Customer Reviews:

• Very good movie looking at same situations as "Capote"
  Sometimes coming in second can be a good thing. While "Capote" stole the awards and the box office, "Infamous" covering much of the same ground involving writer Truman Capote fashioning his "novel" In Cold Blood surprised me by how much better it was as a drama and how much richer the performances were. I say surprised because of the structure of the film and the fact that I had "seen" this story already in its predecessor. ***
  
  Director/writer Mark McGrath ("Emma" and the TV version of "Nickolas Nickleby") makes some fascinating and daring choices here. WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD By implying that Capote fell in love with Smith, McGrath suggests his artistic decline and fall into despair pushed the writer into alcoholism ultimately destroying his art and, in the process, making him a shell of his former self. Dramatically it touches on what truly was missing behind the story that drove "Capote". Keith proves himself every bit the equal of Oscar winner Philip Seymour Hoffmann and I personally found his performance more nuanced, richer and with a deeper sense of humanity and vulnerability. Adapted from the book by the late journalist George Plimpton, McGrath makes the choice of putting intermittent interviews with the actors in character. While this is disruptive (much like "Reds") at first, if you're patient you'll discover that the contrast between what we see happening and what they say happened provides an additional perspective missing from "Capote".
  
  Capote (Toby Keith) intrigued by the brutal murder of a family in a small rural Kansas town arranges to write an article for The New Yorker magazine. Capote already well known at the time having published six previous books so thinks he'll have no problem getting the town's people to talk to him about the family and the tragic events. He takes along his best friend Harper Lee who is waiting for her book To Kill a Mockingbird to be published. Lee provides the humanity and warmth missing from Capote who is witty, sarcastic and just doesn't fit in as a flamboyant gay man in the early 60's in Kansas. When the police officer investigating the case (Jeff Daniels) refuses to give him special access about the case, Capote finds that Lee is right-he has to open up himself to a certain extent but, more importantly, use those he knows (Humphrey Bogart, Frank Sinatra, Lauren Bacall and other celebrities he worked with at the time) to impress and break the ice for the locals. Once the killer's are caught Capote finds himself drawn into their world particularly that of Perry Smith (Daniel Craig from "Casino Royale", "Layer Cake" and "Munich" in a stunning performance). Capote has to put aside his defenses and truly open up to Smith who hides a soft, almost artistic soul beneath his hardened exterior.
  
  "Infamous" receives a top notch transfer. Images are crisp, colors bright and the Kansas landscape is captured in all of its stark beauty. In contrast the sequences set in Manhattan with Capote's society friends (played by Hope Davis, Sigourney Weaver, Peter Bogdanovich as his publisher and, Gwyneth Paltrow, Isabella Rossellini, Juliet Stevenson) are bright, cheery looking as if we are in a perpetual party. Audio is as crisp as a cold morning in Kansas. ---
  
  Director Mark McGrath provides a feature length commentary that is often fascinating focusing on everything from the creative decision he made for the opening nightclub sequence to why he chose to cast his film the way he did. Surprisingly, McGrath doesn't discuss the competing film which would have made the commentary catty (I'm sure he disagreed with the choices of director Bennett Miller and writer Dan Futterman made for their film) and that's to his credit. We also get the original theatrical trailer but no featurettes on Capote, the impact of his relationship with Perry and how McGrath believes it contributed to his artistic decline and fall into alcoholism.
  
  
  In this case second place proves to be more fruitful for the viewer-"Infamous" speculates on the relationship between Perry and Capote but much of what director/writer McGrath does makes artistic sense even if we truly will never know how much of this is true. The film is more compelling than "Capote" and daring as well with its unusual structure which includes intermittent "interviews" with the actors in character discussing Truman Capote, In Cold Blood and the impact it had on his career and, ultimately, his life.
  ...more info
• Excellent
  I really love this movie. Great cast, great acting. And funny! No hesitation in recommending it....more info
• Bravo to all!
  I can not believe this movie did not get more attention ! I was blown away at how all around good this was!
  Granted it unfortunately came out after the wonderful Capote and I admit I did not see it at the movies, which is actually a blessing because I would have missed out on the completely engrossing and informative directors commentary! Do not skip that! After you see the movie and the complex meanings have seeped into your consciousness, watch that commentary.
  The actor Toby who channeled Capote was mesmerizing. He became Truman, was not simply mimicing.
  Sandra Bullock was excellent, absolutely, as was Daniel Craig, Sigourney Weaver, Isabella Rossalini, Jeff Daniels, Juliette Stevenson,Peter Bogdanovich.... Oh! And Gwenyth Paltrow beautifully sang a cole porter song (which was a very telling scene...as explained by the director)
  I do not want to give anything away, and I am sure other reviewers have summarized the plot line...but from the writing, to the acting, to the set designs, the music, the costumes, the period feel, the emotional twists of human achievement versus human cruelty...this is a film that is worth experiencing.
  Again, make sure to watch the director's commentary!...more info
• More Complelling Than "Capote"
  Comparions to Hoffman's Capote are inevitable given the proximity of the two releases as well as the fact the two films deal with exactly the same subject. "Capote" painted broader strokes while "Infamous" was somewhat more specific. Lastly, Toby Jones was simply overshadowed by the more popular, Phillip Seymour Hoffman,
  
