In Cold Blood (1996)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

In Cold Blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the Hollywood film industry. Capote coined the phrase "nonfiction novel" to describe the book on which this film is based, and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, Richard Brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. This is the first problem with the TV remake --color changes the tone of the story. In addition, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs. Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: "Ho hum, who cares?"See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.Wouldn't hurt to also go on line and read a bit about Capote and the original book. It will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material, and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie.I actually only gave this a 4 because I save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs--the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an

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.

Ok first of all I know it's a remake of a great film so I will not bore you with the story you already know. Now I think that this is a little better because of the talent of Eric Roberts and Anthony Edwards. It's a story that should be seen in all retrospect of this film and the original. I really think that both films have great qualities and should be seen on DVD or Video. I own it on DVD(The one with Eric Roberts) and it's great. It's hard to find on DVD but I have one and if you can find it buy it. Out of 4 stars I give it 3 1/2 stars.

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?