Gus Van Sant’s latest film is drawing mixed reactions from critics who say the 1970s-inspired crime thriller lacks the energy that made its predecessors memorable.
“Dead Man’s Wire” tells the bizarre true story of a 1977 hostage situation that captivated Indianapolis—and the filmmaking approach might leave modern audiences wondering what could have been.
The film explores one of the most unusual abduction methods ever conceived, featuring a shotgun wired to both captor and victim.
But does this decades-old incident translate into compelling cinema today?
The Real Story Behind the Film
Writer Austin Kolodney based his screenplay on actual events from 1977 involving Anthony Kiritsis, an Indianapolis man who abducted mortgage executive Richard Hall.
Kiritsis sought an apology for what he perceived as wrongdoings related to a commercial land deal gone wrong. His grievance stemmed from disputes with Hall’s mortgage company over property financing.
What made this case particularly memorable was Kiritsis’s shocking approach to ensuring compliance—he rigged a shotgun using wire to connect both himself and his hostage, creating a deadly trap where any attempt at separation would prove fatal for Hall.
Television cameras captured portions of the ordeal, adding another layer of spectacle to an already sensational situation. The incident’s resolution proved equally unconventional, though critics reviewing the film have maintained discretion about revealing the outcome.
Performance Issues Plague the Production
Bill Skarsgård takes on the role of Kiritsis fresh off his vampiric performance in the recent “Nosferatu” remake.
Critics suggest his portrayal feels derivative rather than authentic. Reviewers describe his interpretation as a gruff, stringy collection of tics that resembles an impersonation rather than a fully realized character.
One critic noted the performance seems like Skarsgård imagined how actor Michael Shannon might approach the role, then attempted to mimic that hypothetical version.
Dacre Montgomery faces different challenges as Richard Hall—mainly that his character appears to lack any discernible personality. The screenplay doesn’t provide sufficient material for Montgomery to create a memorable or compelling hostage.
The Script’s Structural Problems
Kolodney’s screenplay faced two clear paths forward: developing meaningful dynamic interplay between captor and captive, or maintaining relentless tension through a one-sided standoff with Kiritsis dominating verbally.
Critics argue the final product achieves neither goal effectively, instead landing somewhere unsatisfyingly in between.
Hall’s attempts at backstory—including dialogue about his difficult relationship with his father—arrive too late in the narrative to establish genuine characterization. Lines like references to childhood hardships feel like belated efforts to add depth where foundations were never properly laid.
Al Pacino’s Controversial Supporting Role
Legendary actor Al Pacino appears as Hall’s father, the mortgage company’s top executive who literally phones in his performance from Florida within the film’s narrative.
His heavily accented delivery has drawn particular attention from reviewers. Pacino chews on each bayou-accented syllable with apparent abandon, creating scenes that critics describe as simultaneously terrible and entertaining.
We Halls are stoic people.
That line, delivered to explain why he refuses to apologize to Kiritsis, exemplifies Pacino’s approach throughout. Critics suggest his performance represents a calculated gamble—testing how far he can push theatrical excess before being edited out entirely.
His character accuses his son of developing Stockholm syndrome during captivity. While reviewers acknowledge these scenes lack quality, they admit Pacino’s commitment to his choices provides unintentional entertainment value.
The performance stands in stark contrast to Pacino’s work in “Dog Day Afternoon,” a clear inspiration for “Dead Man’s Wire” that successfully captured similar hostage drama with far greater impact.
Missing the Mark on 1970s Crime Cinema
Van Sant’s apparent intention was recreating the feel of 1970s crime thrillers that defined an era of gritty, character-driven suspense films.
The fundamental problem? Those classic films possessed kinetic energy and narrative momentum that “Dead Man’s Wire” fails to replicate.
Critics point out that merely adopting period aesthetics and choosing vintage subject matter doesn’t automatically capture what made those earlier films resonate with audiences.
- Authentic 1970s thrillers featured sharp pacing that kept viewers engaged
- Character development drove narrative tension organically
- Performances balanced theatricality with grounded realism
- Scripts committed fully to their chosen tone and approach
“Dead Man’s Wire” struggles across these dimensions, resulting in a film that feels more like homage than successful recreation.
When True Stories Don’t Translate
The question facing any true-crime dramatization: does the real story contain sufficient dramatic material to sustain feature-length treatment?
In this case, critics wonder whether the shotgun-wire gimmick and television coverage—arguably the only elements distinguishing this incident from countless other hostage situations—provide enough foundation for compelling cinema nearly fifty years later.
Novelty alone rarely sustains narrative interest. Without strong character work, tonal consistency, or energetic execution, even the most unusual true events risk feeling flat on screen.
“Dead Man’s Wire” serves as reminder that period authenticity requires more than surface-level recreation—it demands capturing the spirit and vitality that made original films in that style memorable in the first place.