"You think I want to hurt your family?! I have a family of my own." That's one of the coldest lines in cinema

The black man who was denied the loan was dressed exactly like Michael Douglas. I always thought that was interesting.

I expect a check in the mail for that impeccable drunk scot impression.

I'm so glad you mentioned James Huberty. When I learned about him as a teenager, I immediately thought of D-FENS, and it shaped how I think about the film in the years since.

This deserves more views.

How is it not obvious that Douglas plays a complete nutjob psychopath?

I rarely watch the videos that youtube recomends with only a few views but damn this is good. Keep it up! subbed

Glad someone finally made a video like this. I have seen too many videos that are basically "In Defense of D-Fens." You've really nailed the flaws of the character in a way that's informative and even picked up on damning dialogue I missed. 9:30 Yeah that's how I feel sometimes with this film. That shooting was really just wow, I am beyond shocked. Now on Prenderghast, he is pushing back in a more acceptable manner. The Drinker and I have referred to it as reasserting himself to face his issues. People are regularly dismissing and disrespecting him throughout the film. Prenderghast just takes it and eventually has to assert himself to be heard. When he yells at his wife on the phone, he is making it clear that there must be boundaries in their relationship. He is somewhat at fault for this behavior, but he's decided that he has to make clear his gripes. + You slaughtered the parts of the Drinker's second video, which went way too far to defend a domestic terrorist. You've offered stellar analysis for this film, thank you.

Just catched the recommendation, I won't be able to watch the movie for the first time now without this analysis on mind, but it was good

My interpretation of Fens was the idea of "even a broken clock is right twice a day". D-Fens isn't a hero and is unhinged as fuck, but there is some truth to he notion that the world is getting worse and worse as time goes on. The issue however is that you don't address that by by going on a violent rampage and waging war on everyone and everything. Also the movie is set in early 90's LA around the same time as the LA riots, and I think the vibe of that era is really apparent. Also I'm really fascinated by true crime and had actually heard of the James Huberty story before. I'd never made the connection to D-Fens before but damn you're right, it's spot on.

Liked, commented and subscribed. Feeding the algo and I look forward to more of your work.

Thought that the interplay between the home-videos/tapes scenes almost shows the side of himself that could have been better, and the side of himself that chose to be worse. That in some way it was showing us that both sides had a chance, but he made his choices in the end.

Wow... Thank you for this

This is actually so good I would have never guessed that this only had a little under 200 views

High quality shit man! Keep it up

My partner asked me to watch this with them, very similar talking points. I think they'd like your videos

Great commentary on a movie I watched ages ago and didn't comprehend, at the time, the depths of it. Revisiting this movie through your analysis was well worth it. I hope you get a lot more subscribers. Great job!

This video needs more views

It's a shame no one can talk about the critical drinker on this platform without his fans descending on the comment section like locusts descending upon Egypt. Maybe if they actually watched the video before commenting they'd see how you directly critique his arguments. Will leave a like.

There is no good guy in this film, save maybe the relative innocence of children: the daughter, the boy who asks DEFEN's if he making a movie, the maintenance man's children sneaking a swim on golf resort property. Almost every adult has issues or behavior less than ideal to get along with others. Iron sharpens iron. DEFEN's mental breakdown, selfishness, and evil actions are a response to the mental disorders, selfishness, and evil actions of others. Almost everyone that he is actually violent towards, exhibited aggressive, unsympathetic, non-empathetic, non-apologetic behavior towards him and he returns the favor in spades. You cannot lecture on his evil like it materialized ex-nihilo. Akin to abandoning a temperamental dog at the pound was his divorce, restraining order, and legally compelled non-visitation of his daughter. "Put her on the damn horse" sure, what an angry arse, that is when a spouse communicates let's get some help, not petition for divorce, get a restraining order and non-visitation. Like that will fix things, no, on the contrary more sharpening for worse response and behavior. The most disordered and selfish people in this film is the wife of Pendergast and the ex wife of DEFEN's. I have seen it a thousand times in war veteran counseling, wives throwing their beaten and wounded dog away for lack of a better term. The usual: he came home from deployments, irritable, drinking, short tempered, never physically harmed kids or wife as in the film, but now has a divorce, restraining order, and lawyers and "experts" telling a judge he should see his kids.) Then society and the man in question will either work together to rehabilitate or react off each other till the man in question, in analogy a beaten and wounded dog, is put down. That is what the film is about: do we rehabilitate our analogous wounded dogs or exacerbate the issues and force the execution.

