Outlaw (2007) User Reviews

Better than some would have you believe

[nosferatutwin · 7/10 · 14 August 2007]

Just spent some time watching this move .. and unlike the previous reviewer enjoyed this film. I disagreed with him so much it prompted me to write my first ever comments on IMDb. In the trivia part of the IMDb description it says that actual events were used as inspiration for the scenes and i thought they were all quite believable. "He's hidin in da countryside"! was one comment i found funny as is in the age of big brother hiding in the city would have made for a very short movie.

Somehow i suspect that other people who have watched this film sort of missed the point and have probable led sheltered lives somewhere with mummy and daddy feeding them with a silver spoon as i found the characters true to life as i have met people who talk and act how the script was written.

I'm not claiming that this film should win any awards .. however i thought it deserved higher praise and didn't want any other potential viewers to be put off. blair witch scored higher and my little eye scored the same ( i turned both of these movies off before the end). This movie has far more entertainment value than both and after all isn't that what movies are for .. thanks for listening.

Suffers From Being Contrived And Underwritten

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 11 March 2007]

I was looking forward to catching this in the cinema . A great premise of wronged citizens let down by the law and bleeding heart do gooder liberals which is something I can connect with . On top of that OUTLAW contains a great trailer so spending £2.30 on a bus ticket and £6 to get into the cinema ( And let's not forget you spend twenty minutes sitting through adverts and trailers ) for some violent catharsis seemed time and money well spent

Oh dear . I won't come out with the cliché of " That's two hours of my life I'll never get back " but I was expecting far more . I said this movie had a great trailer and that's because the trailer contained all the best bits . Yes there's bits of extreme violence in the trailer and you'll be rubbing your chin wondering what dastardly deeds the criminals committed in order to suffer deserved come back . Unfortunately after seeing the entire movie you'll still be none the wiser because Nick Love has written a screenplay lacking character motivation

!!!!! SLIGHT SPOILERS !!!!!

Some other commentators have gone into detail as to the flaws of the screenplay so I won't go into much detail but I'm still left wondering what caused Bryant to go loco . His wife dumped him , he gets name called by some chavs and the son of his former CO was scarred for life by thugs . Is this a good enough reason for committing murder ? I was also confused by Bryant's dialog . He rants about AIDS victims and suicide bombers and " That f****** c*** Blair " then a few scenes later when one of the characters mentions he's a Muslim ( There's nothing to indicate he's Muslim - He just states it as a fact ) Bryant replies that everyone is an individual . Hmmm Bryant is a right wing nutter in one scene and a few scenes later he's changed his tune .

Bryant isn't the only one who's suffering from a poorly written character . So's Bob Hoskins cop has spent 25 years on the force and it's only now he's decided that the police are a waste of space . Sorry but I couldn't take him seriously or the fact that he has access to serious crime files , files which his local station don't seem to have noticed have gone missing .In fact nearly all the characters are nothing more than literary devices and cyphers and you can't help but notice this which means you can't take them seriously as three dimensional people who live in Britain in 2007 . Perhaps this is best summed up in the scene where they capture a crim , drive him to a barn house , stab him a couple of times and then just as they're about to execute him by hanging they then change their mind allowing the scum bag to live and set up the plot turn at the end . I think the phrase for this is " A contrived storyline "

Having said all this I didn't really feel I'd wasted my money watching OUTLAW . the cast do their best with their underwritten characters and because he's the only character that Nick Love seems to have put any hard work into Sean Harris's excels as fascist weirdo Hillier . When Hillier mentions what he'd like to do to Gary Glitter and Ian Huntley I had to control myself from jumping out of my seat screaming " RIGHT ON " . Such a pity Hillier disappears two thirds of the way through the movie . For those of you expecting a violent thriller you won't be disappointed because there's one scene where a character gets kneecapped which caused gasps of shock in the ( Near empty ) cinema . For those of you who liked the digital video look of Danny Boyle's 28 DAYS LATER you'll love what director Nick Love has done here though anyone who doesn't like digital video will absolutely despise the directing

All in all a rather disappointing British thriller which doesn't realise its full potential

Disturbing on more than 1 level

[dave-3001 · 5/10 · 14 March 2007]

This isn't a great film and I was never quite sure whether it meant to be a study of the dark underbelly of disaffected Britain or a crude vigilante flick. A lot of reviewers here have been dismissive of it, but I think it had fleeting touches of real power. Unfortunately, they did not build into anything of substance.

The gang members did not convince and their behaviour took the film into a strange fantasy-land world.

