Every few years a Hollywood production company comes up with an idea for a film. Then, a rival company gets word of this idea and decides to make a similar/shittier version of said film and release it three months before the original idea in order to capitalize on the profits before the better version is released. Some of these examples include Antz/A Bug's Life, Dante's Peak/Volcano, The Illusionist/The Prestige, EdTV/The Truman Show, and Deep Impact/Armageddon. This year is no different. Granted, the stories are different but they're both period pieces from around the same time. Before it was pushed back to a 2013 release, I had an inkling that Lawless would be vying for top spot over Gangster Squad. And, before seeing Lawless I had almost decided in my mind that Gangster Squad would be a higher quality movie. I mean, look at that cast-- Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, Emma Stone. There's no way lil' Shia LeBouf could beat it right? Now, having seen Lawless, my guess is that Gangster Squad will be the Amazing Spiderman to Lawless's Dark Knight Rises. They'll both be good movies in their own right, but one will, most certainly, have a deeper impact on you while exiting the theater.
I don't want to say that this year has been a total bust as far as movies go, because it really hasn't. There have been far worse years. But, what this year has suffered from, so far, is the promise of a great movie and the execution of just a mediocre one. So many movies I was excited for just let me down due to the pure inadequacy of the ability to make a solid film. Films such as Dark Shadows, Prometheus, Men in Black 3, The Bourne Legacy and so on, gave us the promise of not just a viewing, but an event, and failed. That's not to say there haven't been bright spots this year, and that's exactly where Lawless falls. On a pile of mediocrity, this film rises to the top.
Lawless tells the
For starters, what makes this movie so great is its cast. The acting in this film is impeccable with each actor providing their own nuances and characteristics of their respective roles. (No shit, Ryan, that's what the actors are supposed to do). Yeah, they're supposed to, but it doesn't always happen. The new rising stud of Hollywood, Tom Hardy really brings it. The man can fall into any role. He's this generation's Daniel Day-Lewis. His portrayal of Forrest Bondourant is fantastic. Forrest is not a big talker. He's there to stare fear into your soul, grumble and walk away, waiting for his next move. He's the brute of the group, yet, also the brains. He knows what's best for his business and his brothers, but lacks the compassion to show it. This is where little Jack comes in, the youngest of the three. Jack, unlike his brothers, is the emotional child, the child that I'm sure is more like the mother of the boys, rather than the father (who I'd like to imagine is Nick Nolte). Jack thinks with his heart, rather than his brain and, more often than not, lends an unfortunate hand in getting the brothers into terrible circumstances. Jack's compassion is the catalyst by which the brothers fail to flourish. Luckily, he's got Tom Hardy to muscle him out of any situation.
What's most surprising is that LeBouf actually shows his acting chops. Jack is not exactly a desirable role because he's, for lack of a better word, a complete pussy. There's a scene in the film where a woman is accosted by two drunk men and held at knife-point, life threatened. Her character handles the situation with more bravery than Jack does in almost any scene in the entire film. LeBouf brings a certain charm to Jack as well. It's easy to tell that in another life, another family, one not so closely associated with violence, Jack would truly prosper. Though, it is hard to be a convincing badass while standing next to Tom Hardy (are we sensing a man-crush yet?)
But, the biggest scene-stealer is Guy Pearce as Rakes. His attitude, his voice, all the way down to his eyebrows is downright evil. He's Hell on Earth for the Bondurant brothers. Pearce is unrelenting in his portrayal of Rakes and terrifies every second he's on screen. He's not given a backstory, there's no exposition about him, he just shows up and you know him. You know he's a germophobe, but it's never explicitly stated. It's very eloquently shown. There's a scene in which an assumed prostitute is sitting naked on a bed, yet she's not on the sheets, she's sitting on a newspaper as Rakes combs his hair away from her. There doesn't need to be some needless exposition to explain why this is happening or what was said, it's Rakes' mere presence that tells the full story.
With John Hillcoat (The Road) at the helm, the film really shines with its direction. The cinematography as well as the set pieces are gorgeous. The dimming or lightening of a scene will typically convey the tone of what is at stake, but Hillcoat ingeniously defies tradition, making every scene as tense as the one that preceeded it. And it is a tense film. I didn't count, but I'd guesstimate that someone is getting their ass kicked/kicking someone's ass every ten minutes or so. The violence is so bloody, it almost becomes uncomfortable, however, it's necessary. There is no unjustified, needless scenes of violence. Every scene is cohesive and well thought out, as well as completely engaging.
My only complaint, and it's just a personal preference, is that I'd wished for more Gary Oldman. Oldman plays Floyd Banner, a real life gangster, in the midst of prohibition. He's only got two scenes, but they're strong scenes. Lawless is a breath of fresh air in a summer winding down of sub-par films. It's a shame that even after two weeks since its release, it still hasn't made the money that it should. Take a look at the movies out right now, there's not much to choose from. This should be an easy choice.
A-
No comments:
Post a Comment