stjohn1253 Pay homage to a masterpiece, but do so very well.Hitchcock notoriously flaunted incredulity with his plots, didn't care how implausible the story was. He got away with it because he used cinema as an instrument for emotionally impacting the audience.APM, on the other hand, strives for credulity to obtain audience involvement. It tries hard to eliminate all plot holes but then leaves a gaping one: A spacious luxury apartment with only a kitchen telephone--no extension phones, no cell phone--just that lonely wall phone. The writer took liberties with all other aspects of this Dial M For Murder makeover, so why the strict adherence to replication of Grace Kelly's late-night phone-answering attack? In 1954, most homes had one phone but not so in 1998.Also, director Levinson asks (and gets) the audience to sympathize with the unfaithful Gwyneth Paltrow for much of the film, just as Hitchcock was able to have the audience side with the adulterous Grace Kelly in DMFM. Hitchcock managed to carry Kelly's vulnerability throughout; however, Levinson presents a Paltrow at the end who's cunning and perfectly capable of murdering her would-be murderous husband. Vulnerability was the one saving grace left to the wayward Paltrow. Without it, she became the equal of Viggo Mortensen and Michael Douglas, two morally bankrupt characters. (And Paltrow screaming at Douglas hardly enhanced her likability.) If the viewer was to grant Paltrow forgiveness, they needed to see her as deserving. This film succeeded in casting and camera work. It's a shame that the director couldn't have paid closer attention to plausibility. Hitchcock didn't have to, but all others must.

Minahzur Rahman A perfect murder is pretty much an update version with many changes of the original classic Dial M for Murder. Obviously this film is not quite as successful as the original film, but its still nevertheless a pretty decent and interesting thriller, that has lots of twists and turns. The story is basically about a husband and wife named Steven (Michael Douglas) and Emily Taylor (Gwyneth Paltrow) where despite being married and have high prolific careers, are having a troublesome relationship and various other issues in their lives. Emily (Gwyneth) is having an affair with someone, Steven (Michael) is having serious financial implications. Neither of them are mentally stable, yet have various 'targets' to achieve. The film is pretty good for what it was. Michael Douglas was the outstanding performer of this film and if not for his performance, then I just feel the film would've dropped way down to mediocrity. I'm surprised just how beautiful Gwyneth looked back then, she was a very good choice playing the character Emily. The cast choice was good and the film is a decent thriller worth watching for 1 night or something at least. The conclusion according to me was a let down otherwise it could've got a higher rating.Personally, I found this film pretty enjoyable and gave it a 6 rating and it is certainly worth watching. What makes the film different compared to Dial M for Murder, is that it is much much darker.

Leftbanker 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.

LeonLouisRicci All clean, slick, and shiny on the surface, the Marriage between this filthy rich Couple is only cosmetic. Neither is happy and just below the surface, but not far enough, the sense is that something bad is going to happen in the next two hours.In the first Scene there is something bad happening, Adultery, but that's neither here nor there. Money is the thing. Having it, not having it, having it but wanting more and so on. So there is Murder afoot. A not so perfect Murder as it turns out and then things become somewhat interesting with twists and turns.It is these twists that keep this melancholy affair from falling asleep to just drowsiness. The Villain keeps things awake with some diabolical scheming against these spoiled Upper Crust types and it is He who garners the most attention. Mostly because Mr. and Mrs. La-Dee-Da are as dull as dishwater. So this ends up being a tepid Movie when it could have been scalding.