Category Archives: Movie Reviews – L

“Life of Pi” – 3.5 STARS

by

18

LIFE OF PIE POSTER

“Life of Pi” is a movie I could never get excited about seeing. During several trips to the theater I tried to muster up enough interest to cause me to see it but it was tough. I wasn’t convinced of the story and I’m not the biggest fan of Ang Lee. It finally took strong reviews from several of my movie blogging buddies and the large number of Oscar nominations it received to get me to check it out before it left the big screen.

“Life of Pi” is based on Yann Martel 2001 novel which was considered by many to be an unfilmable book. The project passed through the hands of several different writers and directors before finally resting with Ang Lee directing and David Magee handling the script. This was a highly ambitious work requiring a clear vision and a large number of special effects artists to make it the jaw-dropping visual experience Ang Lee was shooting for. There’s no doubting that this is a major cinematic accomplishment and even though I may not have responded as strongly as others, I was still very impressed with what the filmmakers were able to do.

“Life of Pi” is a story of religion and faith. It’s not a story of a religion or a specific faith. No, it plays it safe by just speaking to the power of faith in God while never clearly defining the God it speaks of. I guess you could say that the movie isn’t in the business of proselytizing and it steers clear of that through the very tidy character of Piscine “Pi” Patel. The movie begins with a novelist, hungry for inspiration for a new book, visiting an adult Piscine (Irrfan Kahn) after being told he had a good story to tell. Piscine begins sharing his incredible story which we see through flashbacks.

LIFE OF PIE

We first see Piscine as a child living at the zoo ran by his parents. He changes his name to Pi after facing a year’s worth of ridicule over his real name from his classmates at school. Pi grows up to be a very smart and spiritual young man. At 13-years old, he is introduced to Christianity which he adds to his Hindu upbringing. Later he adds Islam into the mix to complete his unique theological perspective. Pi’s father wants him to be more of a rationally thinking person and ends up teaching Pi some lessons that change his view of the world. At age 16, Pi and his family are forced to close down the zoo, sell their animals, and move to Canada. They hop aboard a Japanese freighter with some of their animals in tow and head across the Pacific.

While at sea a monstrous storm hits which capsizes and sinks the huge vessel. For me this was one of the most visually stunning sequences in the entire picture. Pi manages to get to a life boat but his family and everyone else onboard are killed. But he’s not alone on the small boat. A crippled zebra, a baboon, a vicious hyena, and a huge bengal tiger known in their zoo as Richard Parker are also with him. The natural chain soon kicks in and Richard Parker and Pi are the only two remaining. The bulk of the film follows the two in their attempt to survive. Suraj Sharma plays the 16-year old Pi and he is really good. Sharma went through a lot of physical preparation for this role including ocean survival training. He also had the tricky task of acting with and reacting to a tiger that wasn’t there. It’s a great performance.

The movie becomes one part survival story and another part spiritual journey although I would argue that the spirituality takes a backseat until the end of the picture. It becomes more of a subtle and subconscious component of the film as things move forward. The relationship between Pi and Richard Parker becomes the driving force of the story. They begin as predator versus prey but soon becoming territorial enemies. It’s pretty fascinating to watch Lee and Magee take both of these characters down to the most basic animalistic survival instincts. You would expect it from Richard Parker but Pi finds himself fighting against these impulses. He learns it will take more than that if they are to survive their ordeal.

Life of Pie 2

A lot has been said about the visual experience that “Life of Pi” provides. I have to admit, at times it can leave you speechless. There are some beautiful shots in the film soaked in vivid colors and framed with such imagination. The animation involved in bringing Richard Parker to life is something you just have to see. I was blown away. But I have to say what I liked in the film could have been done without 3-D. Now don’t get me wrong, the 3-D is better than 90% of the stuff that comes out today. But after all I heard, I expected something that would knock my socks off. It does have a handful of dazzling 3-D moments but I think the movie would be just as visually stimulating in bright and clear digital.

