The Baytown Outlaws

Directed by Barry Battles. Written by Barry Battles and Griffin Hood. Starring Paul Wesley (Reese), Daniel Cudmore (Lincoln Oodie), Travis Fimmel (McQueen Oodie), Clayne Crawford (Brick Oodie), Andre Braugher (Sheriff Henry Millard)

Bottom line: Baytown Outlaws seems like it tried to be a fun, action packed romp but instead turned out to be a total, painful waste of time and energy. Pass on this movie.
.5/4

Do you remember the last lines of No Country for Old Men or Fargo? In both movies, the lines were essentially the same and were something like “How could people do that? I just don’t understand anymore…” That’s what I thought after watching Baytown Outlaws.

Baytown Outlaws promises ‘a riot of slick and sick Tarantino-style escapism’. Alright, so that means ultra-violent and stylized. But you this is a red flag which I didn’t see until now. If the movie is telling you that this movie is ‘kinda in the same spirit as the great director’ you know something is up. This is such a terrible movie I don’t even think it is ethical to compare it to Tarantino. Now, before I get ahead of myself, let me set the stage a bit. I am not too worried about spoilers with this review; the movie is so stupid it doesn’t matter if you know what is going to happen. 

The movie opens with the three Oodie brothers graphically shooting their way through a house of drug dealers. They realize, when the dust settles, they went to the wrong address. So, yes, this movie is ultraviolent. People die for no particular reason other than getting in the way (that dozen drug dealers were killed by accident, after all). I don’t object to violence but there has to be some substance to it. In Baytown Outlaws, style and violence (and sex) are too disjoint; just combining “deep” music, lens flare and slow motion doesn’t make a striptease sophisticated.

In terms of the protagonists, the movie is trying to keep them in a positive light. That is, even though they are murders, they are killing bad guys. That’s normally all fine and dandy; people (myself included) like those edgy protagonists. However, for me to sympathize with a character, I am going to need a little bit more than “he’s like Robin Hood”. Sure, Robin Hood “robbed from the rich and gave to the poor” but he did a lot more than that: he helped restore a just government, he fought against corruption and he wasn’t drawn to the lifestyle for power or money. When that line is taken out of context, as it is here, a character can supposedly get away with, well, murder. What do these characters do other than kill and sexually harass women? The movie tries to pull some heart-string shenanigans but I’m not buying it. The crux of the movies is outlined by Celeste (Longoria).

She approaches the trio to rescue her godson who was kidnapped by his step-father (her ex-husband), played by Billy Bob Thornton. The introduction of Celeste is just hint of the sexism you can expect from this movie. She approaches McQueen (Fimmel) to ask him to do the job but before she can, he eyes her up and calls ‘dibs’ (that is, he is the one who is going to sleep with her). He says they won’t do the job but she has nice legs. This interaction alone sends men and women back a decade and this is ten minutes in!

The next problem is the use of the boy, Rob (Brodie-Sangster). I have previously I mentioned my beef with the use of children in action movies. More often than not, kids are an easy way of “developing the story”. I mean, you know how this is going to play out; the hardened murders are going to learn the importance of family and brotherhood and responsibility as they protect this kid. But wait, it gets better! Just in case we were hesitant to buy into their new found charitable nature, Rob is mentally challenged. This is an unfair move; now I’ll feel like a jerk if I don’t mildly support the plot.

Billy Bob Thornton plays his role as the crude and mean drug dealer just like all of his other grimy roles. I don’t find his character endearing. But, that isn’t to suggest I find anything in this movie endearing.

I am wondering to what extent Baytown Outlaws is trying to mimic (or pay homage) to The Warriors. We have this primary white male gang and they are assaulted by waves of themes gangs. The first is a gang of female bikers. They are prostitutes who first seduce then kill their targets (“when they are most vulnerable”). Wonderful: another group of hyper-sexualized women. The worst part is that their role in the movie is so minimal. They are around long enough to try and seduce the men then die. It is preposterous to suggest that these women are active or strong female figures. Let me describe the start to their big scene. One of the brothers calls dibs and approaches one of the women. She puts on some music and asks if he wants to dance. ‘Clearly, she meant a lap dance’, thinks the brother. So he pulls out a chair. “No. Not that type of dance,” she says…before she proceeds to treat his body like a stripper pole. It is a painfully frustrating scene.

Now, I am not Native American but I feel like the Native American gang could be somewhat offensive. What do you think this gang’s shtick is? Bows and Arrows and they scalp their victims. I previously mentioned The Warriors, and they did a similar type of setup for the colorful gangs in the city; every gang had cohesive style and attitude. But, here, the “style” of the gangs is simply based on gender or race. It isn’t fun or funny it just feels like an offensive waste of time.

Baytown Outlaws, on occasion, tries to take itself seriously by making little political statements. The one that I most recall is about immigration. The illegal immigrant-nurse is patching up Brick’s gunshot wound and McQueen asks, “Why don’t you just become a citizen? You know, just go fill out the forms…you know English better than most people.” What is worse, the fact that this is the guy wearing a Confederate flag shirt or that English fluency is a requirement? It’s stuff like this that gets me confused about this movie. I mean, is this all a big parody? How much of this is serious? 

In terms of police, we have two characters: Sheriff Millard and Reese, some government agent from Chicago (that is, the north). I feel like Reese, being a skinny white kid not used to the South is supposed to be either a comic relief or something of a meddling villain. Whatever he was supposed to be, I found myself relating to him the most. He is just trying to do his job despite the interference of Millard. I found Millard to be just a bully instead of being funny. More than just a bully, he consistently made me angry; I just wanted to slap the smug smile off his face. I think that if we are supposed to enjoy the harshness of Thornton, then Millard is a lovely addition.  

I do not recommend this movie. At all. Ever. Life is too short to waste time on stuff like this. In terms of food, there are things like Deep Fried Oreos. They are terrible for you but they might be worth trying just for the experience. There are things like McDonald’s which is bad and bad for you but every once in a while, it hits the spot. Then there are things like a bad sandwich from a generic chain restaurant. It isn’t good for you, it isn’t tasty and it isn’t even worth the story of getting it. Baytown Outlaws falls in the last category.