Sean Bean made a reasonable stab at a two dimensional character and a better script would have brought this to life. Supporting cast made a fair stab at it, but all-in-all an opportunity missed.

Dubious fun!

[Gary-161 · 22 July 2007]

FIRSTLY, lazy plotting:

1) If you are threatened on a high profile case you are given protection. This is standard.

2) During the hanging scene didn't someone say to the Barrister: "He killed your wife and kid and you want him to live?" In which case, having ears, the bad guy would have come after the Barrister. He didn't.

3) Kneecapping your fellow outlaw. Risking him shopping them all to the police out of revenge?

4) Lewis shows the unmasking of Bryant to the outlaws to warn them of the dangers of exposure and then doesn't destroy the footage? He stores it in his flat to be found by the bad guy and broadcast to the media?

5) Dekker is approached by the ex-outlaw of doubtful loyalty who reminds him of the huge reward waiting for him if he shops Bryant. Yet he trusts him with information about the location of the crime Boss?

SECONDLY, camera-work made to look like "footage sent in by member of public who caught the moment." Very NOW concept, but an utter headache to watch.

THIRDLY, in the extras, Love and cast seem to echo the sentiments of the characters, talking up alleged leniency of paedofile sentencing, etc. This is disingenuous as the film suggests that becoming an outlaw makes you even more stressed, alienated from the workplace and in greater physical danger than ever before. Despite the solemn atmosphere, you don't get the impression Love cares about any "message." It is the means to an end to make a "Lad's Mag" film and tongue never strays far from cheek. Also, was Love joshing when he called Sean Bean a "movie star"? He is a respected journeyman, not a star. That is why he is in your film, Nick, and not "War of the Worlds." Bean does his usual Major Sharpe routine competently enough.

FOURTHLY....there isn't a fourthly because I found it impossible not to be entertained by this film. I didn't expect much when seeing the words "OUTLAW" and "NICK LOVE" together, but it does what it says on the tin. It is gripping and ends on a real belly laugh. I would watch it again. What he did get right is the fact that not all men are macho in real life and are more often than not afraid of confrontation.

7/10 because of the concept - go see Boondock Saints

[Juleskid27 · 7/10 · 16 July 2007]

It really was a disappointment. Slow start and the last 20 minutes picks up. But I had to give it a 7/10 because of the concept. "Boondock Saints" was better.

=> maybe see it! Better to rent.

Plot: The law & govt in London lets down several average citizens in terrible crimes committed against them and their families. Corrupt officials are in league with the govt who allow criminals to get off. Soluion = vigilante group forms to right the wrongs.

Lot of reasonably well known actors in here but it has a B quality movie flavor. Maybe you could say more of live or real budget production. It moves a long a bit slowly, but despite all of this I really have to draw attention to..

+ves: - it almost follows a pseudo real life pace not a Hollywood blockbuster - the incidents that occur are believable. It could happen in South London. - bully's & punks with top people in collusion with police - corrupts govt and police - a few wrong people pushed too far and of course the social path who is drawn to the group - and a predictable or realistic ending.. Don't worry no spoilers.

-> The longer I consider it the more the movie has drawn me in, like a car crash and it deserves it's 7/10

The Dirty 1/2 Dozen

[sol1218 · 6/10 · 23 August 2008]

***SPOILERS*** Coming back home to London after serving his tour in Afghanistan Royal British Paratrooper Dan Bryant, Sean Bean,is shocked to find the girl he left behind his wife, Kate Lewington, making out with another man in the comfort of his own home! If Dan didn't lose it already in the horrors he faced and participated in Afghanistan he lost it now here in jolly old England!

It's then that Dan starts to get a little crazy in not knowing exactly what to do to suppress his uncontrollable anger. Dan soon decides to clean up the town of crime to make him forget the crime committed on him; By his old lady in dumping Dan at a time, with him suffering from post traumatic stress, that he needed her most.

Dan recruits a number of people who've gotten a raw deal from both the criminals, who victimized them, and courts, who let their victimizers off Scot-free. It's with these people that Dan creates an outfit that goes after both the criminal element of London and the corrupt politicians police and judges who let them off.

The anti-crime outfit coined by the London Media as the Outlaws that Dan's in charge of wakes havoc on the crime syndicate running London and it's untouchable, from the law, Godfather Manning, Rob Fry. One of the members of Dan's team is barrister Cedric Munroe, Lennie James, who was prosecuting Manning and had his wife and unborn child murdered by Mannings hoods. Dan also had Munroe's personal chafferer retired London policeman Walter Lewis, Bo Hoskins, join his team of crime fighters. It's Lewis who provided Dan with important information to who's in the pay, and is paying off, those in the justice system to keep Manning from ending up behind bars.

