User reviews

Greetings again from the darkness. What a unique film-going experience. Having the opportunity to see two takes on the same subject matter within a year or so is pretty rare in Hollywood. It happened most recently with "Tombstone" and the vastly inferior "Wyatt Earp". Rarely does it happen when both films are exceptionally well made and acted ... as is the case with last year's "Capote" and now, "Infamous".

First of all, you must understand that the films are actually based on different books. "Infamous" is based on George Plimpton's book in which he really tries to capture Truman Capote, the man and the genius. Because of this, director Douglas McGrath ("Nicholas Nickleby" and "Emma") utilizes some faux-interview segments, much like a "Biography" segment on television. Of course, both films center around the process of Capote researching and writing his masterpiece "In Cold Blood" based on the brutal slaying of a Kansas family in their farmhouse. They both also explore Capote's bizarre relationship with Perry Smith (played brilliantly here by the next James Bond, Daniel Craig). The sexual tension between the two is palpable, but we continue to question if Capote is merely manipulating Smith for the story or if, in fact, there is real substance to the attraction. We will never know if his reaction on death row is heartbreak or guilt. The mystery adds to the power of the story.

The cast in this film is nothing short of spectacular. From the opening moments with Gwyneth Paltrow portraying the great Peggy Lee in a melancholy stage moment to Sigourney Weaver, Hope Davis, Isabella Rossellini and Juliet Stevenson doing the twist, the actresses are terrific - as are their amazing costumes! In addition to Daniel Craig as Perry Smith, Lee Pace (as Dick Hickcock), Jeff Daniels as the sheriff and ("Last Picture Show" director) Peter Bogdanovich as Bennett Cerf, the actors are also top notch.

Toby Jones as Truman Capote is much more flamboyant and colorful than the amazing performance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman last year. Many will try to compare, but what I say is, enjoy them both for their high level of artistry! Now for something I never thought I would put in writing. Sandra Bullock is extremely effective as Nelle Harper Lee (Capote's muse and of course, the author of "To Kill a Mockingbird"). Bullock usually flips her hair and bumbles all cutesy-like through her performances, but not here. She plays Ms. Lee straightforward and tough, just like the real thing. How wonderful.

Yes, the story is still heart-wrenching, but "Infamous" provides much more levity, humor and color than the more somber "Capote". Both are wonderful films with excellent casts. Enjoy them both as fine film-making seems to be a rare commodity these days.

Writer-director Douglas McGrath's new film about Truman Capote and the creation of his most famous book, "In Cold Blood," is full of contradictions and contrasts when compared with its predecessor, the 2005 film "Capote," that covers the same five-year period. Perhaps this is fitting. There may be some justice in the fact that these two filmic accounts of how Capote researched material for his magnum opus disagree significantly in emphasis and purported events.

After all, Capote used fictional methods to embellish - some might say falsify - his journalistic reportage on the murders of the Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas, in 1959. If the screenplays for these two films tell differing stories of Capote's experience, does it matter if one is closer to the truth than the other? Or that we can't be sure - indeed, will never know - what actually occurred during many of the encounters between Capote, who was famous for fabricating yarns about his own life, and others out in Holcomb so long ago?

The films are each based on separate biographical accounts. "Capote" was adapted from Gerald Clarke's 1988 biography bearing the same title. "Infamous" is based on George Plimpton's 1997 book, "Truman Capote: In Which Various Friends, Enemies, Acquaintances and Detractors Recall His Turbulent Career," an account presented as a sequence of quotes from interviews Plimpton conducted with more than 150 people who knew Capote.

"Infamous" is far kinder to Capote than the earlier film, portraying him as quite clearly enamored of the killer Perry Smith (an ardor fully requited by Smith) and deeply anguished when Smith is executed. "Capote" depicts the author as more conniving, manipulative and disingenuous, willing to say or do anything to get Smith to spill his story, and withholding of possible interventions he - Capote - might have made to further delay or avert the executions of Smith and his accomplice, Dick Hickock.

In "Capote" the author's erotic attraction to Smith is more muted, hinted at, not acted upon. Indeed, "Infamous" is in general more explicit and direct in its portrayals, often more graphic if you will, than "Capote." Besides kisses and embraces between Capote and Smith, other scenes not covered in "Capote" include moments of violence when Smith virtually attacks Capote in his cell. We also witness the murders of the Clutters and Hickock's execution by hanging, including the protracted interval during which his body remains vertically suspended until he is finally declared dead by the attending physician.

