Customer Reviews

A Perfect Murder (Widescreen Edition) [VHS]

5 star:		(33)
4 star:		(37)
3 star:		(19)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

For the record, "A Perfect Murder" is a remake of "Dial M for Murder," Alfred Hitchcock's maliciously clever but hopelessly stagebound adaptation of the popular play by Frederick Knott. But it is great deal more fun to view the new movie as a sequel to "Wall Street," with Michael Douglas once again in top form as a ruthlessly manipulative financial whiz. Imagine Gordon Gekko just a few years past his prime as a high-flying corporate raider, with a trophy wife who's just beginning to tarnish, and you'll get the idea. The big difference is, this time, instead of extolling the virtues of greed, Douglas' character is willing to consider the benefits of an even deadlier sin.

In "A Perfect Murder," which Andrew Davis ("The Fugitive") has directed from a screenplay by Patrick Smith Kelly, Douglas is Steven Taylor, a Manhattan-based millionaire industrialist who has over-extended himself while playing the international money markets. Worse, he knows that his most prized possession -- Emily (Gwyneth Paltrow), his radiantly beautiful and conspicuously younger wife -- is drifting out of his jealously tight grip.

Right from the start, the audience knows that Emily is having an affair with David (Viggo Mortensen), a broodingly hunky artist who invites her to his fashionably seedy downtown loft for afternoon delights. Trouble is, Steven also knows about the affair. This, too, is made clear very early in the story, as Steven and Emily share a drink in their luxurious apartment before attending a gallery opening. Despite all their polite chit-chat, there is an edge of menace in the air. When Steven abruptly suggests that she wear another dress to the occasion, his words have the unmistakable sound of a command. Not surprisingly, Emily does as she's told.

At the gallery opening, Steven is effortlessly gracious as his wife introduces him to David, whom she identifies as a casual acquaintance. Of course, he's much more than that -- much more, in fact, than even Emily realizes.

After inviting himself to David's loft, Steven reverts to his natural state. He knows that David is an ex-convict who taught himself to paint in prison -- and, more important, has mastered the art of seducing, then robbing, rich women. Sounding very much like a hard-bargaining businessman, Steven wastes little time in making his pitch: He offers David $500,000 to kill Emily. For a few minutes, David rejects the offer. But the money -- coupled with the threat of exposure -- is too tempting to resist.

It would be difficult to say more about what happens next without running the risk of spilling some beans. Even if you've already seen Hitchcock's 1954 original, or one of the many revivals of Knott's play, you are in for a few surprises. Davis and Kelly treat "Dial M for Murder" more as a source of inspiration than a classic worthy of replication. They take the play's basic set-up -- the husband concocts a tricky murder scheme that hinges on the placement of a latchkey and the ringing of a telephone -- but go off in a different, far more intriguing direction.

Perhaps the most striking difference between Hitchcock's film and Davis' update is the casually amoral cynicism that informs "A Perfect Murder." In the 1954 thriller, the wife's lover was a boyishly buoyant mystery writer, affably played by Robert Cummings, while the wife -- played by Hitchcock's favorite leading lady, Grace Kelly -- was a relatively innocent adulteress who generated sympathy while paying for her sins. Even the cuckolded husband, played by Ray Milland, came across as genial rogue who was motivated by love as much as money.

Welcome to the 1990s: In "A Perfect Murder," the lover is a con man with a gift for blackmail, the husband has lust in his heart for his wife's trust fund, and even the wife is a strong believer in enlightened self-interest. You won't feel excessive sympathy for any of these characters as they hatch their plots and counter-plots. In fact, you may think one of them gets off far too easily in the end. But with the lead roles cast so effectively, and the plot twisting so cleverly, you likely will wind up feeling that, unlike Steven, you've gotten your money's worth.

Boy, here's one re-make I thought was far superior to the original ("Dial M For Murder," with Ray Milland, Grace Kelly and Bob Cummings.) In this film, the stars are Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow and Viggo Mortensen.