Dan at first gets the job done in cleaning up the streets of London of the criminal scum who's been given a free ride by politicians like, he's in fact mentioned a number of times in the film, the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair! What Blair had exactly to do with the likes of hoodlums like Manning is never quite explained in the movie?

It's later that Dan's dirty half dozen, the number of persons including himself in his hit squad, start to really screw things up! with Dan himself doing more then his share of screwing!

***SPOILER ALERT*** The movie "Outlaw" moves to its inevitable conclusion with what's left of Dan's crime fighters somehow, it's really left up in the air by the films writers and director, being double crossed by one of their own. There's a wild shootout outside of London around Manning's secret hideout with almost everyone of the Outlaws getting plugged by the cops. Yes it was non other then the London Police themselves who came to Mannings rescue!

These so-called law enforcement agents, the police, were so trigger happy and unprofessional that they even shot down one of the Outlaws when he dropped his weapons and willingly surrendered! A gross and major violation of the Geneava Accords of 1929! Something that the Nazis were convicted of doing at the Nuremburg Trials back in 1946!

But all was not lost with the Outlaws, or one or two of them, coming back to exact justice. The justice that was denied to one of those major criminals whom the corrupt British Justice System wantonly allowed to escape.

OUTLAW fails because Nick Love does not have the skill.

[SirYesSir · 2/10 · 10 March 2007]

I went to see the film yesterday.

The opening credits ended and the film began, the first thing that I noticed was that it was shot on video, the wide shots look very poor as video cannot handle the detail, particularly wide shots. Then the camera began to shake, like the beginnings of a repressed epileptic fit, I found this mildly annoying but continued to watch.

And pleasantly I have to admit that I was actually really enjoying the first 20 minutes of the film. The characters were established quietly and slowly, and I was involved with their lives, I wanted to see what would happen to these characters, the actor who played the CCTV expert was especially good, very scary and believable.

But then everything fell apart from the time they all get into a pub fight and do some male bonding. As soon as there was any action the camera would have an epileptic fit of astronomic proportions, then when the action ceased, the camera would rest. Very annoying, it shows that Nick Love cannot handle action sequences, instead relying on pointless gimmicks to hide his weaknesses.

Bean supposedly trains them, and for some reason when you want to train a group of vigilantes you hire an entire sports hall to do it, very discreet, although he never trains them, they never train to do anything, they just stand around in their tracksuits while Sean Bean rants at them. One of the most perplexing and unintentionally funny lines Sean bean states is something like this " if you get aids or blow up a bus with a rucksack the government gives you things..." HUH?? Aids victims and suicide bombers, whats the link here please??

They fail to go ahead with their plans and inexplicably Sean bean tells them to disband but in the meantime in another inexplicable moment in the film (the film has many of these) Sean bean kills or seriously injures, not sure which, the CCTV guy because they have a row about methods?? Its like Hitler and Goerring discussing whether they should have black or blue uniforms!!!

So the gang of pathetic outlaws disband, we are then shown that most of their problems of fighting back have been solved, Danny dyer punches an office bully, while Rupert friend, who does absolutely nothing for the entire film apart from stand in the background, suddenly becomes more confident and girls begin to smile at him and not notice his scarred face. The gang then reforms a few minutes later, by which time Sean bean who is being hunted by the authorities and whose face is on many TV screens being described as a dangerous army veteran, is seen sitting in a busy pub in an army jacket??? Very undercover.

Bob hoskins was only on this film for a few days as he is ina handful of scenes and the majority of them he is in his tiny office not he telephone spouting out clichés like a constipated parrot. I think bob collected the cheque and ran away as fast as he could. Its been years since Mona Lisa ey Bob, how the mighty have fallen?

It all ends in shoot out in a country mansion, which we are shown is surrounded by the police, but then miraculously we cut to them in a forest and they have gotten away, HOW DID THEY GET AWAY? by this point I didn't really care anymore, they then talk to each and laugh about how Lennie James's character swore at the police, yeah hilarious, they are bonding again, they then all get shot, but again miraculously Danny Dyer rises up like a monkey who has been chewing on amphetamines and runs away making his escape.