There are other differences, for example, Capote's bid to establish rapport with the local Sheriff, Alvin Dewey, is depicted as much more problematic in "Infamous" than in "Capote." A plus for "Infamous" is its attention to Capote's relationships with a covey of New York society women known as his "swans," their adulation of him, his ability to coax them into sharing their secrets for his later use as gossip fodder. But, again, McGrath employs a graphic style to introduce us to these women, and several others in Capote's social circle, namely, the use of large white name titles as we first meet each, documentary style.

I find it impossible to resist comparing acting performances in the two productions. The more nuanced, oblique style of "Capote" is realized not only through its general avoidance of graphic scenes but in the greater subtlety of the two central actors' performances. In "Infamous," the English character actor Toby Jones physically resembles Capote more than does his counterpart in "Capote," Philip Seymour Hoffman. Both actors offer convincing personifications in voice and style. But I lean toward Hoffman's as the more complex, accomplished turn, characterized by critic Shawn Levy as "note-perfect." Levy goes on, "The wheezy laugh, the pain of work, the prying nature, the cold eye, the self-obsession, the ability to perform and ingratiate and wheedle - it's Capote you're watching up there…"

The brilliant English actor Daniel Craig gives a forceful, indeed galvanizing, performance as the killer, Perry Smith. But I think his mercurial, intensely melodramatic interpretation of his character is less convincing than his counterpart in "Capote," Clifton Collins, Jr. Collins's Smith is more introverted, by turns chilling or vulnerable to be sure, but for the most part quietly opaque, subdued, soulfully melancholic. For me this depiction is the more compelling and believable.

Other key performances are well delivered in both films: Catherine Keener ("Capote") and Sandra Bullock ("Infamous") as Harper Lee, though I liked Ms. Bullock's turn better; Chris Cooper ("Capote") and Jeff Daniels ("Infamous") as Sheriff Dewey. Capote's "swans" in "Infamous" are delightfully played by Sigourney Weaver, Juliet Stevenson, Hope Davis and Isabella Rossellini.

So we have two versions of the story of Capote's adventures in Kansas: both strong films, well cast, worthwhile. I think "Capote" is the better film because of its more subtle approach and the performances of the two central actors. As for realism in the interpretation of Truman Capote's character, perhaps the two portrayals taken together triangulate on the "real" Capote, a complex, convoluted personality as worthy of our sympathy as our contempt. My grades: 8/10 (high B+) (Seen on 10/10/06)

Infamous has a difficult comparison with the earlier "Capote." Still it is a different view of the same story and characters and is written with more emphasis on the perspectives of those who knew, or thought they knew, Capote. Toby Jones may not fully match the nuanced performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman but he does, possibly, a better imitation of Capote. Infamous has a better known cast of supporting players and they do a creditable job. Sandra Bullock's Harper Lee isn't the quite same as that portrayed so well by Catherine Keener in "Capote" but her character blends perfectly with the tone of "Infamous." Daniel Craig adds another fine acting turn as the "In Cold Blood" killer who receives the most attention. Even Gwyneth Paltrow makes an excellent impression in a brief opening scene as, apparently, singer Peggy Lee. (In the showing I saw, she was introduced as "Kitty Dean???") I wondered why another version of this story was filmed and it may not do well after the success of "Capote" but I was surprisingly entertained and intrigued by this movie.

"There will be time to murder and create." T.S. Eliot's Prufrock

Truman Capote described murderer Perry Smith as between the "tender and the terrible." Such may be said about writer/director Douglas McGrath's superior Infamous, a tale of Truman Capote's (Toby Jones) love affair with his innovative novelization, In Cold Blood, and its protagonist,Perry Smith (Daniel Graig). The tender is Capote's love of his female friends, especially Harper Lee (Sandra Bullock) and Smith (DanielCraig), and the terrible slaughter of the Kansas farm family in 1959 by Smith and friend Dick Hickock (Lee Pace).

Inevitable as accusing Toby Jones of only imitating Capote is the comparison with Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar performance of the titular author in Capote (1955). Jones's turn is more complex than Hoffman's, alternating between Capote's imaginative connection with the crime and his growing respect, even love, for Smith. In fact, the well-known love between the men is avoided in Capote but highlighted in Infamous.

I was hooked in the first sequence, when Gwyneth Paltrow as Peggy Lee sings "What is this thing called love?" and breaks down in apparent awareness of her own losses. The song, perfect for the themes of the film, and the film's score carry a melancholy with them that McGrath captures in Tru's constantly frustrated search for truth and love and Lee's inability to pen another novel after her Pulitzer-Prize-winning To Kill a Mockingbird. For that matter, Capote never completes a significant piece after that himself.