I do have another gripe. I couldn’t help but feel the movie begin to lose me a little after Pi and Richard Parker had been lost at sea for a while. It seems like the movie took too much time in progressing their relationship and moving towards the finale. The survivalist element was quite good but eventually I did start hungering for some type of conclusion. But when it did come to an end, I felt it wrapped everything up in a smart, emotional, and thought-provoking way.

So while I may not be as crazy about “Life of Pie” as some of my moviegoing friends and the Academy, I still really appreciate what Ang Lee was able to accomplish. There’s a lot of creativity and skill on display. And while I felt the story did play it safe, it also asked some questions that many movies seem afraid of. That’s something else I can appreciate. “Life of Pi” wouldn’t have cracked my top 10 list of 2012 movies, but it’s a very good film and I am really anxious to revisit it.

“The Last Stand” – 3.5 STARS

by

11

LAST STAND POSTER

It only took a couple of cameos to get Arnold Schwarzenegger back in form and now he’s back (yes I just said that) in “The Last Stand”. You would never doubt that this is a standard Schwarzenegger picture except for the fact that the days of the one-man-army seem to be gone. But don’t misunderstand me, Arnie still pumps a ton of lead, fires the one-liners, and kicks plenty of bad guy butt. It’s just that he’s older, he knows it, and the movie takes that into account. In fact, the movie has a lot of fun with it which is just one of the reasons why it works as a whole.

First off, this is an old school action picture and that will automatically turn off some people. Some will dismiss it as retro cheese while others will dismiss it as simply mindless entertainment. I can’t argue with either of those assessments other than to say it shouldn’t be dismissed. “The Last Stand” has its share of cheesiness but intentionally so. And it’s certainly not stimulating, thought-provoking cinema but it never pretends to be. It’s a simple, straightforward movie without an ounce of pretension and it.

LAST STAND2

Schwarzenegger plays the sheriff of a small Arizona town named Sommerton which sits near the Mexican border. It’s a quiet little town and nothing happens there, that is until a local farmer (played by Harry Dean Stanton in a wonderful cameo) is found shot to death. It turns out his murder is connected to the escape of a powerful drug cartel boss in Las Vegas. The drug lord, named Cortez, is heading to the Mexican border and Sommerton is the only town that stands in his way. Needless to say, Arnie and company use the town as the last stand between Mexico and this murderous kingpin.

There’s a good supporting cast around Schwarzenegger even though no one goes to one of his films expecting Oscar caliber performances. I loved seeing Forest Whitaker in a prominent role. He plays the FBI agent who Cortez escaped from. The normally obnoxious Johnny Knoxville plays the village idiot and manages to keep his goofball schtick under control. The lovely Jaimie Alexander and Genesis Rodriguez both get moments to flex their tough girl muscles. Eduardo Noriega is a perfectly detestable villain and Peter Stormare has a blast as one of his hired hands. And then you have the always entertaining Luis Guzmán who is a a lot of fun and delivers several good laughs. None of these performances will knock your socks off, but were you really expecting them to? They go as far as the material allows them and for this kind of story that’s more than adequate.

Last STand 1

But c’mon, this is all about the action right? Director Kim Ji-woon brings a slick and stylish eye for action sequences. But what I like best is how he keeps his camera under control. So many of today’s action movies overuse quick cuts and herky-jerky cameras which makes impossible to see what’s going on. Ji-woon uses these techniques some but they never muddle the scene. Weather it’s a massive firefight or a 150 mph car chase through a corn field, he’s always in command of his camera. Now he does go heavy with the blood and some kills aren’t for the squeamish, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to letting out a “wow” or two.

The days of Arnold walking around shirtless with bowling ball biceps and taking out full armies by himself may be over but “The Last Stand” shows he’s still the king of the action flick. Look, this movie is exactly what it sets out to be and nothing else. The plot is pretty basic and there’s not one single surprise in the entire movie. But it’s also one wild ride and the perfect vehicle for Schwarzenegger. You get plenty of bangs, plenty of bullets, and plenty of bodies. You also get some pretty good laughs along the way. I don’t know about you, but that’s exactly what I want from a Schwarzenegger movie. Mission accomplished.

