How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

When I saw the trailer for OUTLAW I knew I wanted to see it – Sean Bean is one of my favourite actors and I loved the look of the vigilante plot. But it was one of those films that slipped by until now, when I finally caught up with it on TV one night. I'm glad I didn't get to it sooner.The film is a crushing, no-budget disappointment, nothing like it's made out to be in the trailer. The plot is passable at best, and while it contains some intense, shocking moments (the attack on the barrister's wife is one of the most disturbing I've seen in some time), it never seems to go anywhere, and by the end turns into the usual good guys vs. arch villain type action flick. Some scenes are ludicrous, like the bit with the shoot-out with the police in the wood, and the characters are never likable as they should be. Take Sean Bean's lead for instance – he's a disturbed ex-soldier, yes, but we never learn a thing about his background or what makes him tick. Bean tries hard to make the best of the material, but his talents are wasted here.It's a shame, as the talents of other decent actors – such as Lennie James and Bob Hoskins – are also left unexploited to their full potential. The biggest problem of all lies in the director, Nick Love. For some stupid reason, he adopts a shaky cam in an attempt to give his film edge, but it's distracting at best and nauseating at worst. Paul Greengrass he certainly isn't – and the camera-work alone is enough to ruin what was potentially an interesting film that raises some important questions about crime and justice.

OK there are many reasons you should enjoy this film, they are exactly the same reasons that the film is terrible.We have a number of top British actors, men who have proved, time and again that they are capable of amazing acting.Some have appeared in films such as Snatch, Harry Brown and other British titles while Sean Bean and Bob Hoskins are internationally acclaimed actors that merit respect. You just have to watch Game of thrones or any one of Hoskins' previous films to see this. This film, however, takes these actors and uses them like finger puppets in a D grade attempt at cinema.The script is diabolical, the plot is beyond explanation and the cinematography looks as though an A level student filmed it. How hard is it to keep a camera still? During a court scene? Come on!These poor actors are taken through one god awful scene after another. Danny Dyer isn't know for his acting prowess but even he deserves better than this crap.From a plot point of view it's beyond a joke. Some previous reviews have named films such as Blair Witch as being worse, and I don't disagree but all you need is some knowledge of the different backgrounds of these characters to spot the plot holes.1. A barrister's wife is murdered while he is attempting to convict a known gangster and he believes there would be no reasonable way to prove the two are connected?2. Military personnel are in no way capable of removing firearms from stations as all firearms are coded and counted when returned. What, he would've just walked them out of the airbase in a holdall? 3. A head of security not having criminal background checks before getting the job? Being the only security person in the entire hotel and setting up his own cameras in the rooms which are supposedly hidden but are big enough for Sean Bean's character to throw a shirt over and easily spotted enough to do this?If you want to see these actors in good films or shows watch;Sean Bean; Game of Thrones. Danny Dyer; Football Factory. Lennie James; Snatch. Sean Harris; The Borgias, Brighton Rock, Harry Brown. Rupert friend; The young Victoria. Bob Hoskins; Generally any of his other films or Unleashed is a good British one he did recently. Leave this to burn.

