Making a movie about Richard Kuklinski is pointless in my opinion because we have the man on tape telling his own story in a manner more scary and hardhitting than any movie could be. Who agrees with me?
shareI once saw a documentary about Goodfellas where Henry Hill said that the violence was toned down compared to some of the things that really happened and then it cut to Martin Scorsese saying "I wouldn't want to know about some of the things they did!"
Does this mean there's no point watching Goodfellas? Or why watch Schindler's List when you can do your own research on the holocaust and come across loads of much more disturbing things?
A worthy point. With Goodfellas, Martin Scorsese was able to incorporate Henry Hill's words through the narration of Ray Liotta, so we were able to get Henry Hill to tell his own story in his own words which, to the best of my knowledge, had not be done on film prior to Goodfellas. Where as with Kuklinski, we already had him telling his own story in his own words on film, something that I don't believe this movie was going to do as far as the narration form of Goodfellas. To hear Kuklinski tell his own story is nothing short of frightening and that's why I wasn't sure any movie could measure up to it and while I have not had the chance to see the movie myself, the comments about it have not been that impressive, overall anyway. And as far as Schindler's List, well, that's a bit different as far as genocide vs. gangsters.
shareWith Goodfellas, Martin Scorsese was able to incorporate Henry Hill's words through the narration of Ray Liotta, so we were able to get Henry Hill to tell his own story in his own words which, to the best of my knowledge, had not be done on film prior to Goodfellas.
The HBO documentaries are far more insightful than this film, it's a big, awfully constructed let down.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1491044/reviews-25
http://www.hawkensian.com/
I agree with you. The two HBO interviews frightened the living HELL out of me! To this day some of the most intense and disturbing things I've seen (or more literally heard) on film. A movie could have been done and I was in fact working on it as an independent film-maker for YEARS but didn't get my chance before this cheap knock off came out! I say that not having seen the actual film yet but I have seen the previews and I know the highly dubious "quality" of Mr. Shannon and I already know what to expect. My choice for the role was of course James Gandolfini and it would have earned him an Oscar, but of course now even that is an unfilled dream since his un-timely passing, God rest his soul. So in the end it seems the closest thing we WILL ever get to the true horror of these events is in the original Iceman Interviews films, and I am fine with that :)
shareAmen to that!
shareso you can see the contrived, shoehorned romance storyline of course !
shareTotally agree.
I watched the documentary a few weeks ago, which was very insightful.(had no idea who he was) Then, when I came across the movie i was really excited to see it. Boy was I wrong.
I actually thought it was quite boring and didn't really get to know who he was or his story.
If you want to learn anything about Richard Kuklinski, skip the movie and just watch the Doco
the movie is a total let down. completely wrong and/or fabricated... only a few of the names are correct, everything else fake. what a stupid move by hollywood. they really dropped the ball AGAIN. could have been a really good watch if they stuck with the facts...
shareWhy not watch both?
shareIf you have to ask, you obviously don't "get" movies.
Film is an artform. The number one reason to watch any film is to experience a work in that artform. It's not to educate yourself about something other than film or anything like that. Watch film for film's sake. If you're not interested in that then fnck off and do something else with your time. Some of us like films because we like the artform. Listening to endless bitching from folks who aren't interested in film for film's sake gets tiresome to those of us who love film.
Hey genius, it's only art if it's done right and from what I hear, the film is luke warm at best! If the this film was done right, say directed by someone like Martin Scorsese, or if we didn't have the iceman on film telling his own story, then it would be different. That's the point I was getting at which you cleary missed!
shareThere's no such thing as "bad art" in your view, or is it that you'd say that "bad art" is somehow "done right"?
shareOkay, I admit, bad art does exist but if its bad, why waste your time? Unless of course it's one of those it's so bad it's good kind of thing.
shareYou wouldn't know if you think it's bad until you watch it though. The reason to watch it would be that you enjoy films for film's sake--you like the artform.
share