This was awesome! Bravo!

No, he's not the bad guy. He's the good guy who finally surrendered.

I believe that he was just middle class or even lower middle class not upper middle class hence living with his mother.

21:00 bro I can't believe I've never heard of this... That's actually fucking horrible, and the fact that it's been erased from history is unbelievably sad

I think you brought up some good poins I hadn't thought of before, while others I think might be character misreads and reaches. Just because I don't fully agree doesn't mean that I hate what you do though, You're entitled to your takeaway. Keep it up

Good work

Great analysis of the film.

This video is excellent, it's really a crime that it has so few views. That's what really compelled me to leave a comment, in my opinion this is absolutely on par with the other videos I regularly watch of this type. No need for the super flashy editing as long as you can write a decent script and get your point across eloquently and succinctly. I should also preface the rest of this comment with two admissions, first, that I've been a longtime subscriber of the Drinker's, and second, that I've never watched Falling Down before (it's always been one of those "I really need to find the time to watch that" kind of movies for me). My initial reaction to watching your video was disbelief as your description of the video he made was not how I remember it. I had it in my head that it was another one of his seemingly endless stream of videos decrying the state of modern Hollywood along painted with the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia for movies of a better time. I'm a huge sucker for content of this type (even though there are plenty of examples you could bring up of great modern movies/shows and bad movies/shows of days gone by), and so even though I am usually groaning at yet another video about the new Star Wars show or something from Marvel, I still enjoyed his take on Falling Down regardless just because it seemed more fresh by comparison. Now, I want to emphasize that I've never seen Falling Down, so I might be returning to this comment after I watch the movie. It was completely shocking to me to find out how insidious his video on this movie actually is. He really does completely gloss over the scenes involving the neo-nazi gun store owner, not even mentioning the fact the man is a nazi (I'm sure there's imagery that I would've likely missed as I usually have videos like this playing in the background while I do other things), but later on he makes a supposition about the detective's wife that the movie implies she (and I'm quoting him directly here) "was responsible for the death (of their daughter)." And after dropping a huge bombshell like that, it's just off to the next section of the video, no attempt is made to point out any inconsistencies or character progression of the detective other than him "coming alive again." It speaks volumes to me that such obvious context clues like literal nazi imagery can be ignored but the "domineering wife" is definitely something worth getting into. He then spends most of the rest of his video bending over backwards to tell us that the movie is just a tragic tale of a man who was completely destroyed by the system, and that even his wife admits it went too far. Edit: So on my rewatch of the Drinker's video that I was doing just to ensure the things I am saying are accurate, I did notice that he mentions towards the end of his video that the gun store owner is a "racist." This was completely separate from the earlier parts of his video dealing with this scene, which really obfuscates things. What's really ironic is that this is the section of the video in which he is really drumming up the idea that the main character is actually a good guy, and the point he made in support of this argument, literally just before talking about the nazi, is that the main character "clings to the notion of being a proud American, appealing to a sense of 'national pride' that no one else around him seems to feel anymore." Again I usually have videos like this playing in the background and thus I didn't even notice the nazi imagery like I would if I was watching intently, but wow. Complete lack of self-awareness there. Anyways, my mindset going into this movie will be interesting. I hope I have not seen too much already such that I am unable to form my own conclusions. Is the main character really just completely evil through and through, or is he the tragic fallen anti-hero taking out his anger on the unjust system he finds himself in? Is the point of the movie to be a cathartic fantasy? Or does it delve deeper? Like I said, I'll probably revisit this comment to give an update on my opinion having watched it for myself. Oh, and the length of the comment is really just meant to hammer home my initial point, that this video was excellent and deserves far more views. I only talked so much about the Drinker because it's the only part I have personal experience with. The story of the actual murderer the main character may or may not be based on was absolutely chilling (and probably deserves a deep dive in it's own right). Sometimes the phrase "art imitates life" can hit too close to home. If you want a more light-hearted suggestion, I would love to hear what your thoughts are on Starship Troopers, another classic movie that has recently had some notoriety drummed up involving audiences and their lack of media literacy. Cheers! Edit 2: I hadn't noticed some of the negative comments written below before writing this, so if anyone has skipped to the end of this just to read here I want to explicitly state that the entirety of this comment is positive towards the creator of this video.

