Suicide Kings

The premise of Suicide Kings - four young and privileged men kidnap a retired mob boss played by Christopher Walken - is appealing. So much so that it makes me wish it made for a better film.

Suicide Kings tries to be a psychological thriller focusing on mental cat-and-mouse games between the mobsters and his kidnappers, and the actors are good enough to pull it off - in fact, they're good enough to make you think that there's any psychological depth to the film, when really there's none. Walken and the talented young cast - Denis Leary, Jay Mohr, Sean Patrick Flanery (The Boondock Saints), Jeremy Sisto (Law & Order), Johnny Galecki (The Big Bang Theory) and Henry Thomas (E.T's Elliot all grown up) - all deliver their lines with so much passion and conviction that you almost don't notice how messy and shallow the script really is.

This fine group of actors - and Walken's wildly charismatic performance most of all, from an actor so powerful he can dominate the film while being tied to a chair for all but a few minutes of it - is more than enough to make the film entertaining, even very enjoyable. The weak script, which deteriorates into cheap twists and conspiracies towards the end - makes it entirely forgettable. A quick comparison to Danny Boyle's Shallow Grave is a testament to how much more comfortable the British are with theatrical minimalism. With a great director and a great script, Suicide Kings could have been something wonderful. As it is, it's good enough for one pleasurable watch, but leaves no mark and no impression.

"Suicide Kings" is an often enjoyable and compelling film, despite a few plot holes due to some twists at the end that the writers desperately threw in to surprise the audience, but didn't take the time to reflect on whether they made perfect sense or not. Nevertheless, it's a fun ride all the way through. The characters are all interesting, in their own way. People have referred to the Ira character as annoying and obnoxious, but he's also the character I most relate to. You'll never catch me throwing a party in my house when my parents are gone, because I'm incredibly paranoid about people wrecking the place and I can imagine how paranoid I'd be in Ira's situation with his friends keeping a gangster with his finger cut off captive in my parents' living room. The actors all do splendid jobs, and have a natural chemistry. As for Christopher Walken, when does he not please? He's one of the most intense, engaging, brilliant actors of all time and that's that! Once Walken's on screen, the dynamic completely changes for the better, whether it be a movie of this quality or one of the "Prophecy" sequels. Denis Leary is hilarious as Walken's right hand man whose running gag is the fact that he wears boots made from stingrays. People keep referring to them as "fish boots." He plays the same irritable, pugnacious, f-word-spewing character as in 90 percent of his work, but who cares? Some actors are so good at playing one character that they get away with it no matter how many times it's reprised. Leary is one of those actors. His talents mainly lie in stand-up comedy, so his range isn't that broad. But Leary's good at playing Leary, or an extension of himself, and I'd much rather see him in that role than as, say, a sensitive romantic lead. I loved watching him beat the guy up with a toaster and the other one with a golf club. I love to see Leary do stuff like that. Jay Mohr, a fellow stand-up comedian, is also good mainly at playing that particular role and that's what he does in this movie. Not a big stretch for him either, but it's what he's good at. It was also cool to see "Everybody Loves Raymond's" Brad Garrett in a more serious role, and using language he can't use on TV. The whole film is basically filled with 4-letter words, but it fits the testosterone-filled tone, being that the cast is predominantly male. There is as much excitement as there is dark humor. Director Peter O'Fallon balances those elements nicely. And I loved the theme song over the credit sequence. For some reason, it's still pounding in my head.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

I can't believe I hadn't heard of this movie before last night, although I do live in a fairly cinematically sheltered environment. I was walking through Blockbuster when I see out of the corner of my eye a picture of Chris Walken taped to a chair in front of Dennis Leary and Jay Mohr. I pick up the box, I read the back, I rent the movie. When I got home and watched it, I was, to say the very least, impressed. Left with only one question regarding Dennis Leary's character's heritage (which isn't all that important), I really liked this movie. I wouldn't call it a film for the ages, but I surely would disregard it as decent entertainment either. I would call it a really good movie. Chris Walken is fantastic and the dialouge is great. Come to find out this is Peter O'Fallon's first film, and that he has only done one other film since (he's done a bunch of television), I'm surprized and impressed.

When the sister of one young man is kidnapped while she is out on a date with another young man, the group of friends kidnap an ex-mobster to make use of his contacts and his money to help get her back in one piece. However the longer they keep Bartolucci the closer his right hand man Veccio gets to finding them and the more the friends realise that the kidnapping plot may be more complex than first thought.

Attracted to this film by the presence of Walken playing the role he does best – some sort of mobster – I wasn't really sure what to expect. The overly stylised opening credits and the initially confusing mix of flashbacks within flashbacks to set the story were quite distracting however soon settled down into a more straightforward plot. This plot holds the interest due to the confined situation in which most of the action occurs and is quite involving. The first few twists are well handled but it starts to put the film into a spin from which it doesn't recover, as more twists mount up and become increasingly alienating and contrived. At the end I didn't feel any involvement or surprise by the twists whereas I had sat up and paid attention to the first few.

The film is quite comic at places and this makes it feel like a more enjoyable piece than it would have if it had just been played straight. However this comic touch doesn't take away from the fact that the film is really a thriller of sorts. The cast is roundly good, without anyone of the main group really stealing the show. Walken does his role in his sleep but is still effective – his transformation as he gains confidence during the film is well put across. The young group of actors playing the friends are all pretty good although the `where have I seen him before factor' was a little distracting (6 Feet Under, Roseanne etc). However it is the (wisely expanded) character played by Leary that really is the one that I kept looking forward to seeing. His character almost feels like he is in a movie of his own which is a distraction, but means his scenes are all very enjoyable. His dialogue is knowingly cool and his character is comically overblown to good effect. The film truly benefits from having him in the role.

Overall this film wants to be cooler and better than it really is, the end result of which is a spiral of twists which become increasingly uncontrolled and uninvolving. It is enjoyable enough to watch and the use of one main set helps to add to the tension of the story, however once the twists come they don't stop which sadly leads to them becoming increasingly less effective. Worth a watch but subject to the law of diminishing returns in terms of plotting.

Every once in awhile I find a really good movie that somehow has not been brought to my attention and that I have not seen. In today's world I think this is becoming even more prevalent than 20th century movie productions because there is a lot more movies being produced other than in Hollywood also there's movies being made for individual cable channels or companies. I just viewed Suicide Kings for my first time and I can say that I would watch it again. There's many things that I consider essential for a good movie such as plot, good writing, good acting and the actual filming and camera work. However to simplify my feelings on a movie; is the movie entertaining to watch and would you spend the time to watch it again with a friend or spouse that has not seen it yet? If the answer to that question is a yes then that's all that really matters. I read a review from a prominent critic from the year the movie came out and this quote is from memory but it basically said this:"The violence in this movie is very very little but the acting was good enough to hold your interest". Really? This from a prominent critic. Why don't they just watch real footage from World War One or Two if they think violence makes good entertainment?? They gave it like 2 1/2 stars out of 10. This critic was obviously looking for some negative feedback attention for publicity reasons or they're just a really terrible judge of movies and also a terrible critic. I'd rather have good acting over violence anytime and I'm far from a tree hugging pacifist. This movie had some of the best comic relief done by one of the most skilled actors in using comic relief in suspenseful or tense scenes. More cow bell ! This movie had me entertained or interested in it almost the entire time no matter how predictable it was and I think it deserves a 7.