baal666
Main Eventer
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,255
- Reaction score
- 0
<big><big>Lawless</big></big>
I know this movie was out in 2012 which might seem old for a review but movies about this time period are not what interest me in general, the other one i really liked was Public Enemy and i guess that's all. So if a review can make other people give a shot at that movie that's cool.
Before the movie :
I didn't really plan to watch the movie, just went at a friend's home to drink and we ended up watching the movie. I knew about it when it was released in cinema but didn't go watch it because, as mentioned before, the 30's doesn't appeal a lot to me even if it's cast is made of Hardy, LaBeouf, Pierce, Oldman and more.
Movie Plot :
In 1931 the prohibition forbids alcohol in US. In Franklin County.Virginia, the Bondurants brothers are making and selling their own alcohol. Deputy Charley Rakes asks for a cut of their profit, Forrest Bondurant makes it clear that it's not going to happen and threaten to kill Rakes if he comes back, then Rakes will do whatever he can to destroy the Bondurants illegal business.
My impressions :
+ The narration is made by Jack, the youngest brother played by LaBoeuf. It shows how much he admires his brothers, and i think that it also shows that he thinks how he doesn't feel considered by them. Even if he is part of the business his older brothers see him as weak and almost useless.
+ Hardy's character is supposed to be the most violent brother, it would have been easy to make him go on rampage but he doesn't and even when he acts really violently it's behind a door and we only catch a glimpse of it when LaBoeuf opens the door.
+ Rakes, who is supposed to represent the law is dirtyer than the Bondurants, it's not all black or white and in the end the Bondurants seem to have more noble motivations to do what they do than the Deputy.
+ The whole myth around the Bondurant beeing immortal.
+ The end.
- Oldman isn't present a lot in the movie, i think the actor and the character deserved a bigger place.
- Hardy/Chastain romance. It's not the fact that there is a love story that i dislike (for once) but the fact that it's not developped well and feel artificial, unlike the LaBoeuf/Wasikowska one.
= During the whole movie i couldn't help but think that i would have seen Ed Harris instead of Guy Pearce and Kim Coates instead of Jason Clarke. It's not a bad point as Pearce and Clarke are good, just something stucked in my head.
To conclude, i really enjoyed this movie. I don't really know what more to say, it looks pretty, it's dirty, there is no real good or bad sides and everyone has his own motivation without thinking about higher or greater good, they are selfish and i think it reflects mankind well. The movie is not all action packed but never gets boring, if you have the occasion, watch it because it's worth your time.
<big><big>7.5/10</big></big>
I know this movie was out in 2012 which might seem old for a review but movies about this time period are not what interest me in general, the other one i really liked was Public Enemy and i guess that's all. So if a review can make other people give a shot at that movie that's cool.
Before the movie :
I didn't really plan to watch the movie, just went at a friend's home to drink and we ended up watching the movie. I knew about it when it was released in cinema but didn't go watch it because, as mentioned before, the 30's doesn't appeal a lot to me even if it's cast is made of Hardy, LaBeouf, Pierce, Oldman and more.
Movie Plot :
In 1931 the prohibition forbids alcohol in US. In Franklin County.Virginia, the Bondurants brothers are making and selling their own alcohol. Deputy Charley Rakes asks for a cut of their profit, Forrest Bondurant makes it clear that it's not going to happen and threaten to kill Rakes if he comes back, then Rakes will do whatever he can to destroy the Bondurants illegal business.
My impressions :
+ The narration is made by Jack, the youngest brother played by LaBoeuf. It shows how much he admires his brothers, and i think that it also shows that he thinks how he doesn't feel considered by them. Even if he is part of the business his older brothers see him as weak and almost useless.
+ Hardy's character is supposed to be the most violent brother, it would have been easy to make him go on rampage but he doesn't and even when he acts really violently it's behind a door and we only catch a glimpse of it when LaBoeuf opens the door.
+ Rakes, who is supposed to represent the law is dirtyer than the Bondurants, it's not all black or white and in the end the Bondurants seem to have more noble motivations to do what they do than the Deputy.
+ The whole myth around the Bondurant beeing immortal.
+ The end.
- Oldman isn't present a lot in the movie, i think the actor and the character deserved a bigger place.
- Hardy/Chastain romance. It's not the fact that there is a love story that i dislike (for once) but the fact that it's not developped well and feel artificial, unlike the LaBoeuf/Wasikowska one.
= During the whole movie i couldn't help but think that i would have seen Ed Harris instead of Guy Pearce and Kim Coates instead of Jason Clarke. It's not a bad point as Pearce and Clarke are good, just something stucked in my head.
To conclude, i really enjoyed this movie. I don't really know what more to say, it looks pretty, it's dirty, there is no real good or bad sides and everyone has his own motivation without thinking about higher or greater good, they are selfish and i think it reflects mankind well. The movie is not all action packed but never gets boring, if you have the occasion, watch it because it's worth your time.
<big><big>7.5/10</big></big>
