Sept 5: A Double Team Review: Lawless
"Set in Depression-era Franklin County, Virginia, a bootlegging gang is threatened by a new deputy and other authorities who want a cut of their profits."
Directed by: John Hillcoat, Rated: R, 116 minutes
Here's something a little different today for The Cinematic Katzenjammer. Lately, I've been really wanting to change things up a bit and inject the site with a bit more variety so I decided to partner up with Joe from Two Dude Review (and fellow As You Watch member) for a review of Lawless, the new gangster movie about a group of moon-shining brothers in 1920s Virginia. Below, you can find our discussion. As a note, I am in blue and Joe is in red.
N. First
off, what are your initial thoughts of Lawless?
J. I
liked the movie, but I didn't love it. I thought the film's setting
was good, and I thought most of the acting was good, but I had a few
issues with certain characters and some of the story-line.
N. So did
I. I really liked most of the characters but there were some
'stretches' in the realism that I found really out of place. I love
the setting and the look of the film, but it's flaws were things that
really stood out.
J. I
thought Guy Pearce and Tom Hardy were great! Especially Pearce.
N. Guy
Pearce is so swarmy and evil. He's such a good villain. I really liked
him in it too. Hardy is great, as always. I was really disappointed at the lack of Gary
Oldman though.
Pearce does a terrific job at making you hate his living guts. The guy's a f**ker of epic proportions.
J. I
was also disappointed that Gary Oldman didn't play a bigger part. After seeing him as Jim Gordon so much over the past years, or at least its felt that way, I enjoyed seeing him in what I thought to be a villain, but I was left wanting so much more of him.
N. He
was only in like three scenes. His
introduction teases us that he'll play a huge role. Then he just
vanishes.
J. Exactly!
He was used more as a plot device for Shia's Jack. Speaking
of which, I liked Shia's acting in this more than in anything else I
can remember.
N. I
did too. I think it's easily one of his best performances. As the
star, the focus is almost entirely on him and yet he is able to stand
up to the talents of Hardy, Pearce, and Oldman. On
our podcast I mentioned that this was his make or break film, and I
think it certainly did more for him than anything else.
J. For
the most part I agree; I think he still is easily overshadowed by the
better actors, but like you said I don't think he did his career
anything but good.
N. He
had a few moments that were shockingly good. After a certain
character's death, his response is hard to watch. And towards the
end, when he lets his 'gangster flag' fly, he shows signs he could
really be a badass.
J. I
agree on all accounts. One
thing that I couldn't get out of my head was every time Tom Hardy
would grunt or huff or talk in his muffled voice I had visions of
Bane.
N. Really?
I didn't think so at all. I did think that when he'd lower his voice
even more that he sounded like Bane. And you could certainly tell
some of the weight he gained for Bane had faded off a bit. He
had a little stomach underneath his sweater and fedora.
J. Yeah,
it was only when it was softer or lower, but it was there. I thought
he looked a little slimmer too, but he's such an imposing figure
that unless he really slims down it's difficult to see a whole lot of
difference.
Hardy, pulling off the Cosby sweater and the Indy fedora.
N. Now most of the conversation around the film is the known-name stars.
I thought a lot of the smaller characters really stood out,
especially Cricket (Dane DeHaan) and Howard (Jason Clarke). The
film is really packed to the brim with talent.
J. Cricket
is definitely an under appreciated character. I thought Dane DeHaan
really stood out in his scenes and was less overshadowed than Shia.
N. Have
you seen Chronicle? He's
having one hell of a year.
J. Jason
Clarke is such a good character actor. I've watched him on a number
of TV shows and have always thought he was good. And yes, I did see
Chronicle and thought he was one of the reasons that I thought the
movie was fairly enjoyable.
J. Oh, and let's not forget the gorgeous Jessica Chastain. It's been awhile since I've had an actress that I wanted to see anything she was in. Chastain and Emma Stone are both becoming that type of actress as far as I'm concerned.
N. And she's naked!
J. YES SHE IS!!!
She can be in everything and I'd be perfectly okay with it.
N. Moving on to the story, what did you think of the bulk of the
plot? Anti-heroes running the town, then the bad guy from the city comes in and wreaks havoc. We've seen it tons of times before.
J. We
have, but I like the "hillbilly" aspect of this. My
problems were more geared towards how quickly the sheriff went from
buying from the brothers to threatening them all because of one guy?
N. Yeah.
Small town folk are apparently easily manipulated by Guy Pearce.
From
the trailers, I was assuming that Pearce was coming to town to stop
Gary Oldman's character, not the Bondurant brothers.
J. Right, I
think if Gary Oldman's Floyd was behind Charlie Rakes being there,
then it would be more believable.
N. Exactly.
I don't see why one big time city "special detective" would
come in to clean up a bunch of moonshiners.
J. Even
if he was dirty and planned to just rustle them up to get paid, he
was one guy, all alone.
N. Yeah.
He had no allies yet was able to "lock down" an entire
town.
J. The
other problem I had was how quickly all the other bootleggers fell in
line behind Rakes.
N. I
think a part of that is because they wanted to focus entirely on the
Bondurants and not the entire county. But yes, they could have
embellished a bit more.
N. My
biggest complaint of the story was the realism factor. I know it's
based on a true story (I think the source material was actually
written by a real Bondurant), but there were so many moments I almost
laughed at because of how unbelievable it was.