Last year's Capote seemed centered on the conflict in Truman over whether or not he was exploiting Smith to get a story and then never fully engaging a campaign to free them. This year's Infamous (a poor title regardless of it double artistic appropriateness) is more interested in Truman's struggle to write a new kind of fiction (docudrama) and his true affection for Smith. Infamous fleshes out the story and the fabulous artist whose "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and "In Cold Blood" are cultural staples of 20th century life.

Unsatisfied with 'Capote', I turned to 'Infamous', and was pleased with what was given. Jones' performance lets us see a lot more of Truman Capote; the 'wind-up toy', the wit, the manipulation, and the years of suffering were performed expertly and such contrasts and comedic breaks added more dimension than Hoffman's version. Harper Lee's importance was appropriately heightened in this movie, which I applaud.

'Infamous' portrays the entirety of the Clutter murders as I had Imagined from 'In Cold Blood'. We get a good overview, however incomplete, as crucial details about Perry are omitted, and the theme of sexuality takes a more obvious stand. While an interesting thought, I feel it muddies Perry's character a little; his reasoning is not quite clear nor correct. I don't really feel Craig was right for the role; there's a certain immaturity he doesn't quite exude.

Overall, I enjoyed this film and appreciated its varying tone and Toby Jones' Capote. It was refreshing and more satisfying than the flatly sombre atmosphere in 'Capote'.

I enjoyed this movie. It wasn't the best thing I've seen but the portrayal of Capote was amazing. The supporting cast were decent although Daniel Craig was probably miscast. I enjoyed the humorous and quirky side of the movie. An easy watch.

I just saw this movie at the Venice Film Festival. I pretty liked it. It's not a masterpiece and sometimes it's hard to not compare with the other "Capote" movie. This one, anyhow, is funnier than the other one and some director's choices are interesting. The cast is terrific (from Toby Jones to a surprising Sandra Bullock, to the enjoyable female supportings to Lee Pace and Daniel Craig) and the technical credits are more than stellar. The screenplay sometimes is a little clichéd but nothing disturbing. The 5-minute cheeres at the end of the screening (with Bullock, Jones, McGrath, Toniolo among others in attendance) proves I was not the only one who liked it.

Truman Capote may be unique among recent celebrities to have two excellent films made about his life. Just a year after Phillip Seymour Hoffman's mesmerizing performance in "Capote," Toby Jones does a fine, if more expected, impersonation of the author of "In Cold Blood" and "Breakfast at Tiffany's." With the razor sharp wit and effete mannerisms more focused than they were in "Capote," Jones, in Douglas McGrath's "Infamous," is a more vulnerable Truman and is unquestionably in love with one of the Clutter family killers, Perry Smith. Although ostensibly a drama, "Infamous" is replete with Capote's celebrated wit, and the one-liners, which are often sexual in nature, are welcome relief from the heavier scenes.

However, "Infamous" is at heart a love story, or rather two, love stories. The first romance is between Truman Capote and his coterie of largely female socialite friends, with whom he gossips and parties and self adulates. The second, much deeper love story, between Capote and Smith, begins as Capote explores Smith's background and family history. Although their relationship, which the film implies was more than platonic, develops within the confines of prison, the two men connect through similar personal tragedies in their childhoods. Smith, well played by Daniel Craig, was at least bisexual or even gay, according to McGrath's screenplay. Although a subliminal connection between the two killers was suggested in both the films "In Cold Blood" and "Capote," in this film Dick Hickock, Smith's partner in the Clutter killings, recognizes Perry's orientation and taunts him with it.

Although a bevy of well-known performers threatens to undercut the realism of the drama with a game of "isn't that so and so?," the acting rises above star cameos and blends seamlessly into the whole. In fact, the familiar faces aid in maintaining recognition of the parade of celebrities, such as Babs Paley, Gore Vidal, and Harper Lee that surrounded Capote in life. Borrowing a technique from Warren Beatty's "Reds," McGrath effectively uses witnesses that talk to the camera about Truman as though being interviewed at some later date. Surprisingly, these interview segments do not interrupt the flow of the drama and enhance rather than detract from the film's power.

And powerful it is. Although the execution scenes have been filmed twice before, Truman's parting from the killers and the actual hangings remain almost unbearable to watch. Although two films have preceded this one and related essentially the same story, "Infamous" stands as a worthy addition to what is now a trilogy on the Clutter family murders (1967's "In Cold Blood," 2005's "Capote," 2006's "Infamous"). Surprisingly, each film is equally engrossing and brings its own viewpoint to the story. Like different facets of a prism or a three-film version of "Rashomon," the tale of Truman Capote's reportage of the murders retains its fascination and the enigma of Capote's relationship with the killers. Rarely have three such powerful, outstanding films been made from the same subject matter.