  I vividly remember Truman Capote on the TV talk-show circuit and Toby captured the same deliberately profound annoyance that Capote seemed to wallow in. I read "In Cold Blood" in high school and it was indeed an excellent book - quite well-written, though chilling in its subject matter as well as the treatment. But as a personality, Truman was a most uncomfortable sight - I readily admit that my being a black, gay teenager certainly colored (no pun intended) my perceptions. Tennesse Williams & James Baldwin, both gay literary contemporaries of Capote were equally uncomfortable, (and equally talented/troubled).
  
  "Infamous" deals most intimately with Capote's relationship with Perry while researching and writing "In Cold Blood". The performances of Jones & Daniel Craig are at the core of the movie. Their performances are wrenching and give the implications the movie makes enormous credibility. Sandra Bullock as Harper Lee, the author of 'To Kill A Mockingbird" (another classic) is simply wonderful. Quite frankly, it is some of the best work I have ever seen from her.
  
  Even more interesting is that this particular perspective of the machinations behind the famous novel still take a back seat to a much more intimate situation lots of people find themselves in but that is rarely so beautifully addressed.
  
  It is this aspect of the movie that made the biggest impression upon me.
  
  In the beginning, it is obvious Capote is totally opportunistic in his quest to actually interview one of the killers. His book is his focal point. The film wonderully suggests that Capote was just as shocked (and pleased) to realize he cared deeply for Perry - and Perry for him. And this was not an easy road for either to travel. More importanly, the evolution of their relationship was not based on their sexuality.
  
  This is a classic example of individual instances (quite common) where a gay/lesbian person forges a close relationship with someone straight - both sides initially having serious apprehensions about the other, only to have this complicated with genuine feelings developing on both sides. The inevitable result is that neither side knows quite how to deal with those genuine feelings. After wading through all the mud, the lesson learned is that two people, if they allow themselves to, can forget race, color, age, economics, gender, or any other useless category and simply allow themselves to genuinely care about each other. (yeah, it went there for me)
  
  I mean to take nothing away from Hoffman's "Capote". Both films provide insight; they present two alternative perspectives and I highly recommend both projects.
  
  It is simply that as an art form 'Infamous" more closely meets the general objective I believe all art forms aspire to - to open/elevate the dialogue....more info
• Capote revealed in his dual life.
  This is certainly a highly entertaining film. Toby Jones is very convincing and funny as Truman Capote. Yet, unfortunately it was released around the same time as that masterpiece of film, Capote, also about the rise and fall of this American writer. Toby Jones plays a campy Capote, trying to use gay camp humor to open doors. This is dramatically different from the manner in which Seymour Hoffman plays Capote in the film of that name. In Capote, the character of Truman opens doors by careful and strategic revelation of vulnerability which in turn allows the person with whom he is talking to begin to open up and express thier own vulnerability, feeling that they are in a safe space. At the very beginning of the film, an actor, playing the role of Gore Vidal, says that Truman Capote talked just the way a brussel sprout would talk if a brussel sprout could talk. This is a perfect description of the way that Toby Jones selected to play Capote.
  
  Infamous is interesting in the way that it integrates the bleak Kansas landscape where a family was murdered with Capote's life among America's wealthy jet-set power-broker women-friends. The film Capote selects to focus primarily on events in Kansas and this minimal approach actually hightens the drama and the tragedy.
  
