In August of 2009 we found out that a movie about one of the planet’s most infamous killers, Richard Kuklinski, was being delayed because the producer at that time wanted Channing Tatum for the role. Many of you spoke up about who you’d like to see play the part, and we later found out that one of those names, Mickey Rourke, had been cast in the role.
Now comes a bit of a surprise: there’s actually another separate movie based on Kuklinski, better known as The Ice Man, in the works as well. This project, titled The Iceman, comes from Nu Image, and already has its star: Michael Shannon, who can currently be seen on HBO’s Boardwalk Empire, and has also been seen in movies like Bug and Revolutionary Road, which nabbed him an Academy Award nomination. Benicio Del Toro is also set for a role in the film, and James Franco is a possibility. This film will be directed by Ariel Vromen, who has previously helmed Rx and Danika.
The Rourke project is aiming to begin production come spring, while this second project is aiming at a start date some time next summer.
There’s been many occasions where two films based on the same content/story have been produced, and typically the one that gets released first does the best, but it will be interesting to see how these play out. Both of these actors are incredibly talented, but until we see how well they portray Kuklinski, we won’t be able to know how excited to be. Both films absolutely hinge on how accurately the actors can become this vicious killer.
My money would still have to be on Rourke and the first project we heard about. That film, which is currently untitled, is based on the popular Philip Carlo book, The Ice Man: Confessions Of A Mafia Contract Killer. That project also has the “life rights” to both Kuklinski’s wife, Barbara, who along with their children went years without knowing what Kuklinski really did for a living, as well as Pat Kane, the man who ultimately brought down the Ice Man.
Again, until we really get a look at these two films and how they feel, we won’t know which bandwagon to jump on. But for now, which is more appealing to you? Is the project with Rourke too well-sourced to ignore or is Michael Shannon a better choice for the lead role?
[Source: Deadline]
In my opinion Shannon is better for the role. Don’t get me wrong, Rourke would be great, but in ways I believe that he has already peaked (in his comeback). On the other hand, there isn’t much seen on Michael Shannon, but every role he plays he really brings an intensity to roles as if he IS mentally unstable. To me he is an amazing young talent that comes across as if he ISN’T acting. Yes, Rourke is a good actor, but it is visible in many of his roles, and even though convincing, that he is acting a part.
Comment by Rob — November 4, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
Its not even close. Everything about the first project is superior. The Phillip Carlo book is THE book to draw on and Mickey Rourke is one of the greatest film actors since Brando. I want to see Mickey Rourke in this part. Shannon is excellent but he’s just not up there with Rourke – especially for this part.
Comment by Chauncy G. — November 5, 2010 @ 12:49 am
Mickey Rourke would do the role justice but I’m feelin James Gandolfini!
Comment by robertarizona — November 5, 2010 @ 3:07 am
I wonder of both movies will actually get made or if one will evolve into something else, I just can’t imagine two movies on the exact same subject being profitable. Same thing with the 20,000 Leagues movies and SHerlock Holmes.
Comment by Sam — November 7, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
This is ridiculous! Why would someone want to see the second film when the one with Mickey Rourke is out there? Not only is Rourke an actor of much greater depth than Shannon (and a legend to boot) – in a fight Rourke could easily tear Shannon apart. Rourke has gone through the Actor’s Studio AND the school of the streets. Ridiculous!
Comment by Bottom Feeder — November 8, 2010 @ 1:01 am
wasn’t Mike Shannon a footballer?
Comment by johnny rotten — December 3, 2010 @ 9:51 pm
I think both actors would be a joke for the role of Mr kuklinski. I’ve read the book and followed his HBO interviews. First of all he was a man of decent size I guess you would say. That’s easy to find but the facial appearance in this movie means alot more. When I say appearance I mean his looks,his way that he looks when he’s loving his family or the jealousy that he felt for his son. You have to have all of those feelings coming out of one stare. Not to mention the coldness in his eyes when he watches the films of the murders he committed and that he saves. With what I’ve wrote here Rourke or Shannon would be a joke. Though I don’t know who but I think it should be thought out a little more than it has been. This could be great if its not thrown together.
Comment by critical — March 9, 2011 @ 1:11 pm
Mickey Rourke is a bad idea in my opinion… ive read the book and watched the HBO specials as well and im just not gonna be convinced with Rourke’s hideous, frozen, horrid hollywood face chop jobs. Rourke is bad ass but i just find it hard to watch his plastic hacked up face… sorry. “oh look at that scary cold blooded killer with all the botched plastic surgery”  i saw theÂ
Shannon screen test and it looked pretty damn good to me.Â
Comment by 916MONSTER — November 5, 2011 @ 1:03 am
 your an idiot. Michael Shannon has way more credentials was far as acting and schooling. Your a nimrod who didnt do his homework
Comment by Rottenggg111 — April 16, 2012 @ 1:12 am
I am eager to see them both. Heck make more films with other actors portraying Kuklinski. Better yet have HBO make a series like The Sopranos as 2 hours is not enough time to portray this man and his life. In my honest opinion Micheal Shannon has the better intensity needed for the role, although in reality Kuklinski was mostly void of the fear and intensity while he was killing as he was The Iceman for real. Fear , pity and remorse were not in his head. Â
Comment by Jason Wolf — May 31, 2012 @ 5:21 pm