Recensioni degli utenti

Just spent some time watching this move .. and unlike the previous reviewer enjoyed this film. I disagreed with him so much it prompted me to write my first ever comments on IMDb. In the trivia part of the IMDb description it says that actual events were used as inspiration for the scenes and i thought they were all quite believable. "He's hidin in da countryside"! was one comment i found funny as is in the age of big brother hiding in the city would have made for a very short movie.

Somehow i suspect that other people who have watched this film sort of missed the point and have probable led sheltered lives somewhere with mummy and daddy feeding them with a silver spoon as i found the characters true to life as i have met people who talk and act how the script was written.

I'm not claiming that this film should win any awards .. however i thought it deserved higher praise and didn't want any other potential viewers to be put off. blair witch scored higher and my little eye scored the same ( i turned both of these movies off before the end). This movie has far more entertainment value than both and after all isn't that what movies are for .. thanks for listening.

This isn't a great film and I was never quite sure whether it meant to be a study of the dark underbelly of disaffected Britain or a crude vigilante flick. A lot of reviewers here have been dismissive of it, but I think it had fleeting touches of real power. Unfortunately, they did not build into anything of substance.

The gang members did not convince and their behaviour took the film into a strange fantasy-land world.

Sean Bean made a reasonable stab at a two dimensional character and a better script would have brought this to life. Supporting cast made a fair stab at it, but all-in-all an opportunity missed.

It really was a disappointment. Slow start and the last 20 minutes picks up. But I had to give it a 7/10 because of the concept. "Boondock Saints" was better.

=> maybe see it! Better to rent.

Plot: The law & govt in London lets down several average citizens in terrible crimes committed against them and their families. Corrupt officials are in league with the govt who allow criminals to get off. Soluion = vigilante group forms to right the wrongs.

Lot of reasonably well known actors in here but it has a B quality movie flavor. Maybe you could say more of live or real budget production. It moves a long a bit slowly, but despite all of this I really have to draw attention to..

+ves: - it almost follows a pseudo real life pace not a Hollywood blockbuster - the incidents that occur are believable. It could happen in South London. - bully's & punks with top people in collusion with police - corrupts govt and police - a few wrong people pushed too far and of course the social path who is drawn to the group - and a predictable or realistic ending.. Don't worry no spoilers.

-> The longer I consider it the more the movie has drawn me in, like a car crash and it deserves it's 7/10

From the trailers of Outlaw one could probably say that this film is going to rock ! Guns , girls and gore right? With a cast like Sean Bean and Danny Dyer , Bob Hoskins and Nick Love the man who gave us Football Factory and The Business , we got the Brit Pack ere ! Unfortuntaley that is not the case this time round , don't get me wrong the idea of a vigilante mob that takes the law into their own hands seemed pretty cool and giving the current climate of yob culture in Briton it would help to have someone would knock some heads together. Sean Bean plays a soldier who has just returned from Iraq to find his life is just as bad as it was out there and he seems to do a pretty good job of playing a tortured man that kind made me draw comparisons between him and Robert De Niro's character out of Taxi Driver , he then goes about setting up a group of like minded individuals who just like him have snapped with the wrongs that go on around them. So far so good Nick Love does a good job of keeping the film moving and at times blending in realistic problems with the fantasy side of things. However although I felt all the actors performed well , what they had to work with was very limited and thusly a script that lacked depth really does not make you care about the characters that much. Also I found it to be a little dull in places and then getting very rushed towards the last 30 minutes of the movie with things flying about left , right and centre just made it chaotic. Too conclude Outlaw came across as a movie which could of had a lot of potential and probably could of been Nick Love's finest piece of work to date as it dealt with a subject most of us deal with every day and night whilst on the streets of the UK , but unfortunately a shoddy, shallow script and messy direction made this one lose serious marks. I understand this was made mainly of donations from fans of Nick Love but unfortunately that really is no excuse but Nick's trademark violence made sit all the way through it. My advice is just wait for it to hit the rental shop .

OUTLAW 6.8 OUT OF 10

FIGHTING BACK IN 2007

Sean Bean gives a good performance as a Para who seems to have lost a sense of purpose after leaving the armed services in Outlaw. I really got into this movie and I thought hey there are some snags but I am enjoying this. Yes it is a bit controversial in its thinking but sometimes you have to accept that society does not always think logically. Another good point to the film is how you watch the characters reactions to the whole philosophy of retaliation. Some of members of the gang seem to struggle with the violence, whilst others simply bask in it. However, the fundamental flaw appears with this film as far as I was concerned was towards the end. For 3 quarters of the film I wanted to know what was going to happen, where the characters were going. I wanted the film to end in a crescendo of action and intrigue. Instead sadly it ended with a bit of a farce and a whimper. I won't spoil it for those that want to see it but lets just say that it seemed to me that the script writer either ran out of ideas or the director ran out of money. In my opinion if Outlaw was 15 minutes longer and the ending thought about a bit more this could have been a good film. In the end all it left me was the bitter taste of disappointment though.