The best part of this film may not be the story, or the acting, both of which keep you glued to the screen, but the stylish photography and sets.. They look magnificent, mainly the apartment of the the two leads. I was constantly awed by how good this film looks. The DVD transfer is beautiful.

I also prefer the sequel because it has more twists and is complex enough to thoroughly enjoy every 3-4 years. Also fun are the short speeches each character gives on occasion, usually when they smugly think they have the upper hand. Each time that happens, their antagonist winds up going one up on them! There isn't much action in here but when it occurs, it's very intense.

The only thing that annoys me - unfortunately it's a big one - is the ending in which I don't believe justice totally prevailed. I can't wrote much more without spoiling it for those who have not seen this. One of the parties comes out looking like a 'an innocent victim" and that person was hardly a "saint." If all the parties had received just due, it would have been more satisfying and I would have rated this a '5' without hesitation.

This quasi-remake of Hitchcock’s Dial M for Murder (1954)--which was filmed in 3D, by the way--is a rather good thriller in its own right, intelligently done throughout except for a few scenes near the end when Director Andrew Davis and screenwriter Patrick Smith Kelly lose their judgment and opt for a silly knock down, drag out fight.

Michael Douglas plays a quintessential evil kind of guy, evil, ruthless, greedy, two-faced, crafted to excite our loathing (“How’s THIS for wet work?”). He is excellent. Gwyneth Paltrow plays his very rich wife who has incredibly poor taste in men. Seems that Gwyneth has become attracted to roles that get her involved with the wrong kind of guys, witness The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999) and Sliding Doors (1998). But she is also very good, as is Viggo Mortensen who plays the murderous con artist.

The plot is tight and filled with nice twists. The sets are opulent and dripping with money, and neither the direction nor the camera work calls undue attention to itself. But what really makes this fly is the material on which it is based, the devilishly clever play by Frederick Knott, who reigned on Broadway many years ago. I’ll bet that Paltrow was persuaded in part to take the role because the same part was played in the Hitchcock movie by the legendary Grace Kelly. Also, another Frederick Knott play made into a movie was Wait Until Dark (1967) starring the also legendary Audrey Hepburn. I suspect Paltrow could hardly resist joining such illustrious company, especially when the plot here allows her to take matters into her own hands, as it were, and give to her two guys considerably more than she gets.

Bottom line: you will be diverted.

Having never seen the Alfred Hitchcock classic DIAL M FOR MURDER, I have absolutely nothing with which to compare this film, except the slick mystery/suspense thrillers of the 1980's and '90's. In this category, A PERFECT MURDER (1998) ranks among the better ones.

With Michael Douglas at his sordid best, Gwyneth Paltrow in the middle of her breakout year (doing films such as GREAT EXPECTATIONS--another re-make, SLIDING DOORS, HUSH and finally, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, which resulted in a well-deserved Oscar statue for her) and still-rising Viggo Mortensen, the screenplay by Patrick Smith Kelly fits each of these actors' personas so neatly that you would swear the words were written with these actors fully in mind. Add in the lush photograghy, which successfully captures the deep, brooding tone of the film and you've got a real winner here.

Indoor shots in the townhouse where Douglas and Paltrow's characters live reveal tall ceilings and lots of sharp, sinister brown and orange colors. Shots in Mortensen's artist's loft display soft blue-gray hues and wide spaces filled with work (as opposed to the townhouse which is filled solely with material "things"). The dialogue fits each character and remains true. Even with all the twists and turns in the plot (expected in films like this, anyway), the story remains interesting and does not feel contrived.

It's amazing that Warner Bros. waited a full 5 years after this film's initial release to put it out on DVD. I think the wait was well worth it--both the sound and picture quality on this disc are excellent.

