Outlaws and Angels

If you are oblivious of the heritage of westerns as a genre, then many aspects of this movie may not be relevant. If you try to avoid real issues around domestic violence and "Christian" role models molesting their daughters, then you will find this movie confrontational. That said, the plot is well-crafted, the acting is excellent and the themes that the movie deals with, while unpalatable to some, are very real in our communities, and always have been - just not talked about openly. Family secrets, closets of skeletons. This story is about a young woman who sees a chance to escape from her less than ideal family life, and exploits the opportunity. Yes, the movie does have a few weak points, but they do not detract from the strengths of the cast and direction. Scenes of violence are reproductions of the classic Peckinpah style, and remain in context of a thread of dark humour running through the movie that surfaces most frequently in the development of the outlaws' personalities. I rate it 10 not as a perfect movie, but one that is well crafted and holds a mirror to the false morality of families who mask their abusive relationships with a veneer of respectability. If you give credence to those who rated it less than 3, you should see more classic westerns (sixties to eighties), research rates of incest and domestic violence, and read "Tess of the D'urbervilles" - not a western, but a classic of social mores and what a woman can do to escape social judgment. As a comparison, Francesca Eastwood made a better western than her brother Scott. She has truly earned her Eastwood stripes.

This production nailed a few things. One, is the self-awareness that IT KNOWS that it's gone off the deep end. Every dust particle, dry shrub, and wooden panel amounts to a resounding portrait of this film's disdain of the west. The film is obsessive but subtle in its metaphorical foreshadowing and the groundwork laid out manages to prepare the audience for the 2-hour torture chamber. The other are the unforgettable performances and chemistry (or intended lack of it). What these characters do to each other, and what they go through, transform into, is spiritually connected to the worst of the human nature we can relate to. That's really the movie magic here. I wanted to see more of these characters, but I can assure you the meat the audience will chew off are the juicy performances of depraved humanity. There seems to be some sort of insatiable demand for this type of thing... And now, the bad. The blood effects are cheesy, some scenes are far too excruciating to sit through, the stereotypes feel more redneck-ish and not pioneer- ish, and the final result is a pointless exercise. I can tell the writers struggled with a satisfying ending to their half-baked escapade into nihilism. The film could have very easily been set in the post-apocalypse. Those types of films intend to "hollow you out", westerns are supposed to "grind you down". Ask yourself, how many apocalyptic-themed films you've seen with unsatisfying ending, and how many westerns you've seen with satisfying endings? Challenge yourself to watch this film, and tell me if that distinction ISN'T clear to you. This film reflects the losing battle the western has with Hollywood and the contempt it projects onto 19th century conservatism. This film reminded me that having characters sound like hillbillies and setting it in the desert, is not enough for it to be considered "a western". Outlaws and Angels doesn't spend enough time appreciating what made westerns special, and maybe not enough time appreciating what keeps the world together.

Full of SPOILERS!! Just another bad "rape and revenge" move with the classical characters, the ugly, the dumb and the sexy bad boy leader. The bad boy who has no second thoughts about killing anyone man that gets in his way, but wont harm any women. No surprises here (except that the sheriff goes posse with his finest shirt on and there are female stretch pants in the late 1800). The bad boy (who always are weak to a female touch) runs in good girl who tames bad boy and and shows that even a out beauty can hide awful cruelness. Has revenge on her wrongdoers with a bloody touch. And as in every r&r move there is a "counter rape", excessive blood splatter on revenging victim, dick shot. Utterly predicting boring. Bad scrip, bad music, bad move.

As an aging Western fan, just consider me a lone sentinel standing watch against this current spate of other movie genres masquerading as Westerns. THIS MOVIE IS NOT A WESTERN. This movie contains a purely pornographic plot and script, even if the visuals might somehow escape an XXX-rating . . . its R-rating makes a joke of the MPAA film rating system. It is almost impossible to find a shred of redeeming value in this movie . . . perhaps it was the oddity of finding the beautiful daughter of Clint Eastwood, Francesca Eastwood, appearing on screen with her mother in a cameo role, Frances Fisher – "Unforgiven" (1992). Well, the dialog was so mumbled, so garbled, so poorly delivered and edited that much of it was unintelligible . . . and that is a good thing. This movie works diligently to destroy everything we Americans regard as sacred, e.g., parenthood, Christianity, family, home, and childhood. Retribution? There is none. Director J. T. Mollner's first full-length movie, and maybe his last?