We then find the head of the crime syndicate, the target of the gangs raid not he mansion, PERSONALLY making a payment to dyers workmate who set dyer and th gang up, this is one of the many ridiculous and contrived bits of the plot, of which there are many, when would a godfather go in a car to pay off some little underling PERSONALLY?? I'll tell you when, when Nick Love needs to have Danny Dyers character miraculously show up in the underground car park and shoot him, so he can end the film quickly.

I really have to say Nick love is not a writer or a director of much skill, he doesn't know where is going with the film and he does not have the technical skill to make action sequences riveting. But he also does not have the intelligence to say something with such an intriguing topic. You can imitate Michael Mann as much as you want Nick, you can have muted colours, you can have helicopter shots of London littered throughout the film, you can have your characters spout monosyllabic lines, but the difference is that Micahel Mann knows his characters and knows what he wants to do with them, Nick Love has no idea, he simply wants to imitate the surface value of Mann, without understanding what he is imitating.

Its a shame as we need strong British directors working in the industry today, and as I said the film begins with a lot of promise but then just dive bombs into a great big contrived mess.

silly and dumb but had its moments.

[shadowman123 · 7/10 · 4 April 2007]

From the trailers of Outlaw one could probably say that this film is going to rock ! Guns , girls and gore right? With a cast like Sean Bean and Danny Dyer , Bob Hoskins and Nick Love the man who gave us Football Factory and The Business , we got the Brit Pack ere ! Unfortuntaley that is not the case this time round , don't get me wrong the idea of a vigilante mob that takes the law into their own hands seemed pretty cool and giving the current climate of yob culture in Briton it would help to have someone would knock some heads together. Sean Bean plays a soldier who has just returned from Iraq to find his life is just as bad as it was out there and he seems to do a pretty good job of playing a tortured man that kind made me draw comparisons between him and Robert De Niro's character out of Taxi Driver , he then goes about setting up a group of like minded individuals who just like him have snapped with the wrongs that go on around them. So far so good Nick Love does a good job of keeping the film moving and at times blending in realistic problems with the fantasy side of things. However although I felt all the actors performed well , what they had to work with was very limited and thusly a script that lacked depth really does not make you care about the characters that much. Also I found it to be a little dull in places and then getting very rushed towards the last 30 minutes of the movie with things flying about left , right and centre just made it chaotic. Too conclude Outlaw came across as a movie which could of had a lot of potential and probably could of been Nick Love's finest piece of work to date as it dealt with a subject most of us deal with every day and night whilst on the streets of the UK , but unfortunately a shoddy, shallow script and messy direction made this one lose serious marks. I understand this was made mainly of donations from fans of Nick Love but unfortunately that really is no excuse but Nick's trademark violence made sit all the way through it. My advice is just wait for it to hit the rental shop .

OUTLAW 6.8 OUT OF 10

FIGHTING BACK IN 2007

Nearly a good movie

[tryking2003 · 4/10 · 8 March 2007]

Sean Bean gives a good performance as a Para who seems to have lost a sense of purpose after leaving the armed services in Outlaw. I really got into this movie and I thought hey there are some snags but I am enjoying this. Yes it is a bit controversial in its thinking but sometimes you have to accept that society does not always think logically. Another good point to the film is how you watch the characters reactions to the whole philosophy of retaliation. Some of members of the gang seem to struggle with the violence, whilst others simply bask in it. However, the fundamental flaw appears with this film as far as I was concerned was towards the end. For 3 quarters of the film I wanted to know what was going to happen, where the characters were going. I wanted the film to end in a crescendo of action and intrigue. Instead sadly it ended with a bit of a farce and a whimper. I won't spoil it for those that want to see it but lets just say that it seemed to me that the script writer either ran out of ideas or the director ran out of money. In my opinion if Outlaw was 15 minutes longer and the ending thought about a bit more this could have been a good film. In the end all it left me was the bitter taste of disappointment though.

watchable

[willoistheman · 6/10 · 8 July 2007]

I beg to differ it is a Nick love film and when you watch one you know what your in for. It may not be as good as football factory or have a story like the business but at least it is original. Yes the camera style is a bit awkward, some of the things pointless like the abandoning of his gf at the alter. But how can you say Danny dyer's acting is bad. He is brilliant as he is in every film. Sean Bean and him make the film if you ask me. The film is very realistic and can be related to if you know what city life is like and the yobs nowadays. I loved the idea although i think it could have been done better. Putting aside the pointless parts overall i would recommend watching this film but don't spend any money on it.

Will these idiots please make up their small minds already!

