Righteous Kill
|
List Price: Our Price: $1.80 You Save: $8.18 (82%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Righteous Kill
Movie Review: Violates a cardinal rule--somewhat like "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari."
Summary: 4 Stars
De Niro and Pacino don't disappoint as a pair of hardened, slightly "off-kilter" cops with DeNiro, in particular, appearing to be a head case, a character whose interest in police work, it's strongly implied, is directly traceable to a strong, explosive, sado-masochistic strain in his relation not just to the bad guys but to authority and women. The problem with the film is the length to which it goes ("whatever it takes") to hook the viewer and keep him snapping at the bait.
All films are manipulative, but problems arise when the manipulation is totally contrary to the viewer's expectations and trust. It's one thing to see a sci-fi space fantasy in 3-D (in which case, I say "make me a passenger on your psychedelic roller coaster--sweep me into some other world or orbit"), but it's quite another to confront what is represented as a "realistic" police drama, purporting, moreover, to take us into the psyches of the main characters. In this latter case, we as viewers have no choice but to invest our trust in the director and his devices--above all in the accuracy of the fictive world along with the boundaries and signposts that have been established as standards of judgment, enabling the viewer to make sense of the characters and the "reality" they function in. Unfortunately, in the case of "Righteous Kill" that trust is totally violated.
When a film opens with a character giving a testimony, as if under oath, then that same character necessarily comes to serve as our sole reference for the reliability, or "verisimilitude," of the world of the film. He becomes our eyes, our standard of reference, our "point of view" in place of the objective camera lens. If at the end of the film, that character suddenly tells us that he's lied to us from the first frame, we may not exactly have cause to ask for a refund (all great fiction amounts to a "lie that tells the truth"), but we do have a right to feel, if not betrayed, a trifled disappointed and irritated. Imagine Jane Austen saving the last sentence of "Pride and Prejudice" for a statement such as: "By the way, everything I've just written about Elizabeth Bennett in the foregoing 300 pages is a complete lie. She's a horrible person who can be expected to behave toward Darcy as Lady Macbeth did to Macbeth."
Manipulation is one thing (Wayne Booth, a former teacher of mine, calls it the "rhetoric of fiction"), but outright deception feels less like influencing or even tricking the witness (i.e. you and me) than plain and simple "cheating." In a good movie (Hitchcock is always a reliable example) the director and the viewer are engaged in a game, or even a contest, the spectator getting many of his kicks from trying to stay a step ahead of the director. It can be fun, even exhilarating, entertainment--you win a few, you lose a few. But say the director--for example, Billy Wilder at the end of "Double Indemnity"--suddenly reveals that everything you've heard from Fred MacMurray is the exact opposite of the story you "thought" you had just heard. That's not mere "manipulation": that's substituting another movie for the one you've just seen! (Reminds me of Humphrey Bogart and the "African Queen" making a brief appearance in the desert in Bing Crosby-Bob Hope's "Road to Bali." But in that instance, our expectations have been conditioned to accept such absurdities. In the case of "Righteous Kill," I wasn't adequately prepared to expect the same sorts of absurdities. You might even say that the "righteous" one is the director, who self-servingly abuses his authority (or "author"-ship) in what amounts to a regrettable "breach of trust" from the viewer's point of view.
Why 4 stars? Frankly, I'm not sure (you're free to go much lower, or even higher). The film did hold my interest, and it had me guessing throughout, with some juicy Hitchcock-worthy red herrings (until the very end, when I felt like I'd been watching the wrong movie). Moreover, Deniro and Pacino are great actors individually and collectively, and both are on their game; both "age well" and, if the script deserves some blame, it should not be at the expense of the actors. Finally, I would rather be lied to by an otherwise intelligent movie than patronized and insulted. Too many movies are formulaic commodities designed, with Pavolian, formulaic, marketplace certainty, to empty the consumer's wallet. "Righteous Kill" never stoops that low.
Finally, one of the respected, "classic" films of all time--hated by the Marxist director Eisenstein but practically serving as the prototype of German psychoanalytic cinema--is "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari." It pulls much the same trick as "Righteous Kill," waiting until the film's final moment to reveal that the film's narrator, in whom we as spectators have necessarily placed our trust, is in fact a mad man in an insane asylum. What's the difference? Is there a difference? For one thing, whereas Caligari gives us an apparently sane narrator who proves a lunatic, "Righteous Kill" gives us an apparently semi-pathological narrator who, ultimately, proves an "all right" kind of guy.
Perhaps the main difference is that "Caligari" has a message about an insane, paranoid, totalitarian world: it's use of the deceptive narrator is integral with, if not crucial to, that message. The film seems to want us to recognize the wolf in sheep's clothing or, in this instance, the pending Hitler who at first seems so seductively rational. "Righteous Kill," on the other hand, has no such message--or, if one insists, the film says no more than "guys who seem sinister, tough or plain nasty can turn out O.K. if you wait until the end of the movie." Similar, perhaps, to "Caligari" but not quite the same--and not quite enough.
Movie Review: "The badge is nice . . . as long as it comes with a gun."
Summary: 4 Stars
Before I saw this thriller, I kept hearing many mixed reviews about it. From James Berardinelli to [...], most found it very average. I finally got a chance to watch this Righteous Kill, but with very moderate expectations. After the film was over, I found myself liking it. Not loving it, but liking it. It wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible, either. It was . . . between average and above average.