When I saw "Capote" I was really impressed by the presentation of the story and the quality of the acting. When I saw "Infamous" today, I was caught up with the story in a way I had not been before. It was closer to the experience when I read the book many,many years ago. "In Cold Blood" is about killing human beings, and I believe that it is no more right for cold blooded murders to do it than for me do do it as a member of society that authorizes the death penalty. I believe that the film as well as the book makes people think about this issue The cast was superb, and I said the same about the earlier rendition, but this time the characters were fully developed and believable under the circumstances. I had been impressed before, but this film is different from the last--it is more emotional, more detailed in rendition of the characters, and more interested in showing not just the destruction of Truman Capote, but in sharing the ideas that he expressed in "In Cold Blood".

When I was growing up (I am 62 now) I recall that I did not like Capote when I saw him on talk shows repeatedly. I really knew nothing of gay culture or what even that meant at the time, so it had nothing to do with the sexual orientation. It had to do with the ego that was constantly expressed and realted to nothing that I really cared about.

But what was incredibly important to me then and now is that we can lose track of the fact that we are all human beings, a point that was stressed in the film. Killers may be killers, but they are us, in a way, filled with some of the same ambitions, hates, emotions that most of us can control. What separates us from them might not be very much, so why do we need to kill them as they jailed their victims? It is easy to kill, but not so easy to try to understand. This film hits an emotional level that the previous film did not. I am pleased that it ultimately was made. I am also pleased that the quality of the performances, the writing and most especially the direction, were so superb. Watch the scene where the farmer speaks only to Harper Lee and not Capote. It is an incredible monologue, but the circumstances are noted.

Everyone's seen the 2005 drama Capote, which won Phillip Seymour Hoffman his Best Actor Oscar, but how many people have seen Infamous, the exact same story filmed at the exact same time but was held back a year because the other made earlier festival deadlines? If you've only seen Hoffman's performance, you owe it to Toby Jones and everyone who put their talent into the later film to rent Infamous.

I've seen them both, and there's a remarkable difference. Capote bored me to tears; I actually nodded off to sleep a couple of times. I barely remembered the sequence of scenes, and in fact, when I watched Infamous, some of the events were a surprise to me even though I was supposed to have seen them before. The 2006 film was entertaining, riveting, and many of the scenes will stay in my memory forever. Writer-director Douglas McGrath delivered his specialty: fast-paced, witty, emotional, and complex.

To pay homage to the true crime genre pioneered by Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, McGrath made his film a combination of dramatic fiction and mockumentary. Interview testimony from Capote's friends (Sigourney Weaver, Sandra Bullock, Peter Bogdanovich, Juliet Stevenson, John Benjamin Hickey, Jeff Daniels, and Isabella Rossellini) is intercut with scenes that drive the plot forward. Just as Capote alters the truth to suit his writing, McGrath adds fictional elements to the plot. This is, simply put, the greatest tribute to Truman Capote's writing style.

While the plot itself isn't my usual fare, I always love watching movies that feature fantastic performances. I don't like grizzly murder mysteries, and I'll admit to looking away from the television set during the gruesome scenes. In both films, Truman Capote is inspired to write the first true crime novel by a terrible small-town murder. He travels with his writer pal Harper Lee to interview the townsfolk, and he ends up spending a great deal of time talking with the murderers in prison. Does the brooding criminal who guards his words carefully look familiar? Probably not, but wash off the brunette rinse, take out the brown contacts, and replace the American accent with an English one. . . The same year Daniel Craig made a splash in his first James Bond flick, he was also in Infamous - and he was fantastic. Don't feel bad if you don't recognize him and have a, "Where's Fredric March?" moment. A large part of the story is Capote's quest to humanize the murderers, and the scenes between Jones and Craig are multifaceted and extremely well-acted.

If you don't really know who Truman Capote is, you'll love Phillip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal. He's the guy that dresses and talks funny, right? If you actually remember the "eccentric" author, you'll continually pinch yourself as you watch Toby Jones. It was an effort to keep reminding myself that I wasn't actually watching Truman Capote spliced alongside modern actors. In some scenes, he personifies "light in the loafers" and passes gossip amongst his friends for entertainment; in others, he's so emotionally conflicted the audience is free to take their own interpretation. Depending on your point of view, you can see Capote as a selfish manipulator consumed by his novel, or a tormented soul who desperately wants to create a fictional world to improve what really happened. Since both sides can be argued, Toby Jones is remarkable.