The point of the movie was to create a character that some people would relate to and others would hate, and that was accomplished. People used to be able to make media looking at different POVs without taking a side. It created opportunities for discussion that didn't devolve into arguing and allowed us to learn from each other. Today people are locked into their bubbles and are unwilling to listen to people who don't share the same opinions. That's why the US is falling apart. Douglas' character was the bad guy, no doubt, but there was a lot of truth in the character as well.

Please explain to me how landlords are evil?

Is anyone really surprised that Critical Drinker looks at D-FENS and goes "Yeah, he's not that bad"? This was a really well done video and it honestly deserves the views that The Drinker's videos get.

You've done a great job. It's such a shame youtuber's like critical drinker have such a wide outreach with their superficial child-tantrum-like takes that only serve to further division and hatred within our society for a quick buck.

"He can't be the bad guy, he's the main character!" --- some idiot, probably

This channel is gonna blow up here

I think the outright demonisation of D-FENS misses the point as much as the outright lionisation. Your own ideological presuppositions lead you to this interpretation as much as right-wing ideology leads others to the alternative. While right-wing interpretations do indeed make a hero out of an obvious villain, you are missing the point by not investigating WHY they do this, rather dismissing them as stupid and woefully unaware of their own apparent privilege. Of course, superficially, D-FENS is meant to be a bad man, and you are not a pillar of "media literacy" (lmao) for recognising this fact. Your dismissal of the grievances that lead D-FENS to his rampage reflects the exact same way that current established culture dismisses the grievances of the men (they are overwhelmingly men, white men at that) that relate to him in their own lives. You are very close to getting it when you talk about how the "not economically viable" man is the victim of racism in a society that disenfranchises him through that specific avenue. However, you ignore the fact that D-FENS himself is similarly disenfranchised, not by virtue of his race, but by the fact that the rapidly shifting economy has left him (and the values that said economic superstructure instilled in him in his upbringing) behind, leading to his feeling betrayed and alone. Instead, you call him - and by extension those that relate to him - privileged, because he is white and ostensibly middle class. D-FENS, however, is not privileged nor are the archetypes that relate to him most. D-FENS' career failed, he lives with his mother, he lost his wife and daughter to his own mental illness. Where we draw the line between societal causes, and individual responsibility is always blurry, and I would argue should be drawn where your actions harm others, but regardless of guilt or blame for his treatment of his family, D-FENS is clearly not privileged, and I reiterate, your dismissal of him as a man of privilege "weaponising" said privilege while being unaware of it, blinded by self-wallowing, reflects the exact same way that society dismisses men like D-FENS in real life. These are men that are unable to articulate their own feelings of disenfranchisement (feelings which ought to put them in league with racial minorities and the poor) due to a cultural framework that people like you sustain which prevents such alliances from forming, by pitting equally disenfranchised groups against one another along lines of petty racial and socioeconomic grievances. Down and out lower-middle class white men lack the cultural space to articulate their displeasure because people, again like you, will dismiss them based on those very characteristics. It is the narcissism of small differences, the extent to which a man like D-FENS is better off than the "not economically viable" man pales in insignificance compared to how much better off the two golfers are than both. By disallowing alliances to form between D-FENS and the black man, you benefit the golfers. Yes, the "not economically viable" man protesting does in the script say that D-FENS looks economically viable but you ignore the glaring fact that he is WRONG. Within the cinematography, there is a clearly choreographed moment where their eyes meet which reflects the similarity of their positions and a brief moment of what should be mutual recognition, the black man slows his tempo and lowers his volume as he encounters a mirror image of himself, which is then interrupted by the racial grievance coming to the fore, whereafter he starts to shout again and the two go their separate ways. This perfectly illustrates the way in which petty racial grievances stand in the way of what should be a natural alliance. D-FENS is no more economically viable than the black man, that's the point, they are both wearing the same white collar uniform yet both are unemployed, by different means but they meet in the same place both literally and metaphorically, the black man is wrong, D-FENS is not more economically viable than him, the bank manager that denied his loan is. D-FENS is not the bank manager but he is blamed. I think your inability to unite the perspective of the script and the perspective of the film shines a light on your overly-ideological reading of Falling Down, if you take a step back you can unite the two and draw interesting conclusions, where a wingnut interpretation sees two mutually opposed perspectives, and fails to see the broader relevance of the film to modern society and the cause for so many to relate to the protagonist. I also found your interpretation of the scene with the gangsters interesting. 