Lawless (2012)

fruvai

John Hillcoat's new film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1212450/

Synopsis:

Gangster meets Western in LAWLESS, the true story of the freewheelin’ Bondurant brothers, bootlegging siblings taking the law into their own hands. This is the story of the rural hard-men that created the big city gangsters. Brazen and fearless, these young rebel brothers helped build the American Dream in this exuberant tale of what was to become crime’s first major gold rush. The youngest brother, JACK (Shia LaBeouf), fancies himself the next Al Capone; he dreams of sharp suits, guns, girls and fast cars, no matter the cost. Ambitious and impulsive, he takes the family’s small-scale moonshining operation to the big leagues, to impress the gorgeous but off-limits Amish girl, BERTHA (Mia Wasikowska). The middle brother, HOWARD (Jason Clarke), is the brawling muscle – loyal but reckless – never one to turn down a taste of white lightning. And eldest brother, FORREST (Tom Hardy), reluctantly accepts the changing times with grace and grit, leading the family with strength of character and silent determination against the beginnings of corporate greed. An enigmatic and stunning MAGGIE (Jessica Chastain) comes to town with a hidden past, igniting his passion and almost saving him in the process. As the Bondurants’ legend grows, so too does the danger, and it’s not long before the brothers must face the consequences of their transgressions, or rewrite the myth and the law themselves.

Amazing ensemble cast - Tom Hardy,Jessica Chastain,Guy Pearce,Gary Oldman,Mia Wasikowska


Trailer:

JP Liz V1

Looks good but Shia LaBeouf I have yet to see him "act" so hope his role is minor but doubt it

I hope this helps break Jason Clarke into mainstream he is a really great actor very underrated granted I have mostly seen him in tv shows

Good to see Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman acting together again

I would imagine it will be cinema release over here given the cast involved

Sad Professor

What's with the title change? The Wettest County in the World was a way better title. Oh don't tell me, some demographic has a problem with all those words.

I guess Terrence Malick is going to have to find a new title for his film.

p to the e

No mention of Guy Pearce in the above synopsis nor one of my favourite actors Noah Taylor. I really like Jason Clarke. He needs to catch a serious break having been in two excellent TV series that were cancelled (Brotherhood and Chicago Code). Once again someone looks at Le Beouf and doesn't see that he belongs in a comedy film and not playing a Joe Pesci esque character.

Absolutely loved John Hillcoats last two movies of which once again he collaborates with Nick Cave. The shear feeling of melancholy he washes over those films, interlaced with moments of extreme violence, is skilful indeed.

Marty McFly

Is there any word on whether this will get a wide cinematic release over here? I havent seen much about it, but judging by the trailer and early reviews looks like it could be a cracking film.

PerrinV2

Guy Pearce,Tom hardy and Gary Oldman,that has me sold.

Sad Professor

Marty McFly wrote: »

Is there any word on whether this will get a wide cinematic release over here? I havent seen much about it, but judging by the trailer and early reviews looks like it could be a cracking film.

The kiddie films are mostly finished by September, so yeah it should get a good release.

wandatowell

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Guy Pearce,Tom hardy and Gary Oldman,that has me sold.

+1

fruvai

Marty McFly wrote: »

Is there any word on whether this will get a wide cinematic release over here? I havent seen much about it, but judging by the trailer and early reviews looks like it could be a cracking film.

It says September 7th on IMDB

paddyismaddy

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Guy Pearce,Tom hardy and Gary Oldman,that has me sold.

jessica chastain has me sold

Mickeroo

Saw this on FB:



Loved Hillcoat's other movies, can't wait for this.

GavRedKing

Not a fan of Shia but hopefully the rest of the cast can deliver.

Cant wait to see it.

Duggy747

Shia is the only thing that leaves a sour taste with me on this but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Mickeroo

I don't think he's a particularly bad actor he's just been in some terrible movies the last while. I actually thought he was really good in Holes. Either way, everything else about this film seems so strong I can't see his presence being too much of an issue, i hope.

Think I read somewhere recently that he's come out and said he's not doing big budget block busters anymore.

Marty McFly

New redband trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXq2xzSzphE

Brian?

