Millionaire industrialist Steven Taylor is a man who has everything but what he craves most: the love and fidelity of his wife. A hugely successful player in the New York financial world, he considers her to be his most treasured acquisition. But she needs more than simply the role of dazzling accessory.
Similar titles
Reviews
Overall I thought it was a good movie. Michael Douglas and Gwyneth Paltrow (who I normally find annoying) were good. The only person I found creepy was David Suchet (the detective). I don't know if that was their intention, but he was just weird and creepy. He creeps me out every time I have watched the movie.
(Originally reviewed: 27/03/2017) The problem here is fairly simple, the picture is lacking in originality and a satisfying ending, which is a shame because there was the right amount of atmospheric tension, it was a mere pity that what was happening on screen was either making little sense or being taken from another older genre picture. Michael Douglas is too old for Paltrow so I don't really believe there pairing for one minute, but they do their best with the material given and Viggo Mortensen play's Paltrow's secret lover, and doesn't do great, but gives a fairly satisfactory performance at the very least. Douglas is adequately threatening and very good here, and Paltrow is not just a pretty face, like her small role in Fincher's Masterpiece 'Seven', she can give a grounded, efficient performance.The story is unfortunately recycled however, and I'm not talking about this being a remake of an old Hitchcock movie, as I have never seen it, I'm talking about its constant stealing from film's like Fatal Attraction, especially the third act and like that film, there was an affair going on between the husband and the lonely woman at work, only they've switched it this time, too the wife being the cheater, and conforming with a man that works at the art gallery, a place Paltrow's character knows very well. There of course isn't graphic sex present like there was in Fatal Attraction but it's similar in in its storytelling and by comparison this picture gets destroyed, because for starter's it defies any logic whatsoever. Assuming is all you can do, because there's plot developments that would make the smartest man in the room howl with laughter, as I personally kept saying how did he do that? Is that possible? And so forth, despite its entertaining performances, the film is clichéd, illogical and uninspired.Though I do think the pace is efficiently fast, and Andrew Davis's direction is pretty good, among other things; like a couple of individual scenes that are competently done and rather entertaining, but just as I started to enjoy myself, clichéd dialogue and predictability closed in upon its third act, and if you think about it, if it weren't for the screenplay and the uninspired story, A perfect Murder might have been a serviceable B Movie thriller, but because of its weak story, and lack of logic, the result is a passable but certainly not memorable thriller with a real howler of an ending that's neither exciting or inventive, it's borderline boring, uninspired and oh so predictable, if you like this kind of film, you may enjoy it, despite flaws in logic, but myself, I felt rather disappointed.
A Perfect Murder (1998): Dir: Andrew Davis / Cast: Michael Douglas, Gwyneth Paltrow, Viggo Mortensen, David Suchet, Sarita Choudhury: Remake of Dial M for Murder for no other purpose than to present steamy sex and graphic violence. Title indicates a need for proof in having done wrong. Michael Douglas plays a business person who knows that his wife is having an affair and blackmails her lover into murdering her. The concept still works and there is an excellent twist that allows this thriller to benefit from its cleverness. It also proves that director Andrew Davis was going for intelligence yet the film still lurks in the gutter of sex and gore. Davis previously made The Fugitive so he does not need gore over suspense especially since the Hitchcock film prevailed nicely without the use of graphic violence. Douglas is well cast as he struggles drastically to mend one problem only to cause greater ones until his deceit and crime catches up with him. Gwyneth Paltrow as the adulterous wife will survive the attack and make discoveries that render a standoff. Viggo Mortensen is the painter caught in adultery and forced into a crime but he isn't without resources. David Suchet as the police inspector is standard and flat. This is nowhere near as good as the Hitchcock classic, thanks to its desperate need for graphic violence. The result is a film that is slick and clever but far from perfect. Score: 6 ½ / 10
I'm gonna give it a 9, to fix a bit the bad IMDb score. I think this movie is underrated - in my opinion mainly because it's a remake of a Hitchcock classic. People think that "No one should mess with Hitchcock, because they are going to just fail compared to him". This may be true, but I think this movie is underrated. For starters, it does not have the same plot - not even close. There are many surprises for people who have seen the original Hitch movie. In fact, they are essentially a different movie, the main plot line is very different. Only the theme is similar. It has also very good acting by three of the main actors, plus lot of suspense. It kept me on the edge of my seat until the very end. This comes from a person who has seen the original Hitchcock movie dozen of times. People shouldn't rate movies badly, because they are remakes (or sequels). If they bring something new to the table, they are justified. You don't have to reinvent the wheel every time, composers and musicians take influences from old music all the time, then they add SOMETHING new, but something in hit songs is always familiar and done before. Having influences is not necessarily a bad thing.