3:00 you shouldn't have to respect criminals that want to control where you can or cannot sit at pain or threat of death or injury. Your interpretation of this scene is again typical of a response to criminals that exists in our society today, which does not satisfy the grievances of the largely working or lower-middle class people that have to live alongside them. It is somehow their fault when they "provoke" such people to violence, not the fault of someone that will draw a gun if someone else is rude to them. D-FENS is not "weaponising his status against minorities," this is a ridiculous interpretation of this scene which is more laden with ideological baggage than the alternative obvious interpretation. D-FENS is refusing repeated attempts at intimidation by acting equally unpleasant, again living out the fantasy of people, of all races and backgrounds, that have to live side by side with such dangerous criminal elements on a day to day basis as a result of a continually malfunctional economic arrangement that abandons the elements of society which are surplus to its need. It is of utmost relevance that D-FENS is an out of work military contractor. There isn't a need for him anymore, the Cold War is over, Capitalism tosses him aside and like an abandoned child he is torn between violent feelings of rejection and a sustained love for the thing that rejected him. I don't think D-FENS is a good guy. I don't look up to him and I think it is a canary in the coal mine that so many people do. However, your interpretation of this film evinces the exact attitude that has resulted in this situation. The political orientation that should champion the voices of those left behind by the relentless march of Capitalism excludes one group from their solidarity due to petty racial grievances. This prevents any meaningful coalition, and results in the total alienation of that group, and therefore violence and violent fantasies. You cannot then be surprised when men like Donald Trump come to the fore. I do not share the perspective of a man like D-FENS, I don't even condone it. But I don't blame these men as individuals, at least not as an explanation for their existence as an aggregate social phenomenon. I blame the worldview that you espouse in this video, which dismisses their grievances, and offers no genuine solutions. I could talk more about how D-FENS is obviously not a racist, at least not in any meaningful capacity, a point deliberately made by the film via the numerous instances of kindredness with black people, specifically black children, but I won't because I have written enough lmao. I just think this is a very sloppy and surface level interpretation of the film and you should question why people take the alternative view instead of going "durrr but the script says." Again, you aren't a beacon of media literacy due to your possession of working ears, the point of interpreting a script is that you read BETWEEN the lines. Artistic intention does not equate to meaning, a piece of media takes on a meaning based on the societal lens through which it is interpreted. The story of D-FENS is the story of a man that is denied common cause with those that are similarly abandoned by the economy, the increasing dissolution and fracturing of his language throughout the film into banal capitalist platitudes reflects this, he is forced to love the thing that has caused his situation because one alternative (the left) rejects him, and the other (fascism) he finds repulsive. So he is forced into a world of individual reaction, atomised, a position to which an increasing number can relate.

I think its much more complicated than that. Am I the only one who felt like Duvals characters wife killed there young daughter why suffering from depression. And maybe because he was a police officer it was handled quietly?

Solid analysis. But I completely disagree with Prendergast turning into a "misogynist".... He was standing up for himself. His wife was psychotically chastising and berating him the entire movie. Yes, she obviously had mental health issues, but that does not everything A-Ok. Clearly being the kind, docile, and loving husband was not helping the situation, so Prendergast needed to be more firm and assertive with her. It happens. It's life. Relationships are tough and sometimes being warm & bubbly doesn't always work. What was he supposed to do? Just sit there and tolerate constant verbal abuse while he's trying to do his extremely dangerous and stressful job?

whoof, that was a heavy ending. i didn't mind it, but i understand you wanting to do lighter stuff. i'm sub #24 o7

11 butthurt D-Fens fanboys mad you're telling the truth lol. You deserve all the subs my dude, great video. You should do a video on Homelander, I think there are a lot of people out there who wrongly relate to him as well. D-Fens might be the most related to of all the villain protagonists though, which I think is because besides his mental collapse is because he's so seemingly normal. Brilliant connection to being inspired by James Huberty as well, I always though he had to be something of an inspiration to the character.