Saw this flick last night. No idea when it's out in Ireland but I highly recommend it.

It wasn't even ruined by Shia LeBouef. He was quite good in fact. Guy Pierce is excellent also.

crybaby

Sad Professor wrote: »

What's with the title change? The Wettest County in the World was a way better title. Oh don't tell me, some demographic has a problem with all those words.

I guess Terrence Malick is going to have to find a new title for his film.

Funnily enough the problem was they were worried people would start saying the wettest **** in the world or it would become a running joke.

loveisdivine

Saw this last week courtesy of Sky. It was awesome, honestly loved it from start to finish.
The level of violence is so strong at times it really makes you wince, but it doesn't feel at all gratuitous though, completely in line with the story.

I've heard people that have read the book think Hardy is physically too big, because of playing Bane. Apparently he should be kinda scrawny like the other 2 but to be honest I think it helps the character, it suits his personality. Even if it's not true to reality.

We're going to see it again at the weekend I loved it so much. Actually kinda shouted out in the cinema at one point, got a bit carried away!

DazMarz

A highly entertaining little romp. Shia LeBoeuf is great, as are all the other actors. Story rips along with nicely timed flashes of gratuitous violence to jar the viewer.

My one problem with the film (and it's not even the films fault!): I have been watching Boardwalk Empire a lot lately, and as they are set in the same era (more or less; prohibition-era America, even though Lawless is set about ten years after), I could not help but draw comparison between the two and the film is not a patch on Boardwalk (which is a contender for one of the best Television Series ever). This is not a bad thing. The film is fine, it is very good. But for a truly brilliant telling of bootlegging, gangster-ism and criminality in the Prohibition Era, see Boardwalk Empire; for an enjoyable romp through the Virginia countryside in the same era, see Lawless.

Gandalph

Im not one to whine but my god the violent scenes were, well...quite violent! It took me a while at the start to pick up on the accents but once I started picking up on them I really got into the film and really enjoyed it. There must be some serious bro-mance going on between Oldman and Hardy with their last couple of films together

Son0vagun

Loved this movie. Can Nick Cave do anything wrong? Soundtrack was awesome too. Yes it was gruesome, but there was a few laugh out louds!

Memnoch

Some great performances. The script/dialogue was well written, the characters were interesting and overall it held your attention throughout. The violence was visceral and the action compelling enough. However the story was fairly predictable and by the numbers. I think with a bit more effort/originality in that department it could have been something special. As it is, it's a decent two hours at the cinema but didn't blow me away the way that Drive did.

johnny_ultimate

I neither loved nor hated this. Something about it felt a tad off and I couldn't put my finger on it at times... perhaps the pacing, perhaps the tone, perhaps several things. The performances were mostly very good, although far too many one dimensional characters that only had minimal impact on the narrative. Tom Hardy is probably the best of the lot. While everyone I went with seemed to like Pearse I just thought it was a cartoonishly evil antagonist that I just couldn't for a second believe (worryingly close to Rex Banner from The Simpsons as well). Gary Oldman was wasted in only a handful of scenes, too. Chastain's character was more or less useless, barring her one significant role in the story. Honestly don't think the film would have been much different if she had been excised. Would have had less nudity, I guess.

The story was so-so - engaging enough, but ultimately erring too much towards the formulaic. The

happy ending was far too cheesy IMO - enough with the frickin' overly blunt flash forward epilogues

. Perhaps I'm still desensitized after finishing reading Blood Meridian yesterday, but there was just something about the whole enterprise that lacked bite. Felt like there were loose ends and awkward contrivances / conveniences. And as much as I appreciate a good Nick Cave song or two, they probably could have laid off a bit on the soundtrack here. At its worst felt like it was just transitioned from one folky bluegrass song to another. Music during the climactic shootout was great though.

I'm sounding negative, but overall it just left me a tad underwhelmed. Nothing awful (except a single bizarrely misjudged shot of galloping horses) and it generally looks great (although definitely one of the more 'digital' looking films of the last year or so). The period setting is convincingly realised too. I guess just an overall sense of familiarity and rough script edges makes it lose some of its impact.

Memnoch

An okay story, well told.