“Les Miserables” – 4 STARS

by

17

Les-Miserable

I’m not a fan of musicals. Never have been, never will be. Now there are one or two that I guess I could say I like, but as a whole it is one of my least favorite genres. So why would I think for a minute that I would like Tom Hooper’s “Les Miserables”? Well as suprising as it may sound, I liked “Les Miserables” a lot and if not for its mildly sluggish pacing leading up to the final act I would have gone as far as to call it a great film. Releasing a movie like this today would seem like a risk. Modern movie fans pour money into lame raunchy comedies and brainless rom-coms so it was refreshing to see “Les Miserables” reach a wide audience. The film has a lot to offer. Just as long as you prepare yourself and know what you’re going to get.

For the few that don’t know, “Les Miserables” is French writer Victor Hugo’s classic novel from 1862. In the 1980s a musical theater version of the novel opened and became a worldwide success and remains so to this day. Now Hooper, the Oscar winning director of “The King’s Speech”, tackles the ambitious task of bringing the stage version to the big screen. Now when I call this a musical I mean it in the fullest. There may be five or six short spoken lines in the entire film. The bulk of the story is told through song and the emotional performances from the cast. It concerned me going in but after a brief mental adjustment I was connected to the flow of the narrative.

The story begins in 1815 and follows Jean Valijean (Hugh Jackman) who we see released from prison after serving a 19 year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread. After being moved by the compassion of a priest, Valijean breaks parole and heads off to start an honest life serving God under a new identity. This infuriates Officer Javert (Russell Crowe) who becomes obsessed with tracking him down. The movie jumps ahead, making stops at different time periods in early 19th century France. Valijean becomes a mayor and businessman, Javert a promoted inspector, and we are introduced to several other people who cross their paths.

LES MIZZ 1

There’s no need in going further into the story. I’ll save that for the movie but I will say that its an interesting look at everything from poverty to patriotism, from redemption to devastation. It takes place during a tumultuous time in French history and it translates very well on screen. The story navigates through the many hardships, tragedies, and inequalities of that era with an amazing sense of authenticity. Much of that is thanks to the sharp collaborative screenplay but a lot is due to the incredible period detail that we see throughout the entire film. There’s a real sense of place throughout the movie which was essential to my experience.

But enough of that right? This is after all a musical so I’ve got to get into the singing. Hugh Jackman was quite good in my eyes. I know some have felt that the part overpowered him but I didn’t see it. I thought some songs were better than others but his physical performance complemented his voice perfectly and I loved what he was doing on screen. Russell Crowe has received the brunt of the criticism when it comes to the singing but I’m going to defend him…well, kinda. I don’t think he’s as bad as many are saying. In fact, some of the songs nicely fit both him and his character. But I have to say there are moments where his voice clashes with the scene. For example, a few of the one-on-one singing conversations between him and Jackman just sound odd. A lot has to do with the songs themselves but some of it is that Crowe simply sounds off. But Crowe does have some good moments and his physical performance is fantastic.

LES MIZ 2

I also have to mention Ann Hathaway as a poor unemployed mother who has to resort to prostitution in order to send money back to care for her sick young daughter. Hathaway is brilliant and no doubt she was the star of the show for me. While she doesn’t have a big role, every scene she’s in is emotionally charged and heartbreaking. And her voice is simply beautiful. The best scene in the entire movie is her singing of “I Dreamed a Dream”. I usually get tired of Hooper’s insistence on putting the camera right in the face of his actors. But in this scene he knows he’s capturing something special. Hathaway’s brokenness, her tears, her anguish are all vividly captured as she sings this heart-wrenching song. This is an Oscar worthy performance.

