User Reviews

I was expecting a bit more from this movie. The conflict in mainland France between the French government and Algerians fighting for independence between the 1940's and the 1960's seems ready made material for a gripping movie.

The film wears its heart on its sleeve. The first scene shows an Algerian farmer being given a few days to vacate his land to allow a French colonist take it over. The farmers three sons are the main protagonists for the rest of the film. One joins the French army, one is arrested in 1945 and imprisoned in France and the third moves to France with their mother in the hope of finding a better life.

We follow the brothers progress as two of them become involved in the independence movement and the third makes his money as a pimp and and nightclub owner.

For some reason, even though the injustices perpetrated by the French government are undoubtedly heinous the movie never convinced me to empathise with the brothers situation. I thought the film dragged a lot as we follow the progress of their differing but intersecting careers through the 1950's and early 1960's.

The movie's climax is a rather traditional shoot out with the police followed by a chase through the Paris metro.

While the movie is technically well made and the acting in general is excellent for me it is a chance missed to make a great movie about this traumatic period in the relationship between France and Algeria.

There's no doubting that this is a well made film with some top acting talent, however there are two elements to the storytelling the let it down massively in my humble opinion.

1. It doesn't seem to know exactly what it's central theme/message is.

Initially the film presents a very unbiased picture of the evils committed by both sides of this particular struggle, and it also shows quite clearly how the actions of the brothers and the FLN movement moved into violent injustice and terrorism when it suited them to do so.

Basically the film starts by presenting a clear warning about the dangers of political ideology, and the fact that using violence and terrorism is never a good or fruitful thing to do, but then this message starts to get lost when, by the end of the film, it almost appears as if all the violent injustice was justified by the outcome of Algerian liberation (the end justifies the means).

I'm not sure the director intended this, it's just the way it can be read by the structuring of the film.

2. It didn't quite know whether it was a character exploration, or an historical exposition

The films starts by establishing the three brothers as the central characters, but then quickly moves into a series of FLN related terrorist activities, and the police response to these, before finishing up focusing briefly on the brothers again at the end.

To me this was a real shame, because I think that what this film never really gave us was any sense of the interior motivations and struggles of the three brothers - and this made them look like little more than mindless thugs willing to kill and maim for their ideology without the usual interior human ethical conflict - basically they come across like psychopaths at times during this film. In fact, in places it even has you rooting for the other side and almost feeling that they were justified in the atrocities they perpetrated in response to the FLN.

As a result of this lack of character exploration after the first 30 minutes or so later scenes of a character-focused nature seem a little bit contrived and out of place, like the scene with the two brothers sitting on the bus listening to American 50's rock and disagreeing about its musical quality - if more focus had been given to the characters themselves earlier on, then this scene would have made a lot more sense, and we would have been far more connected to it as an audience, but instead it just came across as odd, like a very hollow attempt at instilling some sort of sense of normalcy and humanity.

This film is well made, but unfortunately these two storytelling failings take all the gloss of what could have been a 10/10 production.

Viewed at the Festival du Film, Cannes 2010

There's no doubt France's colonial history is a treasure trove for film makers, and the country certainly has some coming to terms to do with its past, but Outside The Law, for all the fuss it raised in Cannes (including a protest by former white residents of Algeria), is, sadly, a missed opportunity.

True, the film does try to cover all the bases, and the French treated the Algerians appallingly, both in Algeria and in France itself. But what comes out is a very anodyne and clichéd soap opera about three brothers who eventually end up taking criminal paths, either within the Algerian terrorist movement or the underworld.

Although great care has been taken with the costumes, sets, props etc. to create a very credible sense of period, Outside The Law is let down by its script which, in striving for balance and neutrality, robs the films of any drama or tension and purses a by-the-numbers narrative. Everything is signposted in advance and duly arrives on time.

Outside The Law is to be applauded as a start in tackling this incredibly complex and still painful subject, but it's not a very good one. The protesters, who most likely had not seen the film, would find nothing to fear here. And they too also have a story that should be told. Whether other film makers pick up the gauntlet remains to be seen, but I suspect box office results for this film will show that this is a market best served by TV documentaries instead.

