly responsible for the situation Baxford found himself in.
The film itself was pretty good, had a strong story line, and the acting was well above average. It took a little longer to get where it was going than I liked, and there were bits where the scenes jumped back and forth in the time line, which I didn't think worked here. Having said that I can recommend the film as a good actioner but you have to wait a while for it to get to that point.

Less actiony than I thought it would be with based on who the lead actor was.

The story does well to make you sympathize with him, though once the action kicks it struggles to show he's still the good guy with morals.

I think it fell over a little towards the end because they didn't want to destroy the good wholesome character they'd built but also couldn't hide the fact he was just going on a rampage.

*spoiler warning*

On the morals part, they tried to give him moral decisions during the rampage on a couple of people living in an effort I think to still say he's a good guy.
But based on why he let them live made no sense on why he killed others. You have a family, live, well so does everyone you throw a grenade at 20 seconds later.
You live because you're a woman... could well have been the person who invented Sub-prime.

Him having prepared an escape plan seemed a little odd to, getting the big cheese to hold the gun while SWAT came in was too well timed.

His diner friends just letting him go... *shrugs* lost it a bit for me.

I feel like based on how the movie was setup, it would have been better if when his wife died he changed his plan so that he had no intention of escaping.

I can understand why people who like this film do so, and why the submitted reviews so far are largely positive. But alas, as so often is the case, the director/writer conflates a cliched notion of capitalism with something entirely different: greed and power. There are so many errors in the way the actions of the antagonists convey to the viewer what the director wants them to think of as the evil capitalist monster, though again these are understandable given the events of recent decades, especially the 2008 crash.

Capitalism though, such as it was (embodied by the strict trading rules of Renaissance Vienna), died when the Fed was setup. Since then, and often long before by other means, founding principles have been eroded and now largely erased, those of free speech, property rights, don't lie and don't steal, ie. honesty in business and trade. It's what a genuinely free market should be, it's what the US was in large part founded upon, but that's not the nature of the world we have today, not for many years. It isn't a free market when governments can print money, borrow endlessly, steal from the unborn and by force transfer resources from those who work to those who do not; when they can rig the markets, prop up bad businesses which means bad decisions are never countered by relevant market responses, allowing events to someday repeat. Likewise in numerous banks, investment firms, insurance companies and global corporations, dishonesty is the order of the day, lies and deception, all for personal greed and power, people with close ties to the political realm, the mutual back scratching of the selfish.

So one might ask, why the capitalist label? Who benefits from such a narrative? There lies the irony: those who believe this perspective tend to nievely support collectivist ideologies (the left) that ultimately do little but sustain the very same kind of greedy and powerful people, the ones immersed in the machinery of state power. Their response to perceived ills is conditioned and planned, their votes exploited by the very same millionaires and billionaires. For decades, it really didn't matter who one voted for, the same globalist corporations and organisations benefited, at the expense of the little guy. The back & forth tag game between the same elites, squeezing the populace for resources.

Now the US has someone as a President whom neither side likes because they cannot control him. He actually cares about the people, though the media has spent 5 years trying their hardest to convince the populace that he is instead evil incarnate, despite all evidence to the contrary (I cannot recall a time when America has been involved in so little conflict around the world). I'll give that to the director, the political elements to the opening montage did cover both sides such as they were prior to 2014, which is good.

But in the context of how this film reflects contemporary issues in late 2020 as a certain election looms, barely weeks away, the basic idea of who or what the protagonist is fighting against takes on a particular sheen, in a way the average American will likely never have seen before. They have a choice between a man who has been under constant attack by the elites, and by the media controlled by those elites, for 5 years; or a man who has been very much a fundamental part of that political eite power structure for almost half a century, a man who belongs to a party supported by the same billionaires, globalists, Silicon Valley giants and mega corporations that have likewise gone to extraordinary lengths to erode personal liberty and free speech in recent years, especially during 2020. If one is not allowed to discuss facts or ask questions, then one should ask who makes those decisions, who stands to gain from the silence.

Movies of this kind are I infer intended to encourage the viewer to oppose what the director has presented as a particular concept labelled as capitalism, which is associated by the media with the right end of the political spectrum (a media controlled by the very elites the film villifies); people therefore will believe that the answer is to support the opposite end of the political spectrum, the left, the collectivist answer to perceived woes. In reality this is the great deception, the trick the elites have played for so long, convince the public of a lie and by so doing persuade them to tighten their own chains, indeed even make those chains. Endless propaganda of victhimhood, the divide and conquer of people so they fight each other instead of recognising their common foe: the power of the state and the elites who tag along for the ride. I doubt the director is aware of this reality though, most such people are too immersed in the Hollywood bubble. Frankly, I think "Falling Down" did a better job of conveying the nuance of societal exploitation. What's missing from these films is the broader view, the fact that a great many of those who had what became failed investements knowingly borrowed sums they knew they could not afford, taking on degrees of risk beyond all bounds of reason. Many people lied about their assets and financial positions to obtain further credit. Easy money, just pay with the card, buy more stuff, join the Black Friday queues for more consumer tech. It simply isn't true that the public bares no responsibility for these events, but few want to ask the hard questions.

