Avis des utilisateurs

Deuces Wild has gotten a lot of unfavourable comments by viewers and critics. I didn't think it was such a bad movie, especially considering the budget the producers and director had to work with. With the limited funds to make this film, the scenes were filmed with very few takes - giving it a 'play' feel.

The story reminds me of "The Outsiders" and "West Side Story" - which I found to be one of the down sides of the movie, but I still liked it overall.

Stephen Dorff gives a great performance as Leon, the Deuces leader. Supporting actor Mr. Renfro did not impress me however. A couple of the actors from "The Sopranos" play supporting roles. Drea De Matteo looks awesome in this film.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

Don't you hate it when you're standing in the videostore and you already saw all movies that there ? Those are the moments that you rent movies like Deuces Wild...these kind of titles are never high on your list but you take them anyway because the synopsis doesn't sound too bad and you know the washed up actors in it from their earlier - more glorious - roles.

The stories of these movies are never highly original. We've all seen it before. The only thing movies like this can do is provide the story with a few interesting twists, cool characters and some good looking settings and locations. And, I'm not being too harsh today, Deuces Wild succeeds in doing so. The story takes place in the 1950's. After he lost his brother to an overdose of Heroïne, Leon ( Stephen Dorff ) founds the "Deuces". A steetgang that tries to keep the Brooklyn neighborhood clean. Opposite to this, is the Viper streetgang. Their leader is about to get released from jail and he ( Norman Reedus from Boondock Saints ) wants to take revenge because he thinks Leon framed him. It looks like a war between both gangs can't be avoided even though the true king of the Brooklyn streets, Fritzy ( a small but great role by Matt Dillon ) , strongly warned them not to fight.

Deuces Wild contains a lot of decent actors who never really reached the highest status. You've got the ones I already mentioned, but also known names like Fairuza Balk, Brad Renfro and Deborah Harry. The cast also includes a few upcoming names like James Franco and the annoying ( in my opinion, of course ) Frankie Muniz. They also deliver pretty decent acting jobs but the show gets stolen by the nice and good 50's settings. We're talking old-timers, juke-boxes and lots of hairgel. You're never touched by the story or the characters and that's the biggest disadvantage of this movie. You don't really care who wins or who loses. You never feel involved in the story, but you don't mind watching it. If you ever come across it on TV or at your local videostore...give it a go. It stands for an hour and a half of fun.

This movie was basically just a good guy vs. bad guy movie. Its one of the best that I've seen since the "Outsiders"! Its definatley a movie that should be seen on the big screen! The acting was awesome, and the writers did an excellent job on the script. There are really no upsets in this movie, and no sex or nudity. This is just a good movie that i reccomend!

The trailers to this movie looked good. Maybe they should have released the trailer as the feature.

It seems that a rite of passage for all young, white, male actors is to play an Italian or Irish street tough from Brooklyn (or Jersey or Boston or Philadelphia or Chicago, or Detroit). Any large industrial city where the actors can get away with putting on a stereotypical accent.

But that's not all that bothers me about this movie. There are the tired, clichéd lines like: "...and the streets of Brooklyn where red with blood" and "If I see you talkin' to him again, you're out in the street. You and your old lady."

Fairuza Balk is the only interesting actor in this film. She has some clichéd lines just like the others, but she also has most of the movie's original ones. I especially liked "...and before that, I crawled out from between my mother's legs. Got any more questions?"

Brad Renfro is a decent actor, but he should stick to what he does best. The misplaced, naive and/or clueless kid like he was in "Ghost World" and "Telling Lies in America."

Steven Dorff is not a good actor, period. In this movie, he comes across as a wannabe actor high school jock trying to play Stanley Kowalski. But at least it wasn't as bad as his portrayal of Candy Darling in "I Shot Andy Warhol". There he came across as a frat boy in drag for the homecoming talent show.

Frankie Muniz is cute, but that's all.

Matt Dillon is tired as his typecast role of the tough guy. He should do the opposite of Brad Renfro and go back to taking risks like he did in "Something About Mary."

I have a fondess for urban, period drama. But the script has to be orginal and the casting should be based on more than just looks.

