I am a huge mafia fanatic and if you are really into the story f Richard Kuklinski and Roy Demeo then you won't be satisfied with this. Hollwood couldn't even live up to the documentaries about these men. Also it was written terribly.
shareYou might have missed this was a movie. Not a documentary. And the script was far from terrible.
share[deleted]
Not horrible, but so much missing. The screenplay wasn't bad but it was disappointingly pared down to the maximum. I was mildly entertained but having read both books, I wanted to see much, much more depicted on screen.
share
They could have developed the character of Kuklinski a bit more. They should have had showed him beat down the guy in the pool room out of paranoid anger, not the calculated throat cut in the parking lot. The movie felt way rushed to me. It should have been more of a character study. It wasn't horrible, but missed the target.
I am reading one of the books now and interesting to see how much of Kuklinski's life was a lie. http://allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/09/15/cracks-in-the-iceman-richard- kuklinski-serial-killer-and-real-life-mafia-hit-man/
I think the film tried to clean uo the Iceman and make himmore sympathetic than he was.
//I think the film tried to clean uo the Iceman and make himmore sympathetic than he was.//
This. While it was an entertaining piece of fiction, it didn't come close to portraying Kuklinski as the cold-blooded killer he really was. I sympathize for the horrendous childhood through which he suffered...and even that was barely touched upon...but I was very uncomfortable with the effort put forth in the movie to try and create sympathy for the monster that he had become.
________________________________
You have my word as an inveterate cheat.
Yeah, the film didn't depict any of the murders Kuklinksi said he committed purely because he enjoyed the hunt - innocent people who he'd kill even just to test and perfect a new weapon. There definitely seemed to be an effort to make him more sympathetic.
share"Pared down to the maximum"? Really?
shareBoring? Nuh-uh.....Michael Shannon doesn't have it in him to be boring. Commands the screen in every film he's in, even the not-so-great ones.
sharei hate whn people say...this was not as god as the book... Guess what?...IT NEVER IS. its a MOVIE. i enjoyed it, anything that keeps my interest for 2+ hrs is GOOD.
PS..i just watched Only God forgives....now THAT was trash.
I thought the film was really good. Michael Shannon is an excellent actor but I have only seen him play a variation of one character. Serious, moody, psychotic, troubled, complicated, even just plain mental, define it however you like but look at Boardwalk Empire, Bug, Take Shelter, Man of Steel...all great work which complement his abilities but can you recommend a movie where he does something else ?
shareHe should make a movie where he plays Mr. Rogers just to shatter this image.
shareha ha ha! I was actually just saying that I will NEVER not be freaked out by Michael Shannon until he can convincingly play someone NOT a psychopathic. Yes, he does "crazy and murderous" very well, but c'mon-- stretch a bit...
You could tell 80% or more of the actors working today to "stretch a little bit". The majority of them play one character over and over again - and quite often they don't even play that one character well. Michael Shannon is a fantastic actor and he should continue doing what he does. Thanks for playing though!
shareThe ingredient that this film missed was the Scorsese touch.
shareNoooooo, Scorsese is just too much of a good thing, they need to savor his talent for the rest of Boardwalk Empire (in terms of gangster movie/shows), not to mention it's actually HAD Michael Shannon since the beginning, which just makes the show all the more better. After Breaking Bad ends, it'll be THE best drama on television.
shareI thought this was a great film. I have not read into Kuklinski's life story, but the consensus seems to be that he fabricated often. So, if that's the case, how do we know what's true and what's not? Also, you can't put every murder he did in the film, you need to move the story forward, create character arcs. Adding more senseless murder scenes would only slow the film down. Michael Shannon was great, and Stephen Dorff had a nice cameo. Schimmer looked a little out of place, but whatever, he'll always be Ross, not his fault. I think the movie showed Kuklinski as a ruthless killer but he loves his family, you can be both a family man and a murderer, I mean just look at Dexter. His scene where he loses his temper and flips out in front of his face shows how hard it is for him pretending to be something he's not. Did you want to watch a movie about him just beating his wife? You have to have some empathy with the lead, otherwise the movie just doesn't work. That's why a movie like The Devil's Rejects doesn't work. You can't root for anyone. The killers are all scumbag pieces of sh*t and the cops are a$$holes, too. Natural Born Killers, on the other hand, makes it work by showing the passion and love between the murderous couple. It makes it okay to watch them kill people because we see something in them we understand. That's how movies work.
