Deuces Wild

Only those nostalgic for nostalgia are likely to be very impressed by `Deuces Wild,' a film that seems somehow more attuned to the ‘50's-crazed 1970's – a time when popular culture was embracing backward-looking fare like `American Graffiti' and `Happy Days' – than to the era in which it is actually set. That happens to be Brooklyn in the summer of 1958, when the streets were overrun with denim- and leather-clad hoodlums who smoked cigarettes, drove cool cars, and strutted around looking for fights to protect or extend their seemingly God-given `turf.'

`Deuces Wild' feels like it is about 25 years out of date, especially since it adds nothing new to a well-worn genre that can pinpoint its beginnings as far back as 1961's magnificent `West Side Story.' In fact, this is little more than `West Side Story' sans the music and dancing. Although the Jets and the Sharks have been replaced by the Deuces and the Vipers, we still have all the other elements from that earlier, better film: the challenges, the rumbles, the ineffectual and almost nonexistent parents, even a pair of lovers from opposite gangs caught in the inter-neighborhood warfare. The boys are utterly interchangeable and indistinguishable from one another, the dysfunctional parents beyond belief (one mother is so far gone mentally that she celebrates Christmas all year round and even believes in the existence of Santa Claus), and the action so pretentiously filmed that half of the dramatic scenes come replete with studio-generated thunder and lightning designed to lend tragic `significance' to what is, essentially, pretty silly, garden-variety hooliganism. The closing rumble scene is so confusingly shot and edited that it takes the voiceover narration to straighten out for us who got killed and who didn't.

The cast of mostly youthful actors does its best with shallow, stereotypical roles, but one should at least pity poor Frankie Muniz, that charming young star of TV's `Malcolm in the Middle,' who delivers a surprisingly dorky performance in the extremely sketchy and underwritten part of Scooch, the neighborhood `good kid' whom Leon, the Deuces' leader, takes under his wing. Hopefully, Muniz' film career will get better from here on out.

About the best one can say for `Deuces Wild' is that it is one hell of a good-looking film, thanks to John A. Alonzo's rich cinematography, which enhances the film's fine period décor. A pity that little else about the film merits similar commendation.

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.

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.

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.

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.