Mickeroo

i saw this alast night. I really enjoyed it but there was something not quite right about it. Everyone is great in their respective roles but I never really bought

the brothers' rise to power, it all happened in a montage in the middle of the movie.

At the end I was lind of left with the feeling that not very much happened over the course of the film, plus

the happy ending was pretty unexpected for a film like this though Forest's drunken demise seemed a bit silly and a little tacked on (even if it was the truth)

. Gary Oldman was great in the little screen time he had, but he was woefully underused, his character had the best entrance out of any in the whole film only for him

to not re-appear for another hour afterwards, literally most of his screentime is shown in the trailer.

OVerall I liked it though. I thought the soundtrack was brilliant (bluegrass velevet underground cover anyone?!?), the cinematography was top notch too. It was a solid well made film, I guess i was just expecting something a little less conventional given that this was a Nick Cave & John Hillcoat collaboration.

Fysh

It was well executed and the cast generally did a very good job with what they did, but the character arcs and overall story were so generic they may as well have been cut from a template. The ending didn't sit right with the rest of the film either, far too sentimental and happy.

The direction was good, and there were some nice establishing shots as well, which may sound odd but it really helped the sense of location. That being said, some of the pacing felt slightly off, as though a big chunk of the story had to be excised to make it fit a reasonable running time.

indough

im in two minds about this movie, i did like it but it was flawed, - perhaps i expected too much. one major gripe i had with it was that it seemed to meander about aimlessly for a good twenty minutes or so, and then there were jumps ahead in the plot which didn't seem to have been given the screen time they deserved. i was also at a bit of a loss as to why

gary oldman was even in the movie because his character seemed to have almost no bearing on the story.

there were some good things about it. the setting was very well realised and guy pierce's character was entertaining (if almost entirely unbelievable), i thought hardy put in another good performance, the violence was handled pretty well, and i really liked the way the film was shot. but it just kind of felt like, hillcoat-lite, or something? also, i found the attempts at humour and the voiceover stuff a bit too much, for what it's worth. perhaps i'm being overly critical of it when put up against most of what is on offer these days, but it felt like a slight misfire from a partnership who have shown they are capable of better.

Soby

Loved it , had everything

poshea69

10 out of 10 , class in every way,

funnights74

briankeating wrote: »

Saw this flick last night. No idea when it's out in Ireland but I highly recommend it.

It wasn't even ruined by Shia LeBouef. He was quite good in fact. Guy Pierce is excellent also.

Got to agree with you, saw it over the weekend and it's one of the strongest films of the year so far. Gary oldman is under used, Shia LeBouef is bearable, but Guy pierce steals the show for me, i anticipate an Oscar nomination at least for him.

PerrinV2

Just back now.
Just on the Gary oldman thing,is it me or was some of his story cut?
Like in the trailer there shia asks him does he want any more and he replies "as much as you can bring me"

but I don't remember seeing this dialogue in the film,or did I miss it?

paddy kerins

Saw this yesterday thought it was fantastic. Performances, I thought, were great all around, particularly Hardy, who I thought was hilarious at certain parts, and Guy Pearce, been a while since I've really hated a character in a film but he portrayed the bastardry quite well

whatislife

Harmless enough film. Had the potential to be great but petered out to nothing more than an enjoyable yet forgettable movie.

The whole cast is solid with Oldman underused.

Can anyone tell me

if the guy who was tarred and feathered was still alive when brought outside Tom Hardys home

?

BabyBirch

whatislife wrote: »

Harmless enough film. Had the potential to be great but petered out to nothing more than an enjoyable yet forgettable movie.

The whole cast is solid with Oldman underused.

Can anyone tell me

if the guy who was tarred and feathered was still alive when brought outside Tom Hardys home

?

I think so, he groans and moves his head as far as I remember?

whatislife

BabyBirch wrote: »

I think so, he groans and moves his head as far as I remember?

Thanks, I thought that.

I also struggled to understand most of the characters and it's becoming a bit of a theme with Tom Hardy!

Mocha Joe

I agree with a lot of people in this thread. Enjoyable enough but underwhelming. Hardy was very good and Chastain looked incredible. I wouldn't watch it again. I found it quite strange how irrelevant Gary Oldman was in it and Guy Pearce was way wayyyyyyy over the top.