There are also fun performances from Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as a crooked, pick pocketing husband and wife. And I was surprised at the singing chops of Eddie Redmayne. He has a pretty meaty role and never flinches. I was also very impressed with Samantha Barks and Amanda Seyfried. Both young ladies have lovely voices and I appreciated the way they poured everything into their characters. There were several other small but great cast members particularly some really strong child performances. It’s hard not to like this ensemble Hooper was able to put together.

“Les Miserables” does bog down during the buildup to its finale. For most of the film I was completely involved and for the movie to do that to a non-musical kind of guy like me is quite an accomplishment. But as Redmayne and company prepare their rebellion I felt myself drifting. Things start to feel repetitious and monotonous. But then in a snap of a finger the movie picks back up and rolls right through to its powerful and completely satisfying finale. In fact, I think “powerful” and “completely satisfying” are good descriptions of this movie as a whole. Sure it’s Oscar bait and I know it has disappointed some people, but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this picture. This isn’t normally my cup of tea, but when a film is well made, well acted, and tells a good story I’m all in whether they’re singing the lines or not.

REVIEW: “Lincoln”

by

21

Stephen Spielberg’s “Lincoln” was one of my most anticipated films of 2012. From the early information surrounding the picture, there were so many things that grabbed my attention and peaked my interest. Of those things, nothing intrigued me more than the thought of Daniel Day-Lewis taking on the role of one of the most beloved presidents in American history. I stand by my belief that Day-Lewis is the greatest working actor in cinema today. Therefore the very thought of him submerging himself in this incredible character really excited me. I am also a sucker for well crafted period pieces and nobody does them better than Spielberg. But I’ve been a little skeptical of the director’s more recent work which gave me reason to be cautious. Well now I’ve seen this 2 1/2 hour dialogue-driven epic and let me say it’s nothing short of spectacular.

This is a very talky and very political movie that follows the final four months of Abraham Lincoln’s life. It particularly focuses on his fight to pass the 13th Amendment which would abolish slavery. Instead of incorporating mammoth sized historical set pieces, Spielberg looks at the man and the people who surrounded him during this tumultuous time in our nation’s history. The characters and the drama unfolds through the incredibly crisp script that sucks you in from the first moment. Now a movie like this has potential to trip over itself by doing too much. But I found that the grounded approach to the storytelling and the more character-driven narrative worked extremely well, and I was enthralled from beginning to end.

While this isn’t a movie dependent on flashy visuals, Spielberg still gives a lot of attention to details. He also goes to great lengths to make this the most vivid portrayal of the 16th president ever to be put on film. He gives us more than just the iconic image that we see carved in marble at the Lincoln Memorial. This is a deeper look at a man struggling under the burden of the Civil War. Lincoln is shown to be a flawed man who has a good heart, but is not without problems of his own both politically and personally. We see him use shady political tactics in an effort to secure the votes to pass the amendment. We also see him make questionable decisions related to the war that carry serious consequences. Then there are family issues between him and his wife Mary (wonderfully played by Sally Field) and his oldest son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). These bits do a great deal to humanize this intriguing figure.

Spielberg also puts a tremendous amount of effort into creating the historical context of the film. The wranglings between Lincoln, his cabinet, and the House of Representatives give life to the political tensions of the time. And while the Civil War isn’t the main focus of the picture, the effects of it, the desires for peace, and the uncertainty that will follow are all interwoven throughout the narrative. The tensions of the war are simmering under the surface, and the turmoil it has brought weighs heavy on everyone involved. All of these things feel genuine, and there is a legitimate historical weight to the story. But I did think Spielberg oversimplified the South, their motivations, and positions. That said, no movie has ever depicted the life of Lincoln and the political environment of our war-torn country better than Spielberg. It’s an amazing accomplishment.

Speaking of accomplishments, I have to talk more about Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance. Let me just say that the Best Actor Oscar may have been decided with the release of “Lincoln”. Day-Lewis is phenomenal. He is an actor known for his intense research and for his ability to get lost in his characters. Here he gives us a stand-out portrayal of Lincoln filled with detailed uniquenesses from his higher pitched voice to his physical postures and mannerisms. You quickly find yourself immersed in the character, and you feel as though you’re really watching Abraham Lincoln on screen. It’s a master class in acting.

