A Perfect Murder | | Cast : | Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow, Viggo Mortensen | | Director : | Andrew Davis | | Studio : | Warner Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Dolby, Widescreen | | Released Date : | January 01, 1998 | | DVD Released Date : | February 08, 2005 | | Language : | French (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 04, 2005 | | Summary | Very Unpredictable | Content
 | in the first 30 minutes of movie it's highly possible that you feel that you're watching a passable movie with an old story. It happened to me. I don't know if anybody have seen "RED ROCK WEST (1993)", but the plot was same at the beginning and I'm sure they made that movie on the plot of older movie either that I've not seen it yet. anyway that feeling will be gone after first 30 minutes and you'll encounter an intriguing and unpredictable story which maintain it's suspense till the end. the plot was not something new but the story was and even the plot was old but it's a kind of plot that they can make 100 movies on it and people may go to cinema and watch all 100 movies without any complain. scenario was very accurate and actings were brilliant. It was one of greatest Gewynth Paltrow appearances too and I'd not seen her as beautiful as she was in this movie. she was perfect and sexy.
And some words about DVD. Term of "Special Edition" which has been printed on this DVD would not bother anyone but honestly there is nothing special. Two audio commentaries that were not really necessary. no featurette, the best part of special features was an Alternated ending. Maybe it's not a place to discuss about the tradition but I think when they put an alternate ending option in a DVD, they have to make it playable during the movie. not only an isolated feature. so that's not the problem here. 95% of DVDs are at the same way.
This is a one time movie. probably two, with your wife or girlfriend for the second time. but for the third time?? I don't think so. so It's not worth to buy at least for an ordinary costumer. but It's strongly worth to rent. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 08, 2005 | | Summary | Intriguing Movie | Content
| 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. |
| Rating | | | Date | May 10, 2005 | | Summary | Well Written Screenplay - Great Actors | Content
| 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. |
| Rating | | | Date | April 06, 2005 | | Summary | A weak remake | Content
| Among Alfred Hitchcock movies, Dial M for Murder is considered a good minor work, perhaps most notable for it being originally shot in 3-D. A Perfect Murder, a re-make of this film, shows that even minor Hitchcock is often better than many things made today.
As in the original, the premise remains the same: a man being cheated on by his wife arranges her "perfect murder" only to have it go wrong. There are elements that are definitely different, however, principally dealing with the lover being the recruited killer in this case. This leads to some twists that are unique to this version.
The fundamental flaws are in the characters. One of the big strengths in the original was Ray Milland as the cuckolded husband. Homicidal tendencies aside, he is a much more interesting character than his wife's lover. Michael Douglas, on the other hand, is less compelling (and less pleasant) in his parallel role. Viggo Mortensen is especially weak, half-mumbling through his role and with no real charms that would suggest why Gwyneth Paltrow would have an affair with him. No character is very sympathetic and all the actors have done better elsewhere.
The direction by Andrew Davis is likewise problematic, with all the subtlety of a wrecking ball. Rather than clever foreshadowing, we are hit over the head with plot elements to make sure we understand that they will be significant. For example, there is an unusual amount of focus on a meat thermometer that rather bluntly points out that this mundane object will have importance later. Davis is successful at least in showing he is different than Hitchcock; by the end of this movie, I definitely knew he was no Hitchcock. For a better movie, stick with the original. |
| Rating | | | Date | September 04, 2004 | | Summary | Just 4 Stars But Good Acting By Gwyneth Paltrow | Content
| 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 new 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 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.
|
|
Picture 01 (20)
