Night of the Wilding

Rating Breakdown: Story - 1.00 :: Direction - 1.00 :: Pacing - 0.75 :: Performances - 1.00 :: Entertainment - 1.00 :::: TOTAL - 4.75/10

There's nothing more frustrating than a movie that has the ingredients for greatness but decides to make soup out of them instead. Night of the Wilding should have been a dark, chilling look at youthful amorality, but instead, it's a disjointed mess that can't decide if it's a courtroom drama, a revenge thriller, or a straight-to-video crime flick. The result? A film that stumbles, fumbles, and never quite lands a punch.

The premise is solid: Three privileged, morally bankrupt teens embark on a crime spree of rape and murder just because they can. Handled correctly, this could have been a terrifying exploration of entitlement, like A Clockwork Orange with a legal subplot. Instead, the script by Joseph Merhi (who also directs) and Charles T. Kanganis is a tangled web of half-baked ideas, and Merhi's direction is as uninspired as a beige wall. The cinematography is flat, the pacing is all over the place, and the central assault scene is cringeworthy in all the wrong ways.

Then there's the cast. Eric Estrada, normally a charismatic presence, seems adrift, playing a supposedly big-time lawyer with the energy of a man waiting in line at the DMV. The so-called "teens" are convincing enough as villains, even if they look old enough to have midlife crises. The saving grace? Kathrin Middleton as Estrada's ex-wife, who at least injects some energy into their shared scenes.

In the end, Night of the Wilding is a film that never finds its identity, never capitalizes on its strong concept, and ultimately wastes its potential. It's not unwatchable, but it's the kind of film you put on when there's truly nothing else available. And that's about as damning a verdict as I can give.

I had the (mis)fortune to watch this in a Hotel in Thailand when I was trying to get to sleep - it has to be the most ridiculous movie ever made - but for that reason alone it is worth watching - I have never laughed so much from a non- comedy in my life! Everything about it is terrible - the acting is hammy and unconvincing, the direction is staid and formulaic. The story is just plain ridiculous - the characters being the most unbelievable bunch of losers in movie history (with some of the worst hair ever!) . If you want to laugh without mercy at one of the worst TVMs ever - this is the one!

"Here we go again", I thought to myself very early in this film, but boy was I wrong. I had known about this one, where I thought, "Why would Joey Travolta do exactly the same kind of movie?", based on a subject that really wasn't memorable, or worth bringing up. Or had this come out before the other Wilding. Wilding is an American term, for dangerously violent behavior by the misdirected youth to cure boredom, and it's frighteningly scary behavior, if seeing the other film. This time, the film shoots from the other end, with the legal side of the crime. Three youths, led by a real nasty piece of work, a tall red haired kid, who kind of creeped me out, I had second thoughts about going to sleep, crash a girl's birthday party, raping her and her friend, while beating the boyfriend with those bats. Prior to this, they had caused some ruckus, at the supermarket, where the birthday girl works, before assailing a customer, beating him to near death. The youths go to trial, defended by a guy (Estrada, quite good here) who's never lost a case, of cause using some underhand, below the belt methods. Estrada, was someone I really wanted to punch here, like others in the film of course. After watching this, I'd turned off by defendants, that pose the question, "Why the hell would you want to be one?" Well just looks where Estrada lives". The woman taking the victim trio's case used to be married to Estrada, where this little stifling, too close for comfort, relationship, isn't nothing new in these courtroom drama's, almost dome to death. I'll be honest, the film became really engaging, where first off the bat, I though to myself, "Oh no". But as I watched, I almost couldn't turn. off. I guess the one disappointing thing here, was seeing the minimal use of Travolta, an underestimated actor, who raises some laughs, playing a slick scuzzy lawyer friend of Estrada's. Yes we have a couple of actors, we've seen in a few of those City Lights films, ala Joseph Mehri, and Richard Pepin, the actress playing the magistrate, a really good thespian. I must say, Estrada held his own, though was a little upstaged by the ex wife, who fared better, giving a very real, effective, and authentic performance, but it was Travolta, who I loved to be honest. NOTW had some shock moments, things I didn't expect to happen, but these moments, mirror other ones in that long line of City Lights flicks. It was great how Estrada, who I really detested here at first, became the hero in the end, and I did like the heroine's heedless plan of attack, to catch these three, minus one arse****s. On the whole NOTW, is quite a good drama, though isn't flawless, with some laughable acting from some, and I mean as in bad = overacting. Some nice nudity, yes, violence inferred, not shown, like in the other Wilding, especially.

This movie is so unbelievably awful that I don't think it is even possible to express it in words. I do not understand why such a piece of crap was ever made, why some studio released it, and why some television station paid for the rights. The movie starts off all right, with a decent story about three guys on trial for rape and assault. One of the victims has a somewhat shady past, so the movie explores the "victim on trial" phenomenon that has been dealt with in so many other movies, and usually done better. But still, it seemed like this movie was going to be passable, even if the acting left a lot to be desired.

I won't give away all the details, in case someone actually wants to suffer through this movie.

What appeared to be a courtroom drama degenerated into some ridiculous, I don't know, slasher flick, almost. It's fine to make the bad guys completely psychopathic and without redeeming features, but this movie fails horribly in making these characters even remotely believable. Forget Silence of the Lambs or even a Leprechaun movie; the Leprechaun movies look like Oscar contenders next to this crap, and the villain, despite its lack of depth, almost seems like a Hannibal Lecter next to this garbage. In addition, the courtroom scenes are poorly done, and often the prosecutor's questioning of witnesses is completely left out, making the defense's cross-examination quite meaningless and without context. The chase scene at the end of the movie is also horribly shot and directed. It is painfully obvious that old Erik Estrada has slowed down a lot since his CHIPS days, as he clearly is running after the bad guy at a significantly slower speed than the bad guy is running; Estrada also climbs over obstacles more awkwardly and less quickly- yet he maintains his distance from the bad guy, never trailing or having to stop to catch his breath, like he obviously had to. If the makers of this film wanted a realistic sprinting chase, then they should have picked an actor who could keep up with a young guy. The car taking flight over the baseball backstop, if that's the right term, was also amazingly implausible.

If ever there was a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie, this is it. This movie is awfulness at its worst (or best). I recommend avoiding this movie like it's the plague.

The story is not great. The acting is not inspiring. The direction is OK but not believable. This movie suffers from what many films can't shake. They needed to fill some time so you let the heroes do very stupid things nobody would really do, just to get to the car wreck or the shooting or the fight.

Watch for Richard Munchkin as the jury foreman at the end of the movie. Richard directed many action movies. I used to do stand up comedy with Richard in Las Vegas in the 1970s.

Speaking of the jury, you will notice that there are two different trials separated by a year or longer in this movie, and yet it is the same jury but they sit in different chairs.

Robert Dickey is the best part of this film. His character has some dimensions and is not just always the same level of hostility. He finds some decency in his portrayal. Robert had teen idol good looks and a great voice.

The car wreck is, as some have noted, just preposterous. It should be exciting, but it just looks silly. Eric is OK. The scenes of downtown L.A. are nicely filmed. Dialog is something a sixth grade student might write for an essay. Each speech is about the same length. Even the courtroom drama is kept at a Barbie Doll mentality.

It is an OK movie that has some nudity and violence, but not anything that will get your heart going.

Tom Willett