MovieChat Forums > Beyond the Law (1993) Discussion > A steaming loaf on two wheels!

A steaming loaf on two wheels!


I like Charlie Sheen and I had always heard how good this movie was, but I just saw it for the first time and I was blown away by how badly it....blows. I normally wouldn't bother to bash a movie, I just ignore the ones I don't like and move on, but this one requires comment (not really, I just feel like it).

Actually, Leon Rippy was good in this, as was Linda Fiorentino, given what little she had to work with, but absolutely nobody else came out smelling better than a pile of outlaw bikers.

The lowlights: cartoonish and buffoonish characters abound (all of them, even Michael Madsen's); totally nonsensical behavior by practically every character in every scene (a certain amount must be expected from Hollywood but this was a clean sweep -- every scene contained ridiculous acts that would never occur in real life); laughably bad dialogue thoughout; and improbabilities too numerous to list.

Okay, I could almost tolerate all that -- it's the way most mainstream movies are made -- but this was supposed to have been based on a true story. Even given the fact they had to spice it up to make it more interesting than life actually is, this movie had not one ounce of reality. Take his undercover car: a Ford LTD with a squawking police radio. Even if it has an "off" switch it could never be used for undercover work -- even if it were in a non-police car. And the big fat biker crying and actually begging for his life as he urinates down his pant leg. He wouldn't have been seen wearing colors again after that.

And WHAT is with that stooopid back story about the guy's uncle the cop handcuffing and beating him as a 7-year-old? (Don't try to explain it, please, I KNOW what it was, because like everything else in this movie it lacked even the slightest amount of subtlety). More than just a wee bit over the top, it screams "DUMBSH!T scriptwriter and hack director here!" Yeah, yeah, there had to be drama, but that was simply ludicrous.

The final scene of Charlie stripping down and walking into the desert toward nothing has to rank as one of the silliest moments in movie history. This director is so lame. Symbolism? Try blatantly screaming at us next time. I doubt even the dumbest drunk who has ever watched this movie didn't get it. (I recommend watching this movie in that condition if one must.) That scene was so bad I almost puked, and it was made all the more so by Sheen trying to flex his nearly existent lats (and his personal trainer had the shameless gall to take a credit at the end of this film). Nobody ever mistook Charlie for a scrawny weasel but he shouldn't have done the bodybuilder pose.

But I almost cried when the puka shell necklace landed in the dirt. Puka shell necklaces are still a required part of 'the uniform' for ALL 1% bikers, aren't they? How else can anyone look tough and scary without puka shells? Unless you happen to be lucky enough to have a grandmother who will lend you her pearls. Actually, I did cry (with laughter) when I first saw he was wearing it.

reply

Maybe you should lay off the sauce.

reply

THEN HOW COULD I WASH DOWN MY MEDS?!?!?! Think, man, think!

reply

Good point pass me the bottle !!

reply

I thought I was the only one who thought the movie was one of the worst of his career up until that point. Noticed I said until that point cause this movie seemed to start him on a long slow spiral of him acting in B movies. The soundtrack was on e of the the worse i have ever heard

reply

I do not agree 100%.. Yes it is a bit corny and i would like to point out a couple of major screwups with wich i will totally agree with you guys.

1. The "Blood" character. Michael Madsen is the worst cast to this movie. Everyone else works ok, but he doesnt look anything like a biker. He has a nice hair, shaved face and not even a bandana and a set of cool looking sun glasses make him look tuff.. He wouldnt even scare a cat.. Now when i look at the actors from 92 that could have done this a lot better i think : Mickey Rourke (bad ass attitude) or some other typical bad-guy from that period. Michael Madsen is great in other movies but in this one... well he sucks..

2. Dan Saxon character. Well i am in two minds about that one. Yes i have seen better acting from Charlie Sheen but then again there are parts in this movie that he plays very well. The best thing is that you can almost not draw any reference to the nice cop we see in the start of the movie and the long haired, bearded SOB biker we see later in the movie. The transformation is very good i think. But sure. He´s acting like *beep* in some parts of the movie..

3. The plot and the biker code.. Thats the tricky part. NOBODY and i mean NOBODY say "sorry" in that world. Trust me i know. Thats why those guys have wars every once in a while.. So the scene with "oatmeal" that piss himself up is crap, nonetheless funny though. I enjoy the scene with the dynamite every time i see it.

Last but not least. Take a look here at IMDB and search movies from 1992.. DAMN!
'Heres a couple for you if you have forgotten:

Waynes World
The Bodyguard (oh my *beep* god)
Batman returns
Lethal Weapon 3 (that one is ok)
Home Alone 2..

Theese movies where taken off a top 10 of the best grossing movies in 1992 so compared to that i think this movie is alot better than you guys give it credit for.. If you compare it to similar films of more recent date like "Donnie Brascoe" your bound to be dissapointet. What did yoy expect..

reply