The true story about Richard Kuklinski who whacked over a hundred people for the Mob, starring Michael Shannon, who's quickly becomming my favourite actor, as The Iceman.

I'm a big fan of the serial killer genre and I'm really looking forward to seeing this.

I stumbled across Richard Kuklinski on a random youtube search when I was looking for some other documentaries about serial killers. I watched most of the ones about him, and all I can say is that guy was seriously scary!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McMLWkOMIN8

Of all the documentaries I've watched about these killers, he really is the one who scares the c**p out of me. If they can get that character across on screen, it should be good.

Kip.

I'd never heard of him - so I checked wiki and found a youtube interview on him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv4c3flhSaU

I was wodering which way they were going to play this film -- he's a guy with a lot of baggage, perfect for investigating the background of the character (people are always going on about that) - but I somehow wonder if the film's just going to show a lot of shooting and play on the 'relationship angle' with his daughter ...

Looks pretty good. I've been a fan of Shannon's ever since I saw the movie 'BUG'. Underrated movie.

~Zack~

If this guy was a serial killer doing his own thing, I think they could get into his background more. They've got the whole De Meo mob family and Mr Softee storylines to cram in here, so I think his background will be skmmed over for the sake of turning it into more of a mob story.

Kip.

Kuklinski wasn't a serial killer in the traditional sense. He was a professional killer, he did it for the money.

Not in the traditional sense, that's true, but he was murdering people long before he got involved with organised crime and became a pro.

Are serial killers defined as such for their motives or for the numbers they kill? I'm not sure.

Kip.

I think - and I could be wrong - that the common perception is that a serial killer is someone who gets some form of psychological gratification from killing, like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy and others. I'm not saying that Kuklinski didn't get that but from what I've seen and read about him, money seemed to be the motivating factor.

You could be right. A lot of it stems from sexual gratification too, but that's a different thing altogether.

Either way, it should be an interesting film.

Fan of Public Enemy, Sniper? Yo, bum rush the show was, and still is, a top album. :)

Kip.

PE in the place to be. Bum Rush is a classic but It Takes A Nation is still my fav.

I tuned out at muse sick n hour mess age. Anything before is good to my ears :)

Couldn't be more stoked for this. I've watched a whole series of interviews with Kuklinksi on Youtube; what a disturbing yet fascinating character. Couldn't have made a better choice than Michael Shannon either.

Also, for the record, Kuklinski totally fits the "serial killer" bill, legally speaking.

Ray Liotta.  awesome.

I checked out the interviews with Richard Kuklinski and immediately checked out the flick.  I'd imagine The Iceman would come across jarring if you haven't seen the prison interviews.  No doubt this guy was a serial killer that got paid.

The film was pretty darn good, and Michael Shannon was amazing.  So amazing, I can't believe I actually felt sorry for his ass at the end.  There are some scenes in this that make you root for Kuklinski like crazy, and then I think back to the interviews and I'm like what the hell are they trying to accomplish here?

Maybe it would've worked better if it was straight up fiction?  Thoughts anyone?

Quoted from oJOHNNYoNUTSo Thoughts anyone?

Michael Shannon wasn't my first choice -- James Gandolfini, anyone?

Ray Liotta was what attracted me to the film, even if he was a miscast (DeMeo was short and chubby, not tall and good looking).  Yet, Liotta captures DeMeo's menace perfectly.  And, of course, what's a mob movie without Ray Liotta?  Guy's awesome.

As for the film, I thought it was OK, and I agree, there were some points where I felt sorry for Kuklinski (and even rooted for him -- which is creepy, since this guy was a stone cold scumbag).  The ending was definitely one of those points.  Since I wasn't too familiar with his actual downfall it was a shocker -- assuming that's how it really went down.

All in all, it was a "decent" effort, an OK film, in my opinion.  I think if they gave it a better running time --maybe 155 minutes? -- instead of the, what, slam-bang 90 minutes that we got, more ground could have been covered and it would have been a waaaay better movie.


--Steve

I thought Shannon's performance was chilling, badass, and sympathetic.  I just felt the real Kuklinski wasn't worthy of this portrayal, and I normally don't give a hoot about these kind of things.  Maybe I'm over thinking it, but right now that's my reaction.

I agree, I think the film could've been longer to develop the characters more and give it a chance to be what it might have intended to be.

I thought Shannon's performance was pitch perfect. A portion of one of Kuklinski's interviews was recreated in the film with verbatim dialogue. Shannon's delivery was near identical to the original. He nailed just about every last tick.

Other than that, I thought the film was okay. It didn't seem to give any kind of perspective, new or otherwise, on the subject matter nor explore it all that much. It was more of a documentation of events from Kuklinski's life but mostly just the ones that the media have jumped on the most. Honestly, I think it's a lot more interesting (and disturbing) to watch the real life Kuklinski recall his murders in interviews than it is to see the murders themselves (albeit fictionalized) onscreen.

Not that the film was bad. In many ways, I think is was more or less well done. But there wasn't much to it and I forgot about it quick. Was really looking forward to it too. Bummer.

Agreed, it could have been better.  It was "good," but nothing memorable.