MovieChat Forums > Outlaws and Angels (2016) Discussion > Really heavy - and totally unpredictable...

Really heavy - and totally unpredictable...

posted 9 years ago by cassadysal
4 replies | jump to latest

You may think it's like Hateful 8 because of the confined atmosphere, the violence, and the western genre - but that's really all they have in common. The film is shot in a much different way and has an entirely different approach than 8. It also touches on taboos that I've never seen in any western. This movie doesn't just push the envelope, it busts it wide open. Much more in common with Killer Joe than anything else. Although I thought the 35mm cinematography really set this film apart. Usually when a film has a low critical tomato rating I don't like it. But for the life of me I can't figure out why so maybe critics are so upset about this movie. It's damn realistic, super dirty, artfully shot and choreographed (there is one single shot that must be 20 minutes long!!), and just totally unique. Refreshing with so many cookie cutter movies out there now. Sure it's not perfect, there are a few things I wish were done differently, but it's one of the best films I've seen this year and certainly the most interesting. All I can figure is that the subject matter is genuinely too much for some people and they just can't get past it. It's pretty twisted, no doubt. But it's also beautiful. All the lead actors are shockingly good. Was blown away by Chad Michael Murray. Eastwood carries the torch well. And Terry polo is absolutely incredible - like way out there. Wait till you see the "screaming church scene". WOW

[–] typhaon 9 years ago

I guess...

I thought it seemed more like something a college film class would put together if they were told to make a "Tarantino" movie.

The range in the quality of acting was wild. There were definitely a few really class performances... and a few that were unintentionally laughably bad.

Camera kept running in quite a few scenes, far longer than was useful. Yes. I know that's a "thing," but this director didn't quite know how to use it to the film's advantage. I found myself fast-forwarding through some of the movie's climactic moments because I was bored to tears waiting for the scenes to finish.

[–] R_Redbeard 8 years ago

This is your only review...

How can they afford to pay you to write this?

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."

[–] cassadysal 8 years ago

I wish they would pay me!!! Haha. I don't have a personal connection to the film, although maybe you assume that anybody who likes it does. That would be tough - because there are a lot of users who like it. Here's the thing - I saw the film at a festival. I wasn't the only one in the audience who had a strong emotional reaction to the film. It got a standing ovation. Sure there were people who walked out and hated it, but other than those 3 people the crowd LOVED it. The QnA was packed. True, I never reviewed a film on IMDb before I reviewed this, but during the QnA the director said he was getting a beating from a few mainstream critics who seemed to be really offended by the film. He told us that he was counting on die hard lovers of it, like those of us in the audience that night to spread the word and be part of a grassroots effort to let the world know that it was special. He said the best way was to write user reviews on IMDb, etc. I love the movie so I decided to do just that. Why so suspect just because I thought it was such a cool movie?! I'm surely not the only one. Have you seen it??

[–] cheshacat55-48-970494 8 years ago

I've tried to word my comments so the surprise of the movie is preserved, but there may be **SPOILERS** ahead:

I thought it was exceptional, but can understand why some might be totally turned off by it. There were shocking scenes of violence, sadism, misogyny, rape, and other things that make us uncomfortable. The more extreme bordered on being gratuitous, but I felt it was all validated by the context of "plot twists" others have written about.

I felt as if the events all could have really happened out in the lonely, sparsely populated lands of New Mexico in the period after the Civil War. The casting was very good, but I'm wondering what was left on the cutting room floor. There's only so much time, nobody wants another Heaven's Gate.

But enough made it to screen to give us some outstanding performances by a well-seasoned ensemble cast.

Teri Polo acted her @$$ off! I've never seen her in a period piece before, and I hope to see more of her. Frances Fisher is always phenomenal in westerns and she nailed her role. Both actresses are only getting better with age.

I have one quibble. Despite Luke Wilson's familiarity to me, I never grew to care about his character. Perhaps it's a combination of Wilson's laid back delivery and time constraints which interfered with his character's fleshing out.

Ben Browder took some real risks in his portrayal, after making his mark as a mostly-heroic actor on TV. He did a fine job of creating a character whose throat I'd like to rip out.

I'd seen many of the actors, including the younger leads, Chad Michael Murray and Francesca Eastwood, in other movies, but they hadn't been that memorable. I'll certainly remember them now! Even the peripheral characters made an impact.

I can see some comparison to Tarantino's films, but I also see the influence of late 60s-early 70s style film innovators, especially in the soundtrack. There were flashes of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Wild Bunch IMO.

There were a few incidents of tracking shots and framing which gave it a student film vibe, but the movie was intense, unusual, and tragic enough to earn my whole-hearted approval. I'd like to see more from all of those who made everything click.