In Cold Blood

1996
6.2| 0h30m| en
Synopsis

At the end of the 1950s, in a more innocent America, the brutal, meaningless slaying of a Midwestern family horrified the nation. This film is based on Truman Capote's hauntingly detailed, psychologically penetrating nonfiction novel. While in prison, Dick Hickock, 20, hears a cell-mate's story about $10,000 in cash kept in a home safe by a prosperous rancher. When he's paroled, Dick persuades ex-con Perry Smith, also 20, to join him in going after the stash. On a November night in 1959, Dick and Perry break into the Holcomb, Kansas, house of Herb Clutter. Enraged at finding no safe, they wake the sleeping family and brutally kill them all. The bodies are found by two friends who come by before Sunday church. The murders shock the small Great Plains town, where doors are routinely left unlocked. Detective Alvin Dewey of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation heads the case, but there are no clues, no apparent motive and no suspects...

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

GamerTab That was an excellent one.
Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System
Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
doggie-24384 The girl was not raped, it's kind of sick that they falsely added that in
lightninboy The 1967 In Cold Blood was perhaps more like "the real thing" (Think about it: would we really want to see the real thing?), but it was black and white in a color world, and a lot of people didn't even know what it was, and there was an opportunity to remake it for television. Plus, if you remake it, you can show some stuff not shown in the original. The book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote was the first "nonfiction novel". Truman's book was in fact not 100% true to the real story. I thought the Canadian location sufficed for Kansas pretty much for a TV movie. Look for the elements of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: Dick's womanizing, Perry being an aspirin junkie, Perry playing blues guitar.
gbby21 This is the movie that I have been hoping and waiting for since I read the book with the same title about 3 or 4 years ago, and I was not disappointed by the movie. I especially loved Don S. Davis as Roy Church. I recommend this movie for anyone who has ever read the book, or for anyone in general who's a fan of non-fiction movies on historical crimes.
Robert J. Maxwell It boggles the mind. If they think another nickel can be squeezed out of a piece of material, they'll squeeze. The only reason I can think of that this story was retold was that the producers figured the audience was so stupid that they either never had seen the original or didn't know that there WAS an original. Well, maybe the assumption isn't that far off base. As a collective we seem to have dropped a good couple of IQ points somewhere along the way. Back in the 1960s Stanley Kaufman wrote an essay on "the film generation." In one of his classes he brought up Preminger's Joan of Arc, and his students did an impromptu comparison with Dreyer. His students don't do that anymore. They can't. They never heard of Dreyer. In the original "In Cold Blood," there is a lot of artsiness and pop psychology. It isn't a timeless classic, but it's a well-made movie. I don't know why anyone felt a remake was a good idea except, as I suggested, there might be another nickel left in it. The shot-by-shot remake of Psycho was a disgrace. It wasn't that long ago, by geological standards, that when a movie became a classic it was left alone. Can anyone imagine making "Gone With the Wind" now, without its being followed up by "Gone With the Wind, Part 2: Scarlett's Revenge"? What an insult this movie is. It's not badly done, but the motives behind its creation are scurrilous.