  Homosexuality in Capote is subtle and implied in the character of Perry Smith. However in the film Infamous, Daniel Craig masterfully plays a complex Perry Smith that emerges as a gay man during the five years he awaits execution. Daniel Craig's acting is exceptional and a high point of the film.
  
  This leads to the major distinction between the two films. In Infamous, Capote falls in love with Perry Smith and this attraction to Smith helps motivate the production of the book. It is Smith's confession of love that disarms Capote and makes the hanging death of Smith tragic. In Capote, the artistic impulse is the driving force behind Truman Capote. When Capote begins to fall in love with Perry Smith, the tragedy is constructed around his dual and ambivalent emotions. If Smith lives, then Capote can't publish his masterpiece. If Perry Smith hangs, then the book can be published but Capote loses his love.
  
  In Infamous, after the execution of Perry Smith, Capote is seen as falling apart and disengaging from his social life. In Capote, the fall into alcholism and the isolation is more pronounced and tragic. In the film Infamous, Nelle Harper Lee's Pulitzer Prize for To Kill A Mockingbird is a narrative detail. In Capote, it is taken as a stab in the heart to Capote and he distances himself from his childhood friend.
  
  Sandra Bullock does a very good job of playing Nelle Harper Lee, primarily by understating the part, speaking with the soft quiet mellow tones of a Southern lady.
  
  The unfortunate thing about this film is that it is really excellent but it is almost impossible not to compare it to Capote, an exceptional and rare masterpiece of narrative film....more info
• How Much Truman Can One Heart Take?
  Infamous is a very good movie. Toby Jones gets Truman Capote just like John Philip Hoffman did. Sandra Bullock finally gets a part where she doesn't (over)play a ditz and she is very centered, calm and good as Harper Lee. James Bond, that is Daniel Craig, also does an excellent job as Perry Smith. But you know what? One movie about a semi-legendary writer, bon vivant liar, now dead for more than two decades (having outlived his era by at least another decade) and the slaughter of the poor Clutter family is enough. Infamous is more centered in Kansas and, despite some frank physicality, feels less fictionalized than Capote. But in the crux scenes of the relationship between Capote and Smith, it might all be fiction because all we've got to rely on is In Cold Blood, and Capote is anything but a reliable narrator. That much both Capote and Infamous make abundantly clear. Either one is well worth watching. Both, now that I've seen both, are best reserved only for Truman fanatics. ...more info
• Waste of great talents - i.e., Juliette Stevenson
  On the positive side, it is well-put together and visually stunning.
  
  re: "Capote" - I did see Seymour-Hoffman's multilayered performance. I also saw a masterful performance in the Harper Lee role. In THIS movie, the true standout for me is Juliette Stevenson - if you care to, check her out in "Truly, Madly, Deeply," a BETTER "Ghost," including a fabulous performance by Alan Rickman.
  
  Unfortunately, Sandra Bullock is touted in reviews for overcoming her usual lack of evidence of any real talent as an actress. She is plainly flat, and plainly acting here. I find her performance painful to watch as she stares into space trying to look soulfully reminiscent. Along with the also highly overrated Paltrow, she adds nothing to this movie.
  
  The actor portraying Capote is mannered and histrionic. Having never met Capote, I may be speaking with presumption, but I think he does a major disservice to a great talent.
  
  Dont' forget to see "In Cold Blood," so hard to believe that Robert Blake was so good, and we've seen way too little of Scott Wilson.
  
  Still worth seeing, but also very disappointing.
  
  
  
  ...more info
• Saturday Night Live skit !
  So here is this Toby fellow acting out Truman Capote and leaving the actual theme of the movie to second thought.. Yes, Infamous is the also ran to Capote.. the genius film that won the Oscar for Phil Seymour and rightfully so.
  This film is flawed from the beginning....for instance--attention to detail--In three success scenes Capote is noshing at The Cocoanut Grove in Los Angeles....to Joe Allen in NY--to well, Im not sure of the venue in the third scene--but this blew it for me right away... I was bent on thumbs down from the outset...and so, in the end, it was appropriate.. "Infamous"----it is to laugh....more info
• The other side of the story
  In an incredible bit of misfortune, 'Infamous' will have to live with the stigma of being 'that other movie' about Truman Capote writing his masterpiece 'In Cold Blood'. Over time that distinction may begin to wear off, but only time will tell. The trouble with this situation is that it is impossible to see 2006's 'Infamous' without comparing it to 2005's 'Capote' -- even if you try. I promised myself that I would attempt to watch it with a fresh perspective, but within ten minutes I had decidedly broken that promise and started a list of differences and similarities in my mind. What is so unfair about this is that while 'Capote' is a very good movie, 'Infamous' is just a good one, making its faults stand out that much more by comparing it to its predecessor. Never before has being good not been good enough.
  
