exceptional acting, weak story

Rating: 5/10 (28 October 2006)

I think I need to stop reading books which movies are based on prior to seeing them, because I am almost always disappointed. In this case I read the classic "In Cold Blood" not Capote's biography, so I don't have an exact comparison. However, while In Cold Blood is engaging and very creepy and disturbing, I didn't feel quite the same about this movie. Again lack of character development and detail weaken this movie. It is so much easier to empathize with the criminals, clutter family, friends and locals in Halcomb in In Cold Blood, which is why it is a classic. Since this movie focuses on that time period in Capote's life, I feel many of those involved in the writing of his novel were left out. Also, Perry as described in the novel (having a personality disorder) and Perry depicted in the movie(somewhat sane) seem like two different people. Ironically, Dick who is described as sane yet malicious in the novel seems crazy. I left this movie not really feeling much about anyone. Although Huffman's acting was exceptional, as well as the acting of the supporting actors, I didn't really feel I understood Capote. When comparing it to the book, it doesn't quite answer what the process of writing the book was like. By this I mean mentally. For example, why does he continually lie to Perry about the book? Why is In Cold Blood written differently than what is depicted in this movie?? In a sense, is the movie saying that Capote lied not only to Perry and those he loved, but also his audience? More detail about that would be quite interesting, and maybe show the magnitude of his self absorbency and greed. So I feel if I hadn't read In Cold Blood I probably would have really enjoyed this movie (since I don't know much about Truman Capote himself). Therefore, the best advice is to enter the movie completely ignorant and it's good. However, now I'm only left with questions. So 5 stars for acting -5 stars for depth.