To be perfectly honest, there was no rhyme or reason as to why I decided to watch this movie. It has little to no fanfare, no actors I particularly like and it’s British. The last British movie I enjoyed was the classic from 2004, “Shaun of the Dead.” Before that, I can’t recall. I do believe though, my watching this movie has to have had something to do with the fact that:
British + vigilantes = crazy shit
Of course I could be and ultimately am wrong. Outlaw may be one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. And that says a lot, considering there are contenders like “From Justin to Kelly” and “Epic Movie” with hats in the ring. I literally have no idea what the writer/director, Nick Love, was thinking. It is that bad.
Here is the premise in a nutshell. Bryant (Sean Bean) a recently released military gent decides he’s had enough of the lawlessness and corruption in the country (he’s been back for a few days). He brings in his brother Sandy (Rupert Friend), Simon (Sean Harris), a freaky rent-a-cop, Gene (Danny Dyer), a dork who got his ass kicked by some hooligans, Cedric (Lennie James) a prosecuting barrister who had his wife and child killed, to fill out his vigilante gang. Rounding out the group is a disgruntled policeman played by Bob Hoskins. They all decide to go after the cronies of Manning, a drug dealer who killed Cedric’s family. Okay, it’s not the worst idea for a movie — even I’ll agree the plot looks like it can work — but looks are deceiving.
Was the director trying to create a testosterone fueled movie like “Fight Club?” There is certainly a lot of fighting and repressed rage. Was the director trying to make a statement in a similar vein as “V for Vendetta?” There is certainly a great deal of angst about the government and the desire to change its’ direction by any means necessary. However, Outlaw doesn’t really figure out what it wants to be. It basically zig-zags around in a haphazard fashion, never focusing on an identity path.
Mostly, I found myself irritated by the stupidity of it all. A barrister gets his family threatened and doesn’t report it and then decides to becomes a vigilante? So let me understand, is he is fighting against himself? I’m no criminal mastermind, but even in the comic books, they cover their face with a fancy mask before deciding to break some skulls open. These crackpots, beat the shit out of some very bad people, and let them live, even though these perps have seen their faces and know their names! What the fuck do they hope to accomplish? If it’s getting a death wish granted, they’ve succeeded.
My parting words on Outlaw is it will make you laugh and cry. You’ll laugh because the movie is so bad and that you’re an asshole for spending time and money to watch it. You’ll cry because the movie is so bad and that you’re an asshole for spending time and money to watch it. Either way you’re an asshole for watching it — just like me.
'Movie Review: Outlaw (2007)' have 4 comments
December 11, 2007 @ 5:54 pm AnAngryPerson
What are you getting at when you mention that the movie is British, there is entirely nothing wrong about British films at all and when the odd one does come out most of the time it shines, as its an original take on a subject or rises light on a subject or theme, like the movie you mentioned 28 days later.
Why don’t you give reasons for not liking the actors who star in it. Danny Dyer has stared in some really good films, such as the football factory that make you think about, well, our society (in the UK) and what happens in it in the real world that we live in not the tea and, shine your shoes dear that we are pictured by so many Americans(or at least it is depicted in so many shows etc). I really cannot judge the film yet as I haven’t seen all of it. But I have made my point and I hope you think about what I’ve said.
December 11, 2007 @ 7:48 pm General Disdain
I’d have made the same statement if it were a French or German film. It was my not-so-eloquent way of noting that very little in the way of great films makes it way here to the states.
I have nothing against Bristish people per se. I have several British friends and knowing that they are akin to the pub crawling, hooligan lifestyle, I made the equation:
British + vigilantes = crazy shit
Believe it or not, that was actually a compliment!
December 12, 2007 @ 10:13 am AnAngryPerson
I actually didn’t mind that bit maybe I should make myself more clearer I apologise I was noting, I quote “no actors I particularly like and it’s British.” I was commenting on that part of your review.
I understand the whole British + vigilantes = crazy shit I agree from your explanation of what you meant by that. It seemed to me you where stating that because it was a British film(well shot in England like) that it was a reason why it didn’t seem that good based on the previous line “no actors I particularly like”.
Now maybe you can answer my initial post. thanks
December 14, 2007 @ 9:10 am General Disdain
The statement was two-fold.
First, I’m not overly familiar with many of the actors in the film. Sean Bean, aside from his work in the Lords trilogy, never struck me as much more than a supporting cast memeber. I’ve seen Lennie James and Danny Dyer once before and both their roles were forgettable to me. Bob Hoskins, I know, but sadly I really only recall his performances in movies like Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Super Mario Bros.
As for the second part of the statement, I think I’ve already explained that — foreign films don’t get much fanfare here the states. If the movie was from another country, I would have simply swapped countries.
So I started the review stating what I felt were the shortcomings and then jumped into saying it could still be good in spite of them because of my highly analytical equation.