Review the Evil Bong movies next

Great Summary Mate ✌🏻

LET'S GOOO bro cooked again

Fuckin finally. Someone who gets that the protagonist isn't a "good guy".

No way bro has 16 subscribers

I agree with a lot of your points and we gotta remember we are looking at the movie from a modern lens. Some of the horrible things he did weren’t seen as that bad in the 90s. So I think the 90s lens is painting defense as more good guy. But 30 years later there are so many more layers and you’re right he is so much more racist and xenophobic by today’s lens. By today’s standards he is the bad guy 100%. When I first saw the movie in 2012 he was 70-80% bad guy … I can say what % bad guy he was in the 90s l was 8 lol

Love the analysis. This is some good takes. Drop the anecdotes with you reacting with your friend they add nothing, but otherwise your writing and editing is on to it.

The whole movie is a just a poor power fantasy for lower class workers. They got treated very poorly and once they get more power, most of the time in the workplace due to submissive acting towards the higher ups, they treat their fellow work fellows the same they got treated. It's a common power dynamic. You clearly pointed out his whole compassion for workers attitude is just a selfish act to justify his reasoning. It's just an act people do pick up. Talk shit behind your boss but act friendly in front of him. Btw, that's not just theory. I'm working class myself and I saw stuff like that all the time in different workplaces.

Banger video, instant sub!

Nice vidýo

When I first watched Falling Down I at first sympathised with D-FENS but I thought it had become pretty clear towards the end that the guy was mentally unstable and not a good person, this video goes way deeper into just how bad he is and made me think. Nice video bro

we getting woke out here. and i love it

you know its a banger video when incels call you woke

i've always seen this movie as the pre-joker bigot incel flick. "oh i hate fast food workers. they're all incompetent morons." "oh i hate construction workers, they're wasting MY time."

Essay, Pt.1/2 2:47 Only a left-wing nihilist would take the side of those parasitic criminals. D-FENS does plenty wrong elsewhere, but he did nothing wrong in that scene. 2:57 That's right. He does have gall. Americans should express gall in situations like that. Why should we hand civilization over to barbarians? Let's not forget that the legendary Paul Kersey was a liberal until his family was violated. After he became a vigilante, he focused his wrath entirely on violent thugs. He never picked on people just for being different. When he wasn't slaughtering thugs, he was a warm, generous, empathic, gregarious man. 3:04 They provoked him first. He responded with snark and sass, showing that he wasn't intimidated. Angel Stride Hill is supposed to be a public park. The thugs only think it's their territory. It's not. Again, D-FENS is in the right in that scene. Right makes might. 3:41 Does he, though?! He's a victim of the system. Michael Douglas's dad, Kirk, described Bill as "both the victim and the villain." That's kinda similar to Magneto, philosophically (and/or psychologically) speaking. 3:44 Aren't his platitudes taking the side of people at the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid? He says he's "rolling back prices to 1965." Doesn't that go against the system? The system wants the cost of living to be unbearable for the average person. That's how it maintains social control. Socialism does the same thing. The only difference is who administers the poison (the state or some other institution like a corporation). 3:53 Yeah, he went full Karen in that scene. But at least he only picked on the manager. He didn't really get in the faces of the lowly miserable workers. And his point about false advertising was spot-on. He made that point terribly, of course. There are much more creative (and more subversive) ways to make that same point. Problem is, those techniques take a lot more time to achieve results. 5:15 He's not wrong. But that's life in the big city. He would have done fine if he'd moved to the Midwest. 5:29 That's a legit crit against him, and it illustrates his Magneto-like hypocrisy. See also Dawn Bellwether from Zootopia. Bill, himself, was most likely psycho-emotively abused by at least one of his parents. These things tend to be cyclical. They never develop in a vacuum. 6:20 Bill is also guilty of blaming others for his problems when he's the one at fault. Other times, there really is an unfairness going on that only makes his wrath seeth even more. So Kirk's assessment was right. He's both a victim and a villain. Later on, it seems like he starts to realize how he's victimized others. But those thugs and that not-see can't be considered "victims." They got what they deserved. 6:28 Normal people stop recording when something like that starts to happen. That was done entirely for the audience. His expression seems to imply that he realizes that he's guilty of hypocrisy. 7:33 Again, you sound like a leftist taking the side of criminals because they happen to be of a racial minority. What if a Mexican-American, who was a law-abiding citizen, was thrown into the same situation? And what if they dealt with it the same way? Pick any race for the criminal thugs in that scenario. Do you think the person being accosted is going to care about that? 8:02 You're not going to address his wife's maniacal neuroticism? What, does she just get a pass on that? 9:16 He was in the right when it came to the street thugs and the not-see, though. Predators and parasites ought not be appeased. The Neville Chamberlain approach only hastens the collapse of civilization. 10:12 Surely, you're not defending the not-see! Bill should get a civic citation of merit for cacking that bastard! 10:15 Vigilantism is meant to be a People's response against violent crime. Vigilantism is an expression of The People's Will. 10:18 This is another legit crit against Bill. Also notice the contrast between Jack and Frank. Jack is the voice of the reason in that scene. Frank obviously has a poor attitude. He's sort of a reflection of Bill. Also, why do so many movies have pairs of characters named "Jack" and "Frank?" 10:29 Another situation where he was in the right. He invoked what I call "Tyson's Law." Not too many years ago, Mike Tyson made the legit point that too many people nowadays get away with being rude because they no longer fear The People's wrath. 10:49 [cue reference to Megamind's didactic diatribe of demented do0m regarding ordinary villains versus supervillains] 13:40 "I am not a vigilante." ~Bill "D-FENS" Foster 14:22 Putin-lovers should be treated the same way Bill treats predators and parasites. Change my mind. // God hates Putin (Ezekiel 38,2). 14:33 Sir Mix-a-lot is a great philosopher. u///w///u 15:40 "Individual, good. System, bad."