"Outlaw" is a British "Death Wish" revisited for the twenty-first century, with the difference that Michael Winner's film featured one single vigilante, whereas "Outlaw" features a whole gang of them, even though the title is singular rather than plural. All the members of the gang have, in one way or another, been victims of crime or have reason to believe that justice in Britain is not being administered fairly. Led by Danny Bryant, a former soldier, they form their own vigilante army to take on the nation's criminals, and their exploits bring them to the attention of the media, who dub them "The Outlaws". Their main target is Terry Manning, a gangster whose associates were responsible for the death of the wife of one of the group's members."Death Wish", made in 1974 and set in New York, was very much a film of its place and time. The seventies were a period when New York was gaining an unenviable reputation as a lawless, crime-ridden city. (Today the city has lower levels of homicide and violent crime in general than most major American cities). The actions of Charles Bronson's hero Paul Kersey therefore struck a chord with many New Yorkers and other Americans concerned about what they saw as the breakdown of law and order."Outlaw" does not reflect its place and time in the same way. It is set in the United Kingdom of 2007, the year it was made. Bryant claims that contemporary Britain is more violent than Afghanistan or Iraq, both countries in which he has served, and the London we see in this film has effectively been turned into a war zone by criminal gangs. The police are generally portrayed as hopelessly corrupt and in league with the criminals they are supposed to be fighting. (One of the vigilantes, Walter Lewis, is himself a policeman, one of the few honest men on the force, who has turned to vigilantism because he is sickened by his corrupt colleagues allowing notorious villains to go free. His main function is to provide Bryant and the others with information on their targets).The trouble is that few modern Britons, unless they have a particularly morbid fear of crime, would recognise this as an accurate portrait of their country. Although some elements within the media have tried to sensationalise the issue, crime rates have actually been falling in recent years, and although there is undoubtedly police corruption in Britain it is nowhere near as pervasive as depicted here.The film is at places difficult to understand and there are a number of plot-holes; it is never, for example, made clear just why Bryant decides to spare the life of Ian Furlong, one of Manning's most vicious sidekicks, and then hangs Simon Hillier, one of his own gang, for insubordination."Death Wish" certainly had its faults, but it was in some ways a professional, well-made and well-photographed piece of filmmaking. "Outlaw" is very different in its visual style, with a dull, washed-out palette (many of the scenes take place at night or in dim light) and with some very shaky camera-work; presumably the reason was to give it a grim, unattractive look to match its subject-matter. The standard of acting varies; the best on display is from Sean Bean, an actor who can be a very good one if cast in a better film than this one. I was surprised to see another distinguished British actor, Bob Hoskins, cast as Lewis, largely because at 65 he seemed too old to play a serving police officer.My main reason for disliking the film, however, was the stance it took as regards its subject-matter. It might have been better if it had been set in some future dystopia, but writer/director Nick Love went for a contemporary setting. This affects the way we view Bryant and his colleagues. Vigilantism might be justified in a society where law and order has collapsed and ordinary citizens have no other means of self-defence or of obtaining justice against those who wrong them. In a modern Western society, however, vigilantes are little better than gangsters whose activities make them part of the problem of lawlessness, not part of the solution. Love, however, comes perilously close to making his "outlaws" seem like heroes standing up for the Common Man against both the authorities and the villains whom the authorities allow to flourish. 4/10

Recap: A few honest men that feel betrayed by society form a loose group that is out for revenge. Fed information by a disgruntled old police officer that is fed up with corrupt officers that is promoted before him their target becomes those criminals that the has escaped too easy from the law. Their prime target is Manning, a known crime lord. The men is led by an old army ranger, Bryant, but the rest is ordinary men. Dekker and Mardell wants revenge from beatings, Munroe wants revenge after two hit men murdered his pregnant wife, and Hillier is just longing for violence. The brutal ways of the group tear at them and soon they find themselves under attack, both from within, from Manning and from the police.Comments: A decent action movie with a little different set up. It is pretty brutal and honest and doesn't use any typical action movie tricks. There is no extra explosions or glorified violence. Instead it tries to show the ugly truth. So, unlike other action movies, the action scenes is nothing you really enjoy, and I suppose you are not supposed to.What is interesting is that there is really no difference in the criminals hits and Bryant's group's revenge. Both play equally dirty and their violence is equally summarily and brutally distributed. And that may be the movies biggest trouble. As realistic that may be, and even if that might be director Love's intention to show that violence is violence irrespective of the perpetrators intentions, this might be the biggest fault. Because I had big problems to feel any connection or any sympathy for or with any of the characters. I certainly didn't feel for the criminals but couldn't find any reason to feel for or root for the avengers either. There was just two groups that fought it out between them and the one wasn't better than the other.And when there is no real interest in any of the characters there is hard to get that real interest in the movie. I didn't find it anyway. It's a good idea but might have been done better if done differently. Or it is a message that need to be shown in a world that feels like it grows increasingly violent world, but it wasn't that funny to watch.5/10