  Purists undoubtedly take to 'Capote' as the superior film and lambaste 'Infamous' as a pretender to the throne, but what they are missing out on are the intriguing differences in perspective that the two films have. It is here that 'Infamous' earns its merits, but also where its defining flaw comes into play: that it is too afraid to risk making Truman an unsympathetic character. 'Capote' gets at the heart of the deviousness inherent in Truman's dealings with Perry Smith and Dick Hickock (the killers on death row whose stories, along with those of their victims, comprise 'In Cold Blood') -- how he used and abused their friendship and trust in order to write his masterpiece. Philip Seymour Hoffman's Truman Capote is an egotistical liar that sells his soul for his story, made sympathetic by Hoffman's careful portrayal and by the fact that his cruelty causes him to spiral into drink, depression, and ruin for the rest of his life. The makers of 'Infamous' shy away from this aspect of Capote, choosing to go for sympathy instead. His deceit is only mentioned in passing -- with the effect that you wouldn't notice it if you weren't looking for it. This Truman really cares for Perry Smith, and the film posits that what ruined him after the executions was the loss of the one person he had ever truly connected with. This Truman is a victim of his book's conclusion rather than culpable in it. It's an interesting theory, but it holds less weight and feels toothless. I don't know enough about the facts to speculate as to whether or not the sexual tension that develops between the writer and the convict is accurate, but it does add an element of intrigue to the story.
  
  The relationship between Truman and Perry in 'Infamous' adds a layer to the characterization of the author that was missing from 'Capote': that he was really a damaged, insecure man at heart, and had been ever since his childhood. The bravado, the confidance, the wit, and the eloquence that Manhattan's high society adore him for is a mask that he has put on to hide how he really feels about himself. His entire personality is an affectation, and his carefully maintained social life is artifice. Other reviewers have criticized 'Infamous' for being too stylized, but I think that they were trying to show how fake his life in New York was -- and in my humble opinion they succeeded. Toby Jones' portrayal is, as such, less natural than Hoffman's, but is perfectly suited to this intention of the filmmakers and succeeds in its own right. Had 'Infamous' come before 'Capote' Jones may have been more recognized for his work with an Oscar nomination of his own, but as I said earlier, timing has not been kind to 'Infamous'. Anyway, Truman and Perry make a connection because they can be who they really are around each other: Perry can talk about his lonely, abusive childhood and desire to be an artist, while Truman can let his guard down and stop acting like a "wind-up doll" (to use a term from the movie). 'Capote' gets at the heart of Truman's duplicity, but 'Infamous' gets at the heart of his insecurity.
  
  The two film's really work as companion pieces, then, so I would encourage everyone to get over their prejudice and look at the two film's as two different sides of one of America's most distinctive voices. It is fitting that a personality as outsized as Truman Capote's couldn't be captured by only one film, and he would probably be pleased to know that that is the case. ...more info
• On Par With "Capote"
  I love the movie "Infamous" just as equally as I do the movie "Capote". Both movies are phenomenally well done in their own right. However, I personally thought Toby Jones gave a better performance of Truman Capote then Philip Seymour Hoffman did by a long shot.
  
  Daniel Craig gives a rougher, more harder edge to Perry Smith's character in "Infamous", whereas Clifton Collins Jr. portrayal of Perry Smith in "Capote" was a lot softer, more gentle... It seemed as though Perry Smith was portrayed as more of a little boy lost in "Capote" and more of the hardened criminal in "Infamous" that one would expect him to be.
  
  Truman Capote in "Infamous" seemed to be more compassionate towards the criminals and more caring towards them. Whereas the Truman Capote portrayed in "Capote", seemed to be just using the criminals as a means to end and that end was to use them in order to write his masterpiece "In Cold Blood"....more info
• Judged solely on its own merits, an excellent film
  I went into this film with only the most basic knowledge about Truman Capote and his writing. I knew he wrote Breakfast at Tiffany's and In Cold Blood, the latter of which was based on a real crime, I knew he was as exceedingly odd little man, and that's about it. I've never read any of his work, and I haven't seen the film In Cold Blood or 2005's Capote. As I first began watching Infamous, I found myself wondering how I could possibly sit through almost two hours of a film about this dandyish, hopelessly pretentious man smarming his way through New York high society. His incredibly annoying voice didn't help, even though it was nowhere near as bothersome as Sandra Bullock's horrible fake Southern accent in her role as Harper Lee. As the film progressed, though, this strange little man began to grow on me. By the mid-way point, I was pretty much engrossed in the story, and the ending clinched all five of the stars I have to give this film (which is pretty amazing given the fact that it includes three of my least favorite actresses: Gwyneth Paltrow, Sigourney Weaver, and the aforementioned Sandra Bullock).
  
  Obviously, Truman Capote is one of the most complex and fascinating of men. I certainly won't define the man by the interpretation on display in Infamous (which is based on Douglas McGrath's 1997 oral biography of the man); after all, this is a fictionalized story of a man known for his own obfuscations with the truth. You can't even look at In Cold Blood with purely objective eyes because Capote relied on memory rather than notes to produce the book. And, from what I gather, 2005's Capote provides a noticeably different perspective on the man as it tells basically the same story as Infamous, focusing on the writing and later publication of In Cold Blood. One thing I am sure of is that Toby Jones turns in an absolutely captivating performance as this most inscrutable of characters. Capote seemed like such a fake in the early scenes, but Toby Jones transformed him into an incredibly human soul long before the end credits began rolling - sympathetic to a significant degree, as some of the flaws in Capote's character manifest themselves, but not without his own emotionally cold-blooded moment here and there. If nothing else, this Truman Capote is not a man you would want to confide in with your darkest secrets.
  
  Infamous gets pretty emotionally complicated once Capote finally gets access to both killers, especially a reluctant Perry Smith (Daniel Craig). It's a bumpy ride, but the relationship that develops between Smith and Capote serves as the lynchpin of this film. Infamous dares call it love, although I imagine that is debatable. Clearly, though, the two men understood one another in ways few others ever did, and that makes the drama of the concluding scenes truly palpable.
  
  I find it somewhat ironic that the actual murder that gave rise to In Cold Blood and these two recent films about Truman Capote doesn't seem to generate much interest at all. Capote, both the myth and the man, towers over his subject matter. I certainly don't feel as if I know the real Truman Capote after watching this film, but I'm intrigued enough to go and seek out 2005's Capote and see the story of In Cold Blood told from an alternate viewpoint....more info
• The Tiny Terror and a Sensitive Bogeyman
  Released nearly a year after Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar-winning turn in "Capote", Douglas McGrath's overlooked "Infamous" (based on George Plimpton's bestseller) covers, essentially, the same territory while remaining uniquey different from its predecessor.
  
  Star Toby Jones has the right look for the late author, and certainly has his mannerisms down pat. More spritely, less acerbic, and less dissipated than the Capote inhabited by Hoffman, Jones has an almost wholesome winsomness that seems to be counter to most of what I've read about the real-life Capote. And while Hoffman's performance seemed to come from some dark and painful place deep within (and may, thus, seem more genuine), Jones' Capote is much more fun to watch. I think his portrayal comes closer to humanizing the fascinating "tiny terror", whose association with a notorious murder case and its perpetrators helped lead to his own downward spiral into disgrace and notoriety. As best friend and fellow author, Nell Harper Lee, Sandra Bullock continues to refine her acting skills, proving that her outstanding performance in "Crash" was no fluke. Alternately disapproving and supportive, her Nell is Truman's rock, his anchor in the often turbulent waters of his own life; she's strong and sensible, with the only problem being a Southern accent that is sorely unconvincing. As Truman's high-society "swans" from New York, Sigourney Weaver (Babe Paley), Hope Davis (Slim Keith), and Isabella Rosellini (Marella Agnelli) provide a Greek chorus of tea and sympathy for Truman's ongoing dramas. The delightful Juliet Stevenson delivers a nice turn as the fabulous Diana Vreeland, and Peter Bogdanovich is also fine as publisher and Capote confidante, Bennet Cerf. Character actor John Benjamin Hickey, as Capote's partner, Jack Dunphy, brings a lost and bittersweet edge to the film's goings-on, while Jeff Daniels, as lawman Alvin Dewey, lends the movie an element of strength and steadiness.
  
  Of course, it is the killers of "In Cold Blood" who amp up the element of drama in both "Capote" and in "Infamous". Lee Pace (of "Pushing Daisies") is suitably scary as cold and matter-of-fact Dick Hickock, who killed without remorse, and then never shut up talking about it. But, conveying both the chilling barbarism and wounded sensitivity of murderous Perry Smith, while noting his similarities to Truman, is essential to successfully presenting a certain dichotomy that has probably rarely existed between an author and his interview subject. Robert Blake (in Richard Brooks' "In Cold Blood") epitomized the limping, pathetic Smith, humanizing him yet presenting him in a very real, warts-and-all way; Clifton Collins, in "Capote", though prettied-up, was also believable in the same role. In "Infamous", no less than 007 actor, Daniel Craig, assays the role of Perry Smith, with, I think, less successful results. He's an outstanding actor but too much of a movie star for this role; his glamour surrounds the Smith character with an aura that ultimately glamourizes the killer, imbuing him with an artificiality that dashes any hopes of bringing honesty or any real level of understanding to this most complex of characters. The physicality between the two men and the suggestion of a jailhouse affair between Capote and Smith also strains credulity, and the sexual dynamics seem false and forced. This brings an air of dishonesty to the Capote/Smith scenes, which, ultimately doesn't play well. The Clutters themselves--the Kansas farm family slain by Hickock and Smith in a bungled robbery attempt--are barely shown, and I was thankful for that. While the killings are briefly covered, the brutality of the crimes is not as much in evidence as it was in the previous films.
  
  Except for the slaughter of the innocent family, there is nothing subtle about "Infamous". From its weirdly flaky opening (with Gwyneth Paltrow as a lounge singer) to the flambuoyant lead character to the fluttering socialites, everything seems designed to SHOUT to the viewer, to PROJECT to the audience sitting in the rafters. At times, "Infamous" seems much more like a stage play than a movie, and all this accomplishes is to make the film seem more rough than its predecessors. While there are problems with this movie, I still like it, mostly for Toby Jones' winning performance, however broad it may be.
  
  ...more info
• Another Excellent Portrayal of Truman Capote
  "Infamous" has a little bit of the same problem that the film "The Wizard of Oz" had in that it was released in 1939, the same year as "Gone With The Wind," which of course took the award for best picture that year. This really good film will always be compared, perhaps unfairly, with "Capote," for which Philip Semour Hoffman won the Oscar for best actor. The British actor Toby Jones is just as believable as Hoffman as the elfin author of such American classics as BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S and of course IN COLD BLOOD, the research and writing of which is the time in Capote's life that both films cover. Jones certainly has both the stature of the writer, actually looks more like Capote than Hoffman does and has the voice and accent just right.
  
  Based on George Plimpton's oral history of Truman Capote, the film opens with Gwyneth Paltrow singing "What Is This Thing Called Love?" and moves back and forth between scenes in New York-- with usually either Capote meeting and gossiping with his high society friends, Diana Vreeland (Juliet Stevenson), Babe Paley (Sigourney Weaver), Bennett Cerf (Peter Bogdanovich), et al or these people speaking directly to the audience as they did in the book-- and Kansas where the entire Clutter family was murdered. Sandra Bullock is cast as Harper Lee, the author of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and Capote's friend from childhood. Daniel Craig as Perry Smith, who plays one of the killers who was eventually executed for the murders, is sexy, complicated and vulnerable. While we do not excuse him for the horrific thing he has done, when we see the awful childhood he had, we can understand, at least in part, what may have got him to Kansas on that fateful night. While we will never know if Smith's and Capote's relationship was as intimate as this film indicates, it does seem certain that the writer's life was never the same after he wrote IN COLD BLOOD and that he spiralled downward and never wrote much of anything else of consequence thereafter.
  
  As I recall, Jones plays Capote as a much more tragic and sympathetic person than Hoffman did. In "Capote" the writer comes across as much more cynical than in "Infamous" in that he really did not want the murderers to win their appeals since their executions would make his book better.
  
  If you liked "Capote," you certainly should see "Infamous."
  ...more info
• Like Bubbles in a Glass of Champagne
  "Infamous" will forever after be compared (unfavorably by most) to its immediate predecessor, "Capote". Without dissing the earlier movie, or Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar-winning perfomance, and having seen both, in the same weekend, I much prefer this one. "Capote" may be the more "important" film, if self-consciousness & a complete lack of humor are virtues. I feel quite certain that Toby Jones will not get a call from Oscar for this role. The Academy prefers to pass out statues for acting only when heavy lifting is involved, and evident to all watching. Mr. Jones is a dead-ringer for Capote in build and coloring, and so effortlessly does he inhabit the diminutive shoes of the writer, you forget that this is an actor playing a role, and that you aren't actually being regaled by Truman himself. You could never say the same for Hoffman, who wisely opted for restraint in his portrayal, given that he is twice the real Capote's size. Not so Jones, who pulls out all the stops in giving us Capote's outrageous dress & flamboyant manner in a way that Capote's contemporaries might have viewed him. And he gets away with it. What might have appeared cruel camp on a larger man rests easily on Jones' narrow shoulders. Whereas "Capote" is more effective at giving us the interior deterioration of Capote, "Infamous" is superior at painting the complicated and agonized relationship between the writer and Perry Smith, aided by an outstanding performance by Daniel Craig as Smith. Both films are outstanding in their production design, but unlike "Capote"'s elegiac, almost Homer-like landscapes, "Infamous" excels at giving us the Technicolor glitz of the late '50s, and making us feel that sense of (often cheesy) place, accompanied by some great Rat-Pack style tunes. And the film is redolent with humor, usually tied to Truman's penchant for women's outerwear and the flustered locals of Holcomb addressing him as 'ma'am'. This film gives us more of sense of how much joie de vivre Capote had, and how much fun he could be until things went off the rails. It is not the complete story by any means, but it gives us Truman as others saw him. The Hoffman version gave us Truman as he perhaps saw himself. This is an affectionate portrayal of a character who will never be duplicated, but Toby Jones comes as close, perhaps, as another guy can get. I think both versions can be enjoyed on their own merits, but whether you adored "Capote" or were nonplussed with it, "Infamous" deserves a look. ...more info
• Not as Good as the 'Other' Movie
  I give it three stars for two main reasons: (1) Toby Jones' acting was almost a caricature of Capote and was often laughable, intentionally so, I felt; and, (2) "Capote" was a much more sensitive and nuanced film. But, even with three stars, I found this film to be compelling nevertheless. It was interesting making the comparisons between the two films, and how they each differed slightly. They were both good films, but I would give "Capote" five stars, compared to three for this one. ...more info
• A Great Portrayal of Truman Capote!
  I have been priviledged to see "Tru", the play. Then saw "Capote", the movie, which was very good. And finally, saw "Infamous." Of all of these portrayals of Truman Capote, this one is the very best and most complete. The movie is done in an artistic manner, and shows the shadow side of this very complex and "slightly vicious" writer. Truman Capote was in essence a true user of information for his own benefit, and lost all his abilities after his involvement with Perry (one of the murderers) from his novel/account In Cold Blood. Truman is shown in this movie in all of his dimensions, and every one is portrayed humanly, humorously and with tremendous artistic value. I would recommend anyone who is interested in this writer, and saw the previous film "Capote" to watch this extraordinary film. I am really sorry that this movie came after "Capote", and therefore got lost ... it deserved a definite Oscar for the actor playing Capote, he was marvelous. And a subsquent Oscar for the director and writer.
  ...more info
• SO much better than "Capote"!
  After reading "In Cold Blood" I decided to watch both of the recent films about Truman Capote, beginning with "Infamous" and then watching "Capote". My recommendation to others is to only watch "Infamous". Although it covers very grim subject matter, this movie is very watchable and enjoyable, as opposed to "Capote" which is two hours of artsy misery. Toby Jones really becomes Truman Capote in a way that Phillip Hoffman does not even touch. Jones' Truman draws the viewer in and charms, while Hoffman's performance in "Capote" alienates and repulses to the point that it seems that this actor secretly hates Truman Capote. Also, "Infamous" does a much better job at explaining the story to thise who have not read the book, and giving depth to the other characters than "Capote". Watching "Infamous", the dark parts of the story are thrown into sharper relief by the light and humorous parts, and it cuts precisely to the heart of the matter. Whereas "Capote" just bludgeons the viewer over the head with gritty green lighting, long staring pauses and unrelieved gloom. ...more info
• Very good film, fascinating comparison
  Same characters, same subject matter, made simultaneously, resulting in two totally dissimilar, yet equally interesting films. The two films more than complement each other. They're a perfect matched set....more info
• Something Bright; Something Blue
  This movie starring Toby Jones as Truman Capote covers almost the same ground as the Academy Award-nominated film "Capote," starring Philip Seymour Hoffman. I'm not sure why two such similar movies appeared at almost the same time. But actually of the two, I found this Jones movie to be the more absorbing. If you only have the time or inclination to watch one dramatization of Truman Capote's writing of "In Cold Blood," I suggest this movie be the one.
  
