A Noite Selvagem

My review was written in June 1990 after watching the movie on MCEG/Virgin Video cassette.

This topical video presents an interesting examination of the issues of random youth violence , but it cops out with an inconclusive ending. Title and theme should attract interest.

Story line mentions explicitly the famous Central park incident in New York (currnely in the courts) last year in which a jogger was raped and beaten, allegedly by a group of youngsters. In "Night of the Wilding", two sisters in L. A. are rpaed by a young trio of rich kids who get fabulously successful mob lawyer Erik Estrada to defend them.

Film becomes a war of wills between Estrada, who's in the midst of a crisis of conscience because he constantly defends guilty clients, and the prosecutor, lovely Kathrin Lautner. To make the B picture overly melodramatic, Lautner is Estrada's ex-wife and she's won every case she's worked on.

Prolific action helmer Joseph Merhi takes a more subdued approach this time out, covering many details of court procedure and maneuverings effectively. Payoff is unfortunatgely unconvincing as the ringleade of the young thugs, Isaac Allan, kills his comatriot and tires to muder his rape victims and even the d.a., ending predictably in his demise at Estrada's hands.

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 must confess that I did rate this movie as a 1 for being "awful", but "awful" in a good, humorous kind of way. What makes this movie somewhat odd is the fact that it is supposedly based on a true story, on a real life Night of the Wilding. But clearly this film does not do the original tragedy any justice whatsoever. Erik Estrada is the only semi-big name in the movie which was obviously why he was cast for the lead role... all too often cheap and pointless movies like these are made as vehicles for the furtherance of a B-star's career. Yeah, annoying characters, pointless nudity (you've got to love those 2 minute scenes which feature a woman in a shower which have nothing to do with the plot), combined with a ridiculous stunt featuring an out of control car which somehow does a flip on the dugout and twists in the air, finally landing on the infield itself (I actually rewound that scene and watched it 5 times in a row because of it's downright absurdity). I probably wouldn't recommend this film to anyone except for a die-hard CHIPS fan or a fan of awesomely bad movies.

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