Hors la loi

Writer Director Rachid Bouchareb's first view of the Algerian involvement in France's participation in World War II as the extraordinary DAYS OF GLORY from 2006. Now he continues his story of the bravery of the Algerians in OUTSIDE THE LAW (HORS-LA-LOI) using many of the same actors but placed in different roles. This is a fast-paced film that covers a lot of territory and time and gives an insider's view of how the Algerian soldiers and the Algerian people struggled post WW II to gain freedom from French colonization. On many levels the films works well: on the level of character development and audience empathy it stumbles - but doesn't fall.

The film opens in 1925 when a family in Algeria faces the French representative who informs a family that the government is taking their ancestral land and home: Le père (Ahmed Benaissa), La mère (Chafia Boudraa) and their three sons Saïd, Messaoud and Abdelkader. Understandably devastated they pack their scant belongings and leave. Jump to 1945 and the massacre of Setif, an event that forces the family to disperse: La mère with Saïd (Jamel Debbouze) move to a shantytown for Algerian refugees outside Paris and Saïd becomes involved with organized crime in Pigalle to support his mother (he begins as a pimp, then as a Cabaret owner, and moves into more dangerous activities such as fixed boxing matches, etc). Messaoud (Roschdy Zem) has become a soldier with the French army in the fruitless war in Indochina (Vietnam) and observes as the French retreat that external colonization of a country will always fail because of the inherent patriotism of the indigent people. Abdelkader (Sami Bouajila), because of this participation in the resistance during the Setif Massacre, has been imprisoned in France where he gains insight from his fellow Algerians that they must revolt and fight to regain independence for Algeria. Once reunited Abdelkadan becomes the driving force behind the Algerian's FLN movement. He is the local figurehead and brains, while his brother Messaoud acts as the muscle and bodyguard. Brother Said continues his pursuit of money through shady night clubs and as a boxing promoter, but he is never far from his brothers' sides - even if he isn't quite as politically motivated. The film jumps to the 1950s and the early 1960s following the development of the Algerian resistance as it becomes a murderous group, assassinating the French officials and police, engaging in fierce gun battles, all the while under the malicious eye of their nemesis Colonel Faivre (Bernard Blancan). As deaths in the family occur the family dwindles but always with the promise to each other that Algeria will gain its independence, a fact the is revealed through historic film footage from 1962.

The film is a tense reenactment of battles and crime scenes, but there is a problem with the script in detailing the personalities of each of the characters beyond their devotion to Algerian independence. Even a marriage and the birth of a son and the death of the mother fail to substantially affect the three brothers beyond the expected reactions. The actors are all excellent but without the benefit of a script that allows them to offer us unique and meaningful individuals they become tropes. As a viewer remembering the brilliance of Days of Glory this film is strangely uninvolving. There is a sense that Rachid Bouchareb feared condemnation by either the Algerians or the French. Much can be said in favor of that stance: no one is 'right' or 'wrong' in war. But at movie's end we are left oddly outside the emotional aspect of the film that was the key to the success of Days of Glory. In the end this is a very well made and powerful film that answers many questions about the French Algerian conflict few of us understand.

Grady Harp

Well I neither have the expert historical perspective or the expertise on films of other reviewers, but I'm just an ordinary person who went to see this movie.

I loved it because it really shows how people can get sucked into resistance, even if they're very ordinary and not particularly brave, because the other option of not doing anything is so awful. I thought the acting was very convincing and I learnt a lot about that time in Algeria. I spend a lot of time in the south of France so I think this helped me to understand the history of some of the people I know.

Goodness me this site wants me to write 10 lines. No wonder everyone else's reviews are so long. I watched it a long time ago when it first came out and so I don't have a clear memory of details, just the overall impression, and I wanted to share that.

Greetings again from the darkness. I am certainly not qualified to offer an expert opinion as to the historical accuracy of the film, but I can say that it provides a seemingly realistic view of the horrible situation and struggles endured by the Algerians during their fight for independence from France during WWII.

The story is a sequential sequel to director Rachid Bouchareb's film "Paths of Glory" and centers around 3 brothers who are separated during the horrible massacre at Setif. Messaoud (Roschdy Zem who was the best thing about "The Girl from Monaco") goes off to fight as a soldier for France; Said (Jamel Debbouze) takes his mother and moves to Shantytown in France and becomes quite the street hustler; while Abdelkadan (Sami Bouajila) is imprisoned and absorbs all that he sees.

Each of the brothers endures much hardship until circumstances serve to reunite them in Shantytown and the real mission begins. Abdelkadan becomes the driving force behind the Algerian's FLN movement. He is the local figurehead and brains, while his brother Messaoud acts as the muscle and bodyguard. Brother Said continues his pursuit of money through shady night clubs and as a boxing promoter, but he is never far from his brothers' sides - even if he isn't quite as politically motivated.

I found all three brothers interesting in their own right, but the film is just so downbeat as it tells this story, that I just never felt engaged. That's not to say the mission of the Algerian people during these two decade period isn't amazing, because it certainly is. It's just this film doesn't really offer much in the form of telling the story. This one is nominated by the Academy for Best Foreign Film, so obviously many thought better of it than I.

It is tough to show both sides of the same medallion, but the movie tries to do just that. It's true that there is a predictability to it, but the characters portrayed by really good french actors give it their best and the movie is worth watching. It is of course handled as mixture drama/thriller to attract a bigger audience, but that does not have to be a bad thing.

I personally liked the Grey area kind of handling/treatment the story received, but I can see why some felt it wasn't rooting for one side or didn't engage the viewer with more involvement in the story. But the characters all act naturally and upon their instinct(s). Of course some things are convenient and to get more information on the background you might need to do further research (and/or look at the deleted scenes of the movie), but that is true of many "historical" (or "based on") movies!

Set against the increasing demands for Algerian independence at home, three brothers are living in 1950s France. "Saïd" (Jamel Debbouze) is making a decent living running a nightclub but his siblings are much less settled. "Abdelkader" (Sami Bouajila) is a member of a proscribed organisation using terrorist tactics to free their homeland, and he is determined to recruit former soldier "Messaoud" (Roschdy Zem) and "Saïd" to the cause. The latter isn't really interested, but with the police closing in on the family and his nightclub shut down, he now has some tough decisions to make. There's something of the terrorist being another man's freedom fighter adage to this story and it's essentially asking the question of an audience. What wouldn't we do for freedom? The brothers have fled Algeria to escape the purported brutality of their oppressive colonialists, but now in France they are visiting a similar threatening behaviour on innocents there. Two wrongs make a right? Were the police there to protect or to impose? All questions asked but sadly not really very well addressed. The acting is weak, the characters seriously undercooked and the writing (historically based or not) struggles to sell us these three men one way or the other. This had a chance to enhance the standard documentary look of a depiction of the justice and causes of revolution but instead it rather leaves it to us, and any knowledge of events we may have, to reach our own conclusions. Disappointing, I'd say.