Really disappointed in this movie. I promised myself I would put my hatred of Shia whatshisface aside and give it a chance but true to form he was incredibly annoying and it took some amount of self restraint not to chuck the remote at the tv.
That annoying twerp aside, there were several things wrong with this film.
The casting seemed off, choosing three pretty boys to play southern mountain yahoos looked out of place. Guy Pearce looked like a baddie out of a Disney movie and Gary Oldman was underused.
The editing seemed wrong and gave the whole movie a feeling of being disjointed.
My biggest problem with the film was that much like Tom Hardy's performance, the whole thing felt too restrained, almost as if the director was keeping it on a leash lest it turn into a quality entertaining movie.
How could a film have so many good things going for it at the same time be riddled with so many mistakes? The setting, underlying story, aesthetics, and atmosphere were fantastic and yet the plot so unforgivably disjointed, there are only three possible explanations:
1. Lawless was made by two different directors taking turns, one bad and one good.
2. The credited director John Hillcoat decided to sleep through or get incredibly wasted during the entire editing process.
3. A shit load of footage was lost in a terrible fire and the makers had no choice but to work with what they had.
Still, more entertaining than 95% of the movies coming out. Wasn't as good as 3:10 to Yuma or American Gangster or True Grit, but it potentially could have been much better than all of those.
On a final note: If I could get my hands on some of those wardrobe pieces and somehow pull them off in public, I think I would finally feel content in my attire.
This was definitely carried by the actors, particularly Guy Pearce's outstanding performance as Special Agent Rakes.
I'm not sure if this is due to the writing, editing, or both, but it was difficult to understand the point or theme of the film. The plot felt like it was trying to do too much, and many points contradicted themselves.
The Bondurant brothers (save for Jack) are presented as ruthless bootleggers that rely on fear and violence, but in the epilogue, they immediately become happy, family-oriented people simply because the Prohibition ended? Forrest (Tom Hardy), the sensible invincible that survives having his throat slit and being shot in the torso four times, catches pneumonia by walking into a frozen lake? It's hard to believe that he'd be unable to handle his liquor after literally running a moonshine business.
Maggie (Jessica Chastain) and Bertha (Mia Wasikowska) seemed to only exist to serve as love interests, which is disappointing for a film in the modern era.
Near the end, we're told that Rakes has an army of ATU officers, yet somehow the entire Bondurant family is able to drive straight into the blocked off bridge and only one person dies for it. Has anyone heard of taking cover?! I can understand that those weapons were not as accurate as modern ones, but it felt like watching a shootout between Stormtroopers.
We can see that Sheriff Hodges (Bill Camp) disagrees with Rakes' methodology, but it's confusing that Cricket Pete's death is what turns him to rebel against a federal agent. We see someone get tarred and feathered, Rakes sent two men to kill Forrest (and we're led to believe they rape Maggie), but because he snaps the neck of a guy that survived rickets - that's where he draws the line? If he had shot him instead, would that be okay?
And why does the entire law enforcement squad let Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) walk past them to murder Rakes, immediately after they've all shot at each other? Do they only enforce alcohol crossing that particular bridge, and nothing else?
2.5/5 - it's not awful, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.
great movie. does nothing really very special but still manages to be very interesting thanks to great performances, excellent cinematography and some great characters.
It felt like several different films oddly stitched together with a bizarre epilogue and way too little Gary Oldman, but I liked it for what it was. It was hardly anything special, but the cast was excellent and it was compelling despite it's flaws.
Great cinematography, music, and acting from Hardy, Chastain, Oldman, and Pearce. Shia's not bad either. The tone and atmosphere are wonderful and this is good material to adapt a film from. Unfortunately the uneven plot, characterisation, and editing leave this feeling like 2 separate works with 2 different themes, fighting to gel into a compelling emotional center, and leaving a lot of filler in their wake. I understand there was a need to balance the harsh gritty brutal feeling of 'The Proposition' with a romanticized view of depression-era America to show the conflict in the central character, but it's like mixing water and oil. Some great moments and elements, but in one word: schizophrenic.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 21
MrDoog
Really disappointed in this movie. I promised myself I would put my hatred of Shia whatshisface aside and give it a chance but true to form he was incredibly annoying and it took some amount of self restraint not to chuck the remote at the tv.That annoying twerp aside, there were several things wrong with this film.
