Diagonaldi Very well executed

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

John Lind I had "In Cold Blood" set up to auto-record on my TiVo so I wouldn't have to keep searching for it. Lo and behold, it showed up as having been recorded. To my dismay I found this 1996 Hallmark TV movie remake instead of the 1967 theatrical film. The original movie was an Oscar magnet, earning four nominations, and rightfully so as it's a taught, compelling adaptation of Capote's novel in three acts. This one is mired in the same mediocrity that besets nearly all made for TV movies. It's all the film that's print to fit . . . the alloted TV time slot . . . with uneven, mired down pacing that geared for commercial breaks and splitting it into two parts. Add to that the mediocre small budget production values and compromises made to conserve budget, using 2nd and 3rd string actors, with a Roger Corman School "make 'em dirt cheap" director, and the result is a dull plodding movie that can serve as a perfect substitute for sleeping pills. This is a movie remake that should NEVER have been made! CBS should have gotten the rights to the original 1967 film and broadcast it instead, and saved us from this worthless drivel being rebroadcast on the Hallmark Channel.

soneill Not a bad remake of Richard Brooks' gritty black and white classic, albeit somehow trivialized by being in color. but whichever nincompoop cast this film should be sentenced to a trip to The Corner, for the offense of casting Kevin Tighe as Mr. Clutter. Blond, shifty-eyed and simply oozing perverted menace, he is far more terrifying than Dick or Perry at their most psychopathic. If the real Mr. Clutter had looked like that, Dick and Perry would have taken one look at him and run out of the house screaming. Now that I think of it, it would have better for all the Clutters if he had. Where was Lynn Stalmaster when we needed him?

Orren Like others, I have seen and studied most of the books and films concerning the Clutter Killings, including a few dramatic works thematically based on the actions and psycho-mythology of the participants to the crime -- including Capote himself. As to Capote, I cannot forgive him for willfully withholding Perry Smith's confessions, intimacies and writings from even the defense counsels. I believe truths and facts Capote "reserved" for his "book," which required for Capote two guilty verdicts and capital punishment, would almost certainly have sustained a successful insanity defense for Perry Smith even under the old McNaughton Rule. Capote himself could never write another major literary work after "In Cold Blood." Shame and guilt. In my opinion, he willingly encouraged and planned the brutal capital punishment to provide the spectacular ending he required for his book/drama. To him, both men HAD to die for his book to succeed. The book had to justify itself by pretending it was about the horror of capital punishment. His actions and silence assured that ice-cold conclusion.Capote's book is not truth. It is not factual or journalistic. It is drama and melodrama spiced with his own creatively psychotic imagination. What most people consider the virtues of the contemporaneous first movie are stark images of Capote's mind, which may have been the most cold-blooded aspect of all. No wonder viewers ironically but necessarily prefer Blake's performance. That actor IS the nightmare from Capote's dishonest imaginings.So who is to say how the two killers should be played? Who is to judge what could make an essentially poetic psychotic snap from excessive courtesy and kindness to "do it now" killing? I agree with the few who see in Eric Roberts' work a magnificent performance, Shakespearean in its range, yet played with heartbreaking sincerity. Anthony Edwards takes a much safer "attitude mode" to create a smarmy Hickok; but he is one-dimensional and boring, with only a few notes in his television range. Roberts is almost four-dimensional, adding physical weakness and agony to a powerful animal body, a Frankenstein Creature who thinks in poetry and knows exactly what NOT to do. Like Leopold apropos Loeb, Robert's Perry Smith is hopelessly in love with an evil man. Without Hickok or a man of his particularities, Perry Smith would not have brought his psychotic mind into a world of horrors. He fears himself more than he fears anything else in life.Given the freedom from Capote's death grip on the consciousness of the Clutter killings, Roberts and Edwards are free to create original personalities and psychoses to craft a different and new production of the drama. Same facts, some of the same lines from the case record, but deeper, more complex, with clearly titanic psychotic stresses -- indeed Roberts is so good at this fluidic madness that he physically and facially demonstrates in every moment how little awareness he has of where or who he is.What many of our reviewers dislike about this film, Roberts in particular, is that cold-blooded killing isn't shown the way they expect and have been manipulated to demand. That is because here we are seeing a far more profoundly realistic "interpretation of life and death" than Capote could ever create -- a real Tragedy.The actual cold-blooded killer, Mr. Capote, and his hypocritically artistic "non-fiction novel" do not control these interpretations and performances.If "In Cold Blood" and Capote's effect on life, literature and truth matters as much as scholars say, then it takes guts as well as talent to portray the truth, or a version of the truth, that is not the rank, cowardly lie drawn up from the fathoms of Capote's own abyss.

Robert J. Maxwell It boggles the mind. If they think another nickel can be squeezed out of a piece of material, they'll squeeze. The only reason I can think of that this story was retold was that the producers figured the audience was so stupid that they either never had seen the original or didn't know that there WAS an original. Well, maybe the assumption isn't that far off base. As a collective we seem to have dropped a good couple of IQ points somewhere along the way. Back in the 1960s Stanley Kaufman wrote an essay on "the film generation." In one of his classes he brought up Preminger's Joan of Arc, and his students did an impromptu comparison with Dreyer. His students don't do that anymore. They can't. They never heard of Dreyer. In the original "In Cold Blood," there is a lot of artsiness and pop psychology. It isn't a timeless classic, but it's a well-made movie. I don't know why anyone felt a remake was a good idea except, as I suggested, there might be another nickel left in it. The shot-by-shot remake of Psycho was a disgrace. It wasn't that long ago, by geological standards, that when a movie became a classic it was left alone. Can anyone imagine making "Gone With the Wind" now, without its being followed up by "Gone With the Wind, Part 2: Scarlett's Revenge"? What an insult this movie is. It's not badly done, but the motives behind its creation are scurrilous.