In a major chunk of the film, Jones is challenged by Craig's reluctance to share his story. The other murderer, Lee Place, is very open, but Craig maintains he's a human being, not a character in a story. Years ago, I took a directing course that focused on working with actors. Our assignment during each scene was to write out a different motivation behind every line of dialogue, to help our actors give better performances. In Infamous, Jones runs through every conceivable motivation as he tries to figure out what will make Craig trust him enough to open up about his feelings. He offers logic, money, and emotional blackmail; he sends him different types of literature to read in his cell; he makes any number of promises about the tone he'll take with the book and shares his own sad stories. It's both exhausting and interesting to watch.

Jones perfects the art of finding out what each person in his life needs and giving it to them, but is the mere satisfaction of being a chameleon enough? He gives a little smirk at the time, but as the high fades, he needs either more or different to keep him happy. In one scene, he breaks down in exhaustion and confesses to his friends that the years have taken their toll. Just as you think he's going to reveal his true feelings, he offers a comment on his book instead. It's one of his many moments of brilliance that keep you in a constant state of unease.

Rent Infamous. It'll surprise you. Sandra Bullock masters the Alabama accent, which you know is no small feat if you've ever studied different dialects. Daniel Craig is unrecognizable, and Toby Jones is perfect. I could write pages praising Toby Jones's performance, but I couldn't say it any better than Rex Reed did in The New York Observer: "They gave the Oscar to the wrong Truman Capote. ... (Hoffman) was doing an impression. In Infamous ... a diminutive actor with a titanic talent named Toby Jones literally becomes the man himself. This is no lisping impersonation learned from watching old Johnny Carson shows: Mr. Jones moves into Truman's skin, heart, and brains. Infamous shows you the man's soul."

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence and adult content, I wouldn't let my kids see it.

How unfortunate is it that two films come out about the same time telling the same story. If this film had been released before Capte, I am certain that it would have won all the awards it richly deserved.

Toby Jones was magnificent as Truman Capote. Sandra Bullock did her best work since Crash. I am glad that I have not seen Casino Royale yet, as it might have ruined the part Daniel Craig played as the killer, Perry. I even forgive Jeff Daniels for The Squid and the Whale. He was great as the District Attorney.

Infamous played much lighter than Capote in its setting in New York society, and it really focused on the agony that Perry was going through. One can understand from this film why Capote never wrote another novel.

"INFAMOUS" ~~ THE OTHER BETTER CAPOTE ... Directed by Douglas McGrath who also wrote the screenplay for Woody Allen's "Bullets Over Broadway" (1994) and directed Paltrow in Jane Austen's "Emma", 1996. Starring Toby Jones as Truman Capote -- one of those rare cases where the actor did not "play" the role but completely entered the skin of the real life character in question. Incredibly "Infamous" was on last night on Hungarian TV, Dubbed into Hungarian but I watched it anyway, for the body language and Production values. And the general feeling of the movie. I had forgotten what an important role a deglamourised Sandra Bullock had in this picture as Capote's constant companion throughout. But the fact that this major Hollywood star was content to take a supporting role to an unknown British actor is a real mark of her professionalism. Interestingly, she smokes in just about every scene she's in, which I assume was just for the requirements of the picture. Toby Jones is head and shoulders better than Seymour Hoffman was in the role, Besides the fact that he is a dead ringer for minuscule real life Capote whereas Bulky Seymour wasn't even close. If there were anything resembling integrity In the Hollywood film world, Jones should have been a walkaway for best actor in 2007 and Bullock would have been a very worthy candidate for Best Supporting actress, female -- Come to think of it, they oughta have a special slot for "Best supporting role by a star leading actor/actress willing to take a back seat" in a quality picture.

I saw "Infamous" at the 2006 Venice film festival and recognized it then as an unsung masterpiece, far far better than the Hoffman caricature earlier the same year. It opens with an incredible turn by Gwyneth Paltrow in a long white gown as Peggy Lee doing the old standard "This must Be Love" -- but she is so touched by the inherent sadness of the song that she breaks down in the middle and has to stop. What an opener! ~ possibly the best single scene Paltrow has ever done. Which sets the tone for everything to come.