The casting seemed off, choosing three pretty boys to play southern mountain yahoos looked out of place. Guy Pearce looked like a baddie out of a Disney movie and Gary Oldman was underused.
The editing seemed wrong and gave the whole movie a feeling of being disjointed.
My biggest problem with the film was that much like Tom Hardy's performance, the whole thing felt too restrained, almost as if the director was keeping it on a leash lest it turn into a quality entertaining movie.
Would certainly not recommend.
IMayNotBeKloot
A nice vehicle for Tom Hardy to act tough and say tough things. Yeah, yeah, no.icheckmoviesaccount
Is this whole page broken? Comments don't save and the old title doesn't show up in the search.BadFluffy
Predictable, over the top gangster movie with paper thin "characters" and really really mean villains. What's new?devilsadvocado
What a terribly made "good" movie.How could a film have so many good things going for it at the same time be riddled with so many mistakes? The setting, underlying story, aesthetics, and atmosphere were fantastic and yet the plot so unforgivably disjointed, there are only three possible explanations:
1. Lawless was made by two different directors taking turns, one bad and one good.
2. The credited director John Hillcoat decided to sleep through or get incredibly wasted during the entire editing process.
3. A shit load of footage was lost in a terrible fire and the makers had no choice but to work with what they had.
Still, more entertaining than 95% of the movies coming out. Wasn't as good as 3:10 to Yuma or American Gangster or True Grit, but it potentially could have been much better than all of those.
On a final note: If I could get my hands on some of those wardrobe pieces and somehow pull them off in public, I think I would finally feel content in my attire.
AgentKay
This was definitely carried by the actors, particularly Guy Pearce's outstanding performance as Special Agent Rakes.I'm not sure if this is due to the writing, editing, or both, but it was difficult to understand the point or theme of the film. The plot felt like it was trying to do too much, and many points contradicted themselves.
Maggie (Jessica Chastain) and Bertha (Mia Wasikowska) seemed to only exist to serve as love interests, which is disappointing for a film in the modern era.
Near the end, we're told that Rakes has an army of ATU officers, yet somehow the entire Bondurant family is able to drive straight into the blocked off bridge and only one person dies for it. Has anyone heard of taking cover?! I can understand that those weapons were not as accurate as modern ones, but it felt like watching a shootout between Stormtroopers.
We can see that Sheriff Hodges (Bill Camp) disagrees with Rakes' methodology, but it's confusing that Cricket Pete's death is what turns him to rebel against a federal agent. We see someone get tarred and feathered, Rakes sent two men to kill Forrest (and we're led to believe they rape Maggie), but because he snaps the neck of a guy that survived rickets - that's where he draws the line? If he had shot him instead, would that be okay?
And why does the entire law enforcement squad let Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) walk past them to murder Rakes, immediately after they've all shot at each other? Do they only enforce alcohol crossing that particular bridge, and nothing else?
2.5/5 - it's not awful, but I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.
Earring72
Ok crime story but nothing memorableArmoreska
The most surprising event in this film is Velvet Underground song's country cover(s)CSSCHNEIDER
Shame that this was the follow up to the Proposition...aniforprez
great movie. does nothing really very special but still manages to be very interesting thanks to great performances, excellent cinematography and some great characters.Joelston
It felt like several different films oddly stitched together with a bizarre epilogue and way too little Gary Oldman, but I liked it for what it was. It was hardly anything special, but the cast was excellent and it was compelling despite it's flaws.KariVegas
tom hardy in a cardigan. go see it.Scratch47
Great cinematography, music, and acting from Hardy, Chastain, Oldman, and Pearce. Shia's not bad either. The tone and atmosphere are wonderful and this is good material to adapt a film from. Unfortunately the uneven plot, characterisation, and editing leave this feeling like 2 separate works with 2 different themes, fighting to gel into a compelling emotional center, and leaving a lot of filler in their wake. I understand there was a need to balance the harsh gritty brutal feeling of 'The Proposition' with a romanticized view of depression-era America to show the conflict in the central character, but it's like mixing water and oil. Some great moments and elements, but in one word: schizophrenic.Musanna
Good, but not great (as it coulda and shoulda been).BeasleyOnFilm
Great performances, stunning cinematography and an engaging story. It's all just a little too disjointed though.Showing items 1 – 15 of 21