D-Fence is a bad guy because of the way he reacts. That is going outside of the law.

dont make this a Carreer...

ok a reasonable take nothing new and nothing that people that have actually watched the film didn;t already know. One big issue though is the change to make the video an opinion piece on a content creator that you appear to have a personal grievance with. You claim it's not a hit piece on the critical drinker however that is not how you present the video and does comes across more as a thinly veiled attack on his work rather than a fresh perspective on a 40 year old film I think your original idea where you intended to inspire people to look deeper and critically into film would have been far better than this edit were you spend almost half of it complaining about the opinion of someone else, It's clear that you are not a fan of critical drinker and that's fine everyone is entitled to their own opinion but when you ask others not to listen to other creators and accusing them of (and I quote) "mis-interpreting art for the purpose of suiting their own faulty worldview" but in order to do so you have to lie and mis-interpret and change/ingnore the context of their work in order to make your point it sort of comes across as hypocritical at best.

It is incredible, how warped your perception of this movie is, Maxwell, and how you've injected 21st century politics into a setting where BOTH sides of the political spectrum would say, you are the one who is insane, and detached from reality. . . The main character (William Foster) is a guy who snapped, plain and simple. He is not a bigot, and he proved it multiple times throughout the movie, although it should not be understated how the demographics of this nation changed so rapidly (in the span of 2 decades), and how people who once felt at home (in THEIR homeland) began to feel alienated, disposable, and even unwanted in this society (a national structure, whose design is specifically attributed to one specific group of people, in this country, and idgaf what you say, or think about that, because it's historical fact). If you watched this review all the way through, and agree with this commentator, then you should ask yourself . . . If William Foster is the "bad guy", who are the "good guys", and which one does that make me ? Am I happy with the trajectory of this society, and by extension, this nation ? Do I believe that what is perceived as wrong today, can be perceived as right 10 years from now, due to triviality, peer pressure, and apathy ? Couldn't even get through the first five mins. of this review . . .

You'll get it when you're older.

This video is bad and you should feel bad for making it.

kinda gay

what a load of woke garbage.

Whole heartly disagree with your interpretation. A bit shallow and low hanging fruit with a spin og moden Politics

You lost me at the first sentence. There are no important films. Movies are not important.

Dude...get a real job because this isn't really for you.

woke

Cringe.

Hey beta boy. Need a hug?....... 😂😂❤😊