In Cold Blood (1996)

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.

After reading the book, I happened across this DVD at Wal-Mart for 3 bucks and thought, sure, what the hell... I got the DVD and watched it last night. When I started watching it, I checked the run time and it was about 90 minutes. I thought, OK cool... It seemed to run rather slowly, knowing the story and how much of it there was. By the time I got to the actual killings, I was like, "how much time does this have left?" Checked. "One minute?! What the hell?!" I felt incredibly cheated, thinking that the movie only progressed through a third of the overall story.But then, I happily noticed that the DVD's scene selection menu included a part 1 AND a part 2. I still had another hour and a half to go! I then sat very happily and enjoyed the second half of the movie, even more so than the first.I admit that I have not seen the 1967 original film (despite my sincerest desire to), I have however read the novel and felt that this was a fairly descent film, for a two-part TV miniseries, that is. I think the casting of the role of Perry was completely wrong and a few minor inconsistencies jumped out at me, but still very well done. The first half drags on a bit, while the second half is much more gripping. I think they should have proportioned the movie more like Capote did his book: 1/3 before the murders, 1/3 after, and 1/3 after the killers are arrested. Instead, the film makes it more 1/2 before the murders, 1/4 after, and 1/4 after the killers are arrested. Again, this makes the second half more exciting, but at the same time, less compelling while making the first half drag on and on...Now I look back and realize I have just made the same mistake about making things drag on and on, so I will shut the hell up. Go watch the movie and make up your own damn mind! Nick Houston

Why do they insist on making re-makes of great movies like "High Noon" "From Here to Eternity" and this one?Why do they think that color is more engrossing to a viewer than stark black and white?Why did Robert's insist on wearing that dopey, broad-billed, baseball cap?...it made him look like Jim Varney.Why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this?Watch the original. Then YOU won't have to ask yourself WHY.

This waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. Nothing new or original is added other than Perry's backflashes, which are of marginal interest. It lacks the documentary feel of the first film and the raw urgency that made it so effective. Also painfully missing is the sharp Quincy Jones soundtrack that added to much to the original film. I can't understand any high ratings for this at all. It's quite bad. Why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did I waste time watching it?