"In the sweltering summer of 1958, the Deuces, a gang of Brooklyn toughs, find their turf threatened when the leader of a rival gang, the Vipers, is released from prison. Leon (Stephen Dorff), the Deuces' leader, tries to guide his boys through bloody brawls to keep the Vipers out. But when his brother (Brad Renfro) falls into a sultry - and dangerous - relationship with Annie (Fairuza Balk), the sister of a Viper, and his own girlfriend is brutally attacked, Leon and his gang are plunged into an all-out war to save his brother, his girl - and his neighborhood!" according to the DVD sleeve description. This is definitely no "Basketball Diaries".

Think of it as "West Side Story" getting hit over the head with baseball bats and steel pipes, stickball having left Brooklyn with the Dodgers. "Deuces Wild" has some cool Hollywood sets, 1950s cars and soundtrack songs; and, much of it is nicely photographed by John A. Alonzo. The story and direction never get beyond these strengths, which enables the film to peak during its opening minutes, and proceed downhill. The cast looks good when you read the credits, but translates into an ageing, flabby mess of phony pompadours, blood, and Brylcreem… and one fright wig. A sense of sadness and regret permeates the production.

*** Deuces Wild (5/3/02) Scott Kalvert ~ Stephen Dorff, Brad Renfro, Fairuza Balk, Frankie Muniz

Hmmm... a tremendously talented young cast, tried and true subject matter and Martin Scorcese producing. A sure thing, right?

Nope. Not even close. Before seeing Deuces Wild, I'd read all the mediocre and bad reviews on here but decided to give it a shot anyway, because I've been pleasantly surprised in the past. But not this time.

The film is weak in every possible way, except perhaps for the setting and art direction. The story is nothing but one cliché after another, with zero originality and very little to hold your interest. The director managed the clever feat of getting horrible performances from excellent actors, although the writers deserve some credit for that also, as the script seems to have been written by a middle school class that was locked in a room with a DVD of West Side Story and a crate of doo-wop albums as their only reference material.

I honestly couldn't even get halfway through it. I have no idea how Scorcese could have attached his name to this project, even as a producer. Did he even read the script?

It's just a really unfortunate movie. If you're an absolute die-hard '50s addict, I suppose you'll find something entertaining in there, but other than that, steer clear. Not worth your time.

Ok, it's a rumble movie. It's like LORDS OF FLATBUSH with half the soul. It's WEST SIDE STORY without the song and dance. It's THE OUTSIDERS without the literary writing.

Sure, it's got a boatload of talented young faces, some already established, most semi-established when this released. But the script? Ugh. It's juvenile, simplistic, one-dimensional, mindlessly violent (though not graphic); something lifted from a 1960 "JD" message flick, but with better production values, including color.

I gave it a six out of pity and because I like Stephen Dorff, but it deserves a five. And Brad Renfro? How did so many filmmakers see potential in HIM before he died not long after this?

Bottomline: this is not an awful movie. It's not painful to watch. But it's a youth film that belongs in the 80s, not in 2003. And it doesn't deserve the actors it cast. From the list of actors, I'd guess this was a hot property when it was getting assembled, but subsequently, the writers and director let half the air out of its balloon and repackaged GREASE. Oh, and Norman Reedus? A disheartening case of one-note-johnny overacting in this particular effort.

I gotta suspect that the director let the cast down with mediocre, uninspired directions to the actors.

It was awful plain and simple. What was their message? Where was the movie going with this? It has all the ingredients of a sub-B grade movie. From plotless storyline the bad acting to the cheesey slow-mo cinematography. I'd sooner watch a movie I've already seen like Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, even Grease. There are NO likeable characters. In the end you just want everyone to die already. Save 2 hours of your life and skip this one.

Obviously some of these people who saw this movie didn't think too highly of it. Well if you take into account that this is a movie set in the 50s...and we are watching it 50+ years later then you should probably take into account that the whole good guys vs. bad guys "routine" was all they had going on back then. Some of the so called clichés that were in the movie are only clichés to us in the here and now. It was written authentically for the time period. The actors in the film did a hell of a job in showing the passion and conviction of their characters. The writing was in fact a little underdeveloped but the overall story really pulled through.

Deuces forever.

I'm a fan of both Stephen and Brad. But was not impressed with this offering. Brad is getting fat in his "old" age. Stephen never seems to change. The story starts out with a touch of West Side Story (aka Romeo and Juliet), but dribbles off into perdictables. The parts were definitely over emoted through out making it difficult to enjoy. Every body got to swagger to demonstrate the egotism of the character. The language and a couple of bare breasted scenes gave it the R rating, but added nothing to the over all significance of the movie. I gave it a 4.

