Laws of Man

Pretty interesting film in general. It's wacky like a Tarrantino flick, just on a much lower budget.

A flavorful assortment of characters and actors to portray them. I certainly wasn't expecting Harvey Keitel to be a roaming hippie/preacher.

I'm so exhausted with remakes, sequels, prequels and Marvel, that this came off as something rather refreshing.

By no means is this film perfect, it has it's problems. The gun fire looked animated and off put recoils or lack of recoil from the actors and rarely were there any shell casings. Though the film does come with a number of shootouts with outlandish characters that seem like they were out of mad max. It was fun.

Probably deserves a 7/10, but I appreciate originality... The few times we see it anymore.

Watched with low expectations but ended up enjoying this. Popcorn movie. You'll get a few laughs and weird twist towards the end I didn't see coming. I was surprised to see Harvey Keitel in the cast which made me take a chance on it in the first place. Where's Keith Carradine been. Solid actor. Why isn't he in more films? No spoilers but you fon't see the ending coming. The filmmakers could have used a higher budget to fill out some of the action though. I still would recommend it as the storyline is original despite the fact that it starts off in familiar noir western territory. Graham Greene I swear plays the same guy in every film he's in, probably because he owns the type of recurring character he made a name for himself in.

"Laws of Man" begins with promise, offering an engaging story, immersive 1960s visuals, and strong performances from Jackson Rathbone and Jacob Keohane. Dusty roads and rundown towns set the tone, but the narrative derails midway with unnecessary scenes and an unsatisfying, inconsistent ending. Characters like Frank and Benjamin Bonney feel believable, but others, like Callie and Armstrong, lack credibility, and Cassidy's role is confusing. While Frank's dialogue fits the setting, Tommy's lines and behavior fail to convince as a U. S. Marshal. Emotional impact fades after a strong start, and the missed opportunity to use music for added immersion further weakens the experience. Ultimately, poor story choices and pacing issues leave little rewatchability or lasting impression.

I think the plot, as thin as it is, is maybe the saving grace for this...hm..."movie".

The acting is very wooden and I would bet money on that the cinematographer is straight out of film school as the cinematography is so childishly simple and tries to use tired tropes - and fails. Yikes.

I lasted about 30-35 mins then the acting and camera got the best of me and I had to turn this thing off.

I'd say stay away from this one.

I think the plot, as thin as it is, is maybe the saving grace for this...hm..."movie".

The acting is very wooden and I would bet money on that the cinematographer is straight out of film school as the cinematography is so childishly simple and tries to use tired tropes - and fails. Yikes.

I lasted about 30-35 mins then the acting and camera got the best of me and I had to turn this thing off.

I'd say stay away from this one.

I love noir westerns, such as No Country for old men and the trailer definitely feels in that vein. I don't know the lead actors, I remember seeing Harvey Keitel in the trailer and that pretty much sold me. This is in no way rivaling the Coen Brothers, make no mistake, which would be stretch for any of the modern filmmakers. I will say that the plot got me going for most of the film. The last part was a bit confusing and I have seen this in other films as well when the writer tries to tie it all together neatly. Nonetheless, the acting is alright as well as the cinematography. I don't understand how other reviewers seem so critical. It's a decent flick and worth to watch.