And then there’s the marvelous supporting cast around him. I’ve already mentioned Sally Field and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. We also get Tommy Lee Jones in a somewhat stilted role but a fantastic one nonetheless. There are also some great performances from Hal Holbrook, David Strathairn, Jackie Earle Haley, Jared Harris, John Hawkes, Lee Pace, and Gloria Reuben. Even better, Spielberg gives each character their own moment to shine regardless of how small of a role they may have. But the entire film revolves around the performance of Day-Lewis and he lives up to expectations.

“Lincoln” may not be what everyone is expecting, but I found it to be mesmerizing cinema. There are a couple of historical shortcuts and a couple of unnecessary moments of Spielberg being Spielberg. But overall this is a phenomenal historical drama anchored by yet another stunning turn by Daniel Day-Lewis. You simply can’t take your eyes off of him. This is an amazing look at an iconic president. It doesn’t worship him but it doesn’t diminish him either. Instead we get a poignant and moving portrait of a man who led our country through its most difficult time. It’s a movie that I won’t soon forget, and also one of the more Oscar worthy films of 2012.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Looper”

by

17


Time travel is one of those fun and intriguing concepts that has found its way into every movie genre. Obviously there is time travel in science fiction films, but it can also be found in the horror, action, drama, comedy, and even romance genres. So there’s an apparent attraction to the idea of time travel and its been explored in a variety of different ways. Therefore the real challenge for a filmmaker is to take this familiar subject and give us something new and fresh – something we haven’t seen before. I’m thrilled to say that’s exactly what writer and director Rian Johnson has done with his mind bending sci-fi action film “Looper”.

As you can guess, “Looper” takes place in the not-to-distant future. Time travel has been realized but by the year 2074 it has been outlawed. The crime syndicates illegally use time travel as a means of executing and disposing of targets, something that has grown increasingly difficult to do in their time. That’s where loopers come in. They are mob killers who execute the targets sent from the future, collect the silver bars sent with the target as their reward, and then dispose of the bodies – no mess and no connections to the mob. Loopers operate out of Kansas City in the year 2044 and are headed by a mobster named Abe (Jeff Daniels). In fact, we learn that Abe is essentially running the entire city.

Joseph Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is one of Abe’s most trusted loopers. He’s efficient and by-the-books. But soon Joe is faced with what’s called “closing the loop” – the syndicate’s version of retirement. You see, the looper will be sent the future version of the himself to be executed. No party or shiny plaque. Just a hefty payment in gold bars and a release from their contract. “Good-bye” and enjoy the next 30 years. As we hear in the movie, the looper job doesn’t attract the most forward thinking people. Joe is surprised and unprepared when his latest target turns out to be himself only 30-years older and bald (Bruce Willis). He makes the biggest mistake a looper can make – he hesitates and old Joe jumps him, knocks him out, and then escapes. Soon young Joe has the mob hot on his trail as he’s trying to “make things right” by catching up with and killing old Joe. But old Joe has a mission of his own which really turns everything on its head.

The first half of the movie focuses more on the loopers, on introducing us to Johnson’s world, and setting up Gordon-Levitt’s character. A huge part of any movie like this, especially when dealing with time travel, is creating a believability to what you’re presenting. In other words, we need to buy into what we’re being shown. The concept behind this Rian Johnson futuristic concoction is brilliant and a breath of fresh cinematic air. What’s even more impressive is how well it’s realized on screen. He doesn’t overdo his futuristic landscape so I never felt too disconnected from this world. But there is some cool technology and Johnson clearly has fun with some of it including his ugly green energy dependent cars and the bad cell phone reception. But the city itself is a dirty and unpleasant place filled with poverty and drug use – just what you would expect from a mob-led city.