I absolutely loved this movie. Initially I wasn't so sure about it because the way it's filmed at first glance makes it look low budget but as it progresses it's apparent that they were attempting to make it look older like a classic western. The movie is funny, thrilling, shocking, gritty, and gory, all things I love. The script and acting were brilliant. I loved most all of the characters even the ones you are supposed to hate just because they were so well portrayed. The scenery is really beautiful as well. This movie reminds me of the old westerns I used to watch with my dad but at the same time feels up to date with the advances in acting, plot, and originality. I saw someone else comparing this to The Hateful Eight. I have to completely disagree with them. This is so much better than that movie. The Hateful Eight was highly disappointing: too long and drawn out, mostly boring, and not really funny. This movie is not in any way boring, it is clever, funny, and entertainingly shocking. The two issues I did have with this movie are: 1. Luke Wilson--he sucks as an actor and I was annoyed when they switched to the scenes with him. Luckily he isn't a major player in the picture. 2. While the turn of events at the end did have some entertainment value, part of me feels it would have better had they ended it just before the last bit. It just seemed like maybe they were trying a bit too hard. Plus taking that part out seems to fit more with the traditional ending to a western. But still it's good as is. 8 out of 10. Would have easily given it a 9 without Luke Wilson.

This movie was awful enough to inspire me to do a public service and warn others away. First let me say the acting is decent as are the shots but this movie quickly devolves from exciting to excessively drawn out soft core * with a gore furled orgy of an end except that it's not the end, it just keeps going and going with it's awkward out of place music as it tries to be artsy. I guess it worked based on the surprisingly positive reviews. Don't worry no spoilers if this is your thing, if you like this style of movie then enjoy. The bandits themselves are entertaining at times so at least it had that going for it but the bounty hunters trailing them will undoubtedly leave you wondering what the hell happened on the journey.

The acting was bad The storyline was bad The subplots were bad The setting was the only thing even close to being western-esque Has to be the last time I let the name Eastwood, not relating to Clint, influence me to see a movie. Scott Eastwood seems to have SOME skill, albeit mediocre initially, but you can see the spark. HOWEVER after seeing Francesca Eastwood's acting in Heroes reborn, I blamed it on the script and directing....until I saw this horrid tripe. No, she is not in even her brother's range of skill. The only thing she has down is that "Deer in the headlights" look...and nothing else. I foresee a LOT of bad horror/Sci-fi in her future. The BIGGEST disappointment in this flick was Ben Browder. I mean he is one of those guys that has that specific way of talking, looking and reacting that can carry a bad scene up a level or 3...not this time. I am unsure if he is just tired of acting, disliked the director or was drunk the entire time, but he actually drug the movie down Wilson!!!!!!!!! Yah, his bit parts were done as badly as can be. The catchy phrases they had him toss out MAY have resembled period specific jargon, but they were idiotic in delivery. I mean, Wilson makes me laugh. That snort snicker of his, sideways smile with the curled lip, THAT is his segue into a scene. In this flick he was just a monotoned, quip quoting character who's skill, it appears, was to carry every scene with no emotion of feeling if I have not made it clear enough, I EXPECTED A LOT better from this movie and barring some bad writing, expected at least 1 or 2 actors to carry a bad script into the realm of bearable I was sorely mistaken.

We love westerns, but lately the low-budget filmmakers have substituted brutality, cruelty and depravity for the previous heroism and brotherhood we've enjoyed for decades. May I tell you about this one>? (Spoilers!) While robbing a small bank, the robbers unknowingly murdered a teenage girl. After hightailing it out of town they meet an elderly couple they previously know. They shoot the man in the head, then as the woman runs away, they shoot her in the back, twice. (Sweet!) This was so they wouldn't "talk" although if they'd have talked they had no information to give the sheriff anyway. From there they invade the home of a very poor preacher and his family. Make no mistake, the filmmakers really "get off" on the humiliation of these people, which anyone liking this film will appreciate. Here you'll see feminism 2016 western style: the rape of a 15 year old as her parents hopelessly watch. (Charming!) From there we have a teenage girl shooting her kid sister in the head. (delightful!) The promised unusual sex scenes include man-on-man rape as well as finger-rape (possibly a screen breakthrough worthy of an Oscar!). At about this point, we left the depravity to others. I noted that the movie had 14 Executive Producers (seriously). They must have emptied the nuthouse. I kept wishing Marshal Dillon would come along and shoot the whole bunch; along with those who rated this movie with high marks.

After reading the negative reviews here I nearly didn't watch this epic film. I am very pleased I did as I liked everything about this classic. Cinematography was beautiful, stylistic and creative. Dialogue was like a western homage but subtle. Sets and costume flawless. Lighting was a standout. Loved the evening scene with the chooks. The script has humour, romance, suspense, characters with depth and the themes and subtext work all the way to the end on many levels. Some of the scenes are confronting and there is gore. If you like Tarantino then this is sure to please. However I don't think comparisons are fair as this gem stands on it's own and works in more subtle and richer ways. A rewarding watch.

I'm constantly baffled how quality actors end up in horrible movies? How does Luke Wilson, Terri Polo, and Chad Michael Murray end up is such an utterly unwatchable movie??? The acting by the supporting actors is dreadful, you can almost see the pain on the "real," actors faces. The script is deplorable, and the pace of the movie shows no glimmer of hope for escape. I felt like I had been watching this for hours, checked and it was only 22 minutes in. Watch paint dry. . . you'll have a better time.