I think I'll start with the bad. I'm not a fan of Curtis Jackson (50 Cent), so I knew right away that his acting was wooden and dull. He doesn't even say most of his lines right; it sounds a bit like gibberish to me. Now, if Christopher Bridges (LUDA!) played Jackson's part, then it would have been far more engaging. Also, throughout the film, there are numerous cliches that we've all seen before (good cop bad cop, for example). If there was even a hint of originality, I would have given it a higher rating. The third flaw we have here is the plot twist. We already know that Turk (played by De Niro) is not the killer, so the major twist at the end wasn't shocking enough. Then, we have the script, which isn't really Grade A material. Some of the dialogue was pretty cheesy, and some scenes felt very uneven. And lastly, the sex scenes . . . they were very out-of-place and very unnecessary.
Now, here's the good. First we have De Niro and Pacino. I mean, DE NIRO & PACINO! In the classic film Heat, they were only onscreen together for about ten minutes. Here, these two guys share the screen almost throughout the movie. And although, as I mentioned before, the script is pretty average, De Niro and Pacino deliver their lines very well. The supporting cast (Dennehy, Wahlberg, Gugino, and Leguizamo) do a very fine job as well. Finally, there are a bit of references to Heat that can be found here, and while they are a bit too obvious, they're mildly decent at best.
Again, this is a thriller that's not great and not horrible. I give it a B- because, even though there were some crappy moments, it's still fun to watch Pacino and De Niro interact with each other. Jon Avnet is a good director, but he could have given a lot of things here some improvement. I hope he gets to make far more sophisticated films in the future.
Movie Review: Old Cops Disenchanted with the Law
Summary: 4 Stars
The trail of good cop/bad cop films grows longer as does the fascination with Serial Killers (witness the success of the excellent television series DEXTER where killing of 'people who deserve to die' is condoned). RIGHTEOUS KILL is a good story with problems: the script is wrinkled with aphorisms, the direction allows the dialogue to overlap so often that subtitles are required to keep the viewer alert as to what is happening, and the music score too often drowns out what could be heard of the actors' voices. But at the core of this much-maligned film is a tour de force for two aging actors (actually three) in Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Brian Dennehy. Jon Avnet works with crusty lighting effects and photography to create a sense of tired, aging, worn out detectives who show us a side of law enforcement we'd rather not see.
Turk (Robert De Niro) is seen in the opening in a videotaped monologue about how he came to kill 14 people while in the line of duty. His partner is Rooster (Al Pacino) and the two of them run their mode of law enforcement in their own style: even their boss Lieutenant Higgis (Brian Dennehy) gives them free reign. An event occurs which triggers the concept of a serial killer whose murders of 'worthless street trash' victims who are tied to crimes for which they escape punishment. Turk's fellow detective (an S&M girlfriend) Karen (Carla Gugino) becomes suspicious as do young detectives Perez (Leguizamo) and Riley (Donnie Wahlberg) - the idea of the perpetrator being a cop drives the 'honest cops' to extremes. The twist at the ending could have had more impact with a better script (the work of Russell Gewirtz), but the interplay between De Niro and Pacino makes the entire film and ending well worth watching.
Great movie? No, but given the flaws and the overexposure of the theme the 'old guys' carry it off and provide a riveting, fast paced film worth the attention of more viewers. Grady Harp, January 09
Movie Review: Forgettable Film, Superb Perfomances
Summary: 4 Stars
Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, what could be better? Well, a good story for one. Playing two detectives , 30 years on the job, fighting for justice and the American way, life becomes mundane. The criminals, the real ones are freed on one technicality or the other. After awhile, it begins to wear on the soul. The precinct is shabby, the job becomes more dangerous and life as they know it goes on. Then one day, someone starts killing the bad guys. 14 murders after a number of years and they all point to a cop.
De Niro plays Det Turk who confesses to the killing of all 14 people. He is being filmed while confessing and the story unfolds. The justice system has come undone. The killing of a child and the killer walking away set his vigilante justice in motion. As the film progresses, other detectives become suspicious and the evidence all points to Turk. Could he be the perpetrator? They set out to find out and set him up. These two detectives, best friends and partners for thirty years, know each other well. We see them continuously working out, so we know they are big strong macho men. All perfect marksmen at the firing range. But, as we know all is not what it seems in life, and the walls come tumbling down.
This flim starts out slowly, and I lost my interest but perservered. Only the performances of these two great actors kept me in line. Their chemistry doesn't match for colleagues who have known each other for thirty years. Something went wrong here, but it is a passable film. Just not the film DeNiro and Pacino should be in.
Recommended. prisrob 02-21-09
Mean Streets (Special Edition)
Cruising (Deluxe Edition)
Movie Review: Above Average Thriller
Summary: 4 Stars
Two veteran cops, Turk and Rooster (Robert De Niro, Al Pacino) work to solve a string of murders in which the victims are criminals that they have previously arrested and have been acquitted of their crimes. Something's seems a bit fishy, at least that's what two younger cops, Detectives Riley and Perez (Donnie Wahlberg, John Leguizamo) start to think. Furthermore, they suspect it's a cop. Anyway you splice it, the decorated members of the NYPD are looking for a killer. One who leaves a bit of poetry at every scene and happens to murder the filth of society that has slipped through the cracks of the judicial system.
"Righteous Kill" is only a slightly above average thriller given the big name talent. De Niro and Pacino both put forth great performances; De Niro as the hot headed, do whatever it takes to get a conviction cop and Pacino as a much calmer, honest detective. It seems a bit cliché, the whole good cop bad cop, but nonetheless it worked well and the duo's performances were very well balanced to convey not just an occupational partnership, but also a friendship. While the film will leave the audience thinking they know all the answers within the first twenty minutes, the plot does take some interesting turns.
It's great to see the two legendary actors are still performing. "Righteous Kill" is not completely predictable nor is it unwatchable. Give it a try.