[Bill357 · 1/10 · 31 March 2009]

Remember the good old days when revenge was sweet and vicious, when the hero hero was absolute in his convictions and dished it out to the sleaze-balls ten times worse than they gave, all the way down to the smallest weasel on the totem pole?

Outlaw starts well. Buttons are pushed and the protagonists get ready to do battle, then they change their minds, then it's back on, then off again. Then one of the characters reminds them that they're supposed to be a vigilante group so they kill(?) him.

Along the way, they go out of their way to let the audience know that radical Islam isn't on their hit list (way to keep your head from being used as a football, Mr. Director).

Meanwhile, I've switched allegiances and began to root for the villains.

I hate to say it but this movie reinforces stereotypes of 21st century Britain as a place with a lot of blustery swagger, crippled by political correctness and all around indecisiveness.

Charles Bronson R.I.P. This movie is no threat to your greatness.

Interesting concept

[kthoran · 8/10 · 9 July 2007]

The idea of vigilante revenge is a powerful basis.

This movie shows not only the possibilities of revenge but the reluctance and hesitation to engage in the same.

It was well acted and mostly believable but the plot did tend to get muddied a bit at certain points. Gives an interesting view of British home life, office life, and countryside as well to those interested in British culture.

Overall, it caught my interest and kept me watching until the rather predictable ending. But predictable ending aside it shouldn't matter to most movie watchers as the action keeps everything moving and keeps it interesting to the end.

not bad, could have done better

[mailforchrisdale · 7/10 · 25 June 2008]

Great opening, first half created real tension and anxiety. gritty and definitely topical for some viewers.

Started to dip into make-believe after that. didn't feel Danny dyer's character had enough substance, why did he become so reckless, why did he jilt his fiancée?

he didn't have chance to become absorbed a la 'falling down' and 'death sentence'. a little more about bean's past would also have been useful to add a bit of balance between motive and actions.

certainly worth a watch, had the potential to be incredible but lacked passion and conviction.

Outrageously bad

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 15 November 2011]

When I saw the trailer for OUTLAW I knew I wanted to see it – Sean Bean is one of my favourite actors and I loved the look of the vigilante plot. But it was one of those films that slipped by until now, when I finally caught up with it on TV one night. I'm glad I didn't get to it sooner.

The film is a crushing, no-budget disappointment, nothing like it's made out to be in the trailer. The plot is passable at best, and while it contains some intense, shocking moments (the attack on the barrister's wife is one of the most disturbing I've seen in some time), it never seems to go anywhere, and by the end turns into the usual good guys vs. arch villain type action flick. Some scenes are ludicrous, like the bit with the shoot-out with the police in the wood, and the characters are never likable as they should be. Take Sean Bean's lead for instance – he's a disturbed ex-soldier, yes, but we never learn a thing about his background or what makes him tick. Bean tries hard to make the best of the material, but his talents are wasted here.

It's a shame, as the talents of other decent actors – such as Lennie James and Bob Hoskins – are also left unexploited to their full potential. The biggest problem of all lies in the director, Nick Love. For some stupid reason, he adopts a shaky cam in an attempt to give his film edge, but it's distracting at best and nauseating at worst. Paul Greengrass he certainly isn't – and the camera-work alone is enough to ruin what was potentially an interesting film that raises some important questions about crime and justice.

Nothing of interest to say but says it in an empty, angry way as it goes after the target male audience

[bob the moo · 4 September 2007]

Bryant returns from the Iraq war one of many burnt out veterans to find his wife gone off with another man and yobs hanging around in the street. Gene Dekker meanwhile gets beaten up in the street (an English street dear viewer!) by thugs after a minor fender bender. Barrister Cedric Munroe however, losing his wife and unborn baby after criminals from the gang of violent overlord Manning send a warning for him to back off the prosecution of their boss.

There is an interesting film in here somewhere and certainly the time to try and find it would be now. Whether it is reality or perception, there is the feeling that lawlessness is rife and that the police are powerless to stop it. Whether it is yobs on the street, rudeness, robbers suing victims, paedophiles living beside schools or whatever, the Daily Mail has never had it so good with plenty of hand-wringing to be done at every turn. Even recently two "ordinary" people have died in different places when they attempted to stop youths or criminals doing something – surely it is only right to stand up to such behaviour. Well yes and no and it is an interesting question but with Outlaw the questions are either answered before we begin or are just ignored in favour of a simple narrative.