Oh and Boardwalk Empire is pretty good, but Game of Thrones may just have it beat. Steve Buscemi just does not play a likeable leading man. The character Richard is the highlight of the show.
"Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time."
Awful awful awful.
Where is the video taping of victims in the caves? Where are the joyriders in Georgia? Or the fact that his whole family HATED him. The Carmine Gallante murder? The fact that he worked for the Decavalcante family in NJ for something like 15 years. Where is Joey Testa, and Anthony Senter?
Done correctly this movie should have been 3 hours long. If you're going to do for christ sakes do it right.
agreed. if you know nothing about Richard Kuklinski, read any of the books, seen any of his documentaries.... THEN the movie is believable. the movie was missing a lot & often felt rushed. if you take it for what it is.. it's good. & the actor did an amazing job portraying Richard Kuklinski.
I'm an alcoholic, not a barbie doll.
[deleted]
A bio movie is a failure when it fails to accurately portray its main character. Richard was a fascinating individual and a very complex, troubled and confused man who could be very much a Dr Jeckyl/Mr Hyde personality. The movie failed to capture any of the things that made him interesting and instead produced made a run of the mill gangster film that we have seen literally hundreds of times. Regardless of how true or false his stories were the movie would've been a lot more interesting, unique and intense and compelling viewing experience. The fictionalised retellings of things such as Richard's killing of the man on the street to prove himself pale in comparison to the story he told. It's like the director/producers intentionally set out to water down the story and follow formulas instead of attempting to create a film that's true to the book/interviews.
Sorry to say, but the script along with most of the acting was largely forgettable and B grade at best. Which matched the B grade directing and cinematography. The movie is rife with plot problems and sideplots that go nowhere and are ultimately pointless and kinda irrelevant to the story as a whole. So yes I am inclined to agree, the movie had the potential to be great, but the end result was a piece of cinematic garbage that I regret watching.
And turn it into a 2 hr 45 min self-indulgent jerkoff session with Leo DiCaprio as the lead? No thanks.
shareThe only good in this movie was Michael Shannon. The story and direction sucked cock. They basically watched the interviews and changed things to make it lame. Grow some balls and tell the story. The Iceman getting choked by someone and he doesnt kill him? LOL, yeah, ok. Or how about Chris Evans as Mr Softy? Jesus.
shareHmmm...I think you're the one who sucks cock... Yeah, yeah you do.
shareI can see there were flaws but the writing and the performances were far from horrible. I think it was an excellent film. Michael Shannon did an outstanding job and whether or not its based on fact or lies its still a very compelling film.
shareYes, some people don't understand that films exist primarily to make money and entertain. Money seems to be pushed aside on this smaller film, so let's talk entertainment. A three hour drawl of a movie would not entertain. Showing every single murder or every single aspect of his life would be exhausting. And it would not be compelling. Filmmakers are artists. And as artists, they must choose what part of the story they want to show. They choose that part and focus on it, choosing to leave out other parts, whether minor or major. This is what an artist does. News reporters present the facts. Filmmakers are not news reporters. They are artists.
If someone wrote a movie about me (yes I know they won't), do you think people would want to see how I went on imdb and posted comments about movies? Hell no. Oh, but that's what happened. That's the truth. No. People want to see tales of hardship, struggle, crisis of identity, survival, perseverance, etc. They don't want the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They want to be entertained. The film had a good story and Michael Shannon was great in the lead role. And Chris Evans was just fine as Mr. Freezy, hardly recognizable.
"Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time."
[deleted]
[deleted]
This wasn't bad for a Lifetime Movie. I was surprised to see so many big names in this film. Everyone needs a payday every now and then I guess.
share