Reviews

This would have been a somewhat decent movie, including the often criticized dance sequence, if only it did not whitewash the reality of the kidnapping in favor of the kidnappers. I understand the issues plaguing Israeli-Palestinian relations have often been misrepresented in favor of Israel in pop culture but that does not justify the fact that the movie is not merely inaccurate; it lies. It completely bypasses the fact that people were killed until the movie is nearly over; it fails to illustrate how people were really treated. The Palestinians are caricatures; Amin is a comic figure, not someone who ordered the murder of a woman in retaliation for the rescue operation; the Germans are treated with a lot of compassion, portrayed more as victims themselves rather than the perpetrators.

Showing shades of gray is fine; omitting facts of a historical event in an obvious attempt to misdirect blame is not. That's propaganda tactics.

If you're looking for a better take on this event, try the 1977 Raid on Entebbe. It's not perfect but it deals with the topic in a more reasonable way.

The movie itself is actually not halfway bad. The problem is that, from the moment it starts till the moment it finishes, it is a ripoff the the 1995 Pacino-DeNiro cops-and-robbers thriller Heat.

The changes are cosmetic. Butler does not only channel Pacino in his portrayal, he copies him down to minute details. The same applies to a good portion of the other characters, the tone and setting of the movie, the actual dialogue. It's a level of replication that cannot be ascribed to homage; it's laziness at its worst.

Instead of doling out a summary and overall analysis, I'd like to point out one thing that seems to be getting little attention in reviews, in general. I saw some nitpicking over the veracity of the story, e.g. Bruce had most likely planned the assassination of Comyn - even if legend says he might have botched the killing and someone else had to finish Comyn off - and Bruce might have gotten help from the bishop as early as planning the assassination; the subsequent move north was planned ahead of time and not a spur of the moment decision; the coronation did not happen in one night, Bruce got crowned a second time to make the coronation appear more legitimate; Elisabeth did not spend time in a cage, Bruce's sister and ally did, while Marjorie had a cage built for her but never made use of it; Elisabeth did return, in a prisoner exchange ten years after her capture; Bruce was shorter and stouter than Pine; Edward II did not participate in the "final" battle (of the movie, anyway) and was generally misrepresented; etc. And while Outlaw King may not always be true (I don't dispute most of the objections, a lot of them are backed by research), it is surprisingly true to life in many respects, something that's quite unique in movies.

For me, the costumes were a pleasant surprise. Braveheart went the bareass naked, kilted way and it was wrong on both counts by a few centuries. The 1996 The Bruce movie (which is annoying as all get-out) went a strange, vaguely 1980s toga meets Elizabethan fashion way (including big hair). Outlaw King is very on-point in its fashion choices, beautifully medieval and simple. Even the battle gear part of costume design is generally spot on.

Lighting. Oh my goodness - have you noticed all the fires and candles? The movie feels dark because it often is, and that's a good thing. No brightly lit halls, no really obvious spotlighting. In the 14th century, dark interiors were all the rage and the movie makes great use of the fact, just playing with small doses of light to make a point. You don't believe me, rewatch the church scene between Comyn and Bruce. Of course it's spotlighted, but look at the way light is used in that scene. It's brilliant. It's even used to make Pine look less pretty.

Scotland feels poorer. Everything about the Scots is cheaper, less elaborate, less moneyed (I love Og's chain mail, all holey and torn). Clothing, mail, weapons, vehicles, and much else are all simpler, and they should be. Scots may have had the English beaten in grit and spirit, but not in funds. Scotland of the time was more rural, there was in fact less money. And even the wealth of the English is displayed with more modesty than is typical for movies. I may have mentioned this before, but this world is a lot more medieval than we've come to expect of historical TV and film.

There are a few more, but I've already made this list long enough, so I'll finish with the most obvious one. Fighting. Typically, medieval fights tend to run spectacular, all horses and spears and shining metal. No one ever gets tired, no one ever falters, everything is pretty and choreographed and sanitized. Not in the Outlaw King. Most of the fighting is brutal and chaotic and you're often left wondering how everyone knew not to kill their own because they all look almost identical. The only really for-show action happens for a few seconds in the battle of Methven (the nighttime raid on Bruce's camp by Valence). Fictitious or real, the rest of the fighting is very close to what it really would have been like.

Sometimes history has to give way to a good story but Outlaw King does really well with keeping the movie true to life if not always historically accurate.

It's a pretty movie - handsome actors, appealing scenery, fun music. Of course, it has the easy-to-follow story, a little unrealistic and made to please, that usually goes with pretty movies. And as such, it's a good one. Forget the fact that quite a few of the actors are actually not Roma, the minor inaccuracies, and the hugely failed cgi sequence which is kinda laughable and you'd do well to fast-forward through it. For what it is, it's a pleasant movie to watch.

The low rating can be attributed to three things - some of the material is a little grating for audiences in the countries which produced the movie; the cgi is really bad; and most reviewers from the basic target audiences tend to be extremely snobbish when it comes to movies, denigrating anything that does not aspire to be "high culture". Rapos's movies often fail to meet that standard, but when you take them for what they are, they are thoroughly entertaining and definitely not deserving of such low numbers.

Worth watching. You could waste your time in lot worse ways.