Skip to main content

Can I blow my nose now?

The Iceman
(2012)

It says something that Michael Shannon’s most sympathetic role in ages finds him playing a notorious hit man. Both in terms of typecasting and the favourable view director/co-writer Ariel Vromen takes of his subject. Those familiar with the case have found much to fault in this account of Richard Kuklinski’s activities, both factually and with regard to characterisation. But, leaving aside concerns over authenticity for a moment, this is a well-crafted, well-performed and engrossing piece of work. Having just witnessed the OTT glorification of all things ‘70s in American Hustle, The Iceman is refreshingly low key in its milieu. Instead, it’s the succession of sometimes spuriously recognisable faces popping up in a string of cameos that proves a sometimes distracting experience (a scenario that was likely all about favours and financing).


The end credits of the movie announce that it is based on The Iceman: The True Story of a Cold-Blooded Killer by Anthony Bruno and the HBO documentary Conversations with a Killer, but many of the criticisms of Vromen’s approach relate to his relatively sympathetic portrait of a man who appeared to bear many of the traits of the classic serial killer. Here Kuklinski is a loving family man with a code that prevents him from killing women and children. We learn he first murdered at a young age (and that his brother is also in prison for murder) and engaged in animal torture, but this has the distance of off-screen history. Vromen works his screenplay (with Morgan Land) into a place where others are much more dastardly than the noble assassin. Most notably Ray Liotta’s despicable mob boss (one of the bigger surprises is that, for a picture evidently playing fast and loose with the facts, there is no cathartic pay off to this plot thread). Sure, Kuklinski kills lots of people and dismembers them in a bathtub, with the cool efficiency of the local butcher, but we don’t really get to see much of this. Aside aside from a montage of kills just after he is taken on, his business is mostly off-screen.


Vromen is more concerned with Kuklinski’s domestic and career woes. So wife Deborah (Winona Ryder, her most substantial role in a good few years and she more than delivers) is blissfully, and then not so blissfully, unaware of her husband’s double life. When they first meet he tells her he’s dubbing cartoons for Disney when he’s actually working on porn movies. Later she unquestioningly believes the story that he works in currency exchange. It seems a little too good to be true that, aside from one monumental breakdown scene when Michael goes the full Shannon, Kuklinski is positioned as a well-meaning father and dutiful provider. He repeatedly announces that his family is the one thing he cares about and also repeatedly reacts with extreme prejudice towards anyone posing a threat to this precious environment.


So, reading after the fact that his wife was the victim of his possessive violence from the first and lived in terror of him, it’s easy to understand the opprobrium some feel towards this movie (at the same time, with regard to the extent of Kuklinski’s notoriety, many including the police and FBI suggested his self-aggrandising account of his deeds was prone to extensive exaggeration). The end titles, announcing that he never saw his family again after he was incarcerated, are probably more illustrative than their attendance of his trial. As it stands, you can’t help but come out on his side when heavies like Liotta and Davi threaten his nearest and dearest. It might be a gross distortion, but Vromen has cleverly loaded the deck.


It’s certainly the case that some of the plot threads don’t really wash, even knowing virtually nothing of the facts behind the case. Liotta, always a reliable heavy, has Ray Demeo oozing threats to Kuklinski one moment then whinily attempting to get out of killing useless chum Rosenthal the next. It doesn’t help that Rosenthal is played by David Schwimmer; you can fully believe in Schwimmer as a loser (he’s had years of practice on Friends), and he sports a ‘70s ‘tache and tracksuit with some degree of flair, but taking out a couple of drug dealers? Nah. The unfortunate consequence of some of the starry-eyed casting is that you’re invested in a scene for the wrong reasons. Schwimmer being blown away raises a chuckle, but nnot nearly so much as James Franco pleading for his life. His contribution elicits only an “Oh look, it’s the ubiquitous James Franco!” And relief when Kuklinski shoots him.  Elsewhere, Stephen Dorff isn’t nearly impressive enough of stature or presence to convince as Kuklinskli’s incarcerated older brother.


Making up for the weak or unintentionally amusing decisions are some astute ones. I mentioned Noonie, and this is the best she’s been in years, more than holding her own against Shannnon. Davi just has to walk on and do the Davi thing, he does it so well. John Ventimiglia of The Sopranas feels authentically dangerous as Liota’s right-hand man. But stealing the movie is Chris Evans’ co-assassin Mr Freezy, a longhaired psychopath whose control centre is the ice cream van he drives around. It’s a sobering realisation that the Franco was earmarked for this role until family matters forced him to take a smaller one. Evans is so good, so sleazy and irredeemable (we see him screaming at his son on Christmas Day, taking meetings in a porn cinema) you want to see the movie about this guy (who may well be a less sanitised representation of the actual Iceman type). There’s even a larger-than-life wit to his first appearance, as ACME-style he blows up the entire floor of an apartment building where both he and Kuklinski have been engaged for a hit. If Vromen had engaged more with this tonality, he might have laid himself less open to charges of misrepresentation; if you can see a streak of Looney Tunes absurdity running through the picture, fidelity concerns are given context.


Shannon, severe-faced and brooding, can’t match Evans box-of-tricks performance (it may have done his career some good, but Captain America is the worst straight jacket that could be enforced on an actor of Evans’ talents). He gets the odd moment of pitch-black humour (“Don’t take any crap from any nuns” he tells his daughter; “Yeah it can” he responds to an unsuspecting victim who pronounces that life can be “very fucking random sometimes”) and the sight of him wearing a cardigan or using a beeper has some ironic cachet (somehow, he’s also allowed to wear shades in court). The only problem is, it currently feels as if; you’ve seen one Shannon role at this point, you’ve seen them all. Can he ever surprise against the way he did in Revolutionary Road?


Even absenting myself from the case-against arguments in respect of its divergence from the true story (although where you go with a tale so full of alleged deeds rather than facts is questionable; Confessions of a Dangerous Mind territory?), The Iceman is no classic-in-waiting. But it’s well-made picture and has an acute awareness of how to successfully manipulate its audience (Kuklinski doesn’t even kill the cat, so he can’t be that bad!) It’s also a lot of fun just for the star spotting of the supporting roles, even the less successful turns.


***1/2

Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much