Deuces Wild

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!

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 never ceases to amaze me that such crap is put to celluloid over and over again. Deuces Wild is a shining example of such crap. The plot is full of recycled storylines, the script is laughable at best and the directing is confoundingly bad. Why so many tired slo-mo scenes? And do we really need to see another showdown in thunder and lightning? And, despite the fact that this movie is set in the 1950s, the score sounds like it came from an episode of Miami Vice! Unbelievable. Anybody associated with this abomination should do everything in their power to ensure that nobody else sees it and, furthermore, should never speak of their role in the production of the "film"

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.

I had wanted to see DEUCES WILD when it was out at the theatres, because who wouldn't want to see a film about rival gangs in 1950's Brooklyn? But I had to wait for it to come out on DVD and VHS. After viewing it, I was kind of left with mixed emotions. On one hand you've got Stephen Dorff giving an awesome and intense performance looking like a young Bruce Willis (DIE HARD not "Moonlighting"). And you've got an equally impressive role from Brad Renfro, who has come along way since his last role as a New Yorker in SLEEPERS. On top of that you won't be able to take your eyes off Drea de Matteo, who looks even hotter than she does in "The Sopranos". But despite these great points I just couldn't get that bad taste out of my mouth, which was a result of all those damn cliches. Cliched characters, cliched dialogue, cliched plot structure, etc. The film ultimately comes off like a silly cross between THE OUTSIDERS, STREETS OF FIRE (you remember that Greaser movie with Rick Moranis and Wilem Dafoe?), and of course WEST SIDE STORY. I also think there was a small case of miscasting here, I mean with the exception of Matt Dillon and Balthazar Getty what are these guys supposed to be Italian, Irish, what? Anyway the film is only mildly entertaining because of its rather brutal fight scenes. Other than that it just could of been so much better with a couple more rewrites of the script and someone else to play Marco. By the way, I'm really getting sick of these movies that get you all hot and bothered and then fail to deliver the goods.