This is a decent movie. The plot, the cast, and the acting were good. The plot is not something they took from their back pocket and put it on table. No! It's the truth they filmed. Direction is somewhat average, but acceptable from a British director; however, this is the reason, I believe, the movie didn't get much ratings. Also, the movie didn't end properly. You know that you are close to the end of the movie but it ends unexpectedly in just a few seconds. It could have been much better.
I give it an 7.5/10.
About the director: I think he likes Danny Dyer. With the exception of his first movie, all other cast Danny Dyer.
I actually have to agree, imdb has always been a harsh critic of films but I think this one is worth more than 5.*, if purely on an entertainment level.
-- and the only sound is bender calling everyone else a JERK as he swings!!
I agree. I was a bit sceptic after some harsh reviews on imdb, but
- the acting - especially Rupert Friend, Bob Hoskins, and the "security guy" was excellent - the topic - breakdown of law and order, lukewarm response of law enforcement - is not exaggerated - it is based on actual events that stiil happen on a daily basis in our big cities - the first 30 minutes were really intense, depressing and hard to stomach (no dating movie) ->
(SPOILER WARNING)
- the car chase - the beating of the Danny Dyer character - the attack on the lawyers wife
etc.
but they were building up the athmosphere of the whole movie.
The only thing that sucked was that the vigilante group was in the end too soft on criminals, only beating them up. And I couldn`t quite understand why they killed the security guy who started the whole thing. Yes, he was a sadist, racist, a lunatic, and probably the only one whose motives were questionable, but I couldn`t understand why they killed him when most criminals they encountered got away with a beating.
Well essentially you hit the nail on the head. I mean, each to their own so everybody will have different reactions. But the fact is, the reason movies are cool and real life sucks is because stuff that happens in real life is random, boring, and pretty rarely falls into the good triumphs over evil category. In Outlaw they didn’t film the “truth” because it’s not a real story, but it could have been real because what happened was indeed random, at times boring and to an extent evil triumphs. It’s true, the UK is collapsing into a violent cess-pit which is what the movie is about. But to appeal to everybody, they have to make the message and have a coherent plot in which *beep* happens, the characters at least at one point or other actually get around to kicking somebody’s arse and (god forbid) act realistically. I mean what the *beep* was with Bean stepping into the line of fire at the end?! Considering he was the soldier, it was absolutely totally unacceptable it so far out of character. And Hoskins getting shot was just so spontaneous and out of the blue and it (to me) I felt it was a waste of time him ever being there in the first place. He made no effort to cover or even protect himself. I don’t think that anybody would be so casual with their life as he and some of the other characters in the movie were. And the ending was totally rushed and confusing and didn’t really get tied up. Well, that’s my opinion and from what I see here most people agree. But if you enjoyed it good for you, perhaps you are more lenient or look for something else in movie for entertainment value. But I think those are the major reasons why people rated it so harshly. I would have given it a four, but I thought the shoddy shaky-camera work and crazy editing pull it down to a three (and that’s not me being mean for the sake of it, if I could categorize every movie I have ever seen from 1-10, which I sort of have on IMDb, I really do find it sits at three compared to everything else). But, as I said, each to their own. I have plenty of movies and things that I love and other people detest. If we were all exactly the same, the world would be sooooo boring!
Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...
"""" Well essentially you hit the nail on the head. I mean, each to their own so everybody will have different reactions. But the fact is, the reason movies are cool and real life sucks is because stuff that happens in real life is random, boring, and pretty rarely falls into the good triumphs over evil category. In Outlaw they didn’t film the “truth” because it’s not a real story, but it could have been real because what happened was indeed random, at times boring and to an extent evil triumphs. It’s true, the UK is collapsing into a violent cess-pit which is what the movie is about. But to appeal to everybody, they have to make the message and have a coherent plot in which *beep* happens, the characters at least at one point or other actually get around to kicking somebody’s arse and (god forbid) act realistically. I mean what the *beep* was with Bean stepping into the line of fire at the end?! Considering he was the soldier, it was absolutely totally unacceptable it so far out of character. And Hoskins getting shot was just so spontaneous and out of the blue and it (to me) I felt it was a waste of time him ever being there in the first place. He made no effort to cover or even protect himself. I don’t think that anybody would be so casual with their life as he and some of the other characters in the movie were. """
Thank u for that part!
Camerawork IS what made this film. This way of filming was used to stress the unreality of all that was happening; unreality for the characters, torn out of their happy lives; unreality that nevertheless existed and became their nightmare.