Caught this tonight its last night seemingly in theaters here...Simply put the film doesn't quite work the way it should. After a seemingly sure footed beginning, the film falls off a cliff offering scene after scene repeating the same thing as characters plot whom to kill and how to kill them in order to advance their agenda. The characters end up as one dimensional stick figures after a handful of scenes in the beginning establishing their take on the Algerian fight for independence, and after a while the film takes on a seemingly more and more outlandish (and at times almost comedic) Ma Barker and her outlaw sons like feel to it...("oh those boys of mine!") as the mother seems to be completely fine with the increasingly violent activities her sons quickly become consumed with. That's not to say the film doesn't have some beautifully filmed sequences tho-- the one at the end definitely packs a punch, but its not enough to save the whole film.

Film didn't start out without interest---as its starting, you witness the difficulties facing the three grown sons of this woman in Algeria--the film is book marked by two real and spectacular bloody events from Algeria's fight for independence used here as the turning points for the three son's awakening to social injustice. After the bloody events of the beginning the film follows the three sons as they're all in different places...one's in jail and experiences a political awakening as a radical Algerian who dreams of taking the fight for freedom back to the streets once he's out, one's in the army and having some problems with the killing that he's doing becoming more and more desensitized, and one moves with his mother to try and start a new life in France and dreams of making money and eventually opening up his own nightclub...eventually the son in jail and the one in the army rejoin their family...and that's where the film's story really kicks into gear as the radical son and the army son join (and really kick-start) the FLA (freedom & liberation of Algeria) organization which from my viewing of the film and nothing else seems to consist of scene after scene of the radical son deciding whom to kill next in the name of his cause. The recruiting of the other two brothers and sticking together as a family to the cause seems to be important at first to the radical brother but quickly breaks with that idea once its established that the son who just wants to make some money has no interest in taking up arms against his new country--least he jeopardize any moneymaking attempts (he got a gig as a boxing promoter--grooming this young up and coming boxer for fame and fortune which figures into the plot later on when it comes about that the now terrorist organization will kill him should he fight in the name of France and not for his true Algerian homeland as he should) Film tries to build some tension from the contrasting beliefs of the two brothers (the third one--the army one after some initial hesitation seems to take to the killing in the name of freedom just fine and thus a once promising character conflict gets pushed to the back burner.) and indeed the fact that the film isn't a complete misfire is attributed to the suspense generated by putting the two brothers in this conflict with one another. One of the most memorable scenes has the radical brother telling the army brother that the time has come to kill their brother in the name of their cause, to which the army brother firmly puts his foot down...a fact that the radical will be thankful for after events unravel in the last half hour of the film. Indeed the climatic sequences where the two of them end up being bound together by their circumstances are not only well staged but so filled with the dramatic tension that was completely lacking in the rest of the film that you wonder why the director didn't cut to the chase with these two brothers sooner leading to what is undeniably a beautifully staged and fully realized all out riot in a train station, but its almost too little too late in terms of interest in the storyline.

The idea of an Algerian Once Upon A Time In America (immigrant brothers starting up their own various criminal enterprises coming into conflict with one another) is a good one. I very much liked the way the director tried to create this whole saga around these still potent real world historical events, but i wish the characters (and the film itself) had more to offer then simply boiling down to brotherly love vs personal political beliefs. The film just doesn't sustain your interest in its plot line for its entire running time...lets just say it could've taken a lesson or two from MESSRINE---that film might of been twice as long, but it held your interest twice as much thru its runtime at the very least.

The standalone sequel to Rachid Bouchareb's 2006 film Days of Glory,Hors-la-loi starts at a time on which the previous movie ended. The Algerian-African soldiers, who fought for France against the Nazi Germany in the previous movie, this time, fight against the imperial France for Algeria's independence. The fact that some actors have acted in both movies create a sense of interconnection, indeed.

