Capote

Miller's film is strong in the details (the interviews with the killers, the final execution), but if it weren't for Hoffman, it would be just one among many, with nothing special or revelatory in terms of filmmaking or story. Capote himself is a guy I wouldn't go out for a beer with. His self-centred, manipulative and disgustingly pragmatic and cynical nature, often resorting to lies, is almost repulsive in places – it must have been a joy to play and such a beautifully written controversial character. The casting people should be applauded here, Hoffman's type - a mixture of loser and strong charisma - is quite ideal for such a role. He didn’t disappoint, he was great. (09/24/2006)

The picture concentrates exclusively on the period that inspired the writing of one of the most fundamental American books of the 20th century - “In Cold Blood", the origin of the factual novel as such. A book that brought its author immortality and at the same time brought his fall into perdition. The subject is certainly intriguing, but Capote was such a complex and fascinating personage that the rather narrow focus of the story was rather a shame. It’s downright disappointing that the result is utterly humdrum and uninventive in all respects. The only element that saves it is the excellent performance from Hoffman, deservedly rewarded by more than one acting award. His performance precisely captures all nooks and crannies of Truman Capote’s soul. From homosexuality, through arrogance, calculating cunning, egoism to his desperate desire to be admired. And a warning concerning the Czech dubbing. Capote’s peculiar voice was difficult enough in the original to get right, but Hoffman did a splendid job of it. But in the Czech dubbed version, this literary heavyweight sounds like a pitiful caricature of himself. (10/03/2007)

When I started watching the movie and heard Philip Seymour Hoffmann speaking and saw him acting, I couldn't believe my eyes. Granted, I didn't know much about Truman Capote, but to speak and behave like this? I had to stop watching the movie and search for videos of Capote on the internet. Long live YouTube, an incredible source of information. Of course, I found Capote on the internet and, of course, my jaw dropped when I actually saw him speaking and moving. If Philip Seymour Hoffman was overacting, then very little. His performance is unbelievable. He never falls out of character. The character, actually the personality of Capote, intrigued me and I had to get one of his books. I have Breakfast at Tiffany's at home, so I hope to get to it as soon as possible. Philip Seymour Hoffman delivers an truly incredible performance - rightfully awarded with an Oscar - which may be automatically imitated, but he simply never falls out of character. He is sleazy, he is warm, as warm as can be, to the point where it's almost cliché, but still, he is unbelievable. He stole the whole film for himself. "Capote" is not about the whole life of this important American author, but only about the period when he created the novel "In Cold Blood", which is essentially a literary work of non-fiction. Even then, he was a very popular author, essayist, and novelist. His books became the basis for great films. But it was precisely "In Cold Blood" that changed his life. In the film, it is beautifully captured why this happened, just like it captures what happened. The event described in "In Cold Blood" is presented in such a way that the crime seems incredibly shocking to you. A very good film, which is not just a biography. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/10/prach-uspesna-pokracovani-animaku.html (03/01/2013)

After In Cold Blood, I was definitely not in a good mood or I with peace in my soul. Capote added another dimension to the story, and it made those feelings even stronger. It's ugly, but that ugliness actually makes it an extremely interesting film that might not have been as good without Philip Seymour Hoffman, but that's a pointless musing. I would, however, also single out Catherine Keener, whose Harper Lee was the perfect human counterbalance to Truman Capote. (11/19/2023)

It is possible to penetrate into the story of Capote proportional to how the viewer accepts the main character. Hoffman demonstrates almost extreme exhibitionism, although authentically, which almost repelled me from the film, but he approached me again thanks to the prison interviews, where he finally gained depth in intimate scenes. His frivolity later proves to be only a defensive weapon, but still, his interpretation remains on the border between overacting and artistic performance, fortunately closer to the latter option. The screenplay itself also remains somewhere in between. While the search for truth for the book is an excellent subject and gets under the viewer's skin almost on its own, feelings of guilt and the urgency of consequences do not have such power, and because the ending is almost only about them, Capote fizzles out when the final credits appear. (09/27/2007)