Capote

The fact that Philip Seymour Hoffman talks for two hours like a homosexual man (which he actually plays) doesn't mean that he delivers an Oscar-worthy performance or nomination. The fact that the film tries to be a credible biopic about a world-renowned writer doesn't mean that it will become a cult-classic masterpiece that will go down in history. Not all biopics are created equal. Some directors are able to inject incredible energy, inventiveness, and dynamism into these types of projects, while others not. In the latter case, it becomes a dry exposition with a stark and emotionally detached statement that only lasts a few minutes after the opening. With Capote, it lasted about twenty seconds for me. One of the most boring and indigestible projects of the year. (06/04/2008)

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’s too flat as a biography of a brilliant writer and too insubstantial as a film about a novel. In the film, Capote’s creative genius is limited to a few lame mentions of his previous work, and the actual creation of what is most substantial goes no further than what the viewer is able to form after reading "In Cold Blood" or watching Brooks' film of the same name. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's 100-minute homosexual creation thus becomes merely an aspirational pose that might have been provocative in the 1960s, but not today. The result is just an empty bubble, which at the time of its release got more flak than it perhaps deserved, and conversely, as a tribute to a brilliant storyteller, or rather a novel, it is about as impressive and original as a piece of marble. (05/06/2007)

You can penetrate the story of Truman Capote in direct proportion to how you accept the main character. Philip Seymour Hoffman demonstrates almost extreme exhibitionism, although authentically, which almost repelled me from the film, but he won me over 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 a 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 that's what the ending is about, almost in its entirety, Capote fizzles out when the final credits appear. (09/27/2007)

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)