Lawless proves beyond much doubt that Shia LaBeouf can act with the big boys. In a movie with actors like Gary Oldman, Guy Pearce and Tom Hardy LaBeouf doesn't actually steal the film but he does fit right in. He still might need a serious film or two that features him to prove beyond ANY doubt but it is probably a better idea to jump into a film like Lawless. Good work Shia LaBeouf's agent (whoever you are).

Lawless is a film with a pedigree that goes beyond just the actors. The film was written by Nick Cave and directed by John Hillcoat, a writer director team that also brought us The Proposition in 2005. On his how Hillcoat also directed The Road (yet another film where Viggo Mortensen inexplicably didn't win an Oscar). The Proposition is a great film. It is harsh and hopeless with a feeling of doom and grittiness from beginning to end. It is also largely flawless in it's production.

Lawless is less like that. It has some warts.

You are not entirely sure how the film is going to shake out when you first settle into your seat. The film doesn't even really define precisely who some of the characters are--and there is no need to. The sketches  it does make of them through their actions let you know all you need to. Oldman's Floyd Banner is the most obvious example of this but it doesn't stop with him (also note Oldman fans, he is NOT in this movie much).

The film looks great and we understand what is going on right away. It is prohibition time and people are making booze to make ends meet (it is also the end of the Great Depression which is barely alluded to in the film). Gangsters from outside come in to take over. And we all know what happens when carpet baggers come to the South right?

The nefarious character, the one we actually become acquainted with, is Pearce's Charlie Rakes. Pearce can play hero, villain, an accountant or pretty much anything he puts his mind to. His character here is a dandified sociopath come to make sure the hicks do things right. A lot of his scenes in the film are close to too far over the top--scenery chewing
at its best but still scenery chewing!

But not all of them.

Early in the film there is a brief exchange with the local sheriff where, at length, the sheriff says "I don't much like you." To this Rakes replies, "There are not many who do" and then nibbles on a cookie like a giant rodent. It is a brief scene where Pearce brings something else to the role than sneering and simpering. Don't take this wrong--the sneering and simpering does work for the character and Pearce delivers it all with an effortlessness that doesn't take you out of the movie.

It just also begs for more of the insight Pearce gives in that one, brief, scene.

Tom Hardy's Forrest Bondurant often communicates with mumbles and just a look (often to his brother Howard, played by Jason Clarke). His demeanor makes it a little tough to see how his love interest falls for him but had the film spent much more time on that? It would have dragged.


And while the film never drags it is also not an action packed gangster film as you might think from the trailer. This is
not The Untouchables. It is fairly slow moving with bursts of violence, it has much more of a real feeling than with the
run of the mill 40s style gangster film.

LaBeouf's character, Jack, is a contrast to his brothers. He is more gregarious, wants more out of life and seems to
idolize a gangster. He wants the flashy cars and nice clothes his brothers are indifferent to. He is also not as tough as
they are or as violent--at least not to start. LaBeouf's best scenes are those involving his love-interest, Bertha, played
by Mia Wasikowska. They have a chemistry that never really appears for Hardy and Jessica Chastain.

One problem with the movie, without giving anything away, is its editing. Not the technical part of it but the passage of
time. For example a character gets a punch in the nose early in the film. Then another character gets a serious ass
whupping. In several subsequent scenes we see the second character heal but then, at the end of the film, presumably some time later, we see the "nose punch" character still bandaged. Do stars heal faster than actors with fewer lines?

The film, in general, has a sort of choppiness when it comes to time. It doesn't destroy the movie but it is noticeable
and awkward. If people walk out puzzled that there seemed to be something wrong with Lawless but they couldn't put their finger on it? This "choppiness" might be it. It makes you wonder what is on the cutting room floor and if there might be more to the film than made it to the multiplex.

This film wouldn't have been harmed with 20 minutes more but rather enhanced. The film doesn't leave you wanting less but more.

Nonetheless, based on the actors and the look of the film alone, this is a movie that is way above most of what lands in the theaters in late summer. It also does something only good films do; it makes you think about it after you see it.
You may pull out little flaws or little gems or both but the very fact it sticks in your consciousness tells you there is
something better than average in Lawless—and that is a combination of the writing, direction, cinematography and acting.

It isn’t one thing. It is never just one thing that takes a film to the next level.

The Possession is not a groundbreaking film. It does not redefine horror or suspense films. It doesn't even redefine
"possession films" but it does, what it does, fairly well.  The acting is all far above the normal horror fare in that
they hired professionals like Kyra Sedgewick and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (if you get the urge to go see Expendables 2 instead rent the film Morgan starred in a few years back, The Losers, which does NOT suck). Both actors can walk through all this and lend, not an air of gravitas, but a sort of "real world feel." They seem like normal people--which is hard to do as an actor. It is likely much easier to play a cartoon.

In addition The Possession sets up the scariness and doesn't let itself get bogged down in real world problems-- like the relationship between Morgan and Sedgewick. This isn't Kramer Vs. Kramer. So many horror films dwell on the
failing relationship of parents. In "possession" films that always happens. Demons just do NOT bring a family together. A filmmaker, however, should resist the urge to spend much time on it.

We know he is a basketball coach. We know his wife and he are divorced and we know his kids, especially the youngest, are unhappy about it. That is all we need to know!

Cue entrance of supernatural "thing." In many movies it is a house. Hell, it can be a haunted vhs tape. Whatever a demon
can squirm inside! In this case it is a box with Hebrew writing on the sides.We know the box is bad. We see it behaving
in a bad way in the first scene of the film. Trust me, it is a mean, mean box.

We also know the box is going to totally go after the younger daughter, Natasha Calis, who looks like Anna Paquin, and gives off a creepy vibe even before her possessed make-up is applied. She can act. Which is something you don't always find in horror film kid actors. Although recently this has changed a bit.

So where does this movie go wrong?

It isn't particularly scary. It does manage a great deal of creepiness but that is sort of intermittent. The scenes where
the possessed or the box act up are more "scare" scenes and they mostly do not work. This isn't because the scenes are badly done; they are fine. But we have seen bugs. We have seen the person alone with the "cursed object" meet a grisly end. Think about it for awhile screenwriters and give us some new way a demon can do people in!

More irksome is that The Possession follows a typical horror film pattern that neatly sets up a sequel (with all new,
presumably lower-tier talent). In other words it isn't just an end in itself but gives the feel there was some bean
counter somewhere thinking; if this makes cash we need to make another one! Of course, you can ALWAYS make another one even if you let this movie end.

But for most of the film you do not need to think of this. Morgan's "likeableness" and the fact the film is well-paced will keep the horror buff at least vaguely interested. While the film is entertaining--not always something you can count on in a horror film (can you say; "Chernobyl Diaries?")--it will not leave you wanting to see it again. There isn't much you will miss in the first viewing.

Great horror movies always require multiple viewings.