For that is what is served up here in a script that never really challenges the audience and seems to be keen to serve the target audience of those attracted to a story about men standing up to injustice, without actually being brave enough to just come out and say "hanging's too good for 'em". This is seen in the "turmoil" that the group goes through, with some all to happy to kill the wrong doers, while others just want to beat the sh1t out of them – you know, the type of complex morality questions that really trouble the mind. Such as it is the script never gets into this aspect of it and indeed if there is a conclusion, it is that vigilantism is the only way to go if you want results.

Having seen other films from love, I am willing to accept that he has written a dramatic script that has no interest in the wider questions but is just using the situation as a setting. As weak as an excuse as that is, following this line of reasoning still left me with a film that didn't engage, excite or interest me. As writer Love did not produce any characters, scenarios or questions that I cared about. As director he seems to be frantically trying to make his drama have the grit and reality that his script lacks but he has decided to do it by doing an poor man's impression of Paul Greengrass by having a child nudge the cameraman throughout shooting. It worked for Bourne but here it just annoyed me and seemed like just a stolen idea rather than a style that helped the film.

The cast offered substance and I would have liked to see some of them actually served with good characters. Bean and James in particular are capable of more and maybe they thought they would get it when they signed up. Both have a good presence but neither really has anything of value to get into. Dyer does his usual stuff but, considering his character is more or less the heart of the film, he does not connect with anything. Hoskins is a good catch for this name but his character is just an easy angry copper.

Overall then, what did this film offer to me? Well not a great deal. Despite a topical and controversial subject matter, there is nothing to think about or challenge the viewer as Love just hammers home a simple dramatic script without the heart to go for blood whole-hog or conversely risk upsetting his loyal male audience by being reflective or thoughtful. Could have been interesting. Wasn't.

A Decent Movie.... kinda.

[EtherealMind · 6/10 · 24 June 2011]

Overall I think this movie is...pretty good. It's not particularly ground breaking or original but for people who enjoyed the Football Factory and the Business this film will be quite entertaining. People have complained that the free-hand camera work is poor. I disagree. For the most part, this camera technique works well and gives the film a gritty, urban feel. I do think Nick Love went a little over the top with it though. It certainly wasn't necessary to use the free-hand camera so excessively and would've been more suited to the fight/action scenes only. There are moments when the free-hand camera movement can be quite off putting. Nick Love should've used this technique sparingly I believe.

This film isn't a masterpiece or a genius piece of film making, let's get that clear. There are some problems I have with it. Firstly, having Gene (Danny Dyer's character)as being close friends with the Security Guard is nothing more than a lame attempt to tie in the characters so that eventually their paths would all cross. We have Bryant meeting the Security Guard and the Security Guard just so happens to be friends with the protagonist of the story whom we are introduced to in the very beginning of the film. That just doesn't work for me. Nick Love should've though this through more. It becomes glaringly obvious to the viewer that Gene and Bryrant's path will cross soon -- and for very, very unconvincing reasons as well.

Another thing I don't like about the character development in this film is the fact the Security Guard just takes it upon himself to go around telling people he knows someone who can "help them" with their troubles. (That someone is Bryant, the soldier who he's only recently met). But why on earth does he do this? He's barely met the bloke (Bryant) and he's off telling Cedric (the guy whose wife was attacked)that he knows someone who can help him get revenge. He does the same thing with Gene when they are talking in the security room together. Why does the Security Guard assume that Bryant will willingly help these characters? I just don't get it. The Security Guard even refers to Bryant as a "mate of his" Why does he assume he's "mates" with him? When these characters first meet they hardly exchange any dialogue together. Bryant seems to only respond to be polite to the Security Guard. He doesn't show any signs at all that he considers the security guard a "mate" at all. I don't think Nick Love thought through this development properly. And why does Bryrant's character suddenly change from being this troubled, reserved character who want to keep himself to himself to someone who's being the arbiter of justice for people he's never met? I don't understand this at all.

There are also some useless, unnecessary characters in this film as well. The guy who got attacked by three people and is left with scars on his face was a pointless character in my opinion. He could've easily been omitted from the film without it greatly affecting the story at all. Another useless character was Gene's work buddy who decides to tag along with the newly founded crew (For what reason, I have no idea). Again, this character could've been omitted without the overall story being affected (or altered).

I could write more about some of the problems I have with this film but I think I'll leave it there. If you watch this film for what it is and forget some of the problematic story developments then you'll enjoy this movie. The story itself is pretty straight forward and there's plenty of action/fighting for the viewer to enjoy. This film isn't a masterpiece...but it's not absolutely terrible either.

6/10

A good movie, and no, it's not like the Boondock Saints!!!!

