A Perfect Murder (1998)

hyped garbage

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

(Originally reviewed: 27/03/2017) The problem here is fairly simple, the picture is lacking in originality and a satisfying ending, which is a shame because there was the right amount of atmospheric tension, it was a mere pity that what was happening on screen was either making little sense or being taken from another older genre picture. Michael Douglas is too old for Paltrow so I don't really believe there pairing for one minute, but they do their best with the material given and Viggo Mortensen play's Paltrow's secret lover, and doesn't do great, but gives a fairly satisfactory performance at the very least. Douglas is adequately threatening and very good here, and Paltrow is not just a pretty face, like her small role in Fincher's Masterpiece 'Seven', she can give a grounded, efficient performance.The story is unfortunately recycled however, and I'm not talking about this being a remake of an old Hitchcock movie, as I have never seen it, I'm talking about its constant stealing from film's like Fatal Attraction, especially the third act and like that film, there was an affair going on between the husband and the lonely woman at work, only they've switched it this time, too the wife being the cheater, and conforming with a man that works at the art gallery, a place Paltrow's character knows very well. There of course isn't graphic sex present like there was in Fatal Attraction but it's similar in in its storytelling and by comparison this picture gets destroyed, because for starter's it defies any logic whatsoever. Assuming is all you can do, because there's plot developments that would make the smartest man in the room howl with laughter, as I personally kept saying how did he do that? Is that possible? And so forth, despite its entertaining performances, the film is clichéd, illogical and uninspired.Though I do think the pace is efficiently fast, and Andrew Davis's direction is pretty good, among other things; like a couple of individual scenes that are competently done and rather entertaining, but just as I started to enjoy myself, clichéd dialogue and predictability closed in upon its third act, and if you think about it, if it weren't for the screenplay and the uninspired story, A perfect Murder might have been a serviceable B Movie thriller, but because of its weak story, and lack of logic, the result is a passable but certainly not memorable thriller with a real howler of an ending that's neither exciting or inventive, it's borderline boring, uninspired and oh so predictable, if you like this kind of film, you may enjoy it, despite flaws in logic, but myself, I felt rather disappointed.

Emily (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the wife of wealthy New Yorker Steven Taylor (Michael Douglas). She's an aide to UN Ambassador Alice Wills and having an affair with painter David Shaw (Viggo Mortensen). Steven suspects her infidelity and is in dire financial trouble. He also discovers that David is con man named Winston Lagrange and offers him $500k to kill his wife. After the break-in, police detective Mohamed Karaman (David Suchet) investigates.In the original, Alfred Hitchcock is able to create some limited sympathy for Grace Kelly by making her a blackmail victim. There is no such feelings for Gwyneth Paltrow. Also David Shaw is a con man in this version so there is no likability for the cheating couple. Douglas is a great slick puppet master but I don't really care about these people. It's great to have Douglas slithering across the screen but director Andrew Davis is unable to generated the needed tension or thrills.

This film is said to be a re-make of Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder". I don't know how I have gone all these years without seeing the original, but somehow I have. Therefore I can make no comparisons between them. Michael Douglas and Gwyneth Paltrow, as always, turned in excellent performances. Viggo Mortensen wasn't bad either. A shout-out to Sarita Choudhury as well. Nice photography of New York City and environs. There was even a certain modicum of suspense maintained almost throughout. In short, I cannot quite put my finger on what this film's shortcomings are, but It was really just okay.

Spoiler Ahead! I really can't understand how anyone could have liked this movie. It was a tired story and poor in execution from start to finish. The only redeeming value was in the three principal performances which were great but not nearly enough to bail out this sinking ship of a thriller.First of all, if the artist David Shaw had as much talent as reported in the movie and he had a huge loft in NY he wouldn't have to lie about his past and he would have rich women lining up to have affairs with him. And $400,000 for a killing? He could make that on one over-rated painting if he sold it to some chump socialite.The big problem I have with films of this ilk is that they just aren't nearly as clever as they assume to be. Steven Taylor could have found a lot less complicated way to kill his wife for her money and by involving a known criminal in the mix all he does is throw in a lot more loose—and unreliable—ends.The final death struggle was preposterous. The guy had already attempted to kill her yet she confronts him alone in their apartment? Why not just invite him down into the unlit cellar instead? And then we have the ridiculously cliché dead-but-not-really-dead bad guy who gets yet one more chance to do her in. This tripe seems to be written by people who do nothing but watch crappy movies.Profoundly mediocre at its core.