If you have noticed that I have only commented on the technical merits of A PERFECT MURDER and not the story, this is intentional, as the story itself is neatly summed up in one sentence--Douglas is a rich financial wiz who's married to an unhappy Paltrow who is happily cheating on him with Mortensen, uses his street smarts to figure out what's going on and then blackmails Mortensen to off wifey for him. The point in this film is not the story itself; rather, it is about style and the way in which it is presented. A PERFECT MURDER scores big on all counts. Michael Douglas is the main soldifying force in this film--it is impossible to think of an actor better suited for the erotic thriller sub-genre than he is; after all, he starred in the film that defined the erotic thriller, FATAL ATTRACTION. Add A PERFECT MURDER to the list.

Andrew Davis, you directed a very competent film with this outing. Viggo Mortensen, with your determination, hard work and those now-famous cheekbones, you've finally left your Leatherface days behind for good. Gwyneth Paltrow, we can't stop watching you. Michael Douglas, well, we love to hate ya!

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

In many ways this is a remake of "Dial M for Murder", the classic Hitchcock thriller, but if you haven't seen Dial M yet, watch this one first. There are many differences in the storyline - enough to make each stand alone as its own separate movie.

The movie really has only four characters - currency trader Stephen (Michael Douglas), his wealthy trophy-wife Emily (Gwyneth Paltrow), and the artistic lover David (Viggo Mortensen) - plus a few brief appearances by Mohamed (David Suchet). Interestingly, you would think with so few characters that each would come across as complex and well developed - but the focus here is on the intricate plot and the gorgeous sets. The actors are all of course brilliant, but they are playing characters that are very stereotypical.

Douglas delights in his villain role and mentions this many times in the commentary - that it means he can go the theatrical and dramatic route. You can see in the beginning of the movie - he plays Stephen as a very cool, intelligent man who plots out everything he wants in life, and then gets it. You can understand how he seduced and wooed the naive Emily and got her to marry him without signing a prenup. Now he is going to take advantage of her affair to get rid of her, and get the money.

Viggo plays the sleazy lover / artist who is actually a serial seducer, who has been in jail twice for taking advantage of rich women. He lives in a large loft cluttered with his artwork. Of interesting note is that Viggo actually painted all of his own artwork - and painted it right in that loft. He put a lot of work into becoming his character, and the Polish residents of that area of New York actually did think he was an artist. David did in fact deliberately seduce Emily for her money - but along the way he began to fall in love with her. It takes an apparent betrayal by Emily before he goes along with Stephen's scheme. It's very interesting - when you first see David, he is very well dressed, very handsome. But as the movie goes on, he degenerates more and more until by the end his hair is greasy, his look is furtive and he has gone back to being the con-man he was before he first met Emily. He becomes "un-saved" during the course of the movie.

Gwyneth has a hard character here. If you compare this story with the original Dial M, in the original the female character was a door post. She sat there with no brain cells and no activity. We have a HUGE improvement with Emily - she works with the UN and is very savvy. But even so, it's a shame they made her such a stereotype. She is a beautiful, rich trophy wife. She was seduced and "taken" by Stephen who obviously cared little for what she was actually about. Stephen just wanted her cash and arm candy appeal. Being naive, she believed Stephen and didn't sign a pre-nup. Then she was seduced and "taken" by David, who again cared little for what she was. David just wanted the cash. I realize of course that some women are naive and that some men are out for conquest. But with the screenplay being so "smart" and well developed - and with the two male characters both being so intelligent and planning - it was a shame to have the girl just bumble through the situations going "Jeez, I can't imagine he would HURT me ..." like a 13 year old innocent. She lives in New York, she works for the UN. She shows her brilliance in her mastery of multiple languages and her understanding of complex financial situations. It would have been really nice to carry that over into an insight about relationships as well.

I also feel sorry for David Suchet. He is a brilliant actor, but Mohamet gets hardly any lines or action. He only appears in a few scenes and he mostly gives Emily a prodding to move forward in her investigations.