[kudostojen · 7/10 · 28 December 2008]

The main reason I'm commenting on this movie, is because before I even considered watching it, I read the comments on IMDb. Now I remember a couple of the comments comparing this movie to the Boondock Saints, and not in a good way.

After watching this movie, I now know, it is nothing like the Boondock Saints. Not even close. The style and mood of these two movies are completely different.

As for the movie. I enjoyed it. They establish the characters early on and you begin to care about what happens to them, and bad things do happen to them. This is where the characters take a turn from their normal lives and start fighting back. This "vigilante" movie is more believable than any other I've seen. The characters struggle with what they have set out to do, and at times can't follow through with their plans for justice. Most comments about this movie have dissected it, and over analyzed it. I enjoyed the mood of this movie, it entertained me and gave me an ending i didn't expect.

Good cast but I couldn't relate to it

[dbborroughs · 5/10 · 1 May 2009]

A group of men who feel betrayed by society and the criminal justice system in particular decide to take things into their own hands and form a vigilante squad to right what they feel are wrongs. Good looking, well acted film didn't click for me. For me there is too much talk, a bit too much imagined violence and a sense of happening in a place that doesn't connect with what I know of the world. Perhaps it's tied to too much what is going on in England for me to truly appreciate what is going on. It also doesn't help that some of the twists and turns of the plot seem to happen out of left field only to move the plot along (some of what happens to the black gentlemen didn't seem wholly plausible and why is Bob Hoskins in this when all seems to be is a guy on a phone unconnected to anyone else?). If you like the cast or connect to an England in decline give it a shot.

Not great, but worth watching

[ohoward-1 · 7/10 · 17 September 2007]

Spent some time watching this in High Definition on a Saturday night, and fairly surprised at some of the reactions here.

Lets get one thing straight from the off though: This is not a great film. It does what it does, and in my opinion, it does it well.

It tells the tale of a small group of disaffected British males, sickened by the state of the society they inhabit and to be frank, at times, I understand where they are coming from.

The introduction to the characters is slow and builds up nicely, but at some point it inexplicably ends and the rest of the film feels somewhat rushed.

A lot of people have commented that the camera work made them feel sick. Perhaps i am seeing something that isn't there, but I got the feeling this was in fact intended - the fact that the camera work 'degenerates' into a shaky (shakier) mess during the fight scenes/beatings tells me that this was intended to produce that very effect, to make the viewer feel sickened. It worked on me, particularly when Decker(?) is beaten in his dream.

Not a great film, but to me, powerful nonetheless.

What A Letdown

[chris_said · 3/10 · 10 March 2007]

I have seen Goodbye Charlie Bright, Football Factory & The Business and I really love them all but Outlaw is a travesty and a massive let down...

The camera work as noted by others is atrocious but this didn't annoy me as much as the amount of holes in the plot and the shockingly bad script...

1) I know he is trying to make a more serious film but Nick Love relies on comedy to get his films across and there was next to none...

2) Things like Danny Dyers line, "I know where he is...he's in the countryside" are so bad I had to laugh...as if the countryside is within a 1mile radius... Oh and there are others...

3) His girlfriend saying, "this is where you had your dream..." he replies "i know" then she says "why did you come here?" he replies (get your Oscars out..) "i don't know" Brilliant - absolutely brilliant!

4) He wants to marry his girlfriend throughout but this for no reason jolts her at the wedding to beat up some people...marry the lady then go...its not hard!

5) The amount of times the barrister says he'll join them and then refuses is just DAMN boring...it was like hearing the same script multiple times to waste time because Nick Love didn't know where to take the film...

6) Why do they waste another 10mins of the film showing the girl smiling at the disfigured fella? I don't care! Then they show him playing rugby...again this is about the violence in todays society not this random guys impression of Jason Robinson...and before the final fighting he leaves anyway...so pointless!

All in all a waste of my money and I was throughly let down...I will be waiting for his next film because they have been great up to this...go back to the heart warming comedy and stick away from politics...im sorry but its above you.

entertaining & thought-provoking

[movieman_kev · 7/10 · 1 June 2008]

A British Iraq War vet, Danny Bryant (Sean Bean) returns stateside and is sickened by how lax the criminals are treated by corrupt cops & judges. So he forms a ragtag group of like-minded individuals, along with some help from a disillusioned cop in the system (played by Bob Hoskins) This is an extremely well-acted film not only by the usually superb Bean & Hoskins, but Nick Love film mainstay Danny Dyer as well. It's a gritty character study with bouts of ultra-violence. Among the vigilante sub-genre this film ranks up among the better ones (even if the ending is easy to guess) Kudos to writer/director Nick Lowe.

