Film Review – Dead Man’s Wire
Dead Man's Wire
In 1977, Tony Kiritsis walked into an Indianapolis mortgage firm with a sawed-off shotgun. Kiritsis was convinced that the company was responsible for unfairly striking down a real estate deal that he had invested all his time, effort, and money into. In a rage, he kidnapped his broker’s son – Richard Hall – by tying a wire around the barrel of the shotgun to Hall’s neck so that the weapon was pointed right at his head. Kiritsis himself had a wire tired around his neck to the trigger, so that if anything were to happen to him, the shotgun would go off. What unfolds is a lengthy hostage situation, where Kiritsis demanded the corruption of the mortgage company be exposed, and the media getting into a frenzy to cover every detail of the story.
This true-life tale brings up a lot of debate. Was Kiritsis mentally disturbed – a villain who took drastic means to gain notoriety and attention? Or were his actions the result of a desperate man done wrong by greedy and corrupt business practices? A capitalistic society often leads to “haves” and “have nots.” What happens when one of the so-called “have nots” take matters into their own hands? These are the questions at the heart of Dead Man’s Wire (2025). Director Gus Van Sant – in his first film in nearly seven years – never really answers these questions outright. Instead, he details each agonizing step of the situation, leaving it up to us to decide what to think.

Van Sant (along with screenwriter Austin Kolodney) approaches the material with an observational outlook. Kiritsis (Bill Skarsgård) is portrayed as a mix of conflicting character traits. He is often unhinged, unpredictable, and has a personality that can go up and down at a moment’s notice. But he is also polite and charming. Most of his friends and family describe him as affable and nice. It would make sense that, once the hostage situation became public, that Kiritsis would gain a following of admirers. One could argue that he is a Robin Hood-like figure – someone who decided to fight back against the powers that be. But does that excuse him for putting Hall’s life in danger? Skarsgård plays these various shades of personality with precision. He incorporates the same kind of searing intensity of a young Michael Shannon. It’s as though he is a ticking time bomb ready to go off at a moment’s notice. Some of the best sequences are when Skarsgård has Kiritsis fly off the handle with his rambling monologues, raving about the corruption of society and demanding retribution for being so mistreated.
The film starts off at a high level. The opening scenes, where Kiritsis meanders his way into the mortgage firm and kidnaps Hall (Dacre Montgomery) have a sloppy, chaotic feel. Unable to get back into his car – due to accidentally breaking the key off in the ignition – Kiritsis guides Hall out into the street in full view of spectators. Incredibly, the two take a long stroll down the street, eventually high jacking a police cruiser and driving to Kiritsis’ apartment. The sequence reminds me of Dog Day Afternoon (1975) in how everything seems to be happening on the fly, as though the hostage takers were adjusting as things went along. The writing, direction, cinematography (Arnaud Potier), and editing (Saar Klein) does an excellent job of amplifying the suspense. The longer Kiritsis and Hall are out in the open, the more we see bystanders, journalists and police officers appearing in the background. The more people show up, the more volatile the scene becomes.
Another substantial element is how Van Sant incorporates the media coverage of the kidnapping. He routinely examines how the story is recorded and distributed by news outlets, personified by a young up-and-coming reporter (Myha’la) hungry to prove herself. We often break away from the action to camera footage, news reports, and eyewitness testimony to give a larger overview. These bits are so well constructed that I wouldn’t be surprised if the production added real archival footage. There is a push and pull with how the media barrage is portrayed. On one hand, Kiritsis understood how powerful and influential the media is, often ordering authorities to read out his demands on air. He calls upon a local radio host (Colman Domingo) to record their conversations and pass it off to authorities. Kiritsis clearly tried to sway public opinion through media, but on the other hand, the media is also depicted as manipulating his story. We hear a producer repeatedly tell his underling “Chop it up for primetime,” meaning that they will only keep the necessary parts to get the highest ratings. It’s a back and forth between the two sides, neither of which get off clean.

Dead Man’s Wire is at its most compelling at the early and late stages. However, it runs into some issues in the second act. Once Kiritsis and Hall get to the apartment, things settle down to a much slower pace. The narrative becomes a stalemate from various angles. There is Kiritsis vs. Hall, Kiritsis vs. the hostage negotiators, and Kiritsis vs. public opinion. Unfortunately, the writing doesn’t maintain the high wire act of the opening scenes (no pun intended). Dacre Montgomery does fine work as the counterpoint to Kiritsis, but his character doesn’t command our attention. His rocky relationship with his father (Al Pacino) feels more like a trope involving a child trying to win the approval of their parent. And while Colman Domingo is one of our most talented actors, his character’s short speeches on the radio or his interactions with Kiritsis doesn’t hit dramatically. Everybody just seems to be stuck in a holding pattern until we finally get to the climax.
The last Gus Van Sant feature length film was 2018’s Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot. That is far too long a wait for a filmmaker of his caliber. I admire Dead Man’s Wire more than I liked it. With that said, the film industry is in a better place with Van Sant in it. He can tackle any kind of story from any genre and combine it with his own unique, independent voice. Whether the result works is almost beside the point, because it is so distinctly his.
