Film Review: A PERFECT MURDER (1998) *** and a 1\2 out of *****

Remaking classics is an unenviable task. Be too reverent to the original, and you are accused of being lazy. Deviate too much, and you can be criticized for being disrespectful.

Remaking Hitchcock, on the other hand, is a near impossible task. As Hitchcock is almost universally hailed as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, filmmaker of all time.

Most sane filmmakers avoid that choice, and those who take the plunge, mostly fail miserably. Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake of Psycho being a case in point.

1998's A Perfect Murder, is a surprising exception.

Based on the same Frederick Knott play that Hitchcock's 1954 Dial M For Murder was based on, A Perfect Murder achieves the almost impossible. It is a remake of a Hitchcock film that is superior to the original in every way.

At first glance, that assessment may seem hyperbolic, but a closer and honest look at Hitchcock's original film reveals more.

Dial M For Murder is, arguably, one of the master filmmaker's blandest and sloppiest films. Hitchcock, who always liked a challenge, tried to turn the original play the film was based on into what he termed, “pure cinema”. But, alas, Hitchcock failed on almost every front. Dial M For Murder comes off as stagy, stiff, and surprisingly boring, a rare misfire from the master of suspense. The only real high point in the whole film is Ray Milland's wonderful performance, a nasty but never hammy exercise in sheer, dark charisma.

A Perfect Murder, adapted by Patrick Smith Kelly, and directed by veteran action director Andrew Davis, is one of those rare modern Hollywood movies in which the ingredients gel, and everyone involved perform way above their pay grade.

Davis, mainly known for his action pictures in the 1980s, and the 1993 blockbuster The Fugitive starring Harrison Ford, had nothing in his oeuvre to indicate that he was capable of making a film like A Perfect Murder, an elegant, lean, and tremendously assured thriller.

The concept is the same as in the Hitchcock original. An aging man about to lose his fortune hires his wife's lover to kill her so he can inherit her considerable estate. He meticulously plans her murder, thinking nothing would go wrong. But things do go wrong, and a cat and mouse game ensues.

While Dial M For Murder was talky and stagy, A Perfect Murder is visually-driven and kinetic. Dial M For Murder comes off as bland and slow. A Perfect Murder, on the other hand, is stylish and compelling. And while Michael Douglas doesn't come close to Ray Milland's mesmerizing portrayal, he delivers an assured and understated performance, arguably one of the best of his career.

Gwyneth Paltrow as the wife doesn't fare much better than Grace Kelly did in the original, as, in both movies, the character is underwritten and uninteresting, mostly a mcguffin to get things rolling.

Viggo Mortensen as the lover fares better, delivering an enjoyable performance that does much with very little.

But the real star here is director Andrew Davis, who delivers a near classic late in his career, the kind of stylish, lean thriller no one could have expected from the journeyman director. Here, Davis is in complete control of the material, crafting a film that hums along so well, it deceptively hides the scope of his achievement, which is making the kind of film that is mostly a lost art. The elegant, twisty, and far-fetched thriller that could only come out of Hollywood at its best.

And while the script by Patrick Smith Kelly works well enough, it isn't perfect, with a somewhat problematic third act, and the bizarre inclusion of a middle-eastern detective, played with jarring portentousness by David Suchet.

But these are minor quibbles. A Perfect Murder is pure, high-caliber entertainment, and one which should not be missed by fans of classic thrillers.

Text © Ahmed Khalifa. 2024.

Video Version:

Book Vs. Movie: PHANTOMS

Phantoms (1998) is sort of an oddity. It’s got a good cast, good production values, and atmosphere to spare. But, for some reason, it never quite gets it right.

Let’s backtrack a bit and explain how this movie came to be.

After his book Whispers hit it big in 1980, Dean Koontz, now considered one of the world’s best-selling authors, was asked to write another best-seller. His publisher advised that his next book should be a horror novel since they were all the rage at the time (thanks to Stephen King). Koontz, who doesn’t consider himself a “horror writer” per se, reluctantly agreed, mostly due to financial reasons. The result was Phantoms, published in 1983. It was a hell of a book. Moody, intelligent, with well-drawn characters, and Satan as the villain. The novel became a huge bestseller when it came out in paperback.

Fast forward 15 years later, and Dimension Studios (the company behind the Scream, Hellraiser, and Children of The Corn franchises) decided to turn Phantoms into a movie. The result was Phantoms (1998), starring Joanna Going, Ben Affleck, Rose McGowan, and Peter O'Toole.

Phantoms (1998), more or less, retains the basic story of its source material, with a few subtractions and a couple of major changes. The concept remains the same: the entire population of a small town suddenly disappears into thin air. Menacing shadow creatures begin to emerge out of the dark, toying with the handful of people who stumble upon the mystery. An expert on mass disappearances is called in, and he claims that the entity behind the mayhem is an ancient, seemingly omnipotent being, that may be Satan himself.

What is different about the movie version is that the story has been streamlined (or dumbed down), with the rich scientific background found in the novel basically removed. As for the characters, again, they have been streamlined and simplified, losing most of their depth. The one pleasant surprise in this version is Dr. Timothy Flyte, a character that was basically fodder for the creature in the book. In the movie, and in the hands of Peter O’Toole, the character of Dr. Flyte saves the film, as O’Toole’s portrayal is delivered with verve and a wry sense of humor, which turns the character into some of sort of a modern Van Helsing with a worldly bent.

The script, by Koontz, also features some witty moments, as in the 15 years since the original book was published, Koontz had matured as a writer, and the screenplay feels more like one of his novels published in the late nineties: slick, laced with humor, and designed to thrill.

But despite the endearing performances, the eerie atmosphere (thanks to director Joe Chapelle's stylish handling of the material), and the satisfying ending (which, I might add, is superior to the ending featured in the original novel), the film has one too many cringe-worthy moments, ultimately preventing it from rising above its B-movie trappings.

So Phantoms (1998) is what it is: an entertaining, stylish b-movie, with a few things to offer. But after watching the movie version, do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of the original novel. You won’t be disappointed.

Text © Ahmed Khalifa. 2014- 2016.

Watch the extended video version of this post:

* This article originally appeared on Bitlanders.*