Lawless: Too Much, But Not Enough

As promised, Sunday afternoon I went to see Lawless. The prohibition-era, gangster drama follows the lives of three bootlegging brothers, and their troubles with the law and the mob.

Photo courtesy of imdb.com

From the beginning, Lawless was more bloody than I imagined it would be. I was expecting gunshot wounds, and typical bloody scenes from the heavily male led cast, but got more than I bargained for. One of the first scenes where Tom Hardy’s character of Forrest Bondurant beats the crap out of another guy with the help of brass knuckles, leaving a bloody mess in his wake, set the tone for the rest of the movie. The amount of bloody, graphic scenes kind of turned me off from the start. Normally I’m perfectly fine with a little blood and violence, but I guess I was just unprepared for what to expect from Lawless.

From the preview and description of Lawless it is apparent that the brothers run into some trouble with the mob. I went into the movie thinking that there would be a ton of drama revolving around the brothers battles with gangsters, and ended up being disappointed. The gangster and mob scenes are few, and not as drama-filled as expected. I hate to be the girl who gives away spoilers, but basically all that happens is the brothers end up selling their moonshine to the mobsters. There is a little bit of tension, and a "hope they don’t get shot" moment or two in there, but basically the minor dispute is settled quickly and pretty peacefully, and is an agreement that mutually benefits both partners. Also, the mobster storyline is left without closure. The movie ends without any idea how the brothers relationship with the mobsters is, and there is no sight of the mob characters for the last half hour of the movie. When I originally saw that one of my favorite actors, Gary Oldman, was playing the mob boss, Floyd Banner, I was excited to see what he would do with the role. Unfortunately Oldman had too little screen time, and a character that was too underdeveloped for my liking, which is a shame. Oldman is an extremely talented actor, who could have contributed much more to the movie. If you’ve seen Oldman in movies like Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy and the Harry Potter franchise, than you know its a sad day when that much talent is underused. 

Forrest, played by Hardy, is the middle Bondurant brother. Forrest is the ringleader of the brothers, and Hardy does a pretty good job with the role. He embodies Forrest as a tough guy, who speaks in a low growl, and who might actually grunt and growl more than articulate words. However, his lack of articulation works for the  character. It gives him a sort of rough, but vulnerable feel. LaBeouf’s portrayal of the youngest brother Jack just reminded me of his early work on Disney Channel’s Even Stevens. Jack is the kid. He acts like a kid brother, trying to man up, but having a hard time proving himself to his two older brothers, and getting into to trouble along the way. As with typical kid brothers, the trouble Jack caused had to be sorted out by the real men of the family. Also, he never does really grow up and fill either of his brothers shoes. I was a little disappointed that he never progressed from boy to man during the almost two hour movie.

Photo courtesy of movieline.com

As good as Hardy and LaBeouf were, for me it was the supporting actors who stole the show.  Guy Pearce playing creepy deputy Charlie Rakes and Dane DeHaan, who played crippled family friend Cricket Pate, were amazing to watch. Charlie Rakes is the antagonist of the movie. The character is a crooked cop, who is out to get the brothers. He is a violent man-child, who wears a boy tie, giggles like a school girl, and has slicked-back black hair with bleached out eyebrows. Pearce embodies the character, and makes the transformation so complete it almost gave me chills. I cringed every time I had to hear the creepy child giggle. It also amazed me how the sinister nature of the character was so thorough. 

The character of Rakes drew my attention more than any other character in every one of his scenes. The Cricket Pate character was great for the opposite reason. DeHaan, who first grabbed my attention playing the antagonist in Chronicle, played Cricket with such innocence. Cricket was a simple boy, who was willing to do anything for the brothers without asking for much in return. Although they liked him, the feeling of love Cricket sent to the brothers was overpowering. Sitting in the audience, I could practically feel how much Cricket wanted to be accepted and liked, and what he would do to prove himself. The supporting actors definitely stole the show. The passion the actors put into their characters was just astounding. 

Photo courtesy of rottentomatoes.com

Overall, the movie was not one of my favorites. It wasn’t a bad movie by any means, but it didn’t blow me away either. The performances were okay, but I felt as if the writers tried to explore too many story-lines, and  ended up with some loose ends because of it. Also, it was a little long to be sitting in the theater for without getting a little bit bored. In the end, I would say to save a little money and wait for it to come out on DVD. In a grading system, my score would be a B-. As of right now on Rotten Tomatoes, the drama is certified fresh with a 65%, and Entertainment Weekly was a little more generous than me, and gave the film a solid B. Not to be sexist, but it might be my gender holding me back from fully appreciating all of the rough, tough, and tumble drama. It might just be a more of a man’s movie. Either way, thats my review, and I’m sticking to it. Lawless is decent, and worth a watch, just not in the theater.