Lawbolisted Powerful

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

sethwilson-45528 The Iceman: Confessions of a Mafia Hit-man is a two-part documentary chronicling the life of one Richard Kuklinski, a businessman to his family, and New York's most notorious hit-man to the dark underside of the city. Early on in the film, a nameless and faceless narrator explicitly states that the purpose of the film is to get inside the mind of Kuklinski and attempt to uncover some of the unsolved murders still haunting the authorities. It does this largely through a series of interviews with the man himself as he answers a series of questions about his motivations, feelings, and the grisly details of his crimes. Don't let the thought of interviews put you off, though. This documentary grips you with an ice-cold hand from start to finish.It is difficult to reconcile any preconceived notions of the image of a hit-man with this average, balding, middle-aged man, sitting there in a bright, autumn-colored sweater, but his eyes leave no doubt in the viewer's mind that this man is a killer, staring at the off-screen interviewer with a bone-chilling coolness that shows exactly why he was nicknamed, the Iceman. Throughout the course of the documentary, the interviewer asks questions such as how he feels about killing, or how he killed a certain person, and Kuklinski answers with such a blunt honesty that you simply don't want to stop watching. At one point, he tells the interviewer about how he left his house on Christmas eve, killed a man who owed him money, and came back to prepare his children's presents for Christmas the next day. When asked how he felt about this, Kuklinski replies only with, "I was annoyed I couldn't get the damn wagon together."After seeing so many Hollywood bad guys and sensationalized, TV gangsters, watching the Iceman slowly and thoroughly explain his murders is like the difference between watching a Yogi Bear cartoon and watching a real-life bear at the zoo from behind a thin pane of glass. Hiswords leave behind such a cold, shocked feeling that really drives home the reality of what it is to be a gangster.As a whole, the content is fascinating, and the interviews with Kuklinski never cease to amaze—in an awful sort of way—however, the film itself leaves something to be desired. For one thing, the directors saw the need to throw in periodic interviews with random people loosely associated with Kuklinski, such as a Medical Examiner, an attorney, and a policeman. Usually, this wouldn't have been a problem, as it grants a certain degree of validity to the documentary, but these people not only seemed as if they had no real connection to Kuklinski, but also droned on and on in such a way that the viewer finds themselves simply wanting to fast forward to the next interview with the Iceman.They also spent a lot of time showing pictures, often black and white, of the scenes of the crime. As with the interviews with the "experts", these pictures could have been a good idea as they, again, grant validity to the film. However, these photos that show the scene of the crime do not show anything even remotely gruesome or violent. Instead, they simply show the scenes after the fact, or even places that just looked like what the crime scene might have. It's doubtful the viewer would've found any of the real pictures offensive after listening to Kuklinski recount, in detail, about how he shot a man in the mouth before beating him to death with a tire iron.Unfortunately, these boring, spliced-in pictures and interviews are not the only downside to the film. The directors also saw fit to throw in unnecessarily dramatic cinematography techniques. Instead of adding to the sense of horrified awe the film instills, the fade- in scenes and close-ups detracted from the seriousness of the scene. There really isn't much of a need to try and add suspense to a scene where Kuklinski is telling you all the different ways he's killed people with cyanide (a personal favorite of his). In addition to the cinematography, the musicwas something it could have done without. In an attempt to make the interviews more dramatic, the overdone noise makes it seem like some sort of Halloween thriller when, as stated previously, the interviews really do not need any added drama. Also, the narrator could have been done without. Despite her stating explicit statement about the purpose of the documentary, it likely didn't help the police much in solving any crimes. On the other hand, it did give a lot of insight into the mind of a truly unrepentant killer.Don't let the boring side interviews, unnecessary cinematography, and silly music stop you from watching the film, though. Despite the blunders of the filmmakers, watching Kuklinski's interviews are a rare chance to listen to the voice of true evil. Whether you're interested in the mafia, or if you're simply looking for something dark and twisted, this film should appeal to a wide range of people, excluding the weak of heart or constitution.

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) I have to say I was not familiar with Richard Kuklinski before I watched "The Iceman Confesses: Secrets of a Mafia Hit-man" and the title is basically already a giveaway what this is about. The film consists of a interview sequences with Kuklinski in which he openly tells about his past, his crimes and the people he "met" during these years. Also included are part during which we see re-enactments and some real photos from Kuklinski's crimes. The director is Arthur Ginsberg who was already an Academy Award nominee when he made this film 15 years ago. A couple years later Kuklinski died, in prison of course, but this film here is not the only one on him. It is actually the second documentary by the same production company and I think one more followed afterward. It is an informative watch for sure. Sometimes the music is a bit over the top and the narration makes it look a bit desperate to be really dramatic, but seeing it just from the documentary perspective, it is pretty well done. I recommend the watch and the interview parts with Kuklinski are certainly my favorite sequences of this documentary. Without these, it would be almost pointless. Thumbs up.

goodsamcentre this was a great follow up after reading the book. He is so cold blooded but can understand it just a job same as working in a morgue is suppose you would learn to switch off. I felt really sorry for his wife and children finding out about his dark side they way that they did. She stood by him for a long time afterwards though. I feel that sometimes we need such people in this world just to cull out the dregs of society and the people that he killed were exactly that the dregs of society. They preyed on the young the weak and the morally injured souls. He gets a thumbs up from me pity more don't have his standards in life. He did the right thing keeping it away from his family and protected them as best that he could.

raimund-berger There's two so called HBO "documentaries" about Richard Kuklinski, one from 1992 and the other from 2001. And before going into details, let me say right off that, while the initial installment is mildly interesting and watchable, the second is just a sensationalist rehash trying to capitalize once again on the topic.As to a more detailed criticism, looking just at the 1992 part for the moment the main problem is the utter lack of facts. All we learn for sure is that Kuklinski got convicted on five counts of murder, if I recall correctly, and that it was an undercover agent who's been crucial in this conviction. All (!) the rest is just Kuklinski telling what he wants to tell, including that outrageous figure of over hundred "hits" he is supposed to have done.Now, I don't know about you but from my experience what a convict tells on camera generally isn't very reliable. He's very likely to lie one way or the other, either to downplay his deeds or to even exaggerate and brag about them, to maybe get more money out of the interview and possibly book and film rights. So for a "documentary", what I would expect is an attempt to link his stories to hard facts, and especially tell us where the police has succeeded in linking him to particular crimes and where not. But exactly this crucial piece of investigation and information is entirely missing.Instead, we get some reenacted scenes indistinguishably mixed together with fairly random crime scene photographs and press headlines and never learn which is what. In fact, this "documentary" deliberately tries to blur the line between fact and fiction, clearly because it's more about the thrills than real information. The more murders the better, so to speak, no matter if they can really be attributed to Kuklinski.Hence, regarding the 1992 installment, all I see there is a known five times murderer telling some stories true or not, we never get to know. As that, I'd consider it still having some mild entertainment value while surely not being a documentary. The 2001 installment though is even worse in all regards mentioned above and basically exploitative junk.So all together I can hardly recommend any of this. If you want to see a real documentary along these lines (i.e. a "serial killer") I'd recommend "Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer" by Nick Broomfield from 2003. Way, way, way better and reputable.