Which brings me to why I left only 2 stars, my review title, and a question those who have watched this film and say they liked it or agreed with its implications should ask themselves: is it ok to kill people? Because in the end, that is the basic solution the director is presenting us with: lethal violence. We the viewer are supposed to empathise with the protagonist because of the events leading up to what he does, but we are not shown him acting in a manner that implies mental instability or unreason. In short, regardless of the portrayed events with his wife and job, we see a man who has simply become a cold, calculating, mass murdering thug. He isn't upset by what he does. If you the reader think murder is a justifiable solution to a perceived ill, then you cannot by definition complain when others decide they can do that to you, or if the state decides it too can use lethal violence. In the closing portion of the film, the main character shifts from targeting specific people to shooting anyone he can, even using grenades. So where has his original rationale gone with which we the viewer were supposed to identify? It lies in tatters; slaughtering people won't bring back his wife.

I did not though leave just one star because in other regards the film has merit; it is well shot, the tension is reasonably built, the music is not excessive, the background situation of the main character largely makes sense, etc. But I can't escape the base nature of the film's message. Like many of Tarrantino's movies, this one encourages the viewer to believe that murder, indeed mass slaughter, can be justified; if so, then those who say they like this film should never again claim they don't approve of infamous violent acts from history, the genocides in WW2 Europe, the slaughter in Rwanda, and so on down the ages. Murder is murder, period.

One cannot expect the world to have a chance of reforming for the better if the starting point is a knee deep river of blood. Far better to encourage better decision making, to enlighten, educate and inform, to promote the use of facts, evidence and reason, no matter how uncomfortable the relevant questions may be, or how upsetting the real history of the things we think we know about actually are.

Socrates wrote that wisdom is the beginning of the road discovered when a man realises he doesn't know what he thinks he knows. Most people make choices influenced by a legacy media system that cares only about clicks, views and ad revenue. The bubble is strong and its walls are thick. Most people spend their days unknowingly making those walls thicker.

Hence, in this turbulent time as a key day of decision approaches for all Americans, ask yourself: who is it the elites dislike? Who is it the media, controlled by those elites, villifies 24/7? If the message of this film is at least in part that said elites, the greedy rich and powerful, are the ones to blame, then perhaps the man who has stood against their interests for the last 4 years is just perhaps doing something right. This doesn't mean the man is in character a likeable individual, but he doesn't have to be; what matters are his actions, what he does, what he has done.

I am of course discussing this film in the context of current events, as I write this in the latter days of October 2020, but given the nature of the collectivist driven violence seen in numerous cities across the US this year, it is a valid lens through which to consider the film. We the viewer inevitably watch any film from a standpoint of contemporary applicability. The film's message seems to be it's ok to kill if such is deemed to be the "solution"; I would hope that a rational viewer would instead decide that such acts can never be the answer by any moral or ethical standard. Nothing is solved by anything the main character does, nothing is changed for the better. HIs story is clearly sad, intentionally so, but anyone who thinks his actions can be justified really should look in the mirror, because staring back at them they will find just a little bit of newly acquired evil.

Chaos in France, Chaos in the USA, Chaos in most countries of the world. Bitcoin and its fall out. Well, this movie shows how 100000 people's lives is changing at speed due to the pressure of money and life. Suicides in universities and all kinds -- Falling Down and Assault on Wall Street have something in common.

Good well made and with so many messages, surprised Director and Producers are allowed to make it -- gives ideas for those who see no light at the end of the tunnel

Last 15 minutes and the references

The majority of 'ordinary' people have felt the repercussions of the terrible, selfish and greedy behaviour of fat-cat bankers and stockbrokers in order to save their own skins and grossly disproportionate fortunes. This film depicts the harrowing situation of one couple as victims of their actions, and, grim as it is, is plausible -albeit a fictional rendition. Frankly, I think many of us would dream of doing the same as the protagonist, when faced with such desperate circumstances. In this respect the film is watchable but a bit depressing.

The background is set thoughtfully and convincingly and is really sad and touching. Jim is a decent family guy doing a good job and represents thousands and thousands of Americans who had their lives stolen by the greed of the wall street financiers. The further tragedy of the film is that Jim has the killing on his conscience when the crooks should be behind bars. Does Jim get the head honcho's really responsible - boss of Lehman, Citigroup etc? A Great twist up it's sleeve.

The main character is normally in action movies, but this is all together more stylish. I feel that someday this will be the reality of our world, the bankers and people that rob the little people will pay. The justice system doesn't work, people are above the law and its about time they paid for their crimes.