Suicide Kings (1997)
Released: 17 April 1998 Running Time: 106 min. Director: Peter O’Fallon Starring: Mark Watson, Christopher Walken, Denis Leary, Nina Siemaszko, Jay Della, Henry Thomas, Sean Patrick Flannery
People can say what ever they want but the fact is that Christopher Walken is the cat’s ass, dog’s balls, and what ever other vulgar euphemism for great you want to use, when it comes to acting. This guy is sitting in a chair for 85% of his on screen appearance and some how he manages to hypnotize with every frame he graces. Everyone in this picture is great but I have my favourites and we’ll get to them soon enough. I’m going to start out by saying if you haven’t watched this DVD then you should because there’s no excuse for this kind of behaviour. Some call it a cult classic and B movie gone good: I think they are all idiots because this movie is amazing regardless of it’s release details, and I’m going to break down for you why.
In 1997 if this movie had hit theatres with Leonardo Di Caprio in one of the main roles it would have had a huge theatrical release and it would have done extremely well commercially. It had a lot of familiar faces and a plethora of talent just not the kind the studio wanted to market. We are no longer (nor have been for a while) in the days where a movie can hit theatres and run for a year. Today if it doesn’t do well from the get go it gets yanked and put to DVD rather fast (or in the good old days to VHS). I really don’t prescribe to the notion that straight/soon to DVD makes for a bad movie; sometimes it makes for a lack of vision and patience on the part of invested parties. In the end it’s a business and you can’t tell the "bosses" what to do on their dime.
The story line is great and in a lot of ways it’s a "who done it" storyline but in reality it’s much more. This movie is about relationships: assessing them, valuing them, abusing them, understanding them, and finally profiting or busting because of them. Film is the quintessence of the cause effect theory every frame is connected to the next and a catalyst for movement not only in theory but in actual materialization. Even a flashback is a step forward in films despite the temporal clash in principal. So relationships having beginnings, middles and endings are perfect for the platform to push this story forward. In essence a few rich kids get the idea to kidnap an ex gangster and hold him for ransom to get one of the rich boy’s sister back from shady individuals who are also holding her for ransom. The friends are a metaphor for all the shades of grey in upper class living and although a direct contrast to Charlie (Walken) their world isn’t so different from his world. Both worlds rely on relationships. The world of these youngsters rely on them sticking to one another, their history as friends, and their word. Interestingly enough, they need the same from Charlie: they need his contacts, his relationships, his past bonds to people in order to get what they need. Soon enough you learn that on either side of the spectrum people’s relationships and loyalties are tested.
Reading some of the reviews about this film I was really disappointed. Films that have been far poorer and with far lower production value have received great reviews from some of the same critics I was reading. A the end of the day a good story is a good story regardless of the fact that you may or may not like an actor. I have my personal favourites and folks that I really don’t care for. But, when a film is good, it’s good. And this film is.
The plan devised goes terribly wrong as these kids learn paper planned living doesn’t work out when dealing with criminals like Charlie. Eventually the relationships deteriorate and betrayal and the abuse of trust has everyone pointing fingers. By the very end we all find out as Charlie does that two worlds have more in common than they seem to from the start. In the end everyone gets what they deserve and the audience is fully satisfied because they like Charlie are the wiser.