My Grade: A-

DVD Extras: Commentary with Nick Love & Danny Dyer; a promo for HD.net ; and Trailers for "Life Before her eyes", "The Signal", "Shrooms", & "Quid Pro Quo"

The Mild Bunch

[son_of_cheese_messiah · 1/10 · 16 September 2010]

This script seems like a perfect blend of ideas taken from The Daily Mail and The Guardian.

That might appear a contradictory statement but I'll explain.

The basic premise consists of the most gruesome headlines one would expect from a tabloid. The 'no respect for war heroes', murder of unborn babies, random street violence etc.

But it then is hamstrung by political correctness. All the villains are conveniently white, for example, while the 'outlaws' are a mixed bag including a gay and a black barrister who implausibly turns out to be a Muslim later on.

Other trendy but annoying gimmicks such as shaky camera work and anaemic looking colours will also please Guardian readers.

This group I have dubbed the mild bunch, since despite the huge provocation, they generally just stand around with smouldering looks on their faces, saying "I can't do this". The exception to this is a CCTV operator and small-time voyeur, who although he has not received any violence himself, takes to dishing it out like a trooper. Oh and he's a bigot. Being a bigot apparently makes him worthier of being executed than a paedophile and murderer since he is mysterious hanged by Sean Bean (the gang leader) while the gang looks on, shortly after they let off from the same fate a known paedophile and the murderer of the black barrister's baby.

This paedophile then murders Bob Hoskins, a police informant who has been helping the gang, although how he knows about Hoskins is not explained. So the gang hang their own member knowing full well that the police will find him and that will lead them to the gang? This film makes no sense.

Although it starts promisingly, it soon descends into clichés including appalling dialogue which generally includes the C-word in every sentence.

It is a pity because crime is now a serious issue in Britain and a good film on the subject is sorely needed.

Captures the Feelings of Many

[richardstelmach · 8/10 · 26 March 2007]

I am surprised at the poor IMDb rating for this film. The film picks up on many of the problems in British society. The failings of the Police are real and the writer paints a realistic picture of a possible future of Britain. Police getting worse, crime continuing, the public let down.

The film doesn't pull any punches, it is grim and hits its message home clearly.

The performances are fantastic. Sean Bean really is incredible, the pain in his face is clear to see, full of emotion, he is brilliant. Bob Hoskins is also great.

The film is not perfect. Any criticisms i would have would possibly be the soundtrack, it would have been good if there was more music kicking in, i think the droning noise was possibly overused.

Overall though, the writer should be credited for a writing a film with a strong, important message and the direction creates a fantastic movie.

i enjoyed it ,but could do better

[jpdhadfield · 7/10 · 9 April 2012]

i watched this on telly, but it was still good enough for me to not change channel, i like Danny Dyer films, as they usually have some fun in them. very few laughs in this one.

problems with script spoiler alert!! 1.the raid where they steal the money from the drug dealers , is OK, except why didn't the cops follow them, at least with a helicopter, they would never have got away in the transit van in London.

2.when Danny's mate tells him where manning is, its obviously a set up

3.the barrister would be protected.

4. the armed police wouldn't have shot Monroe when he gave up.

5.Danny was shot in the neck, ,but later gets up and runs away.

6.i wont go on, but its a bit like this all the way through.

and yet i still enjoyed it, and would watch it again. but its no 'death wish'

Absolutely awful

[chris-5162 · 1/10 · 2 October 2007]

Nick Love continues to tarnish the British Film Industry (while working completely outside of it) with another kick-to-the-balls of a film. It's hard to imagine how you could possibly go wrong with a vigilante film starring Sean Bean and Bob Hoskins, but the script is absolute bargain basement. Substituting any form of characterisation for pointless bouts of nasty violence, its hard to see what attracted any talent to this rubbish. You spend the entire film wondering why the characters really do behave the way they do as well as trying to focus your eyes on horribly shot and lit digital video. Love seems to think that by yanking the camera all over the place gives a sense of gritty realism. Well it doesn't. This film is like a Daily Mail readers wet dream. Despite Love's track record (of which only The Business showed any sort of film making talent) I really was hoping for an interesting British take on vigilantism, that addresses many of the hopes and fears that British people feel at this time. I was also impressed the way Love and his producers gathered together the finance to make this. It's a shame they didn't hire a talented writer to pen something even remotely interesting. This film has absolutely nothing to recommend it at all.