A series of interviews follows with celebrity contemporaries of Capote speaking to the camera and identified by name with on screen titles which gives the picture a documentary feel, but the name celebrities are themselves celebrity actors such as Sigourney Weaver and especially, Peter Bogdanovich as Bennet Cerf. I think this is definitely one of the very best pictures of the Decade, 2000- 2010, and one that I would like to own so I could watch it over and over. And don't forget Daniel Craig (later to be Dubble 007!) as death row killer Perry Smith who Capote falls in love with! The prison interviews are filmed in a kind of chiaro-oscuro and the 1959 Period atmosphere is unobtrusively authentic-- without parading collectors vintage cars across the screen in every outdoor scene.

"Infamous", 2006, is a true gem in every respect but fell between the cracks because it was overshadowed by the hullabaloo over the distinctly inferior Sony Pictures production -- a classic case of the triumph of publicity over Quality.

While Capote was a brilliant and somber film, Infamous offers a lighter, more stylized character study, though, given the subject matter, a dose of darkness is inevitable. Truman Capote is portrayed more to life-size by Toby Jones, who captures both the charm and the contradictions of the man. We first see him enjoying his whirlwind Manhattan social life before being captivated by the gruesome murder of the Clutter family in Kansas. He decides to "investigate," accompanied by his friend Nelle Harper Lee.

Once in Kansas, Capote is met with suspicion but gradually wins over some of the locals, until the murderers are caught. At that point, the film pivots: Capote allegedly experienced something like love at first sight for Perry Smith, one of the killers. Much of the second half is devoted to the unlikely and complex relationship that develops between them. Capote was manipulative and self-serving; Perry, ignorant and violent - but there was a strange tenderness between them.

What would become Capote's masterpiece, In Cold Blood, was completed and ready for publication in 1960, but he couldn't release it until the execution took place - a wait that dragged on for five years. Infamous is an intriguing exploration of an unconsummated attachment-one that required the destruction of the loved one to give the author his greatest work, but also contributed to his psychological unraveling.

Since it's a much, much better film than CAPOTE in pretty much every respect, it is very sad that INFAMOUS will probably always linger in the shadow of its bloated predecessor. The key to the success of McGrath's film is the way he recognises that this is essentially a small, sad story, that will suffer by being inflated to a quasi-tragic level. Capote was a talented writer but not in the same league as, say, James Baldwin, or Tennessee Williams - two contemporary gay writers with whom it's pretty fair to compare to him, and about whom it would be interesting to have two movies. But Capote? Nah. How this has happened I really don't know, as it suggests that his story teaches a more general lesson than it actually does. McGrath seems to have grasped the uniqueness, the particularity of Capote's situation, and reflected it in the intimate scale of his screenplay, especially in the talking-head sequences, and the splendid dinner party-scene.

Having scaled his story to an appropriate level, this writer/director has not stinted on casting. The opening moments are given to Ms Paltrow, who is terrific, enabling the movie to pull off a remarkable structural feat - Paltrow sings of love, breaking down into silence as the emotion overwhelms her, which is exactly what Capote does at the dinner party. Very clever, and managed with a lightness of touch that characterises this movie, and sets it well above the heavy-handedness of its rival. And as we move through the story, this lightness is all, until we come to the heavy metal of the ever-excellent Daniel Craig. Even his lowering performance is kept within the movie's bounds, however. Intimacy is the key to this. The cell scenes are wonderfully initmate.

As the story moves on, Capote finds himself wishing for the death of a man he loves. This is what both films make their moral centre, and in neither does it really work. Capote is not established in either movie as a man of particularly strong moral fibre. His torment therefore seems rather contrived.

Still, the superb Toby Jones does everything he can to make sense of it, delivering a nuanced performance that makes Capote much more real than the pantomime that Mr Hoffman was so highly praised for. Not for the first time, sentiment overcame sense at the Academy.

Finally, a word for Sandra Bullock, who manages what I would have thought impossible: she more than withstands comparison with Catherine Keener in the other film. It may well be a career-best for Ms Bullock. Jeff Daniels, on the other hand, is slightly pipped at the post by Chris Cooper. But don't let that get in the way: if you're choosing between the two on DVD, get INFAMOUS. It's a very good movie.