J. Yes,
the book was written by Matt Bondurant, Jack's grandson, hence the
reason I think Jack got so much of the focus. It's based off his book, The Wettest County in the World. I believe you mentioned this previously in one of our podcasts, but that's such a cooler title than Lawless.
N. It certainly is. But
back to that realism factor. Did that bug you? There's only so
much one person can take before they die.
J. I
think there's a certain level of disbelief we should expect to have
with movies, and it becomes less when films are "based on a true
story". Having said that, yes it became a little unbelievable
how much punishment was dealt out without the character dying
(similar to I Saw the Devil).
N. Back to before, one
aspect I really liked (that you touched upon) was
the more hillbilly approach to that era. Most gangster movies set in
the 20s are all set in New York or Chicago, never the small
towns on the outskirts. I
do wish they delved a little more into the actual moon-shining. A
little history lesson would be cool, and seeing them all actually
working on it would have shown a bit. Minus the dirty work, I don't
remember seeing Hardy doing anything else.
J. Exactly,
and taking Pearce's Charlie Rakes out of 20s Chicago and putting him
in hillbilly Franklin County, VA was nice. And yeah,
I was intrigued by the scenes that were more focused on the
moonshine; probably a reason I liked Cricket so much since he was in
just about all of those scenes.
N. Yeah.
The film had a gorgeously bleak setting and good characters, but I
wish there was more detail in the story. In the moonshining aspect,
as well as the town and everything.
J. Oh
yeah, and what was the point of Shia's Jack courting the preacher's daughter (played by Mia Wasikowska)? Does every movie need a love
story, I mean c'mon! I
didn't hate her, I just didn't see the need to have her there.
N. Yeah,
those parts I didn't really care for. I thought they made Shia look too young as well. It made him look too soft.
J. Yeah,
and I thought he actually looked older as the film moved along. They really could have done without her. He was hardened by what was going on around him.
N. Exactly. And by the film's end, after everything he's been through, I don't see
how she'd be in the picture.
He's all grown up... kind of.
N. It's also worth mentioning that John Hillcoat directed this movie, who also did The Road and The Proposition (another Pearce flick). He certainly has a flair
for the dark and gritty. I think the visuals of the film were one of
the best parts.
J. Absolutely!
He definitely uses what he knows.
N. Would
you recommend seeing the film in theaters?
J. When
you consider what else is out there, I think this and Premium Rush
are the two things worth seeing.
N. I'd
recommend it too. Right now there's kind of a drought in movies to
actually see in theaters that are actually worth it. While it's a
flawed film, it's definitely worth seeing.
J. For
the performances alone.
N. And
the visual 'grit' Hillcoat's come to be known for.
J. Although
he's not 'seen' really in The Dark Knight Rises, Tom Hardy is a name
that people really need to familiarize themselves with because he's
definitely one of the best actors working right now.
N. He
is. And with Lawless, I'm happy to say that Shia's here to stay. He
shows more promise than ever here and I'm really excited to see where
he takes his career.
J. NO
BIG BUDGET FILMS SHIA!!!!
N. To
wrap up, what you would give the film on your new and fancy Canoli
System?
J. Four cannoli out of six. And
what about your point system?
N. Out
of 10, I give it a 7.6
As you can tell, I really liked the film but could not ignore it's flaws. Lawless is a gritty gangster piece set in the beautiful backdrop of Virginia that packs a hell of a lot of violence and terrific acting. While I appreciate the gritty tone of the film, I wish that more detail was put into the actual setting and story and wish that something based on a true story would, in fact, feel more believable than this end result. I still recommend it though. There's just really a lack for this kind of 'period piece' these days and seeing a different part of the 1920s is quite enjoyable.
The Good:
a stellar cast full of talented people and a glimpse at what Shia LaBeouf is capable of, post-Transformers
The Bad:
a dark character study that focuses a little too much on Shia's character and not enough on the those around him or the town he's living in
The Ugly:
moments where any realism seems to fly out the window and the frustrations that the film doesn't have the balls to go places you'd not expect
Overall: 7.6/10
Trailer:
What do you think of this little experiment? Would it be something you'd like to see again? Hell, even share in one with me? As I expand the blog I'm willing to try all sorts of things and would love to not only get feedback from all of you, but your participation as well.
Labels: 2012, dane dehaan, double team review, gary oldman, guy pearce, jason clarke, jessica chastain, Lawles, mia wasikowska, Reviews, shia labeouf, tom hardy
10 Comments:
Great review guys! Agreed with you that there isn't enough Gary Oldman, that DeHaan does a great job, and that Jack's courtship felt more like something to move the storyline along.
Only thing we disagree on is the believability. We didn't mind it.
Oh, and we liked the format of the review ;) We'd love to do a dual review with you sometime.
A DUAL DUAL REVIEW!?!?!? OH MY GOOOOOODSSSSS
Great review - conversation :) I may give this one a shot on DVD, surprised Labeouf is good in this, he seems like such a miscast here for me.
Thanks. He's a good surprise. Also, I'd love to do a Double Team with you sometime :)
I had a lot of fun with this Nick!
In reading a number of Lawless reviews since we did this, it appears we saw the film the same way everyone else did.
I look forward to the next one.
Aye, captain. As do I.
*universe implodes*
EXPLODES. Make it sexy.
Was really disappointed in this film :/
Great post though!
Yeah, the more I thought about it, the more I was disappointed. Still a solid movie though.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home