Ugh. I'm the worst, you guys. I saw this one weeks ago and just never got around to reviewing it. My apologies, football season + work and so on has just left me in a perpetual state of sleep deprivation and unable to muster the energy to review crazy person arthouse flicks like I've got in the hopper. But let's do it, shall we? We're headed into fall, and with it, Oscar bait, so my movie seeing schedule will likely pick way up and I'd like to be on top of it when I see say, "The Master". (can't wait...) So let's see about "Lawless", shall we?
Author/musician/screenwriter/crazy person Nick Cave and director John Hillcoat collaborated on 2005's "The Proposition", which is brutal and pretty much great, so I was excited about this one from first trailer on. First, sometimes the marketing does a flick absolutely no favors. From watching the trailer and seeing the posters you'd think that this is a bang-bang shoot 'em up featuring hero bootleggers against a corrupt system. And while it's KIND OF that, it's mostly approximately 15 other things. This is no "Goodfellas" or grand crime drama, it's an arthouse flick infinitely more concerned with showing and ruminating than with its narrative or symbolism. This is a time and a place that echoes today perhaps louder than ever before.. and through the lens of these larger-than-life people we can perhaps glean a thing or two about humanity... isn't that the greater purpose of art, after all?
It is the early 1930s in Franklin County, Virginia, in the midst of the Great Depression and Prohibition. Franklin County, deep in the backwoods of western Virginia, was at one time referred to as "the wettest county in the world" due to the prevalence of bootlegged moonshine and illegal moonshine stills. Based on a book by the grandson and great-nephew of the main characters, the flick focuses on the three Bondurant brothers, Jack, Forrest and Howard, notable and feared local characters and prolific bootleggers. The Bondurant brothers, violent, stubborn, oddly principled and fiercely loyal, find themselves pitted against corrupt law enforcement as Franklin County becomes a gangland war zone.
The good: this flick looks and sounds great. The sets, costumes, shots and sounds are all extremely artfully done, and blow away a lot of what you'll find in films with blockbuster-sized budgets. This cast is extremely talented, with Tom Hardy and Jessica Chastain especially doing simply amazing work. Hardy may well be the most talented actor under 40 working today, and it will be a damn shame if he doesn't walk away with at least an Oscar nom from this one. His Forrest Bondurant is a dynamo... simply owning scenes and creating a nuanced and layered character out of whole cloth. Jason Clarke is underrated and under used and is always, always good. Guy Pearce and Gary Oldman in supporting roles? Hot. In addition, the flick treats its subject matter with respect and dilligence, the rural feel comes off as extremely authentic and gritty, and it doesn't shirk from the brutal violance associated with crime. There's something beautiful and insane about the fact that it takes two Australians to make the most authentic modern depiction of depression-era 20th century rural America I've seen on film.
The bad: Shia LaBeouf is simply out of his league here. The role isn't especially flattering and is quite difficult, as a young, foolhardy, brash younger brother comes of age and searches for love, but Tom Hardy has more talent in one of his grunts than Shia has in his entire coked-out body. It's not entirely Shia's fault... I'm not sure who honestly could have held a candle to Hardy in this one... Gosling, maybe? But Shia is definitely outshined and out done and comes off as a weak-link. Considering he's the main character, that's bad. In addition, just what the shit is going on with Guy Pearce? I get that he's supposed to be a strange outsider... but how would he rise to his position being THAT strange? It strains credibility. The plot is occasionally un-focused and tends to meander without seeming focus or aim. I understand that it's not a plot-driven film, but at the same time some people (cough, Gary Oldman, cough) are simply criminally under-used while some seemingly unimportant parts and scenes are given too much play. I don't know if that's an editing issue, a directing issue or a script issue, but it knocks something that could have been a classic down a couple of notches.
In the end, this is a violent, sincere depiction of a fascinating group of people and a story well worth telling. Come for the beautiful shots and Tom Hardy alone. Well worth a watch, but unfortunately just a few notches short of true greatness.
7.5/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment