DVD: Righteous Kill

By: Eli Turner Posted: January 11, 2009

Not Actually "Bill & Ted 3", Despite the Title

There is a special place in hell set aside for the worst of the worst, and I like to think that there are seats set aside for people like John Avnet. I can't blame a director who is destroyed by a producer's control (see Babylon A.D.), but John Avnet produced and directed Righteous Kill.

After I watched the movie 88 Minutes, I couldn't help but wonder why Al Pacino, an Oscar-winning actor who is sure to go down in film history as one of the greatest actors in America, would agree to star in such a terrific piece of shit. Sure, it makes him look great by comparison when everyone that sees the movie says about it something along the lines of, "the movie is crap, but Pacino was good." The same can be said for Righteous Kill.

The two lead actors really phone in their performances, and, judging by the hair, Pacino stepped off the 88 Minutes set and walked onto this one, but they are both just that good. Both of them can clearly not be less concerned with their performances, and it still works. So the question remains: why do good actors makes such crap movies?

Surely they read the scripts, right? Or maybe, as I assume (and pray) Nicolas Cage does, they just tell their agents the minimum compensation and then sign what's handed to them. The scripts for neither movie suck as much as the movie does (though that's not to say that the script for 88 Minutes was any good whatsoever). There is some lightly buried potential lying just beneath the veneer of Avnet stink. Still, though, 88 Minutes and Righteous Kill are so bad that it honestly seems like John Avnet won a sweepstakes on a bag of M&M's or something where he gets to direct a movie with Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro and written by the guy who wrote Inside Man. All the pieces except the director are in place to make a decent cop thriller, but then some guy gets behind the camera and shoots it like an episode of "The Starter Wife". The film has about as much style as a gay teenager with autism.

Then again, Avnet sort of directs like one, too.

In all, the movie is mostly bearable. It has some great humor that kept me laughing, but that just added to the confusion. I didn't see the surprise coming at the end, but to be fair, the film constantly leads you in one direction for ninety percent of the running-time so it's more like Saw II where of course you would never guess it because if humans could guess like that then the lottery would lose much of its appeal.

Then the surprise is explained repetitively for all the thick dolts in the audience who didn't get it the first three times it was explained. Endings, or really movies for that matter, like this are made for a certain kind of people who like things that are easy that also make them feel good about themselves. They are people who use online strategy guides for video games and read Spark Notes then pretend to be well-read. They are people who still have trouble with the English language and solid foods. They are people who vote Republican. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

The world would be a far better place if the idiots of the world would either die or just go away somewhere and not bother anyone anymore. Then there would be no demand for films like Righteous Kill and 88 Minutes. Also there would be no need for Us Weekly. As long as I'm at it I'd like a trillion dollars, my own planet, and total knowledge of all existence.

Special Features:

• Audio Commentary
• Making-of featurette
• Behind-the-Scenes footage