The main reason I'm commenting on this movie, is because before I even considered watching it, I read the comments on IMDb. Now I remember a couple of the comments comparing this movie to the Boondock Saints, and not in a good way.

After watching this movie, I now know, it is nothing like the Boondock Saints. Not even close. The style and mood of these two movies are completely different.

As for the movie. I enjoyed it. They establish the characters early on and you begin to care about what happens to them, and bad things do happen to them. This is where the characters take a turn from their normal lives and start fighting back. This "vigilante" movie is more believable than any other I've seen. The characters struggle with what they have set out to do, and at times can't follow through with their plans for justice. Most comments about this movie have dissected it, and over analyzed it. I enjoyed the mood of this movie, it entertained me and gave me an ending i didn't expect.

When I saw the trailer for OUTLAW I knew I wanted to see it – Sean Bean is one of my favourite actors and I loved the look of the vigilante plot. But it was one of those films that slipped by until now, when I finally caught up with it on TV one night. I'm glad I didn't get to it sooner.

The film is a crushing, no-budget disappointment, nothing like it's made out to be in the trailer. The plot is passable at best, and while it contains some intense, shocking moments (the attack on the barrister's wife is one of the most disturbing I've seen in some time), it never seems to go anywhere, and by the end turns into the usual good guys vs. arch villain type action flick. Some scenes are ludicrous, like the bit with the shoot-out with the police in the wood, and the characters are never likable as they should be. Take Sean Bean's lead for instance – he's a disturbed ex-soldier, yes, but we never learn a thing about his background or what makes him tick. Bean tries hard to make the best of the material, but his talents are wasted here.

It's a shame, as the talents of other decent actors – such as Lennie James and Bob Hoskins – are also left unexploited to their full potential. The biggest problem of all lies in the director, Nick Love. For some stupid reason, he adopts a shaky cam in an attempt to give his film edge, but it's distracting at best and nauseating at worst. Paul Greengrass he certainly isn't – and the camera-work alone is enough to ruin what was potentially an interesting film that raises some important questions about crime and justice.

The idea of vigilante revenge is a powerful basis.

This movie shows not only the possibilities of revenge but the reluctance and hesitation to engage in the same.

It was well acted and mostly believable but the plot did tend to get muddied a bit at certain points. Gives an interesting view of British home life, office life, and countryside as well to those interested in British culture.

Overall, it caught my interest and kept me watching until the rather predictable ending. But predictable ending aside it shouldn't matter to most movie watchers as the action keeps everything moving and keeps it interesting to the end.

When the directors (Nick Love) previous credits have been 'The Football Factory' and 'The Business' you know what to expect. As in the director's previous movie's, this stars Danny Dyer, a guy people either love or loathe, me? I don't mind the cheeky cockney.The main man though is Sean Bean, a former paratrooper who assembles a gang of like minded individuals out to extract justice on Britain's streets, something they see the law is failing to do so.

Very much like a Death Wish' 2007, or the under-rated Michael Douglas flick 'The Star Chamber', this is a movie about revenge and vigilantism.The film has received many negative reviews, The Guardian labelling it "crime revenge porn", yes it's non pc but the ideas in the film are what a lot of fed up Britain's are thinking right now, something the po faced liberals hate to see expressed.

Things do get very daft in the final third of the film, the 'outlaws' get embroiled in a 'Heat' style gun fight when previously they couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but the whole movie has an earthy gritty feel and the cast is a pretty good one, Bob Hoskins as a Police 'grass', a very subdued Danny Dyer and the always reliable Sean Bean.

Bryant returns from the Iraq war one of many burnt out veterans to find his wife gone off with another man and yobs hanging around in the street. Gene Dekker meanwhile gets beaten up in the street (an English street dear viewer!) by thugs after a minor fender bender. Barrister Cedric Munroe however, losing his wife and unborn baby after criminals from the gang of violent overlord Manning send a warning for him to back off the prosecution of their boss.

There is an interesting film in here somewhere and certainly the time to try and find it would be now. Whether it is reality or perception, there is the feeling that lawlessness is rife and that the police are powerless to stop it. Whether it is yobs on the street, rudeness, robbers suing victims, paedophiles living beside schools or whatever, the Daily Mail has never had it so good with plenty of hand-wringing to be done at every turn. Even recently two "ordinary" people have died in different places when they attempted to stop youths or criminals doing something – surely it is only right to stand up to such behaviour. Well yes and no and it is an interesting question but with Outlaw the questions are either answered before we begin or are just ignored in favour of a simple narrative.

For that is what is served up here in a script that never really challenges the audience and seems to be keen to serve the target audience of those attracted to a story about men standing up to injustice, without actually being brave enough to just come out and say "hanging's too good for 'em". This is seen in the "turmoil" that the group goes through, with some all to happy to kill the wrong doers, while others just want to beat the sh1t out of them – you know, the type of complex morality questions that really trouble the mind. Such as it is the script never gets into this aspect of it and indeed if there is a conclusion, it is that vigilantism is the only way to go if you want results.

