Outlaw

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.

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

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.

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.

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.