Against the backdrop of patriotic struggles of three Algerian brothers, the movie questions both the legacy of modern Western Europe and the hard-line policies of Algerian front of national liberation. From the three brothers, Abdelkader (Sami Bouajila) does a long stint in jail because of his opinions. Messaoud ( Roschdy Zem) goes on serving France as a soldier in the revolt against French rule known as the First Indochina War. He gets impressed by the determined struggle of the local Vietnamese. Saïd (Jamel Debbouze) feels obliged to leave his hometown Setif after the known massacre. He just takes his mom and leaves for France. Though he is not as politically motivated as the other two brothers he always takes his place beside his brothers. Abd-el-Kader, along with the help of Massoud, awakens a new soul of liberation movement in places like Renault workshops and local pubs. Said runs a cabaret and organizes box matches in a place where he started off as a pimp. Using Algerians in false ID and disguise, the liberation movement executes every important French police officer or soldier. The French decide to fight 'terrorism' with its own weapons so they create a secret organization which takes the appearance of a criminal organization and they indulge in 'terrorism' too.

In some ways, Bouchareb's movie reminded me of "La battaglia di Algeri " but Bouchareb should take credits for his guts. He never tries to present the viewer a rosy picture of the revolution. The liberation movement does not recognize love or brotherhood on the grounds that there should be no personal passion and gain. Just because the cause is just, the party takes away every individual value out the lives of its members. That's why Massoud never sees his son grow up properly and Abdelkader threatens to kill his brother if he lets his boxer fight for France. Besides,the movie does not ignore the clash between two separate Algerian nationalist movements, MNA and FLN. Some right-wing French people criticize the movie because of its so called 'anachronisms' and some others call it even 'anti-French' but Bouchareb does not really anathematize the French. In the movie we see communist French activists who actually help the struggle of Algerians. Bouhareb may have forgotten that cinema is, on some levels, a light entertainment. He may not have made the perfect movie which is about conveying the whole truth, but at least he tried to do portray a part of his country's immediate past. Outside the Law is not an anti-French movie but it is surely an anti-colonial movie which deserves critical acclaim.

The second movie of Rachid Bouchareb after "The days of glory", it is like a sequel but not, it focuses on the Algerian struggle to have the independence from France after the WWII, and especially the struggle by the Algerians living in France.

The film making is better then the last one - The days of glory - , with a beautiful music and cinematography, a great performance of the actors which are the same from The days of glory, and amazingly they played the same characters in the two movies: Saïd, Messaoud, Abdelkader. In "The days of glory" they were just friends of the battlefield, in "Outside the Law" they were brothers. In my opinion the use of the same characters by Rachid Bouchareb was very intelligent, it marks the fact that in every one of the Algerian people during the struggle there was Saïd, Messaoud or Abdelkader, those characters are a kind of a factorial of many stories in the struggle of the Algerian people.

Despite the little poor story that did not reflect precisely all the aspects of the struggle by the Algerians living in France, the movie was nominated for an Oscar in the category of Foreign Language Film (83rd academy awards).

It is a nice movie; it shows a historical reality unknown by many persons.

--http://theearthdiary.blogspot.com/

Well, unlike many "historians", I didn't want to talk about this rather controversial picture without seeing it. At the Cannes International Movie Festival, in May, there was a riot because of this feature. Many people claimed that film was not faithful to the real history. Maybe they are damn right. Maybe not. I am not a historian. If I was, maybe I would tear this film in pieces, I probably would wipe it out. But as far as I am not a historian, I won't speak of it any further about real or not real facts that happened or not. Period.

I like this movie so well played by powerful actors. Characters are convincing and some sequences really poignant, heart breaking. This film is not flawless, although. But which one is?

I expected an "oriented" movie, as Rachid Bouchareb did with his prevuious film: INDIGENES, where he told the audience what to think. I hate that. Here, this is different. I was afraid of a good Arabs vs bad French people scheme. And I was actually pleased to see that it was not the case. Every one is grey, no white people, not dark either. Every one fights for his own convictions.

And the audience can have his own opinion.

I recommend it. And that's my own opinion too.