To me, Eric Roberts performance as Perry in this overlong version of "In Cold Blood" is outstanding and memorable. That is not to say that overall the performances are anything to nitpick about, it's just that Roberts is the one to watch. On the downside, the 180 minutes it takes to tell this tale of murder in Kansas, appears stretched to the max. It seems to take forever for Dick Hickock (Anthony Edwards) and Perry Smith (Eric Roberts) to reach their destination of Holcomb Kansas. On the plus side there is far more character development than in the original Robert Blake, Scott Wilson film. If this was 120 minutes, it would have been terrific. - MERK

Although I generally do not like remakes believing that remakes are waste of time; this film is an exception. I didn't actually know so far until reading the previous comment that this was a remake, so my opinion is purely about the actual film and not a comparison.The story and the way it is written is no question: it is Capote. There is no need for more words.The play of Anthony Edwards and Eric Roberts is superb. I have seen some movies with them, each in one or the other. I was certain that they are good actors and in case of Eric I always wondered why his sister is the number 1 famous star and not her brother. This time this certainty is raised to fact, no question. His play, just as well as the play of Mr. Edwards is clearly the top of all their profession.I recommend this film to be on your top 50 films to see and keep on your DVD shelves.

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.