Nonureva
Really Surprised!
ChanBot
i must have seen a different film!!
Noutions
Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .
Intcatinfo
A Masterpiece!
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.
merklekranz
To me, Eric Roberts performance as Perry in this overlong version of "In Cold Blood" is outstanding and memorable. That is not to say that overall the performances are anything to nitpick about, it's just that Roberts is the one to watch. On the downside, the 180 minutes it takes to tell this tale of murder in Kansas, appears stretched to the max. It seems to take forever for Dick Hickock (Anthony Edwards) and Perry Smith (Eric Roberts) to reach their destination of Holcomb Kansas. On the plus side there is far more character development than in the original Robert Blake, Scott Wilson film. If this was 120 minutes, it would have been terrific. - MERK
John Haynes
This was a pretty good film. I'm not sure if this is considered a spoiler comment, but I didn't want to take a chance. Anyway, near the end of the film, the prosecutor reads a Scripture verse and then quotes another from memory. I can't remember the first passage he reads, but the second one is Genesis 9:6. He says it's Genesis 9:12, but he actually quotes verse 6. This is a common passage that many use to defend capital punishment. It's too bad that prosecutors dare not quote the Bible today. Did anybody ever hear of John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice in the history of this country? He said that the Bible is the best of all books. Too bad we've lost that view in America.
secretx42
I have copies of both these Movies the classic where Robert blake is a mighty fine actor where most of the 1967 movie Blake is more shown standing by a window in jail telling his childhood life where it makes since why he killed the Clutter Family doesn't show much in the classic of what really went on an doesn't tell us which one really done the killing but it's a great eye catcher really if you watch the 1996 movie In cold Blood the classic makes a lot more sence .