The second half of the movie takes a slight change in direction. Much of it takes part on a farm outside of town owned by a single mother Sara (Emily Blunt who exchanges her English accent for a country girl one) and her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon). Young Joe’s search for old Joe leads him to the farm where he hopes to find shelter from the syndicate and clues to what his older self is up to. But he quickly learns that there’s more to this farm family than meets the eye. These scenes add some authentic emotional punch to the film. But Johnson also uses this part of the movie to open up several new doors which add more and more layers to the already challenging story. Of course there were a couple of times where I had to stop and process what I had just seen, but I really liked these different directions and as a whole, the complex yet miraculously cohesive script is constructed with such intelligence and precision so that I never felt lost nor did I feel the material ever bogged down.

It’s also worth mentioning the spectacular visuals and no-holds-barred action sequences. It doesn’t take long to recognize Johnson’s skill with framing shots and moving his camera. He uses several unconventional techniques which give the move a unique look. We get several close-ups where Johnson wants the expressions of his characters to tell the story. He also often times places his camera at ground level giving us the feeling we are looking up at them. This is very effective particularly during the buildup to a couple of key action scenes. Speaking of the action, it is incredibly done. It’s a brutal and violent mix of sci-fi and 1980’s gun-blazing action and both work extremely well. Johnson doesn’t skimp on the blood but it feels right at home in this picture.

I also have to talk about the acting. The performances in “Looper” are solid throughout with some being Oscar caliber in my opinion. Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues to prove that he’s a top Hollywood talent. Here he’s armed with heavy makeup, a prosthetic nose, and a Bruce Willis smirk. The funny thing is he channels Willis perfectly from his slouch to his expressions, all while giving a very different performance than Willis. And speaking of Willis, he is excellent here. What stood out was the range that he shows in this performance. For instance there are scenes where he’s a cranky codger, an emotional wreck, and laugh out loud funny. But there were also scenes that reminded me of John McClane from Die Hard – steadily yelling while his machine gun pumps loads of lead. Emily Blunt is fantastic as always, Jeff Daniels just eats up his lines, and Paul Dano plays the same measly, wormy character that he always plays. Then there is young Pierce Gagnon who is phenomenal. He’s such a tender presence but his performance goes well beyond that standard cute kid role. He’s given a lot to do and he really stands out.

I’m sure it’s obvious by now that I really liked “Looper”. But it’s not a perfect movie. While the story is intensely original and thoroughly engaging, there are a few plot holes as well as some pointless throw away scenes in the first half of the movie. For example early on we see young Joe has a relationship with a prostitute. He appears to be quite fond of her even though she’s only in a couple of scenes, one of which seems to be there strictly to add some pointless content to the film. This time could have been spent better elsewhere. I also couldn’t help but ask the question – what type of crime organization would actually hire Paul Dano’s character to be a looper? His performance is fine but I had a hard time believing in him. That said, he did provide us with one of the films very best sequences. I’ll just leave it at that.

I could go on and on about “Looper” but let me just sum it up by saying that it’s the most ambitious and imaginative movie I’ve seen all year. It’s smart and audacious and Rian Johnson actually pulls it all off. It’s completely unpredictable and no matter how hard you try, you never catch up with it. It’s always one step ahead of you. “Looper” takes the familiar device of time travel to new places through a brilliantly original concept. Johnson lays out that concept clearly for the audience. Then he takes it, shakes it, twists it, and contorts it and then challenges the audience to keep up. He dabbles in different genres and themes, examines societies, questions morality, and asks us to take it all in and process it. That’s something I’m happy to do especially when the movie is this good.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

“LAWLESS” – 4 STARS

by

15

Just seeing the list of great names attached to “Lawless” easily made it one of my most anticipated films of 2012. I’m a huge fan of Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, and Gary Oldman. The thoughts of them in a Prohibition-era action flick had me giddy with excitement. But I also had one serious concern about the movie and that was Shia LaBeouf in the lead role. I’ve never been impressed with his acting and I couldn’t help but wonder if he could hold his own in the company of such great talent. While LaBeouf was certainly better than I expected, he was swallowed up by some really strong performances around him. But thankfully that wasn’t enough to keep “Lawless” from being a highly entertaining piece of American pulp.

