Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Meticulously detailed, way too much so, making this a very long and drawn out version of the famed novel. It's admirable they wanted to include as much of the book in the film, but sometimes being more selective in what you include is an asset in a movie. It does have respectable period detail, and it is well acted by everyone, good cinematography. It's main problem is it's extreme length and the fact it takes way too long to climax. . Still, there are rewarding moments along the way. It is surprisingly subdued and non violent. The 1967 Richard Brooks version is far better and much shorter. Check out a very young Ryan Reynolds who plays Bobby Rupp.

I watched this on T.V. when it first came out. I would've bet money that it was in the late 80's but it says here its 1996. I watched it with my sister and we only got to see the first part of the miniseries. I really was locked in by the whole attitude Anthony Edwards carried and the hate he showed.The rest of the cast did nothing for me. Sam Neil is about as dry as an actor can get and Eric Roberts is an ugly no talent nobody who has never made a movie that he didn't cry in. I guess he knows that his sister is a big millionaire and he's nothing - that must suck, and for the record I hate her with passion as well.The production of this movie was so plain and not even worthy of a lifetime movie of the week in my opinion. the direction has to be a character within its self and that was the most boring aspect of this movie for me.I found this DVD at wal-mart for $3 last month and just had to see the rest of it. I wish I had left it setting there and saved my $3. Anthony Edwards was mean and I liked him in it though and thats the reason to watch it. The fear he puts into that family. I just found out today that this is a remake of a 1967 Robert Blake movie of the same name. I'll try to get it and see if it's better.

This was a pretty good film. I'm not sure if this is considered a spoiler comment, but I didn't want to take a chance. Anyway, near the end of the film, the prosecutor reads a Scripture verse and then quotes another from memory. I can't remember the first passage he reads, but the second one is Genesis 9:6. He says it's Genesis 9:12, but he actually quotes verse 6. This is a common passage that many use to defend capital punishment. It's too bad that prosecutors dare not quote the Bible today. Did anybody ever hear of John Jay, the first Supreme Court justice in the history of this country? He said that the Bible is the best of all books. Too bad we've lost that view in America.

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.