AllWasWell

Have to agree with most here, good film, had the potential to be great but it felt to me like chunks of the story were cut to fit it into the desired running time, so the pacing was a bit off..Oldman was most definitely underused and some of the characters seemed to be slightly underdeveloped, particularly Howard.

I found the accents difficult to understand in the beginning until i got into the swing of it. Some parts it just sounded like mumbling which would have been okay only the music seemed to be louder than the dialogue.

Overall it was a great cast, with Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce stealing the show for me. The soundtrack was great too.
Could scoop a few oscar nominations.

livinsane

Went to see this last night. Was hoping for great things as I adored The Proposition (same director/same screenplay writer/same Guy Pearce/same brothers theme) and I was not disappointed. Loved it.

LeBouf was perfect for the role he played. Gave a really likeable innocent performance. Guy Pearce is one creepy son of a bitch!

That scene with the black girl in the bedroom - wtf was he doing to her? And those gloves!

Tom Hardy was amazing and had me in stitches throughout.

Highly recommended and I will definitely watch it again.

Gandalph

livinsane wrote: »

That scene with the black girl in the bedroom - wtf was he doing to her? And those gloves!

The birds and the bees

Giruilla

Thought this film was a classic example of how a bad third act can completely ruin an otherwise good film. The ending just made it so unmemorable..

pault593

I have heard a lot about this movie. Should be a good film . Looking forward to seeing it.

livinsane

Gandalph wrote: »

The birds and the bees

I think it was more sinister than just that.

Big Ears

livinsane wrote: »

I think it was more sinister than just that.

He had a needle in his hand, and a few bottles of 'stuff', so I think you may be right !

I'd agree with the general sentiments so far, a great cast and a solid enough movie, but maybe not quite the great film it could have been.

Also the usage of Oldman was strange.

Mickeroo

Big Ears wrote: »

He had a needle in his hand, and a few bottles of 'stuff', so I think you may be right !

I'd agree with the general sentiments so far, a great cast and a solid enough movie, but maybe not quite the great film it could have been.

Also the usage of Oldman was strange.

I actually thought they might have been better off giving Pearce's role to Oldman and have Pearce in the smaller role.

juan.kerr

Mocha Joe wrote: »

and Chastain looked incredible

Stunning.

Sad Professor

Very disappointing considering the talent involved. Chastain is wasted, as is Oldman. Hardy has a few good moments but that's about it. I could have really done without all the "true story" crap at the end. I'm so sick of screenwriters using this as a crutch. Make a great movie, to hell with the real events. Surprisingly uninspired work from Cave and Hillcoat.

FrogMarch

Reasonably good movie. I found the pacing to be quite poorly considered though, particularly in the second half. There seemed to be so many irrelevancies and it kind of lost my interest in places. Also, as others have said, Oldman was basically a cameo which really disappointed me.

However, there were plenty of positives - good performances all around, even from Shia LaBoef. The violent scenes were pretty violent, which is always good in this kind of flick Very well shot, great score, seemed quite authentic.

It's a 6.5/10 from me. Would definitely recommend seeing it but, dare I say, not essential viewing while it's on the big screen.

Antar Bolaeisk

FrogMarch wrote: »

It's a 6.5/10 from me. Would definitely recommend seeing it but, dare I say, not essential viewing while it's on the big screen.

I'd be of the same opinion, wait for it on TV. Decent show but not worth going out of your way to see.

SimonTemplar

Posted in wrong thread. Mod - please delete

Passing person

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Just back now.
Just on the Gary oldman thing,is it me or was some of his story cut?
Like in the trailer there shia asks him does he want any more and he replies "as much as you can bring me"

but I don't remember seeing this dialogue in the film,or did I miss it?

no - he did not...

Passing person

I looked at this soundtrack listing: http://pitchfork.com/news/47281-nick-cave-warren-ellis-lawless-music-features-mark-lanegan-emmylou-harris-ralph-stanley-more/ I don't see the two 'hymns' / 'psalms' sung in the church. Would they be on youtube or similar? Thanks in anticipation.