Australian John Hillcoat, also known for “The Road” and “The Proposition”, directs the film with fellow Aussie Nick Cave handling the screenplay. Their story is set in the hills of Franklin County, Virginia and follows the Bondurant boys – three brothers who make their living bootlegging moonshine during the Prohibition years. Forrest (Hardy) is the tough, hard-nosed leader of the bunch. Howard (Jason Clarke) works alongside Forrest. Then there’s Jack (LaBeouf) who at one time is described as “the runt of the litter”. The brothers get by alright with their own system of running moonshine, at least until a vicious Special Agent Rakes (Pearce) is sent in to clean up the hills. Rakes immediately clashes with Forrest and before long the hills erupt into violence.

Of the brothers’ stories, its Forrest’s that’s considerably more entertaining even though Jack’s takes up more of the movie. Forrest is a tough-as-nails brute but he also knows how to handle their business. Hardy chews up every scene he’s in with his grunts and mutterings as well as his intimidating stares and low-key dialogue. He’s also not afraid to use brutality with his brass knuckles or razors. But even he is tamed a bit by Maggie (Chastain), a former dancer who moves to the community to escape the troubles of the big city. Boy did she pick the wrong place. I enjoyed the romance that developed between the two. Chastain gives a great performance and she matches Hardy scene for scene and line for line.

The same can’t be said for LaBeouf and his Jack character. As I alluded to, LaBeouf is better than I expected and, to be fair, he’s at times quite good. But he just can’t hold his own especially when alongside Hardy. He is helped by the story which doesn’t build his toughness beyond the bounds of believability. It fact it’s his weakness and desire to prove himself to his brothers that turns out to be the most compelling part of his character. He’s attracted to a local minister’s daughter (Mia Wasikowska) and the two eventually fall for each other. But overall their romance feels inconsequential and adds little to the story. On the other hand, I did enjoy his scenes with his friend Cricket (wonderfully played by Dane DeHaan of “Chronicle” from earlier this year). And he also encounters a powerful mobster named Floyd Banner played by Gary Oldman. Oldman is really good even though he’s given almost nothing to do.

But the biggest delight is Guy Pearce. He’s sensational as the creepy and psychotic special agent who abuses his power and who will stop at nothing to take out those who cross him. Pearce’s high hairline with its accentuated part down the middle, shaved eye brows, and prim and proper wardrobe gives him a distinct eccentric look. But it’s also Pearce’s mannerisms, unhinged chuckles, and the way he carries himself the gives the character a sinister presence. He has some of the film’s best scenes, none better than the tension-filled first meeting between Rakes and Forrest. Pearce is simply fantastic and this is an Oscar worthy supporting performance.

Another huge plus for “Lawless” is the incredible production design. The movie features such a realistic and atmospheric recreation of the hilly, poverty-stricken, 1930’s moonshine territory. Every scene is soaked with period details and the lush, vibrant locations make everything feel authentic. Hillcoat’s unfiltered Franklin County is rusty, dirty, and dangerous. From the opening credits I found myself completely drawn in by the period look. The wardrobes, the automobiles, the rundown shacks – everything contributes to the pitch-perfect aesthetic.

“Lawless” is a tough, bloody, and violent action picture that’s very honest in what it’s trying to be. The story is simple and nothing will catch you by surprise. But it’s also compelling and the characters are easy to invest in. The movie does hit a little lull in the middle and we actually get a skip ahead montage to set up the simply ok ending. But the film still packs plenty of pop and there are some tremendous performances that will stick with you, particularly from Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce who may have given us the best villain in the movies this year. “Lawless” is both poetic and visceral and even though it just misses being a real classic, it’s still a true Southern Gothic treat.