Suicide Kings

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.

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.

I was surprised with Suicide Kings. In the same spirit as Something Wild and The Usual Suspects, this movie is not about the end, but getting you there. The film is well told, keeping you on the edge wanting to know "who's on the inside". Unlike some movies where the wrap up at the end seems too improbable, this one works and works well.

I was unsure of what the movie would be like and so my expectations were low. At the end I had done an 180 degree turn. I was impressed. I look forward to watching this again and picking up on all the clues as to who was doing what and seeing the small details from the start.

It's hard to name a genre for Suicide Kings, so I put it in my beloved category of "twisted thriller". I compare it with movies like Reservoir Dogs, The Usual Suspects, U-Turn, Kalifornia, Wild Things, True Romance and A Simple Plan. Like all of the above, SK was violent, bloody and full of surprising twists. To add to its shadowy charm, it had a psychotic sense of humor. But the most amazing thing about this movie is Christopher Walken's subtly venomous performance, which complements the sharp, individualized performances of the younger cast members. Walken plays Charlie Barrett, a man who is unwittingly "recruited" to help five college-aged rich kids rescue one of their sisters, who has been kidnapped for a $2 million ransom. The five kids: nervous Avery (Henry Thomas), the one whose sis Elise (Laura Harris) is endangered; handsome Max (Sean Patrick Flanery), who is Elise's sweetheart; Brett (Jay Mohr), the one with a hell of an anger problem; aspiring doctor TK (Jeremy Sisto); and ultra-neurotic Ira (Johnny Galecki) whose house becomes a hideout for the kids after they kidnap Barrett. Brett concocts the plan. Max drugs him, TK severs one of his digits, and Charlie is duct-taped to a fancy office chair, hooked up to an IV which is pumping more drugs into him. Meantime, Avery broods nervously over his missing sis and Ira squeals endlessly about the blood TK is getting all over the nice varnished floor. While the boys bicker at each other about how to continue their insanely flawed caper, Barrett regards this group of inexperienced whipper-snappers with a myriad mix of sympathy, amusement and anger. But anger from a man like Charlie Barrett is not to be taken lightly, it is to be feared. Charlie is a man who with one spoken word, could have these five kids murdered and their bodies hidden where no one will ever find them. You know that from the minute you meet him, but the scariest thing about Charlie is his quiet mannerism. This serpent is indeed subtil. He does not shout, he gently whispers hints of warning to the kids that they've made a bad mistake messing with him. He taps into these kids early on, uncovering their dirty little family secrets and their own individual not-so-secret addictions, to drink, to drugs, to gambling. And he uses devices, honed from years of experience in a world these kids know nothing about, to his advantage. He may be physically incapacitated, he may be outnumbered, but he knows the kids are still no match for him. There's no arrogance in this knowledge, and it is truly creepy. It's a battle of wits that kept me on the edge of my seat, gave me the most delicious shivers of perverse anticipation, and it was honestly very hard to know which side to route for. I really love this movie. See it if you haven't. : )~

First, I like Mafia movies. Second, I like comedy. I find this movie to be more of the latter. And I enjoy it. I found Johnny Galecki to play the most interesting and funniest character in this movie. It's a good movie overall, enjoyable, and yes, I do own it. In my massive collection of 10 DVD's, this is one of them. I'm no film buff, but it has its good parts and it has its bad parts. I won't over-analyze it, but I liked the plot twists... all of them.. didn't like the overuse of profanity... loved the comedy parts. It has some awkward dialog and what sounds like dubbing, but it is entertaining, and I watch it on a regular basis. Give it a shot! I rated it 7 / 10