Truman Capote - Toby Jones - is an eccentric and famous New York writer. He is openly gay well before most came out of the closet. One day, he reads an article about a recent and dreadful crime. Four members of the Clutter family were shot to.death in smalltown Holcomb, Kansas. Odd. Tru gets the idea to interview people of Holcomb and write of their fears. Convincing his longtime friend Harper Lee - Sandra Bullock - to travel with him, they arrive in Kansas. Alas, no one will initially talk to them and the chief investigator Dewey won't give them access to crime documents. Then, the killers are arrested. Deweys wife convinces her husband of Capotes talent. Now, Truman starts interviewing Perry Smith and Dick Hickock. What Capote learns is unsettling and sorrowful. Can he write this book? The big problem with Infamous was not the cast. They are splendid. What's wrong is the same story was told the year before in the dazzling film Capote. Therefore, no one rushed to this one. It's a shame, really. The script here is fine and the production is above average. Even if you have seen Capote, try this one as well. It is a worthy bookend to the earlier movie.

Forget Capote! This film blows Bennett Miller's version out of the water. Not to take anything away from the Hoffman performance, but Toby Jones is incredible as the late Truman Capote making me understand his pain and love and guilt for Perry Smith and his demise. This was all accomplished from a legitimately real place, not some "pull-my-heartstrings-Ron-Howard- music-swells" sort of way. The scene after he returns from his liason with Perry and the shift of emotions we see in Jones' face is reminiscent of Diane Lane's "train sequence" in Unfaithful. Incredible. And Sandra Bullock...where have you been hiding? Please Academy, do not be afraid to honor this film so close to its predecessor.

It could be a work of fiction. Just like the factual novel of Truman Capote. For maximum enjoyment one should forget last years "Capote". Like so many other things in modern pop culture the same stories can be told countless times, the versions vary but at its center there is a truth that its stranger than fiction. Truman Capote is like an alien visiting our planet, his intellect allows him to see beyond our limitations and his need to belong to be accepted transforms him into one of the greatest manipulators of all time. Toby Jones is extraordinary. There is no performance other that Capote's own daily performance to charm and seduce everyone who has anything he needs. He seems him quiver when his rapport with Perry King takes unexpected erotic turns. There is real sexual tension in their scenes together. I believed it, Perry King I mean, I believe that he felt compelled and attracted by this tiny,famous,alien celebrity. Daniel Craig is superb and his character has the power to get under our skin without betraying the brutal side of his nature. What Capote felt is another story. He lies so blatantly, so beautifully that it's impossible to tell, maybe even Capote himself couldn't tell. Doug McGrath's version of the events is funnier, more entertaining and certainly more theatrical that last year's version that I've advised you to forget - The advise is heartfelt but difficult to put into practice - Sandra Bullock, Juliet Stevenson, Sigourney Weaver and Isabella Rossellini contribute to the fun and to the theatrical feel of "Infamous" If you're a sucker for pop culture and who isn't? Run to see it.

Comparisons between films on the same subject are usually separated by decades rather than one year, but last year's CAPOTE (2005), starring Philip Seymour Hoffman is now being shadowed by the 2006 release of this film, INFAMOUS. And shadowed is the operative word here, simply because Capote towers both in acting and cohesive story structure over Infamous.

Probably the biggest issue with Infamous is its piecemealing together of the various story threads, giving the entire production a herky-jerky feel to it. Also, taking nothing away from Toby Jones's performance as the effeminate Capote, Philip Seymour Hoffman pulled in a finer performance thanks to a much smoother flowing storyline.

The best acting part in Infamous would have to be Daniel Craig's portrayal of Perry Smith, one of the murderers whom Truman Capote gets close to in order to finish his greatly successful novel, In Cold Blood. A novel that not only makes Truman Capote but breaks him as well, for he wrote nothing up to that standard for the rest of his life. Clifton Collins Jr. did an admirable job as Perry in the film Capote, but Craig stuns and surprises after seeing his gruff debonair-ness in the wildly successful CASINO ROYALE (2006).

Another problem with Infamous is that there are some big name actors/actresses in it if for no other reason than to say, "Hey. There are some big name actors/actresses in this movie." Jeff Daniels, Sigourney Weaver, Gwyneth Paltrow, Isabella Rossellini, Hope Davis, and a slew of others lend their names but not much of their talent to the film. A shame, too, as many of them are fine actors/actresses. Jeff Daniels might be the exception in that list, but not by much.

Certainly there are some entertaining portions to the film, especially whenever the social elite reveal secrets to one another (especially to Truman who is their constant confidant) and promise not to spread it around ...and then inevitably do the very moment they get a chance. That was quite entertaining. But, as a whole, the story's script flagged horribly in the end, never really making the viewer care about any of these once vibrantly active people (murderer and social butterfly alike). And that's what helped the film Capote succeed over this one.