This movie had a lot of truth behind it,if you grew up in the streets of Brooklyn such as myself and not in the state of Alabama like the user mister person in this website you can understand this movie. I don't know if mister person who made that negative comment on the movie even knows what a street gang is living in Alabama, but a lot of people who grew up in or around N.Y.C. know what I mean. I don't want to make any real comments on the movie in case you did't see it as of yet, but this I can say if it's street gang movies that interest you with some truth behind it you should see this movie. A Bronx Tale is also another good one about growing up on the streets in the Bronx,N.Y.

Some very excellent acting and actor chemistry here.

The story, the editing, the slo-mo, directing- not so much.

Occasionally silly- they dump a load of cinder blocks from a building onto a car. It's hard to believe anybody survived that, and yet the car driver isn't all that upset. Of course, this triggers later things like Dorff getting punched and eventual gang warfare. Uh... that was attempted murder. I think the warfare would have started immediately.

This may be the first movie I've considered pretentious. There's so many artistic decisions involved which are extremely subjective and so the term isn't terribly meaningful. With the slo-mo and such, it really seems to consider itself Extremely Significant, while in reality, it's FX and style slathered on material so well trodden, it was all cliched 20 years earlier. Other than the newer production values, this slice of life in Brooklyn offers little that wasn't more thoroughly and deftly covered in The Outsiders.

This is a classic example of bush league film making. The direction is extremely cliche'. The plot is very thin and the character development is , well, cliche'

It has a the feel of a first-year film student.

I liked this movie, it was very unrelenting and dark - The fight scenes are pretty intense especially the last one. A good story about an exploding gang rivalry, there are good performances from Fairuza Balk, Brad Renfro, Drea DeMatteo and others but the two actors from the Blade series really stood out here. I'm talkin' about Stephen Dorff(Blade, Judgment Night) and Norman Reedus(Blade 2, Boondock Saints), they were great in the rival roles of Leon and Marco, they really brought their hatred for each other to life, good job...

Holy jesus what a crappy movie lol. What was this. The little boys mafia. Damn the acting was cringeworthy. I cannot believe this wasn't listed as a comedy. It was hilarious.

Deuces Wild is a 2002 crime drama that centers around two rival gangs who battle each other after one tries to stop the other from selling drugs on their turf.

Directed by Scott Kalvert and starring Stephen Dorff and Brad Renfro, Deuces Wild is a good movie that for what it lacks in originality it makes up for with its characters and cast. Although it's not as good, it shares a lot of similarities with the 1984 Francis Ford Coppola classic The Outsiders. And even though there's nothing about the film that will really jump out and scream amazing, I was still pretty entertained by the story and performances.

If you've never seen this movie before, I'd recommend checking it out.

I saw a sneak preview of this last night. About 1/2way through the film, my buddy said "this is bad". I agreed, but I had hopes that it would have to get better. It didn't. The late 1950's setting, some vintage cars, and watching Debby Harry dance to XMas music was all this lousy film had to offer. Wasted roles for Vincent Pastore and Johnny Knoxville, too many worthless fight scenes, and a horribly underdeveloped & misused plot made this film a major disappointment in my book. With the loaded cast, this film should have been much better. Save your $...

The Deuces Wild gave me my violence fix. The action scenes with the bats, knives, etc is intense. The story keeps one's attention, and the style is well done. The plot lacks at the ending, I think the mob would track the money down, but I don't want to ruin the ending. Well, any 80's man would love this film. 7/10.

The cliches quickly filled the theatre leaving me no room to sit comfortably, so I left. The war of the two street gangs ( the deuces and the Vipers) begins when the vipers give the deuces youngest brother some bad smack. He dies, the bad guy goes to jail. 3 years later the deuces (led by Dorff) have made it their goal to keep drugs off the block. But now the bad guy's getting out of Jail. And while he's in jail he has to say that he's going to kill the guy who put him in there. Oh my god, really? Because we had absolutely no idea he'd do that.

The movie is filled with on the nose dialogue pointing out things that we already know and are plainly obvious. I didn't care about the characters and nothing mildly interesting happened.

The worst part was the big fight scene where the deuces whip out their knives and chains as we see them slashing the air in slo-mo. Then they rise up over a hill with fog in the background and 80's production music guitar riffs play as they fight the vipers. Both gangs dressed in their leather jackets so we have no idea who's who. I think I vomited in my own mouth. No wait I laughed.

