Are the "Deuces" a true violent gang, or does MTV just portray them that way? As I sit here struggling to connect my words for this pathetic attempt of a "gang turned Shakespeare's tragedy" film involving the ever buff Stephen Dorff and the slowly decaying Brad Renfro. This is a story, not unlike others that we have seen done better, about violence, drug problems, and falling for the girl that you least expect. It is "Romeo & Juliet", fixed up like "West Side Story", with fights that would no doubtingly see the award ranking at that year's MTV Movie Awards. I cannot say if that is what made this film at times unbearable to watch, or if it is what pulled me into watching it a second time to see what the director had to say about his actions. Either way, I made it through two viewings of "Deuces Wild" and before I hear usurped "gasps" from the peanut gallery, I must say, this is definitely not a film that get better with age.Using whatever leftover table scraps "The Sopranos" wanted to throw, coupled with a storyline recycled from every Hollywood recreation of this genre, "Deuces Wild" begins haphazardly and continues along the trend for the next 96 minutes. Is it brother's vengeance? Is it due to rival gangs making sure that their territory is never advanced by the other? Is is because of money? Is it because of love? I mention these questions again because I believe these random unanswered questions, which lead into a convoluted violent ending, are what hurt the overall picture of "Deuces Wild". From the beginning, we do not know the true motives of our characters. Dorff, the obvious leader, seems more like the lover instead of the fighter, but when it is time to do what is just, he apparently turns into a machine with fists that could take down a passenger train. Renfro, the hard-boiled little brother, doesn't seem like the obvious choice to swoon the possible leader of the all-girl group. His second-grade reading and interpretation of the script, makes him seem more like muscle instead of brains. I believe that if Dorff would have taken control of Renfro's character and vice versa, perhaps a better film would have come from this conclusion, but alas, we were stuck with what was the final product. Balk, who plays Renfro's love interest, is annoying and void of emotion. Her true nature is never revealed, and it is up to us to realize that these two lovers happened to be at the right place at the right time, the action surrounding them is just static.For 96 minutes we were stuck with these characters, so I watched, hoping that perhaps the cinematography would take me to a far away land – perhaps the language would reintroduce me to the genre, or maybe the story would sweep me away. Well, I wanted something to distract me from the characters, but alas, it never happened. The story, as mentioned before, was recycled. The visions seemed like they belonged on stage instead of on screen. After listening to the audio commentary, the director seemed to agree as well since most of the budget couldn't take them to an actual location, but instead a sound stage in LA. The angles seemed short and the people seemed tight in every scene. I am surprised that we didn't seem cameras in every shot. I felt claustrophobic in every scene, even when the gang was fighting. I have to pause and laugh now, because the fight sequences were possibly the lightest element in the film. Does lightening have to spring into the scene just to make those known that the air has grown angry? Lightening and fight sequences, is it the match-up that we have been waiting for all of our cinematic life? In this film, the answered question is: yes.Poor acting, poor cinematography, cheap dialog, why does this film rate so high among film watchers? Some claim that it is the darker side of "West Side Story", which I could argue against. There wasn't a dark undertone to this film at all. The choreography to the fight sequences made me laugh, the themes of which the characters drew themselves upon were simple, never quite the complex characters that we anticipated. There was no logic to this film, just remake followed by recycling, followed up by further cheapened cliché's that can be found in any other film of this genre. This is not "Goodfellas", so let us not try to make the comparison. Did this film accurately depict the era that it attempted to represent? To me, the answer is no. Well, I have officially become to bitter to continue this conversation. I wasn't happy, nor can I suggest this film to anyone with a straight face. Nothing was put together well, the voice of the film seemed amateur at best. Skip it – you will be happier! Grade: ** out of *****

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.

Why they have this movie listed under drama I'll never know. For the first 30 minutes I thought it was pretty funny, then I looked it up in the database only to find that it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. Ruined the rest of the picture.One of the funnest lines was a "kinder-hood" commenting one evening on the Christmas music playing in the background. "Christ, it's gotta be 115 degrees". The next day (presumably still at least 100 degrees) we see him wearing his leather jacket. Great gag! You can see why these kids are so tough, though. Why they have a chip on their shoulder. They come from a tough neighborhood - only one pool to go to. What satire!It is easily twice as good as a comedy as it is a drama. On a scale of 10* I give it a rock solid 1/2* as a comedy.

WARINING: SEMI SPOILERS!This film depicts the violent confrontation between two rival gangs in the late 1950's. One gang, The Deuces, is a group of tough but good hearted guys, lead by Leon, a goodhearted hero who is (Stephen Dorff, in a phenemonal performance) the toughest of the tough but a good guy and his younger, more impressionable brother Bobby (Brad Renfro, former Teen idol of "Tom and Huck" fame). Their rivals are "The Vipers", a gang of vicious, bloodthirsty bad guys. Their leader, Marco(Norman Reedus), a sadistic, villianous killer, has just gotten out of prison thanks to Leon putting him there, so he swears vengeance on Leon. Marco's mission is to put drugs into the neighborhood that the Deuces run, which Leon is dead set against for personal reasons. This all leads to a violent showdown at the very end in which Marco and Leon go toe to toe. Meanwhile, Bobby has fallen in love with a Viper's younger sister. However, unlike his West Side Story counterpart Tony, he has not forgotten where he comes from or where his loyalties lie. This movie is very rough and vicious and it is quite clear that this is not a movie for the ladies. The performances are top notch, however Stephen Dorff pulls off the best performance. Having seen him play the evil Deacon Frost in "Blade", I was eager to see if he could pull of a role as far from Deacon Frost as possible. And he clearly can. He pulls of his part wonderfully, portraying a good guy who stands up for the innocent. He, and the rest of the cast, pull off good performaces. However, the film itself is a little rough at times, so don't bring the ladies along fellas. A pure guy film all the way.3 out of 4 stars. One star goes for Dorff's acting.