Critics’ reviews

Falling Down (1993)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 64: 4 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Falling Down

64
Positive
4
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics respond favourably to Falling Down as an unsettling urban thriller, with praise clustering around Michael Douglas’s controlled performance as a man whose sense of obsolescence turns to rage. Several reviews find more sadness and ambiguity in his character than a conventional vigilante story allows, while Robert Duvall’s supporting performance also earns approval. The storytelling draws praise for its suspense and structural ingenuity, though enthusiasm for its social commentary is less consistent.

The divide concerns how the film asks audiences to regard its protagonist. The Los Angeles Times finds it too eager to invite both cheers and disapproval, while The New Yorker sees crude vigilantism dressed up as social satire. More favourable reviews credit it with moving beyond revenge clichés, but still identify tonal inconsistencies, loose ends and a loss of momentum towards the close. The spread is substantial: the same provocation reads as purposeful discomfort to some and exploitation to others.

Radio Times
★★★★ · David Parkinson
80

The critic calls it a storming portrait of urban alienation, commending Schumacher's bold direction, Douglas's superb performance, and Duvall's excellent supporting role, while noting it loses momentum at the end.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
26 February 1993 · Roger Ebert
75*

Ebert sees the film as portraying a profound sadness turning into madness in a man who feels obsolete after years of work. He praises the subtlety of Michael Douglas's performance and the way the story avoids easy revenge-movie clichés.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
26 February 1993 · Vincent Canby
70*

Canby calls the film a wickedly mischievous and entertaining suspense thriller about one man's slide into madness. He highlights the clever tricks in its storytelling and Michael Douglas's thin-lipped authority in the lead role.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · SGr
70*

The review notes the film transcends typical vigilante stories by addressing broader social issues, praising the cast's respectability and the unnerving quality, while criticizing loose ends and tonal inconsistencies.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
26 February 1993 · Kenneth Turan
50*

Turan finds the film greedy in wanting audiences to both cheer the protagonist and disapprove of him as a loose cannon. He notes its slick, commercial script and direction effectively point out stresses in modern city life but lack deeper substance.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
1 March 1993 · Terrence Rafferty
40*

Rafferty describes the film as a crude vigilante picture disguised as social satire, with the city presented as an obstacle course frustrating middle-class citizens. He criticizes the high-minded statements from the filmmakers that clash with its exploitative approach.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Phil Thomas

The critic calls it a remarkably tense thriller and thumping good story that avoids episodic pitfalls through deft cross-cutting, despite reservations about its ideological handling. It is far and away Schumacher's best film, with Michael Douglas singled out as a genuine risk-taker.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
· Carol Clover

The critic examines the film's portrayal of a white male's rage against perceived societal wrongs, arguing it precisely captures a specific demographic consciousness rather than a universal everyman tale. She praises its demographic precision and contrasts it with other backlash fantasies.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
3 June 1993

The critic finds the film entertaining but ultimately confusing in its attempt to address urban ills and social issues, with its social parable devolving into melodrama. It singles out Robert Duvall's performance as the cop for praise as a memorable character.

Read the full review →
The Independent
4 June 1993

The critic describes it as a disturbing, well-modulated rant and bizarre cocktail of paranoid anger and political correctness that wants to be Taxi Driver but struggles with ideological ambivalence. The screenplay is praised for its meticulous structure and symmetry between characters, while Schumacher is faulted for failing to convey the protagonist's state of mind purely cinematically.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
11 December 2008 · Angus Wolfe Murray

The critic finds the film a powerful evocation of corporate neurosis and societal decay, with Michael Douglas delivering an astonishing, low-key performance as the rage-filled protagonist. Schumacher is praised for exposing the moral sewage beneath Los Angeles and crafting a compelling, Taxi Driver-like portrait of alienation.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate