What was the last film you watched?

[ClassyCo]

I just watched the made-for-TV remake of A LETTER TO THREE WIVES (1985), starring Loni Anderson, Michele Lee, and Stephanie Zimbalist as the wives, with Ben Gazzara, Michael Gross, and Charles Frank as their husbands.

It's been a while since I've watched the 1949 original, which and been written and directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, but I recall loving that version of the story. Jeanne Crain, Linda Darnell, and Ann Sothern (who shows up as Loni's mom in this remake) are hard to beat. And the touch of Mankiewicz isn't so easily replicated.

With that, I found this 1985 small-screen adaptation to be enjoyable. It doesn't do anything new, but just simply rehashes the original story in a mid-80s setting.

 

[Toni]

I just watched the made-for-TV remake of A LETTER TO THREE WIVES (1985), starring Loni Anderson, Michele Lee, and Stephanie Zimbalist as the wives, with Ben Gazzara, Michael Gross, and Charles Frank as their husbands.

It's been a while since I've watched the 1949 original, which and been written and directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, but I recall loving that version of the story. Jeanne Crain, Linda Darnell, and Ann Sothern (who shows up as Loni's mom in this remake) are hard to beat. And the touch of Mankiewicz isn't so easily replicated.

With that, I found this 1985 small-screen adaptation to be enjoyable. It doesn't do anything new, but just simply rehashes the original story in a mid-80s setting.

View attachment 55722

I agree with you, it´s a very pleasant telemovie that doesn´t add anything to the story. My only but is that Ms. Lee looks like her Karen once again, when she should have done something with her hair to preventing the audience from thinking about her Knots character when she first shows up. Even one-faced Loni is ok here, and the guys are quite good. I remember fondly Zimbalist´s performance as the Remington Steele fan I am!

​

 

[ClassyCo]

I agree with you, it´s a very pleasant telemovie that doesn´t add anything to the story. My only but is that Ms. Lee looks like her Karen once again, when she should have done something with her hair to preventing the audience from thinking about her Knots character when she first shows up. Even one-faced Loni is ok here, and the guys are quite good. I remember fondly Zimbalist´s performance as the Remington Steele fan I am!

View attachment 55732
​

Yes, it adds absolutely nothing to the table. It follows the same beats as the 1949 film, and doesn't improve in it in any way.

I agree with you about the cast. Michele Lee should've done something different with her hair to differentiate herself from Karen McKenzie over at Seaview Circle. I actually like Loni Anderson here, which I've enjoyed her performances as Jayne Mansfield and Thelma Todd, too. I was, by some measure, the least impressed with Stephanie Zimbalist and Charles Frank as the Bishops. They were least interesting and convincing to me.

 

[Willie Oleson]

The Defiant Ones (1958)



It doesn't take long to figure out what the main premise is going to be, and for a moment I feared it would be one of those annoyingly forced-funny "buddy" stories.
But this film isn't from the 1980s or 1990s, it's from 1958 and back then they had a much better sense of humour.
In some ways this film reminds me of the no-nonsense attitude of Billy Wilder's Ace In The Hole - critical and cynical, with shades of absurd humour and unexpected moments of poignant drama.
It's precisely that kind of non-genre that makes these old films incredibly lively and entertaining.

The Defiant Ones features the issue of racism, and how could it not, but it really hits home when the story enters a moment of ease and the only significant female character assumes that she wouldn't have to feed the black man.
It's the ongoing action-reaction that allows the characters to learn a little bit more about themselves but not necessarily take advantage of it.

There are several laugh-out-loud funny moments in the simplicity of the chained characters tumbling down or beating each other up, in other moments it looks frustratingly tense.
The chase patrol delivers the quirkiness with the red tape decision making and the particular concern for the dogs.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any other movies that end with an exclamation, or certainly not as unique as "sewing machine!"

I haven't seen many films starring Tony Curtis or Sidney Poitier therefore it also felt like killing two birds with one stone. Also bought the film which is yet another funny DVD/Blu ray combo.

 

[Seaviewer]

I remember fondly Zimbalist´s performance as the Remington Steele fan I am!

Me, too. According to her Wikipedia page, she was active as recently as 2023 but it's a shame she never really had another big role after that.

 

[ClassyCo]

I just finished the TV movie remake of SORRY, WRONG NUMBER (1989), starring Loni Anderson, Patrick Macnee, and Hal Holbrook. It originally aired on the USA Network.

First, I'll say this right off the bat -- Loni is no Barbara Stanwyck, but I thought she did a decent job. Her rendition of the bed-ridden heroine is much more sympathetic than Stanwyck's version. There's even some good suspense towards the end.

It's a middling late-80s remake of a classic noir. It's available for free online, so you're not wasting anything but time to watch it.

 

[Willie Oleson]

NASHVILLE (1975)



For a film with so many characters and ongoing - sometimes overlapping - dialogue I find it surprisingly accessible, but I can't even begin to imagine what it looked like on paper.
I guess the trick here is Altman's incredible talent to make every detail pop without giving it too much attention, something I had previously witnessed in Gosford Park.
I struggle to categorise Nashville as a genre, even "drama" seems too generic in the context of this film.
Partially documentary, road movie, dark comedy, social commentary, satire counterbalanced by just enough optimism, and even shades of a psychological thriller. And music.

I'm not a hardcore country & western music fan but at least it taps into childhood nostalgia.
I thoroughly enjoyed most of the songs especially the ones by Ronee Blakley who comes across as a 1970s Julianne Moore.
At some point in the story it starts to hint at a possibly dramatic climax, I suspected the army guy who seemed like an obsessive fan.
Then later I figured he would prevent the assassination, just like his mother had saved Barbara Jean from the fire.

Quite cheekily, it even features a little bit of the "Eurotrash villain" trope in the narcissistic and intrusive BBC reporter brilliantly portrayed by Geraldine Chaplin.

Un deux trois quatre, testing.

The DVD also features an interview with Robert Altman, and the comment that stood out to me is that Karen Black was (at that time) considered the biggest name in this film.
The first time I saw Karen Black in a movie she had already followed in Adrienne Barbeau's footsteps and become a familiar face in B horror films.

It's a great addition to the precious movie collection even though it's a DVD-r (an alarming trend in R1 releases) so maybe I'll replace it with the OOP Criterion Collection release (I guess it won't be cheap in the market places).


BLEAK MOMENTS (1971)



The title kinda reads like a parody on the downbeat "kitchen sink" genre and although I don't know if this is intentional, the film itself certainly looks like it.
Not the conventional/popular parody with gags and references, but more like a bunch of long sketches aimlessly strung together.
In that regard I found it easy to lose track of whatever this film was trying to convey (a bleak existence, the lack of energy to escape it?) but at the same time it has an extraordinary spellbinding quality similar to, say, Jeanne Dielman.
It's impossible to look away because of "what else is not going to happen next?".
It is first and foremost a performance film - by actors I had never heard of before - and there isn't anything in it that could have been done better.

Bleak Moments takes shyness and the incapacity (or unwillingness) to communicate to the next level, and it's hard to imagine that a film that relies so heavily on body/facial language was based on a stage play.
It's the anti-My Dinner With Andre, and yes, it's often hilarious but not really at the expense of the characters (except for one, but I think we're supposed to hate her).

Mike Leigh is a familiar name to me but when I checked his filmography there wasn't anything on the list that rang a bell. However, some further reading informed me that he was the man behind the famous cringe classic Abigail's Party.
I will watch this again.


NOSFERATU (2024)



The story of a peculiar relationship between a stressed out goth chick and a vampire who sounds like Gru from Despicable Me.
It all looks painstakingly orchestrated but nothing ever comes to life, the many histrionics notwithstanding.
The only character that evokes something is Friedrich Harding, or maybe it's because he treats Ellen like the attention-seeking troublemaker that she is.
Naturally there weren't going to be any big surprises but the particular tone makes it beat-for-beat predictable and I was just waiting for it all to end.
The story takes place in Germany but it could have been anywhere, it could have been Harry Potter Land.
The Freudian undertone is in the story but I don't see it in the characters, it's way too sterile and precise to allow any of that moistly/suffocating atmosphere to creep in. And for the umpteenth time: that blue hue does not help at all. Please, stop it.

A boring costume drama without any thrills or suspense and it only made me think how much I enjoyed Dracula '92.
I wanted to like this because Robert Eggers seems like a cool person. Oh well, I'm sure he's going to make another film.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Two rewatches (only because it was included with Prime)

MISERY (1990)



In some ways this looks like a step-up from the cheesy Stephen King adaptations from the 1980s and I certainly enjoyed it when I watched it for the first time.
The obsessive fan/friend/lover wasn't exactly a new theme in 1990 but it does predate the backlash of the fanbase who "knows better". Annie Wilkes is the future voice of our modern social media mob.

This isn't fair!

As a thriller/horror it hasn't aged very well and I think that has a lot to do with the filmmaker's crowd-pleasing approach, and it's ironic that a film called "misery" looks so cheerful.
The creation of Annie Wilkes' film version alternates between seriously psychopathic and knowingly "camp", and also between gullible and extremely clever and calculating.
In other words: the scenes aren't written for the character, the character is written for the scenes in order to achieve instant and maximum effect.
And while that kinda works (especially on a first-time watch) I think it diminishes the overall effect of the film.

In a somewhat comical way it works best as a story about a feud or one-upmanship.
A big part of the film is about prolonging the escape of Paul Sheldon, writer of pulpy period piece romance novels, and while these actions are inventive and sometimes suspenseful they're also too plot-driven to enjoy them all over again and I couldn't resist checking the remaining running time every now and then.
If anything, I found the investigation by the old sheriff's couple more entertaining.

As a phsychological thriller Misery is a bit rubbish, and perhaps its main asset is its charming familiarity and campy quotes.


THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)



I'm not a big fan of the police procedural dramas, sometimes I find them enjoyable but never seriously good. Off the top of my head, Zodiac is the only other one that I really love (and True Detective, of course).

Most cleverly, Silence becomes a combination of two stories and they're both battling for being the most theatrical one, and that is very good for me.
There's the short buildup to the introduction of the (now) iconic Dr. Hannibal Lecter as we see Clarice enter the chamber of horrors.
Later there's Dr. Lecter's epic escape from his giant circus cage resulting in that jawdropping display of his victim: a not too realistic image that borders on Batmanism.
And we are so rooting for him.

The hunt for the killer plays out with a twist, it's not the most noble kind of trickery but if it works it works.
The killer himself isn't given much screen time to showcase his villainy but that makes sense since it's supposed to be a guessing game for the protagonist and we don't need to know much more than she does.
Additional credit goes to Brooke Smith who makes the very best of her role as the killer's last victim.

Apart from the two monsters it also has the a**hole character trope, the one who unintentionally obstructs or jeopardises the proceedings for superficial reasons such as vanity or laziness or just being a bitch for the heck of it.
In Die Hard it was Harry Ellis, in Silence it's Dr. Chilton which makes the open-ended but oh-so-suggestive finale all the more satsifying.

This was actually even better than I remembered.
(but how did Precious end up down in that hole? For a dog it could be a suicidal jump).

 

[Willie Oleson]

THE WIZ (1978)



My first rewatch since....a very long time ago.
I'm not familiar with the Broadway musical but I will say that this was undoubtedly the most innovative way to revisit the classic story (which actually wasn't such a famous story in my neck of the woods).
There's a lot to love and a lot to admire in this film but I often find it a bit ponderous.
It's really not necessary to say the same thing in 10 different ways and then do it all over again with a song.

The ending (before Dorothy returns home) goes on and on until it peters out but thankfully it's saved by Diana's last song which is an absolute powerhouse performance.
Some of the lesser interesting songs could have been cut out because they don't say more than what's already in the story itself, and the Lion (my least favourite character) gets way too much screen time.

It's quite spooky and dark in some parts (but let's not forget the amazing tornado scene from the original Oz) and the "Brand New Day" part might be the best thing ever done in the history of movie musicals. It's simply ecstatic.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Hancock (1991)

This week I completed my very first viewing of the legendary Hancock's Half Hour series (later just Hancock), and I've also done some reading up one the troubled star of the series, Tony Hancock.

While the film's focus is mostly post-series, covering the last eight years of Hancock's life, it does open with a recreation of a scene from the series' most memorable episode, The Blood Donor ("A pint? That's very nearly an armful"), which came almost at the very end of the series' life. It's a single episode that came to define Hancock himself in the eyes of the public, and his resentment over this is one of the driving forces of the film (personally, I'd also like to have seen his slightly earlier Face To Face interview covered here, since it was said to have a profound affect on him (and not a positive one).

The film - part of the BBC's Screen One series - is essentially a portrait of self-destruction and on this level is almost painful to watch. His parting of the ways with his longtime comedy co-star Sid James is mentioned a few times (Hancock had simply decided he no longer wanted to share the screen with Sid and dropped him from the series without even discussing it with him), and we watch a similar thing play out with his writers, Galton & Simpson, though here they essentially sack him by refusing to jump, saying they think it's better if they stick to their little television series rather than his envisaged big screen career (IMDb tells me that Ray Galton would later punch screenwriter William Humble because he was so incensed at his portrayal in this film). We also watch a little of the filming of Hancock's charming little film The Punch & Judy Man.

Besides Hancock himself, John Le Mesurier is the best-known "character" to me. Malcolm Sinclair does a nice job with Le Mes's mannerisms and eccentricities, particularly the wan smile and the almost soporific delivery.

While I've seen Alfred Molina in many things, probably the role with which I most strongly associate him is that of Kenneth Halliwell in Prick Up Your Ears. This makes Hancock the second time in four years that Alfred would star in a biopic as a real-life celebrity whose life ended in failure, ignominy and ultimately suicide (though Halliwell's case, of course, was murder-suicide since he'd bludgeoned Joe Orton to death right before his fatal overdose). He has a bigger challenge in this film (for me, at least) since I'm familiar with Hancock as a screen personality, whereas I only ever read about Halliwell. Overall, he does a nice job. There are certain physical similarities between Hancock and Molina, but it's the performance that really does the work. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's uncannily like Hancock, but it's certainly compelling and tells the story well.

Much of Hancock's self-destruction is seen through the eyes of his publicist/mistress/eventual wife Freddie Ross. Frances Barber gives a wonderful performance as someone watching a loved one slowly sabotaging everything good in their life as Tony's drinking escalates even as his confidence diminishes. In the end credits I noticed one "Freddie Hancock" credited as production consultant, and this is no surprise since Freddie is the most sympathetic character here.

The end of Hancock's life has been fairly well documented, but the film focusses on the waste. In particular, it feels Hancock died over and over again through a series of disappointments and failures, primarily brought on by his depression, alcoholism, lack of worth which all adversely affected anything he attempted. It's sad to see him stumbling through endless retakes of a simple scene in Disney's The Adventures Of Bullwhip Griffin, eventually being sacked. Molina does a great naturalistic job with botched lines and frustration. Equally painful is the scene of his big comeback to a packed house where, unable to commit the new material to memory, he falls back on the same tired routines we watched him do near the beginning: bad impressions of Long John Silver and Captain Bligh, etc. With Freddie in the audience hoping against hope for him to succeed, and Galton & Simpson also present with a weary cynicism that nothing will have changed, it's quite unpleasant to watch someone dying on stage. As we watched this scene, my partner leaned over to me and commented that he couldn't understand how anyone found Tony Hancock funny and of course that is the point of the scene.

When Tony told the cabbie that he's going to Australia, I felt a few chills, because I knew how that ended.

There are a lot of little references that jump out for someone familiar with Tony's career. This made me wonder how this this would stand up in isolation (i.e. if someone who'd never head of Tony Hancock were to watch). I suspect it would work but would be a very different viewing experience. I suspect if I watched without knowing any background I'd be getting into a Wikipedia wormhole afterwards. And, I ended up doing this anyway.​

 

[Seaviewer]

Some of the lesser interesting songs could have been cut out because they don't say more than what's already in the story itself, and the Lion (my least favourite character) gets way too much screen time.

Better still, have the song itself move the story along without the dialogue labouring the point.

 

[Willie Oleson]

THE SOUND OF METAL (2019)



I had started watching Nicole Kidman in HOLLAND but my eyes struggled with the constant oversaturation of light and colour.
The story and characters are okay, quite funny sometimes, but I literally couldn't watch it anymore. Since this had never happened to me before I wondered if there was something wrong with my eyes - I panicked and almost started to hyperventilate. Move over, The Exorcist.
I randomly clicked on another film to examine if the problem was still there.
Thankfully that wasn't the case, but it is kinda funny that I went from "video" to "audio" problems (it's about a musician losing his hearing).

Sound Of Metal is a no-frills drama completely devoid of manipulation or cinematic trickery (as in: zooming in on every unimportant detail to make it pseudo-artistic).
The whole story is done by the actors and imo this has become a rarity these days.
Riz Ahmed (previously seen in The Nightcrawler 2014) plays it phenomenally but it doesn't hurt that he's got very expressive eyes.

Incidentally, one of the main characters in HOLLAND is an optometrist. Now I ask you!

I guess the next film should be about a dentist, or a film so bad it stinks.

 

[Willie Oleson]

POOR THINGS (2023)



A retrofuturistic baroque gothic euro-kitsch sex comedy about a Frankensteinian creature trying to find her agency. *cough*female empowerment*cough*
It's a gorgeous film with an abundance of details, shapes and colours, and I simply expected most of it to be the result of CGI. It exhilarates me to know that some or most (?) of the sets were physically created, or used what was already there. That's what I consider real movie magic: to make something fake come alive.
The script is fantastic, it's clever and bold and funny and sometimes it made me think of Terry Gilliam's Brazil but also Candy (1968).

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Mississippi Burning (1988)

In recent times, a new and exciting way to select and discover new films has been through streaming time limitations. This was another of those spontaneous watches based almost solely on its "leaves Prime in 3 days" status (and Gene Hackman's face on the poster). Since this method has yielded some gold, it seems as good a selection process as any other.

Until his name came up on screen, I had no idea this was an Alan Parker film, and this gave me hope that it would be a little gritty and uncompromising. In many ways it is. Certainly the attitudes and language were captured and expressed. I suspect this was still very much toned down from actual events of the time, but it's impressive that this film - epithets and all - has survived cancellation and is still streaming relatively intact. Mind you, it appears to have been six or seven minutes longer in its original form, so there's evidently some degree of censorship.

As I watched, I wondered if this was based on true events as I hadn't noticed anything on screen. Reading up this morning, I discovered it was loosely based on the Chaney/Goodman/Schwerner murders. There was evidently criticism aimed at the film for its inaccuracies, as well as for its portrayal of non-white characters as passive. Both criticisms are valid, though the former is somewhat mitigated by it not claiming to be a true story. The latter could arguably be symbolic at the disenfranchisement of the black people, but once it's seen, there's no denying this aspect is problematic. All the main characters are white, and I'd say that even more underrepresented than black people are Jewish people. Two Jewish men were among the three killed at the beginning, but that's forgotten pretty quickly. Still, though, this film has drawn my attention to events of which I wasn't previously aware, which is no bad thing.

Taken on its own merits, this is a cracking little film with a strong story and great performances. Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe is not a combo I've ever considered, so this pairing wasn't on any kind of wish list. Still, they are electric together: two terrific actors who work surprisingly well together. Hackman's all grins and winks and overconfidence, while Dafoe is focussed and driven as the younger guy who is given seniority on the case. And as the film progresses, this gets somewhat turned on its head, with Hackman being genuinely touched by the events and Dafoe learning that Hackman's questionable methods get results. The supporting cast, too is very strong. There's a lot going for this one and it's well worth a watch.​

 

[Willie Oleson]

Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe is not a combo I've ever considered

I don't think Willem Dafoe could be a bad combo with any actor.

It's in my DVD collection, to represent the "best of eighties cinema".

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I don't think Willem Dafoe could be a bad combo with any actor.

Oh yes - you're quite right. It's by no means a bad combo... just a very unexpected one for me, since I had no idea they'd made a film together.

Seeing their names in the credits was both exciting and a little bizarre as I could not picture them sharing a screen until I'd actually seen it with my own eyes.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Mississippi Burning (1988)

In recent times, a new and exciting way to select and discover new films has been through streaming time limitations. This was another of those spontaneous watches based almost solely on its "leaves Prime in 3 days" status (and Gene Hackman's face on the poster). Since this method has yielded some gold, it seems as good a selection process as any other.

Until his name came up on screen, I had no idea this was an Alan Parker film, and this gave me hope that it would be a little gritty and uncompromising. In many ways it is. Certainly the attitudes and language were captured and expressed. I suspect this was still very much toned down from actual events of the time, but it's impressive that this film - epithets and all - has survived cancellation and is still streaming relatively intact. Mind you, it appears to have been six or seven minutes longer in its original form, so there's evidently some degree of censorship.

As I watched, I wondered if this was based on true events as I hadn't noticed anything on screen. Reading up this morning, I discovered it was loosely based on the Chaney/Goodman/Schwerner murders. There was evidently criticism aimed at the film for its inaccuracies, as well as for its portrayal of non-white characters as passive. Both criticisms are valid, though the former is somewhat mitigated by it not claiming to be a true story. The latter could arguably be symbolic at the disenfranchisement of the black people, but once it's seen, there's no denying this aspect is problematic. All the main characters are white, and I'd say that even more underrepresented than black people are Jewish people. Two Jewish men were among the three killed at the beginning, but that's forgotten pretty quickly. Still, though, this film has drawn my attention to events of which I wasn't previously aware, which is no bad thing.

