Theatrical Review of Righteous Kill

Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.

---

I can see the pitch meeting for "Righteous Kill" now. "Pacino and De Niro are cops and one of them kills criminals who are let off the hook." And really, that simple logline is exactly what the film is about. De Niro is Turk and Pacino is Rooster, two detectives who have been partners and friends for entirely too long. They find themselves in the middle of a case where both of them are prime suspects. It seems as though generic bad guys who skirt the law in one way or another are being murdered at close range (suggesting a level of trust between the deceased and the killer). Two younger cops (John Leguizamo and Donnie Wahlberg) collaborate on the case…and they think they know whodunit.

There are some actors who scream quality. Marlon Brando (before his epic fall), Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren…these are the ones who don´t accept any role just to work. It feels as though they want to be involved in the most stimulating film possible, no matter the role. Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, as of late, have seen their respective star´s tarnish with outings like "88 Minutes" or "Gigli" (for Pacino) and "City by the Sea" and "Hide and Seek" (for De Niro). Maybe, though, they just enjoy working together so much the project is secondary to their personal feelings. That would explain "Righteous Kill."

Right off the bat, Turk tells us he has killed fourteen people, following by a recounting of the last couple. Storytime takes the majority of the screentime, to be frank, and lacks any truly compelling storyline to bring the viewers in. When a free rapist is killed, who cares? We don´t know the guy. A molesting priest? An easy target. The narrative doesn´t seem to know what to do with itself until the end. A major character (at least by the time "Righteous Kill" comes to a close) disappears for a good hour of screen time, only to reappear when the story demands it. Perez and Riley (Leguizamo and Wahlberg) don´t do much actual police work; instead, they may be two of the luckiest-and worst-cops we´ve seen in a while.

We bounce back and forth between present (in the form of Turk´s video "confession") and the past, where we see the events leading to that video. It´s much ado about nothing, to be frank, with the only reason to watch the events on screen being the actors. Because nothing we´re watching matters in the long run-we supposedly know Turk is confessing-it´s hard to become emotionally involved in the storyline. Neither man has a life we´re privy to; Perez and Riley are just as one dimensional as Turk and Rooster. And the obligatory female detective (Carla Gugino)is hopelessly out of her league, not because of the actress, but because the character is stuck in a movie that doesn´t know which way to go.

Most of the blame has to go to writer Russell Gerwitz ("Inside Man"). His screenplay is focused on the end game, it never stops to smell the roses, figuratively speaking. Why is it whoever is killing these bad men is labeled a murderer and a menace when vigilantes like Batman and other superheroes do basically the same thing and are celebrated? It´s a question the screenplay doesn´t bother with either because it doesn´t think of it or doesn´t much care. That´s the interesting story here, not what we´re given.

And I point to the video structure, which runs throughout the film, as the leading culprit. It´s almost insulting to the audience, if you want to know the truth. Why is Turk telling us (and the investigators) about his killings? It sounds too easy, doesn´t it, for Turk to be the bad guy here, especially when he´s confessing the entire time. So something else is up. Anyone foolish enough to think the bad guy is not one of the main characters is an idiot, to be frank; is it the woman, the man confessing, the other lead cop, the lieutenant or the other younger cops who are thrown into the film for no good reason? Hmm…let´s think…

Somehow, every time I think of "Righteous Kill," I come right back to the ending, not to mention how stupefying obvious the "twist" turns out to be. So much so that, when it actually happens, we´re left with jaws agape not because of what we´re seeing, but because the screenplay is so cavalier and happy with its finale. (For the sake of argument, where exactly do Perez and Riley go after they leave Turk and Rooster alone? Do they not see the video on the camera? And even if the confession is too quick for them to come back for, the gunshots and broken glass don´t give them a clue? Should I even mention the world´s most resilient detective who gets beat up, but is able to run around town…nah, never mind.)

To say the finished product is bad would be wrong. It´s not bad, per se; it´s just not as good as we were all hoping it would be. The only reason to actually see "Righteous Kill" is for the interaction between Pacino and De Niro. They have fun together, like old friends who shoot the shit over a drink or two. There are moments Pacino tries too hard to be carefree-not to mention that hair!-while De Niro is equally hard at work to present a tough guy image to counteract Captain Shakespeare from last year´s "Stardust."

"Righteous Kill" rates a very mediocre 5 out of 10. Somebody needed to take the existing product and send it back through the editing process to remove the video confession scenes and add more sequences showing the two leads engaging in their own lives. And maybe-just maybe-make the other cops a bit quicker on the uptake. There´s no reason for them to look like idiots.

---

Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.

---