Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Rpgcatech Disapointment

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

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Dan Duda It's rare when a writer creates characters as real, deep and engaging as Arthur Miller did here. It's sad, I feel, to see him throw a lot of that out the window because he wants a tragic ending more than anything else.I feel Miller does that in "Death of a Salesman." In Willie Loman, he creates a very believable character we care about. The portrayal here by Dustin Hoffman is excellent.I will not to spoil the end for anyone who hasn't seen it, but the conclusion is my chief objection. It does not feel believable for the character. It does feel imposed by the author, and it smacks of a young writer wanting to make a name by amping up the drama. History shows he succeeded; unfortunately, for me, somewhere along the line the point of truth is passed.But there is a lot to like here. This production makes the bright red walls of encroaching apartments feel like more claustrophobic weight crushing the Loman family. Kate Reid and Stephen Lang are totally in character as the wife and son. John Malkovich turns in a bravura performance during the scene where Biff catches his father a little too unexpectedly in a Boston hotel room; it's hard to imagine anyone playing the scene more powerfully. At other times, curiously, Malkovich's Biff feels less a part of the family than the other characters.That discovery scene between Biff and Willie is really enough tragedy for any one play; Miller didn't need more.

FairlyAnonymous Death of a Salesman is one of those plays that some people love and consider it a classic and others hate because it isn't entirely accurate with history and doesn't seem to quite work. I honestly don't mind the play BUT the movie... that's a different story.The movie decides to be a little too accurate to the play... and by a little too accurate I mean it is almost word for word exactly the same as the play and virtually scene for scene the same. I actually watched it with the script of the play in front of me and found only a few minor things altered. Now Romeo+Juliet did it and that movie didn't turn out half bad, but what do I find so annoying about the way this movie does it? Maybe it is because the movie is literally on stage-set...I'm not even joking, when the characters look at the ceiling there is NO CEILING! Just an opening of the set! There aren't even walls to the house, they are just movable pieces so there are huge gaps in them. While some people might find this "unique" that a movie decided to make a stage adaptation and make into a film, I can only say this: Why in the world would you make it into a movie with this format? I mean seriously, I watch a movie to watch a movie and to break the realm of a play. A movie is simply a play with more freedom and more opportunity to tell a story. But this movie restricts the freedom that is given to a movie and tries to limit the power of the story and make it just a play. I still have no idea why someone thought that was a good idea! Plays are plays and movies are movies. You might as well go on youtube and just watch a video of someone recording the actual play. There is no reason for this movie to pretend that it is a play.Now how is the acting? Well... pretty darn good. Dustin Hoffman gives a solid performance and all of the actors do pretty well. All of the acting is done well and I think everything the play was trying to portray was portrayed in the "movie". If there was one problem I had with the play and with this film is that the son is too much of a coward to tell his mom why his father and him are arguing. Pretty much every problem that occurs in this movie could be easily resolved if everyone was just a tad bit smarter. It makes me mad when there is a conflict only for the sake of conflict. I find it a bit unrealistic that the conflict didn't get resolved, because it is evident that if everyone knew the truth then everyone would be at equal grounds and a resolution would take place. But alas, that is not how the story goes.Overall, the Death of a Salesman isn't a terrible movie, but it isn't really a movie. It is a play. That is why I don't really consider this a good movie because it isn't a movie. In all honesty, if someone were to film the play A Death of A Salesman and release it in theaters I bet it would get extremely low reviews because it isn't a movie. I feel like if this "movie" would've attempted to transfer the play into a movie format I would've been able to enjoy it a bit more, but all of the glaring mistakes of a play are still obvious in this movie. I'm sure it was a cute "joke" when this movie was made, and at first it was kind of funny that there was no ceiling, or no walls, but it quickly wears away at the movie once you realize the movie is just being cheap.

MarieGabrielle This film counts as one of those that are uncomfortable, well-acted, and disturbingly real.John Malkovich and Gary Sinise are very real, as well as Dustin Hoffman. It is an initial shock to see him as an aged man.The cinematography is stark and unforgiving. Willy Loman has lived in ineffective and meaningless life. He will die as a salesman, bragging about sales which mean nothing, building up his sons into something they never were.Anyone who has read or seen the play will feel the desperation of Biff, and Happy, young men who witness their father's depression, and cannot alter the outcome.Arthur Miller has touched the reality of American life in the depression. A brilliant playwright, he addresses issue of the family, and struggling economy which today are still avoided. Kurt Vonnegut once wrote that America is a prosperous nation because the poor will never admit they are poor, and therefore the elite classes have had less social responsibility since the Napoleonic era. A brilliant insight that has been perpetuated since WWII. 9/10.

rcody111 Hoffman is an okay actor but he was not up to this role. He comes across simply as a nerdish failure of man and the film misses Miller's point entirely. Possibly the director deserves the blame but the film is a great disappointment. It's not worth seeing.Compare his performance to Lee J. Cobb's tour de force in '66. Cobb breathes life and spirit into this tragic man. And the supporting cast is flawless. Frederick March did a good job back in the '51 film but Cobb IS Willie Loman. He owns the role and trying to replace him is like Steve Martin trying to be Peter Sellars. Some actors just own certain roles and Cobb owns SALESMAN.If you're interesting in seeing this film, get the Lee J. Cobb version. It's the real thing!