Infamous is by far the better movie about Truman Capote. I saw this film in Venice where the audience gave it a 15 minute standing ovation. There is a lot that is brilliant about this film. The cast is perfect. This film shows us more characters than the previous movie and each is played beautifully by a highly competent actor. INFAMOUS is one of the most effective and unique films I have seen in a long time. It treats its' subject with humor but also with emotional depth. I was moved by Truman's journey. His relationship with Perry Smith is complex and heartbreaking. Daniel Craig rides a thin line between sympathetic and dangerous. He is a truly gifted artist. Doug McGrath's film-making is brave and true to itself in every way. Toby Jones is the perfect Truman. I was unfamiliar with him as an actor and totally surprised by his amazing, seamless performance. I'm telling you, Toby Jones is Oscar material.

Bennett Miller's "Capote" (2005) gave us what I thought was a fascinating look into the artistic process, and asked tough questions about the relationship between and the responsibility toward an artist and his subject. The film was neither a recreation of the tragic events that served as the subject of "In Cold Blood," nor was it a strict bio-pic about Truman Capote himself. It was something unique, and in my opinion said all there was to say about Capote's journey in writing "In Cold Blood." Then "Infamous" came along, in one of the most unfortunate cases of bad timing ever to afflict a movie, and had to justify its own existence. Does it have anything to offer that "Capote" or, for that matter the movie "In Cold Blood" or the novel "In Cold Blood," don't? The answer is.....not really. "Infamous" isn't a bad film, but it feels awfully unnecessary, and this isn't simply because "Capote" came out first. It's a much more straightforward, and therefore less interesting, version of the same story.

It shouldn't be less interesting, given its cast. Toby Jones actually looks and acts more like Truman Capote than Philip Seymour Hoffman did, but his performance is more of an impersonation than it is a creation of a living breathing character. Sandra Bullock plays Harper Lee, and the movie strands her with nothing to do. The down to earth Lee is supposedly responsible for getting the people of Holcomb, Kansas to open up to the otherwise too strange and effeminate invader from the big city; but the movie doesn't show this. Lee instead sits around and waits for Capote to come back and update her on interviews he has with his subjects. Jeff Daniels plays the chief inspector in the Cutter family killings. The movie's best scenes are the ones showing how Capote used his familiarity with Hollywood and household name stars to delight the Kansas townspeople, and namely the inspector's family, into confiding in him. Daniel Craig plays Perry Smith, one of the two Cutter family killers, and the movie's biggest factual divergence from other versions of the story is its explicitness in suggesting that Smith and Capote actually fell in love with one another. The film's biggest asset, and most missed opportunity, is the cast assembled to play Capote's high-society friends. Peter Bogdanovich plays Capote's "New Yorker" editor, and a female ensemble that includes Sigourney Weaver, Hope Davis, Isabella Rosselini and Juliet Stevenson plays his various gossip-monger friends. This aspect of the Capote story -- how his "project" was viewed by New York's upper crust, far removed from the world that includes out of the way places like Holcomb, Kansas -- could have made this version unique, but the writers decide instead to focus the entire second half of the film on the Smith/Capote relationship, leaving the New York world in the background. A shame, because it's the New York scenes that inject "Infamous" with the energy its other scenes lack.

If "Infamous" isn't a failure, it's also not a resounding success, and not a movie that I would encourage anyone to rush out and see.

Grade: B-

Many have commented on how they found last year's Capote boring and tedious. I must disagree with that opinion as I found that version of Truman Capote's quest to create literary non-fiction to be a masterpiece. Yes, it's slow-moving but it's well-paced and the director sets the tone for that film early with its desaturated colours and vast landscapes to show the isolation that Capote eventually feels when his story comes to a conclusion and he never writes another masterpiece again.

I was looking forward to Infamous with great anticipation and was disappointed heartily. I hated the faux interviews from Capote's intimates. This film seems to violate the whole idea of screen writing--show, don't tell. Why have talking heads telling you about the Capote they knew when the film could have easily left this to inference.

I also found it disconcerting that the film couldn't seem to decide whether it was going to be comical or tragic. The pacing is way off. Too much time is spent on Capote the gadfly and not enough screen time is dedicated to showing the moral dilemma that he becomes embroiled in when he chases the story of the two killers. I guess if viewers wanted more of that gossipy side of Capote, this is the ideal film. Last year's was actually quite brooding and one was left wondering as to how so many of the beautiful people could confide in a man who spent more time labouring over his work than he did partying with the elite.

I loved last year's film and cannot recommend this one to anyone who cares to see this one. The comparisons are unavoidable. Too bad that we couldn't compare what each filmmaker did well. Maybe a future film class can examine biopics and look at how two different filmmakers can approach the same subject so differently.