Lawless
- Thread starter the G-man
- Start date
The cast alone interests me but I might not get to see it until it reaches DVD.
It's been promoted heavily the past week, I'm going to go see it if I get the chance.
I'm intrigued if for no other reason than the cast but it looks like a film I could catch on DVD and not miss out on anything(ie action scenes, cinematography).
Shia works in this movie mostly because his character's supposed to be annoying.
Ebert's review was flawed, in my mind, because he didn't want the characters in a movie called 'Lawless' to be, well, outlaws.
Another point: you gotta love a movie that has Ralph Stanley covering the Velvet Underground
Ebert's review was flawed, in my mind, because he didn't want the characters in a movie called 'Lawless' to be, well, outlaws.
Another point: you gotta love a movie that has Ralph Stanley covering the Velvet Underground
Sentences such as "I don't require movies to be about good people, and I don't reject screen violence," suggest quite the opposite. His dislike of the movie seems to stem from a dislike of the characters, whose motivation he found thin and failed to arouse his interest throughout.
Other reviewers seem to be expressing the same sentiment, and it's enough to keep me from seeing the film until home video.
Except that the sentence is followed shortly thereafter by a "however" and he then goes on to spend most of his review complaining about the violence and villainery of the characters.
Furthermore, Ebert's review indicates he wasn't paying attention when he asks:
- Into their backwoods domain ventures Special Agent Charley Rakes (Guy Pearce), a fed from Chicago. He works with the none too enthusiastic local sheriff's department to do — what? Shut[the bootleggers] down? Take them over? Kill them all? (emphasis added)
In the very first scene that Rakes is, the conversation is explicit and clearly stated that he is corrupt, the local sheriff is taking orders from him and wants a cut of all profit made by the bootleggers. If they fail to pay, he is going to wipe them out. This is conveyed both by characters talking about Rakes and, in large part, by Rakes himself when he propositions/threatens Forrest (Hardy's character). The fact that Ebert is reviewing the film as if this wasn't explained (and explicitly so) is lazy or dishonest criticism on his part.
I'm shocked that Ebert missed something explicitly presented on screen and then proceeded to complain about it. Shocked, I say.
This was a good movie. Hardy is such an awesome badass in this, Pearce is an evil bastard of epic proportions, and Jessica Chastain is so friggin hot (and nude) and she acts well, too! Oh, and Gary Oldman, chameleon actor, rocks the gangster role. They cut the shootout at the movie theatre though. He kind of dropped out of the film as it stands, so I wonder if that was meant as a hit against him or him finally consolidating power.
The Beef acts well, I guess, but I hated his character so much. Almost every shitty thing that happens in the movie is his fault. He sucks so much.
A-
This was a good movie. Hardy is such an awesome badass in this, Pearce is an evil bastard of epic proportions, and Jessica Chastain is so friggin hot (and nude) and she acts well, too! Oh, and Gary Oldman, chameleon actor, rocks the gangster role. They cut the shootout at the movie theatre though. He kind of dropped out of the film as it stands, so I wonder if that was meant as a hit against him or him finally consolidating power.
The Beef acts well, I guess, but I hated his character so much. Almost every shitty thing that happens in the movie is his fault. He sucks so much.
A-
Which is just one of a few reasons to not surrender a decision to see a movie based on critics. One only finds out this lack of "getting it" after one has seen the movie. Even a collective rating doesn't tell you how many ratings his might've affected the composite. I'm sure the flip argument is in play but that applies as well. Wouldn't you hate to be misled thinking it was great and it wasn't?
Similar threads
