John Brooks This one has many things going for itself. First, let's start with the beginning of the film: implied cinematography, exasperation reaching its pinnacle of the main character himself immediately introduced to the audience rather than a whole introductory sequence making cinematic small talk with its public to establish how things go from daily routine to disaster. We get to know the character as the movie develops, and other secondary characters intentionally or unintentionally uncover who he is; no need for the film to stop and spell out who lead character Michael Douglas is and why he's the way he is, the film instead grows into the explanation in and of itself with each poignant scene building a crescendo overtime and unravelling its plot.Another thing is Michael Douglas is one of the most underrated lead actors of the 90's as he's often considered for everything else but his acting (son of Hollywood superstar Kirk Douglas, being a producer, etc...), and is excellent yet again here. He's totally committed to the role, plays it like his character was real down to the smaller details: for example, he easily could've played his character displaying too much confidence but he manages to convey that he's middle-class and a goodie two shoes gone rogue, the ambiguity and fracture of his character transpires which makes for a pleasant and enticing, nuanced viewing.Another thing is it's very well paced. As explained in the first paragraph, the opening scene blitzes right past the viewer and constitutes one of the smoother intros for its genre/for its time, but as the film advances it never seems to go off track or lose momentum, it just keeps building in intensity and keeps focus on what it's trying to say and what it means to be as a viewing experience. Totally coherent. If you don't like it 30min in, you probably won't like it at all; conversely, if you like it 30min, you'll like it til the last bit.Lastly, the film manages to do really well at surely the most important thing in cinema: be as much entertainment as it is making a commentary on a particular social/political/philosophical issue. It isn't another neutral, mindless 90's action flick starring what's his face: it takes a stand and points out the terrible dysfunction of modern America, but balances that with the entertainment value. You don't want to have to sit through some politically biased tripe for 2 hours either, you want to watch a good movie.

adonis98-743-186503 An unemployed defense worker frustrated with the various flaws he sees in society, begins to psychotically and violently lash out against them. Falling Down benefits from a very good perfomance by Michael Douglas unfortunately for him the film doesn't have the impact it might have hoped it was going to have (at least to me it didn't) plus i found Duvall and the rest of the cast more of wax dolls not doing pretty much anything for the entire film and the ending was definitely awful to say the least and despite Douglas perfomance this was weak. (5/10)

Pjtaylor-96-138044 There is a bit of a tonal problem in 'Falling Down (1993)' because our protagonist is, ostensibly, both the hero and the villain. The picture doesn't really know how to depict his actions, either as some unsung heroics by a man pushed too far by a corrupt system or as the dangerous crimes of an increasingly violent individual who has psychologically snapped after not being able to take the seemingly only mildly more 'unfair' conditions he faces. It's here that the picture misses the mark ever-so-slightly, making multiple attempts to be a comedy but never coming close to being funny and also coming across as almost 'in poor-taste' at a number of key moments. It also manages to perform quite a decent character study of an unstable man slowly unravelling, though, and it does so without really wasting any time. It moves fairly fast, with a pace that usually works in favour of the sometimes strange tone, and it uses film form to play with our expectations in some exciting ways. Though it does suffer from a slightly strange structure because of its somewhat unfocused nature (a by-product of its inability to decide who it wants to be its protagonist and who it wants to be its antagonist), it finds its most success as an entertaining and engaging film that examines its core characters pretty well while decently delving into the underlying philosophy that kicks off its journey, whether or not its messages may be dangerously easy to misinterpret or take to the extreme. In the end, it's only because it's entertaining that it works as well as it does. 7/10

PeterBlues first time i saw this i thought the incidents didn't live up to the description of the movie where i thought the plot sounded wild, i always expected more of an outrage caused by stress, but he acts quite calm and ill rather, and i really thought there could have been an improvement in the smaller acting parts. anyway the most satisfying bit is the fast food scene, and there is something intriguing about the movie which makes me watch it whenever it airs, think about it, this movie is kind of like a death wish version, isn't it.