Taken on its own merits, this is a cracking little film with a strong story and great performances. Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe is not a combo I've ever considered, so this pairing wasn't on any kind of wish list. Still, they are electric together: two terrific actors who work surprisingly well together. Hackman's all grins and winks and overconfidence, while Dafoe is focussed and driven as the younger guy who is given seniority on the case. And as the film progresses, this gets somewhat turned on its head, with Hackman being genuinely touched by the events and Dafoe learning that Hackman's questionable methods get results. The supporting cast, too is very strong. There's a lot going for this one and it's well worth a watch.​

Yes, it's a pretty effective picture in some ways. Although even in 1988, it got accused of "the White Savior" trope (as did GREEN DAY decades later) and I even thought it myself at the time when I first saw the movie.

It's based on one of those saturated darker-than-dark incidents which could only happened exactly then (yes, worse things have occurred before and since, but it's how it feels which could only be emitted circa 1964). It's an at-the-very-bottom-of-the-swamp kind of thing. In this case, literally.

Strangely enough, when I first learned about this triple murder (several years before the movie came out) I remember thinking how much Andrew Goodman reminded me of how Paul Simon looked at that time. I found out much later that Simon penned his song, "He Was My Brother" about the biblically-named Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner (I'd read that Simon actually knew Goodman, but I've been unable to find anything concrete about that. And some sources say Simon actually wrote the song in 1963, so the entire story about the ballad might be a scam).

I recall this as being a more-effective-than-most documentary on the topic. It's always amazing when a cheapy documentary has better period detail than a multi-million-dollar theatrical motion picture:

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The 1967 filming of IN COLD BLOOD, based on Truman Capote's book about the 1959 murders of the Clutter family. It's so good, stark and ice cold as only in a way only possible in the third quarter of the '60s.

It's beautifully photographed.

Richard Brooks is such an interesting director -- he doesn't have a signature style per se; he just seems to absorb himself into the genre at hand and the subject matter. You simply can't tell that one of his films was directed by the same guy that directed any of his other ones.

Creepy note: Robert Blake (who plays Perry, the "nice" one who commits the murders and about whom Capote became obsessed and whose execution became necessary in order for Truman to complete his book) kills someone named "Bonnie".

In Cold Blood - YouTube

 

[Willie Oleson]

based on Truman Capote's book

A few weeks ago I watched the biopic.
I knew nothing about the man Capote, the novel or the circumstances thereof, and with Philip Seymour Hoffman in the lead role I figured this could be an interesting film.
Now I'm pretty sure that PSH portrayed Capote as accurately as possible but that didn't improve my experience of watching a very annoying character - what he says and how he says it.
I continued watching because I thought the story itself had something to offer, but apart from the basic facts (the crime, the novel, the visits to prison) I was still none the wiser after the film had ended.
Because of Capote's hot/cold approach I have no idea what this film tried to convey on a more emotional level.

The supporting actors Catherine Keener and Chris Cooper made it somewhat watchable.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

even in 1988, it got accused of "the White Savior" trope (as did GREEN DAY decades later) and I even thought it myself at the time when I first saw the movie.

That's interesting. I can see how it might have gained that reputation more in recent years, but for it to be criticised back in 1988 shows how wide of the mark it was in that regard.

The 1967 filming of IN COLD BLOOD, based on Truman Capote's book about the 1959 murders of the Clutter family. It's so good, stark and ice cold as only in a way only possible in the third quarter of the '60s.

It's beautifully photographed.

I have both book and DVD in a slightly bizarre combo set. I watched the film for the one and only time circa 2007 when I acquired the set, and I remember thinking how shocking it must have been back in the day. It felt surprisingly grim and frank to me at the time (the line "and then you shit your pants", apropos death by hanging has never quite been excised from my mind). I'd like to rewatch it at some point.

For some reason, I started the book but didn't get beyond the first couple of chapters. This, too, could do with a second look from me.

I knew nothing about the man Capote, the novel or the circumstances thereof, and with Philip Seymour Hoffman in the lead role I figured this could be an interesting film.

Like you, Capote was my introduction to the entire thing. I watched it with a friend around the time it was hot property due to picking up several awards. At the time I thought it was a good film, but not one I'd care to watch more than once. Twenty years on and I still feel no desire to revisit it. I still remember it as a pretty decent film, so perhaps it's best to keep it that way rather than than rewatch and risk disappointment.