killing humans is wrong. but burglars, paedos, rapists, muggers aren't humans, they're monsters. and it's ok to send monsters back to hell where they belong.
so yes, i support vigilante justice. kill the monsters. the slower and more painful for them the better.

No, but I enjoyed this film for what it was and I was highly satisfied with the ending.

No I don't support it at all.
I enjoyed the movie the first hour, thought it was good. I had no problem at all with her killing in self defense. The two first killings were ok then it turned silly.
That feminist-BS with her killing a guy for buying a hooker (hooker carries no responsability of course) + killing some mobster that she didn't even know apart from her cop-friends description.
That turned her into a silly moralist and contract killer.
I don't know why they threw in those scenes at all, they had NOTHING to do with her story. She was much more likeable and convincing when she killed in self defense.
Last killings made sense out of her perspective, but the ending was idiotic. If she really wanted to kill those guys why involve the cop?
And once again another movie with an incompetent police officer making the wrong choices. The ending was weak, it would've been much stronger with him either shooting her or that she'd step aside and respect the law.
Then the morale of the story would be: "retaliation is understandable but we can't have a vigilante society" as opposed to "the police fully support a vigilante society"

There should never be a need to kill
You're right. There SHOULD never be a need to kill but that need does sometimes arise. For example, I will kill someone before I let them kill me. I suspect you would as well.
As for Jodie Foster's character, it's a movie. There's nothing wrong with enjoying vigilante justice on the big screen, nor is it indicative of what we would want to see in real life any more than enjoying a good disaster movie means we want to actually see a disaster occur.

Perhaps if you read some good history books about the Vigilance committees, you wouldn't call this vigilante justice.

This message has been deleted.

Hell yeah. It's far cheaper to kill scum than imprison them and place a burden on the taxpayer!

Killing thugs who killed someone close to you isn't even wrong. So this morality debate or "two wrongs don't make a right" crap are completely irrelevant. Nothing she did was even wrong.

Whats it like on rainbow hill kid?

"The difference between real life and the movies is that little is black and white in real life."
Followed by–"Since everyone she shot was guilty, I applaud the swift execution of justice."
Not a black and white statement at all.

The fantasy of the movie is that she happened to catch all these guys in the
process of violent crimes.
Really? What violent crime was the wife-killer caught in the process of? Violently walking to his car? Erica only learnt of his crimes through a third party, who himself didn't have any proof, otherwise he could have pressed charges. She barely even knew what his crimes were, never mind the extent of his guilt.
That
was the point of this plot-strand: the unstable morality of vigilante justice. And that's why
she
felt (or should have felt) guilt.
I didn't say all her acts were in self-defense
If saying, "She should have let herself get killed by the guy who just killed his wife" doesn't imply she was acting in self-defence, I don't know what does.
~.~
There were three of us in this marriage
http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

Well done on missing the point of my post. My assertion remains the same. The fantasy of the movie is that she happened to catch all these guys in the process of violent crimes. Therefore, the question of guilt or innocence never even needs to enter the equation of justifying her actions. I didn't say all her acts were in self-defense, though a couple clearly were. Nor did I say she shouldn't feel guilty about killing people. Rather that is largely what the movie is about- her internal struggle over what she has done.
It is all rather convenient for her and for us versus the real world where the main threat of vigilantism are the odds of punishing the innocent.

Well done on failing (or more likely, refusing) to grasp the nuances of the film. Erica admitted she didn't need to kill the thugs on the train, certainly not the second one. And there was never a question of 'letting herself get killed' by the wife-killer; her life was never in danger,
she
pursued
him
in order to kill him. Even when she was up there she had the opportunity to walk away. It was sheer, premeditated first-degree murder.
Ironic that you then go on about life not being in black and white.
~.~
There were three of us in this marriage
http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

OP,
You are right. She should have let herself get killed by the guy who just killed his wife.
She should have let herself get raped and killed by the thugs on the subway.
And she should have let that loser in the car run her and Chloe over.
After all, there is never a reason to kill.
The only "revenge" murder was the end.
Jodie Foster's character is a super hero in this movie. I cheered as every thug got whacked.
Our justice system is in place to protect the innocent. Those guys weren't innocent. Therefore, there is no moral objection to what she did.
The difference between real life and the movies is that little is black and white in real life. Go out shooting criminals and you're likely to shoot someone who is innocent. Since everyone she shot was guilty, I applaud the swift execution of justice.

i thought it was a great film myself. i thought it presented and asked some very serious morality questions, in a very relatable way.
And in answer to your question, i have absolutely no problem with the morality behind the specific murders of the convenience store murderer, the parking garage magnate, the taxi cab pimp and the 3 guys at the end.Based on the info given the viewer,they had all murdered someone (metaphorically/psychologically, in the case of the pimp.)
I tend to have 'an eye for an eye' sense of justice. I didn't think she was a terrible person at all; she showed that she was capable of both compassion and love. For me, the big question, given the negative last line, is- will she ever be able to accept and love herself again.
The way to have what we want
Is to share what we have.