Jogo Suicida

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.

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. : )~

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.