Customer Reviews

In Cold Blood [VHS]

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I liked this version better than the 1960s version. I thought it followed the book more closely. I teach Criminal Justice at Dodge City Community College, which is not far from Holcolm. I make my students read the book. Most complain that compared to recent crimes, this one seems somewhat tame. i have to remind them this happened in the late 1950s and was very shocking to the small town. I liked the cast really well. i don't think any movie will ever be better than the book, however, I did really like this movie, and plan to buy it.

I recently had the opportunity to view this film on the Lifetime cable channel. A remake of the 1967 film of the same name, which was a fairly faithful adaptation of Truman Capote's sensational non-fiction book, this version does not disappoint the viewer. Although it does not have the gritty, quasi-documentary feel of the black and white 1967 film, which starred Robert Blake and Scott Wilson in the two lead roles, it is compelling in its own right and a fairly faithful adaptation.

The film follows the path of two losers, Dick Hickock (Anthony Edwards) and Perry Smith (Eric Roberts), as they careen towards catastrophe for themselves and for the hapless Klutter family of Holcomb, Kansas, upon whom they have set their sights. The pathology inherent in these two protagonists is chilling. It is also scary to think that a simple twist of fate would join them all in the annals of true crime.

While Hickock was incarcerated, a fellow inmate, Floyd Wells, who at one time years ago had worked for Herbert Klutter, the patriarch of the Klutter family, told Hickock that Klutter was a wealthy farmer who kept a large store of cash in a safe in the house. Given many details of the family and their house, Hickock fantasizes of making a big score, courtesy of the Klutter family.

When Hickock is released, he hooks up with his friend, Perry Smith. Smith, initially the more sympathetic of the two protagonists, is an individual with obvious psychological problems, deeply rooted in his troubled childhood, while Hickock, who seemed to have had a relatively normal childhood, is a totally amoral con man with little empathy for others. Together, these two spell trouble.

As they begin their preparations for their supposed big heist, the viewer gets a dose of the pathological psyche of these two pathetic individuals. Clearly, Hickock is the leader, with the troubled Smith seemingly reluctant to go along with Hickock's plans. It is chilling to watch them as their preparations and actions take them ever closer to their moment of reckoning with the Klutter family.

The film also tells a parallel story, that of the all-American Klutter family. The viewer sees how they lived and what their modest lives were like just shortly before theirs were to violently intersect those of Smith and Hickock on November 14, 1959. It is this poignant glimpse into their lives just before their senseless slaughter by these two strangers that makes the film so heartbreaking. Were it not for a simple twist of fate, this family might have gone on to live their lives in relative obscurity.

When Smith and Hickock finally reach the home of the Klutters that fateful night, they simply walk in through their unlocked door. Sleeping in the family home were the Clutters and their two teenage children. It would prove to be an unforgettable night for all concerned. The rest of the film focuses on the subsequent actions of Hickock and Perry, as well as on the investigation of the murders, which investigation ultimately saw this motley pair brought to justice.

Anthony Edwards gives an impressive performance as the creepy, amoral, and immature Hickock. He plays him as a big talker pumped with self-importance, a con man who cons Perry into thinking that this score will set them up for life. Eric Roberts plays Perry Smith as a sympathetic and somewhat sensitive character, who, but for the cruel twists of fate, might have had another kind of life. His portrayal makes the revelations at the end all that more surprising.

This is a remarkably good made for television film that does not try to copy the original 1967 film but, instead, forges its own path. The direction is excellent, as are the performances of the entire cast. Those who enjoy the true crime genre will find this film to be well worth watching.

I recall hearing that this television remake of "In Cold Blood" was actually truer to the source than the '67 film had been. That would be the one advantage a miniseries could possibly have over the stark theatrical original. As with the television version of "The Shining," faithfulness to the original text is one possible advantage of a 3-plus hour version, perhaps THE one possible advantage.

But having just re-read the book and viewing this version almost immediately thereafter, I can tell you that it does take considerable libterties with the text. It compresses two secondary characters into one (Myrt and Bess), which detracts from one of the book's considerable virtues--its astute portrait of small town life. Its psychological portrait of the killers is a little clumsy as well. The book's fascinating revelation of Perry Smith's recurring fantasy of being rescued by an enormous parrot-like bird is hinted at, briefly, during the course of a awkwardly portrayed seizure he experiences in a restaurant. It's heavy handed at best and, since the matter is dropped afterwards, is no doubt meaningless to anyone who hadn't already read the book.

On the other hand, the cast is good. Anthony Edwards certainly must have relished playing a bad guy for a change, and Eric Roberts and Sam Neill are always worth watching (although, as others have noted, Roberts is not really physically right for his role as the diminutive Smith). But they and the rest of the capable cast are dealing with a pretty mediocre screenplay. Cinematographically, however, the film is quite well done, and director Jonathan Kaplan, who assisted Jodie Foster in getting her first Oscar, does well by his cast here.

It's been a long time since I've seen the original screen version of the film, but I recall that that film was extremely powerful. It's hard to imagine any remake doing it justice. That this one comes off OK speaks well for the director, cinematographer and cast. But it also seems to have blown its opportunity to make a more expansive statement than its predecessor. That's a shame.

This movie In Cold Blood. It was a good movie and keep you guessing what was going to happen next. I just love Kevin Tighe and had to buy this movie.The actor did good in Emergency so he was good in this as well.I would recommend this to anyone.

See the original theatrical version, rather than this made-for-TV version. The original was as close to an accurate adaptation of a great novel to a movie as I've seen. The actors were so like the characters in the book, it's amazing. In this version, while I think Eric Roberts is a great actor (and the fact that his sister Julia became the bigger star is mind-boggling), he is miscast in this. The real Perry Smith, whom Roberts is playing, was very short...and that was part of what made him such a pathetic character. Roberts is almost a white Michael Jordan! It's a weak movie compared to the novel and the first movie. If you've neither seen nor read the other versions, maybe you'll like this. But even so, why see this, when you can choose the others?

This movie was very powerful, especialy the emotions shared by the family as they were killed and their friends as they moarned for them. Margot Finley who plays Nancy stood out the most to me. I found the charicter very real, kind, generus, and ultimitly ill-fated. The relationships in this movie are also very profound. Mr. and Mrs. Clutter, Dick and Perry. Sam Neill as Dewey. Kenyon, Nancy and her father. And also Ryan Reynolds and Margot Finley who play Bobby and Nancy. I thought this movie was very good and I highly recomande it.

I saw this movie on T.V. and bought the video. I am sure that some of the movie is not on the tape. One part left out was when the man working for the Clutter family cleans out and burns some of the bloody mattresses, a teddy bear, etc. I do like the fact that the teenagers in this movie look the ages of who they are portraying. The earlier version has Nancy(16) and Kenyon Clutter(14) looking like they are at least twenty. This new version shows us the family a lot more. It is good to know that these men were hanged for this horrible crime. I don't think either of the two versions portray the killers as they actually were. What kind of person shoots a fourteen year old boy in the face? A good guy who didn't want to kill anybody until his friend pushed him into it? I feel that killers are mean and hide this dark side of themselves.The Clutter family probably saw a side of the killers Truman Capote could never 'find' and Eric Roberts couldn't imagine. The acting is good in this movie, though.