The sets are gorgeous, as are the backdrops of New York City. The locations are in fact right near where Gwyneth grew up. The cinematography has a very theatrical feeling to it. Sometimes things are just a little TOO obvious. It was perfectly clear what the murder weapon was going to be. But I suppose with the tiny details of the plot being so well done, sometimes they couldn't be sure that the entire audience "got it" and had to help out. There are many little things - like an open door - that you might not even catch until you watch the movie a second time. There are a number of 'background items' that are very well done - a comparison between David's raw, powerful art style and Stephen's staid, "what is popular at the moment" collection.

SPOILER ALERT!!

The movie for me was great until the ending scene. There are in fact 2 versions of the ending that you can see on the DVD - and the ending they used is at least far better than the alternative. In the alternative. Emily confronts Stephen with knowledge of the murder plot and simply shoots him in the chest. Mohamed realizes this is what happens but lets Emily get away with "The Perfect Murder" because he feels sorry for her. In the ending they used, it is only slightly more legal - Emily has a gun and antagonizes Stephen by telling him she is going to go tell the police and get him locked up for life. She goads him into attacking her, he does, and she then shoots him. Lawyers would tell you that as she had a gun, it was her responsibility to not provoke him - she should just have left and gone to the police without instigating his fury. Again, in the second version, Mohamed lets her get away with it.

Both of the endings bothered me. Yes, Stephen was a criminal. So was David. Both were actively using Emily. She had the proof of these activities. Instead of reducing the great plot and intricacies of the entire movie into a shooting match, she should have shown her OWN brilliance and roped him into a public exposure of his failures and forced him to live with years of suffering in jail, with public humiliation. It's what his psyche would have hated the most. Instead she pushed his buttons, knowing he'd attack, knowing she'd have to shoot him. In the movie it might have been "the perfect murder" but in reality it reduced her to the level of those who had been using her all along. I didn't find that ending satisfying at all.

A Perfect Murder is a re-make of the Hitchcock film, "Dial M for Murder." Steven Taylor, played by Michael Douglas, pays David, an artist played by Viggo Montenson, to kill his wife Emily, played by Gwyneth Paltrow. Emily and David are having a affair. The plan seems perfect, but is it? The murder is thwarted and the rules change. There is much suspense, and the plot contains several twists that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Douglas, Paltrow, and Mortenson do excellent jobs with their roles. The DVD contains commentary by the director and Michael Douglas. It also has an alternate ending that I don't think works as well as the one in the theatrical release. "A Perfect Murder" is a very good movie.

This is an excellent movie. It's a remake, but done very well. Michael Douglas can play a good bad guy. His wife is Gwenyth Paltrow, and she too is well played. She is having an affair and doesn't know that her husband is on to her. He plots to have her killed and things go 'wrong' from there. It's a gripping story line and has great twists and turns. Any thriller fan will love it. This ranks high on my list of movie thillers I love, and I highly recommend it.

"A Perfect Murder" opened in theaters at the start of summer 1998. It did brisk business before being mowed down by the season's high profile fare. Actually, it held its own rather well, which proves once again that the public knows more than experts think it does. This is happy paradox, because much of the public's correct choices are due to the fact that it doesn't know everything. Critics do.

Many critics get religion, so to speak. Certain "truths" become holy to them. Since Alfred Hitchcock was 'The Master of Suspense', any movie that is a remake of one of his works is damned before the first foot of film is shot. These self-appointed guardians of cinema can become menacing in their anger and hostility. You'd think Hollywood executives were running around trying to knock off The Pope.

"A Perfect Murder" is based on the play "Dial M for Murder", which Hitchcock made into a film in the early 1950s, while under contract to Warner Brothers. I do not question his place in history, but not all of Hitchock's works carry equal weight. He did not like Frederick Knott's play. He reluctantly agreed to do the movie version in exchange for the studio's letting him do a pet project. As a result, they let him make the brilliant and successful "Rear Window", while he gave them the mediocre and successful "Dial M for Murder".

"A Perfect Murder" was based on a script the studio already owned. It happened to be the perfect vehicle for young Gwyneth Paltrow to play in opposite Michael Douglas. Director Andrew Davis had already proved his ability at rehashed suspense with Warner's film version of "The Fugitive".

The movie suffers not in the least when compared to Hitch's version. If anything, it's a better picture. It obviously had a bigger budget. It's not nearly as mannered and static. The plot has been extensively updated, except for one key scene involving a telephone. Its failings are due to the same elements which bothered Hitch. The play is close to being a potboiler. Still, in the new version, the makers were smart enough to employ film techniques which tend to gloss over the script's weaknesses.

As Steven and Emily Taylor, Douglas and Paltrow are perfectly matched. Both have innocent looking facades, but these barely cover personalities underneath, which seem quite capable of cleverness and deception. Mr. Douglas's character may be more transparently criminal, but it is Paltrow's cultivated multi-lingual Emily which leaves one wondering. Is this woman a true victim, or is she simply the smartest player in this game?

Viggo Mortensen does well in the role of her lover, whom you decidedly would not want to bring home. Nice characters rarely last long in this type of story. The three main characters, under Billy August's direction, bring off a cat and mouse thriller, which is far more intense than the Hitchcock version.

While the plot covers very familiar territory, the movie's elegant look, which is uniquely Hollywood, dominates the picture. Having little substance to work with, the director pulled out the stops on style. Perhaps he figured that, if we were going to travel a well worn path, we might as well go like we were in a Lexus, rather than a Subaru.

This is a good movie and well worth the watch. Michael Douglas plays a familiar role similar to his early 1987 Wall Street Gordon Geiko role but now much more sinister, and Gwyneth Paltrow plays his younger and slightly gullible trophy wife who is searching for happiness.

The movie tells how she is taken in by an artist, and how her husband Douglas reacts. His acting is good, but not up to the level of some of his earlier roles, which would be hard for him to match in every movie. Gwyneth is likeable and adds some zing.

I watched the movie because of Douglas, but as the movie progresses the center of attention seems to shift from Michael towards Gwyneth, a more recent Oscar winner, because of her believable acting and her sympathetic role. So even with the less than a great new role for Douglas, the movie is entertaining. It is definitely worth a watch, especially for Douglas fans, which includes myself plus I am now a budding Paltrow fan.

This is a minimalist movie, and although the credits (see the Amazon movie info above) lists many actors, there are really only four characters of note in the play, i.e.: the two stars both Oscar winners along with the artist and a police detective. It is the type of movie that lends itself to being just a short play since most of the action takes place in just two apartments. The movie is set in New York city, and the director manages to work in a few local attractions such as Penn Station, the Staten Island Ferry, some skyline, and some museums. But the New York scenes are just a bonus, like icing on a cake, and the movie really hangs on the stars and their interactions. It is a good drama with some surprising turns.

Highly recommend but just 4 stars. --This text refers to the DVD edition.

The marriage of Steven and Emily Taylor disintegrates because the wife no longer loves her husband and the husband's business is suffering. Emily is a young wife who has fallen for artist David Shaw. He has what her husband is lacking--and that is emotion. Steven is more concerned about making profits while David uses art to express himself.
Things get twisted when Emily is almost killed. It is not a question of who done it. It is a question of how it was done. Emily retreats to her mother's home where she feels secure. But she has to return home and do some investigating. Meanwhile, David is doing what he can to get rid of his wife so he can get his hands on her money.
This is a movie that can be watched over and again. Michael Douglas plays a great role as a stern, hard businessman. I have to admit that he is almost sexy in his portrayal. Gwenyth Paltrow seems comfortable in her role as a victimized heiress. Viggo Mortensen makes a good grungy artist. And David Suchet of Inspector Poirot is an excellent actor. We get to see him without the mustache.