Having seen other films from love, I am willing to accept that he has written a dramatic script that has no interest in the wider questions but is just using the situation as a setting. As weak as an excuse as that is, following this line of reasoning still left me with a film that didn't engage, excite or interest me. As writer Love did not produce any characters, scenarios or questions that I cared about. As director he seems to be frantically trying to make his drama have the grit and reality that his script lacks but he has decided to do it by doing an poor man's impression of Paul Greengrass by having a child nudge the cameraman throughout shooting. It worked for Bourne but here it just annoyed me and seemed like just a stolen idea rather than a style that helped the film.

The cast offered substance and I would have liked to see some of them actually served with good characters. Bean and James in particular are capable of more and maybe they thought they would get it when they signed up. Both have a good presence but neither really has anything of value to get into. Dyer does his usual stuff but, considering his character is more or less the heart of the film, he does not connect with anything. Hoskins is a good catch for this name but his character is just an easy angry copper.

Overall then, what did this film offer to me? Well not a great deal. Despite a topical and controversial subject matter, there is nothing to think about or challenge the viewer as Love just hammers home a simple dramatic script without the heart to go for blood whole-hog or conversely risk upsetting his loyal male audience by being reflective or thoughtful. Could have been interesting. Wasn't.

I beg to differ it is a Nick love film and when you watch one you know what your in for. It may not be as good as football factory or have a story like the business but at least it is original. Yes the camera style is a bit awkward, some of the things pointless like the abandoning of his gf at the alter. But how can you say Danny dyer's acting is bad. He is brilliant as he is in every film. Sean Bean and him make the film if you ask me. The film is very realistic and can be related to if you know what city life is like and the yobs nowadays. I loved the idea although i think it could have been done better. Putting aside the pointless parts overall i would recommend watching this film but don't spend any money on it.

A British Iraq War vet, Danny Bryant (Sean Bean) returns stateside and is sickened by how lax the criminals are treated by corrupt cops & judges. So he forms a ragtag group of like-minded individuals, along with some help from a disillusioned cop in the system (played by Bob Hoskins) This is an extremely well-acted film not only by the usually superb Bean & Hoskins, but Nick Love film mainstay Danny Dyer as well. It's a gritty character study with bouts of ultra-violence. Among the vigilante sub-genre this film ranks up among the better ones (even if the ending is easy to guess) Kudos to writer/director Nick Lowe.

My Grade: A-

DVD Extras: Commentary with Nick Love & Danny Dyer; a promo for HD.net ; and Trailers for "Life Before her eyes", "The Signal", "Shrooms", & "Quid Pro Quo"

Spent some time watching this in High Definition on a Saturday night, and fairly surprised at some of the reactions here.

Lets get one thing straight from the off though: This is not a great film. It does what it does, and in my opinion, it does it well.

It tells the tale of a small group of disaffected British males, sickened by the state of the society they inhabit and to be frank, at times, I understand where they are coming from.

The introduction to the characters is slow and builds up nicely, but at some point it inexplicably ends and the rest of the film feels somewhat rushed.

A lot of people have commented that the camera work made them feel sick. Perhaps i am seeing something that isn't there, but I got the feeling this was in fact intended - the fact that the camera work 'degenerates' into a shaky (shakier) mess during the fight scenes/beatings tells me that this was intended to produce that very effect, to make the viewer feel sickened. It worked on me, particularly when Decker(?) is beaten in his dream.

Not a great film, but to me, powerful nonetheless.

I am surprised at the poor IMDb rating for this film. The film picks up on many of the problems in British society. The failings of the Police are real and the writer paints a realistic picture of a possible future of Britain. Police getting worse, crime continuing, the public let down.

The film doesn't pull any punches, it is grim and hits its message home clearly.

The performances are fantastic. Sean Bean really is incredible, the pain in his face is clear to see, full of emotion, he is brilliant. Bob Hoskins is also great.

The film is not perfect. Any criticisms i would have would possibly be the soundtrack, it would have been good if there was more music kicking in, i think the droning noise was possibly overused.

Overall though, the writer should be credited for a writing a film with a strong, important message and the direction creates a fantastic movie.

Nick Love continues to tarnish the British Film Industry (while working completely outside of it) with another kick-to-the-balls of a film. It's hard to imagine how you could possibly go wrong with a vigilante film starring Sean Bean and Bob Hoskins, but the script is absolute bargain basement. Substituting any form of characterisation for pointless bouts of nasty violence, its hard to see what attracted any talent to this rubbish. You spend the entire film wondering why the characters really do behave the way they do as well as trying to focus your eyes on horribly shot and lit digital video. Love seems to think that by yanking the camera all over the place gives a sense of gritty realism. Well it doesn't. This film is like a Daily Mail readers wet dream. Despite Love's track record (of which only The Business showed any sort of film making talent) I really was hoping for an interesting British take on vigilantism, that addresses many of the hopes and fears that British people feel at this time. I was also impressed the way Love and his producers gathered together the finance to make this. It's a shame they didn't hire a talented writer to pen something even remotely interesting. This film has absolutely nothing to recommend it at all.