Good concept, poorly executed.

A different way of telling a story

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

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.

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.

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.

This `biography' of sorts details some of the murders committed by notorious hitman Richard Kuklisnski, who reportedly killed over 100 people. This documentary, featuring interviews with Kuklinski himself, displays all the murders just as they happened. These events are told by Kuklinski, who gives his own personal perspective on what he did, and gives his feelings on what he did. It aired on the HBO channel I believe, and I caught it last night. From the description, it somehow drew me in, I asked myself the question `How could someone kill over 100 people?' Before I even watched this documentary, I had never even heard of Richard Kuklinski, and had no idea as to who he was. I expected this guy to be a nut case, unaware of the difference between reality and fiction. I expected him to look like a monster. But, the documentary started. What was scary in a sense about this man was the fact that he didn't look like a monster, or a freak. Like most killers, he looked completely normal on the outside, the last person you'd expect to carry out a murder. The documentary opens up with an interview with Kuklinski, where he states that if he's mad at you, he'll kill you, and that you'll never get away from him unless you shot him or killed him. He also went on to say `If you didn't kill me, you're stupid.' Through most of the interviews, Kuklinksi never bothers to hold back any facts, and is never hesitant to give any away. He states at one point, he has nothing to lose. I suppose this is most likely why he is so cooperative.Kuklinksi tells how each murder was carried out, how he did it, and why he did it. He was a contract killer, so obviously his motivation was money. I also believe that he simply loved doing what he did. At one point, Kuklinksi even says that he killed a man with a crossbow simply because he wanted to test the weapon out. The kill wasn't a case of money, it wasn't a personal vendetta, he wanted to `test out his weapon.'Kuklinksi never holds anything back. He tells all of his crimes in grim detail, and he shows no remorse. He tells the interviewer the stories of his murders as if he were giving her some normal tips on life. Often times, Kuklinksi would even make jokes when he was asked if he ever felt remorse for killing someone. Kaklinski has this weird, freakish evil to him, where you question how could someone literally look at a human life the way this man does. You wonder how Kuklinksi could look at a life and define it as meaningless and useless. You wonder how he could kill so many people, still make jokes, and tell each murder like he was telling a normal story. Kuklinksi sees human lives as trash, trash that he can dispose of and not feel bad about it. This documentary has some cheesy moments where they try and recreate the crimes. When they try to recreate the crimes themselves, it just turns out to be cheesy, and unnecessary. Regardless, this documentary is one of the best TV documentaries I've seen. Though graphic, and not for the easily offended, it is interesting, and I think the way that I was drawn into watching it was I asked the question `How can someone kill over 100 people?' Then I found out. Another thing about Richard Kuklinksi is that he isn't like most of the killers in the past. Jeffrey Dahmer felt that he had to apologize for what he did, when I know damn well that he didn't care about the lives that he took. Still, Dahmer wasted his breath and tried to act remorseless. But, Kuklinksi, he simply doesn't care. He doesn't feel the need to tell people that he was sorry, because he simply wasn't. Kuklinksi has nothing left to lose, so he tells why he killed people, and how he felt when he killed people. Obviously, jail isn't much of a punishment for Kuklinksi, he doesn't seem to be miserable. He deserved the death penalty. Score: 9 ½ out of 10.