Are the "Deuces" a true violent gang, or does MTV just portray them that way? As I sit here struggling to connect my words for this pathetic attempt of a "gang turned Shakespeare's tragedy" film involving the ever buff Stephen Dorff and the slowly decaying Brad Renfro. This is a story, not unlike others that we have seen done better, about violence, drug problems, and falling for the girl that you least expect. It is "Romeo & Juliet", fixed up like "West Side Story", with fights that would no doubtingly see the award ranking at that year's MTV Movie Awards. I cannot say if that is what made this film at times unbearable to watch, or if it is what pulled me into watching it a second time to see what the director had to say about his actions. Either way, I made it through two viewings of "Deuces Wild" and before I hear usurped "gasps" from the peanut gallery, I must say, this is definitely not a film that get better with age.
Using whatever leftover table scraps "The Sopranos" wanted to throw, coupled with a storyline recycled from every Hollywood recreation of this genre, "Deuces Wild" begins haphazardly and continues along the trend for the next 96 minutes. Is it brother's vengeance? Is it due to rival gangs making sure that their territory is never advanced by the other? Is is because of money? Is it because of love? I mention these questions again because I believe these random unanswered questions, which lead into a convoluted violent ending, are what hurt the overall picture of "Deuces Wild". From the beginning, we do not know the true motives of our characters. Dorff, the obvious leader, seems more like the lover instead of the fighter, but when it is time to do what is just, he apparently turns into a machine with fists that could take down a passenger train. Renfro, the hard-boiled little brother, doesn't seem like the obvious choice to swoon the possible leader of the all-girl group. His second-grade reading and interpretation of the script, makes him seem more like muscle instead of brains. I believe that if Dorff would have taken control of Renfro's character and vice versa, perhaps a better film would have come from this conclusion, but alas, we were stuck with what was the final product. Balk, who plays Renfro's love interest, is annoying and void of emotion. Her true nature is never revealed, and it is up to us to realize that these two lovers happened to be at the right place at the right time, the action surrounding them is just static.
For 96 minutes we were stuck with these characters, so I watched, hoping that perhaps the cinematography would take me to a far away land perhaps the language would reintroduce me to the genre, or maybe the story would sweep me away. Well, I wanted something to distract me from the characters, but alas, it never happened. The story, as mentioned before, was recycled. The visions seemed like they belonged on stage instead of on screen. After listening to the audio commentary, the director seemed to agree as well since most of the budget couldn't take them to an actual location, but instead a sound stage in LA. The angles seemed short and the people seemed tight in every scene. I am surprised that we didn't seem cameras in every shot. I felt claustrophobic in every scene, even when the gang was fighting. I have to pause and laugh now, because the fight sequences were possibly the lightest element in the film. Does lightening have to spring into the scene just to make those known that the air has grown angry? Lightening and fight sequences, is it the match-up that we have been waiting for all of our cinematic life? In this film, the answered question is: yes.
Poor acting, poor cinematography, cheap dialog, why does this film rate so high among film watchers? Some claim that it is the darker side of "West Side Story", which I could argue against. There wasn't a dark undertone to this film at all. The choreography to the fight sequences made me laugh, the themes of which the characters drew themselves upon were simple, never quite the complex characters that we anticipated. There was no logic to this film, just remake followed by recycling, followed up by further cheapened cliché's that can be found in any other film of this genre. This is not "Goodfellas", so let us not try to make the comparison. Did this film accurately depict the era that it attempted to represent? To me, the answer is no. Well, I have officially become to bitter to continue this conversation. I wasn't happy, nor can I suggest this film to anyone with a straight face. Nothing was put together well, the voice of the film seemed amateur at best. Skip it you will be happier!
Grade: ** out of *****
Using whatever leftover table scraps "The Sopranos" wanted to throw, coupled with a storyline recycled from every Hollywood recreation of this genre, "Deuces Wild" begins haphazardly and continues along the trend for the next 96 minutes. Is it brother's vengeance? Is it due to rival gangs making sure that their territory is never advanced by the other? Is is because of money? Is it because of love? I mention these questions again because I believe these random unanswered questions, which lead into a convoluted violent ending, are what hurt the overall picture of "Deuces Wild". From the beginning, we do not know the true motives of our characters. Dorff, the obvious leader, seems more like the lover instead of the fighter, but when it is time to do what is just, he apparently turns into a machine with fists that could take down a passenger train. Renfro, the hard-boiled little brother, doesn't seem like the obvious choice to swoon the possible leader of the all-girl group. His second-grade reading and interpretation of the script, makes him seem more like muscle instead of brains. I believe that if Dorff would have taken control of Renfro's character and vice versa, perhaps a better film would have come from this conclusion, but alas, we were stuck with what was the final product. Balk, who plays Renfro's love interest, is annoying and void of emotion. Her true nature is never revealed, and it is up to us to realize that these two lovers happened to be at the right place at the right time, the action surrounding them is just static.
For 96 minutes we were stuck with these characters, so I watched, hoping that perhaps the cinematography would take me to a far away land perhaps the language would reintroduce me to the genre, or maybe the story would sweep me away. Well, I wanted something to distract me from the characters, but alas, it never happened. The story, as mentioned before, was recycled. The visions seemed like they belonged on stage instead of on screen. After listening to the audio commentary, the director seemed to agree as well since most of the budget couldn't take them to an actual location, but instead a sound stage in LA. The angles seemed short and the people seemed tight in every scene. I am surprised that we didn't seem cameras in every shot. I felt claustrophobic in every scene, even when the gang was fighting. I have to pause and laugh now, because the fight sequences were possibly the lightest element in the film. Does lightening have to spring into the scene just to make those known that the air has grown angry? Lightening and fight sequences, is it the match-up that we have been waiting for all of our cinematic life? In this film, the answered question is: yes.
Poor acting, poor cinematography, cheap dialog, why does this film rate so high among film watchers? Some claim that it is the darker side of "West Side Story", which I could argue against. There wasn't a dark undertone to this film at all. The choreography to the fight sequences made me laugh, the themes of which the characters drew themselves upon were simple, never quite the complex characters that we anticipated. There was no logic to this film, just remake followed by recycling, followed up by further cheapened cliché's that can be found in any other film of this genre. This is not "Goodfellas", so let us not try to make the comparison. Did this film accurately depict the era that it attempted to represent? To me, the answer is no. Well, I have officially become to bitter to continue this conversation. I wasn't happy, nor can I suggest this film to anyone with a straight face. Nothing was put together well, the voice of the film seemed amateur at best. Skip it you will be happier!
Grade: ** out of *****