The movie is filled with mostly B actors but they're on the line between A and B,maybe B+ I mean they've done some good flicks, but Matt Dillon should have stayed in his trailer and even Brad Renfro was lame.

I dont know what happens at the end because I left and It's probably some great twist ending, oh wait no, it's probably predictable and cliched.

Oh yeah and Basketball Diaries was 50,000 times better.

A movie that goes along the tradition of Goodfellas(1990) or something like it, alas, in a whole different league.

The whole finished piece ends up almost like a B-movie, there is no doubt that , in some country like Australia most probably , Deuces WIld will never be screened to the cinema. Alright, aside from that , this film still manages to entertain , i mean we have to expect something from the guy who directed the gritty Basketball diaries(1995).

with the usual plot of a rigtheous gang that will stand againts the odds , no doubt cinema geeks have seen this before , i call it a blend of Rumble fish (1984) and the Young and Dangerous series (Hongkong Productions).

Stephen Dorf plays Leon, the righteous gang leader who still cleans the mosaic windows of churches, probably as an act of redemption, Bad kid Brad Renfro plays his younger angry brother, who also acts as the narrator of the story. Somehow Renfro's acting reminds me of his character in Bully(2000) , still grunting around as usual,and looking more and more beefy, this is the tyke who appears in The client(1993), Dorf performance saves himself from being a miscast character, the crew cut really exposes his lack of hair, i guess he is getting old, and damn, he is just too skinny despite the DVD commentary said that he undergoes rigorous weight lifting. Norman Reedus the annoying scuddie from Blade 2 plays Marco Vendetti the villain, well it seems that he have to be supported with a shiv and non-stop utterings of profanity to be a real bad ass, almost a bad job.

Not really a crucial role here, but James Franco as one of the uber deuces looks like a reincarnation of the original Rebel without a cause fella...have to see to be believed.

None of the female characters in here seems to be presented as at least a decent accountable character; One alcoholic mother, one nuts mother, a girlfriend only acts as "the-chick-of -the-badass" played by Madonna look alike Drea De Mateo, and yeah....talking about the most mismatched coupling, A teenage Renfro with close to thirty-ish Fairuza Balk.

SInce the budget seems to be constrained, audience with keen sense of frame could possibly tell that most of the scenes was shot in a backlot set.

In a film like this violence is expected, however oftenly becomes an annoyance as we see packs of Elvis/Dean haired brutes pulverizing each other for five minutes(which is a long time), some of them wield butterfly or flip knifes, amazingly none of them managed to get stabbed. The bone crunching sound effects also add mild bittery aftertaste.

Folks , like i said, this is an alright film , which manages to entertain if you feel violent because somebody ruin your haircut, however an act of purchasing is highly questionable.

2.5 outta 5 stars.

+2.5 for the entertainment value.

-2.5 for all the Balderdash already seen so many times.

Worst pile of drivel to date! Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed of themselves. Not one single element of the movie was anything slightly like an original idea. A first grader telling you a story about nap time is more entertaining.

A movie set back to the 50s time when gangs were pretty big in the country Typical gang movie. this movie has beautiful cars good acting and action.

Wow, I was really disappointed. I wasn't really planning on seeing this movie in the theater, and I wish I stuck to that plan. It really should be a made-for-tv movie. I was kind of excited to see it, as I'm a big fan of Fairuza Balk, but this movie didn't do her justice. Infact I'm a little disappointed with the acting all around. What a horrible cover up of Fairuza Balk's tattoos, it bothered me every time I saw her shoulder.

There was no flow to the movie, it was very hard to get into it. One scene we get angry, hyped up, we want blood, the anticipation rises, just then the director takes us to another scene to show the love between Annie and Bobby. It would have been more enjoyable to follow if it was broken up into three sectional sunday paper comic strip.

There was also little logic behind the characters chosen to play some parts. The gangster leaders were scrawny guys, not very believable. Matt Dillon head of a mobster organization? Come on, give me a break. There was just no intimidation there.

The soundtrack.. wow. I think this is one of the worst musical scores I've ever heard. What awful guitar solos, my god. The sound of my teeth grinding was more pleasing to my friends, I'm sure.

Anyhow, there is one positive comment I'd like to make about the movie. The settings were nicely done. I liked the colours, a good job conveying that time period.