A serial murderer walks the streets of Manhattan, targeting violent felons who have fallen through the cracks of the judicial system. All the victims are suspected criminals whose bodies are found accompanied by a four-line poem justifying the killing. The killer's mission is to do what the cops and judges have failed to do - take the bad guys off the streets for good. Sounds fine to me. We all know the wheels of justice have a tendency to roll lightly over crime at times. Vigilante justice in movies rules!

With a combined 60 years on the force, detectives Turk (Robert De Niro) and Rooster (Al Pacino) are called in to investigate. With few clues to follow, their search soon takes an unexpected (well, not to savvy viewers) turn as John Leguizamo, Mark Wahlberg's brother, and Carla Gugino all get involved and the investigation becomes an internal one. Could the person they're looking for actually be one of their own? Can the story maintain your interest much beyond the 20-minute mark once you figure out what's going on? A wasted opportunity ensues.

Are you in the mood to see screen legends Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in the same movie? Well, good news! Heat is available on DVD. However, if the pairing of these two has you excited about Righteous Kill then I'd recommend tempering those expectations right about *looks at watch* now.

The film's main problem is that it assumes viewers have never seen a movie before. At least not one within the crime genre. How else do you explain the fact that it trots out every cop cliché in the book and incorporates a "twist" that you'll see coming shortly after the opening credits? Seriously, there's no way you can be surprised by the climax. Sure, you might be more clever than the actual screenwriter and miss out on a couple of details, but the film's setup really only allows for two ways this can end, and unfortunately it takes the easiest route. Although the other way would have only been slightly less predictable.

The film also fails in regard to the fact that it fancies itself a thriller, but, well, it forgets to provide any suspense! We see flashbacks of the murders and then the cops read the stupid poems after the fact. There's no cat-and-mouse, no trail of clues, no sense of peril. It feels like a bunch of random scenes thrown together without much to say. There's very little cohesion which leads to a plethora of tedium.

I watched much of the movie with my head resting delicately on The Movie Babe's gloriously sweet shoulder, wishing I could be an irresponsible reviewer and just drift off to dream land. Once I knew what was going to happen, I had no compelling reason to keep watching since little else was offered that could be considered entertaining. At one point I did try to keep up with which was most frequent - my yawns, De Niro's "f" bombs, or Pacino's gum-smacking. But that too quickly grew tiresome.

To further add to my aggravation, the film stubbornly refuses to divvy up a satisfying ending. I love my friend Rusty's idea: "A much more appropriate ending - given the parasites *AHEM* was removing from society - would have been that *AHEM* was given the Key to the City and a $1 million bonus package for saving the taxpayers court costs and jail-housing expenses." Preach it, Brer Rusty!

A few days prior to the screening, I mentioned the film's advanced negative buzz to Mr. Shade. He attempted to remain positive by pointing out that the screenplay was written by the same guy who wrote Inside Man. I warn you that such misplaced hope is akin to looking forward to A Sound of Thunder because it was based on a Ray Bradbury short story. Heed my words, dear reader, and don't be a victim of such optimistic naïveté. Let this be a lesson that previous good work or strong source material do not necessarily guarantee future success.

It's hard to say how everybody could have missed the mark by such a wide margin. The tools were there: a screenwriter with a good first script under his belt, two Oscar winners, and a genre that fits them perfectly. I certainly expected something much more intelligent and not nearly as generalized. And sure, De Niro and Pacino work well together, but you won't get good mileage out of that when you don't have much with which to work.

My best guess is that everybody was so shocked that both De Niro AND Pacino read the script and still agreed to do the film that they were distracted thus causing them to work like deer caught in the headlights. It's either that or severe incompetence, so I'm trying to cut 'em some slack.

• Al Pacino went through 148 packs of gum during filming.



• Filming briefly halted after De Niro made his signature furrowed-brow-downturned-mouth look and his face froze that way for approximately three minutes.



• Shockingly, Pacino has at least one scene where he's forced to raise his voice in an over-the-top fashion.



• Attention fans of The Young Riders! Don't get too excited at seeing Melissa Leo's name in the cast list. Unfortunately, she's in the film for less than five minutes.



• Al Pacino was in The Devil's Advocate with Charlize Theron who was in In the Valley of Elah with Josh Brolin who was in Hollow Man with Kevin Bacon.

Rated R for violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and brief drug use, Righteous Kill ain't easy on the ears. There's one G-d**n, and a TON of "f" bombs, including one De Niro tirade that must have contained about one per second. There's no nudity, but Gugino is a girl who likes things kind of rough, and we see brief snippets of this involving her and De Niro. Keep mama and the kids far away, and if you prefer not to hear harsh language then save your money.

The trailers and TV spots I've seen made this look pretty suspenseful. I warn you - it's all clever editing.

My recommendation? Save it for a "well there's nothing else at Blockbuster" rental, or DVR it once it's been edited for TV. That way you can become intimately acquainted with your good friend the fast forward button.