  It doesn't have the cachet of Hoffman's performance. But neither does it have the sometimes annoying tone of self-importance of that other film. Nor does this movie have some of the anachronistic locutions found in "Capote." It is truer to Capote's wit and way of telling a story.
  
  Best of all though, "Infamous" shows much more of the gossipy society circle that Capote generally inhabited. Juliet Stevenson turns in a priceless and all-too-brief performance as fashion editor Diana Vreeland.
  
  There is also more texture to Capote's relationship with killer Perry Smith here. I'm not sure how much of the more developed romance shown in this movie is conjecture, but it makes for a heartbreaking love story. Daniel Craig turns in a gripping performance as the dark, vulnerable and volatile Smith.
  
  Director Douglas McGrath provides a very interesting, literate commentary on the DVD. His accompanying thoughts run like a polished essay, without being at all pretentious. He becomes another character in the unfolding biography, a character most of us would probably like to get to know better.
  
  All-in-all, we do get to know the wit and wiliness Capote better through this film. We see Capote as that flickering brilliance that Sandra Bullock-playing-Harper Lee describes. She says he had the sunny brightness of a candle flame - but always with that tinge of blue at the center of the burning.
  ...more info
• More Literate and revealing than 'Capote', less cinematic.
  `Infamous', written and directed by Douglas McGrath, based on the book `Truman Capote' by George Plimpton is a doppelganger (sorry, no umlaut available) to the somewhat earlier movie `Capote', with the title character famously played in an Academy Award winning performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Both films start with Capote's reading about the Clutter murder in The New York Times and both films end with the execution of the two murderers and the publication of the `non-fiction novel', `In Cold Blood'.
  
  I can tick off so many things I like about `Infamous' that one wonders why it languishes while its earlier twin revels in glory. Part of the story may simply be that like the `Dangerous Liaisons' / `Valmont' pair of movies of a few years back, `Dangerous Liaisons' came out first; however, it also had the far superior cast and somewhat better writing, even though the two movies were adapted from the identical 19th century French novel.
  
  The most important comparison, of course, is between Hoffman and Toby Jones, who portrays Capote in this movie. It's easy to understand why Hoffman got the Oscar, since it was such a stretch for the tallish actor to play the diminutive Capote, while Jones required virtually no camera trickery to have him appear as the 5' 6'' writer. Jones also seems to have the same roundish face. So, as far as the lead roles go, I think it's a photo finish, with the edge going to Hoffman for the fact that he had to work harder to fit the part. When we get to the supporting cast, things look MUCH different. Sandra Bullock's portrayal of Capote's close friend and author of `To Kill a Mockingbird', Tess Harper Lee is truly remarkable, especially when you compare it to so many of her other roles. Next in importance is Daniel Craig as Perry Smith. In `Capote', a relative unknown played this role, and absolutely nothing sticks in my memory about this performance. Craig, the new James Bond, on the other hand demonstrates the kind of acting which made him stand out as the first real challenge to Sean Connery in the Bond role. `Infamous' explores aspects of Perry's character that were not even touched in `Capote'. And, there are some prison scenes between Perry and Capote which surprise us in the extreme, and reveal a connection between the two men which `Capote' doesn't even hint at. The one role where `Capote' has the advantage is with the character of the local police chief. While `Infamous' Jeff Daniels does an excellent job, he just doesn't seem to fit the part as well as Chris Cooper in `Capote'.
  
  From this point, all the rest of the character portrayals seem to be fairly comparable, albeit just a bit different. Where `Capote's primary literary business figure is `The New Yorker' editor, Wallace Shawn, played by Bob Balaban, `Infamous' has Random House president Bennett Cerf, played by Peter Bogdonivich. In support is an amazing list of actresses, Hope Davis, Gwyneth Paltrow, Isabella Rossellini, Juliet Stevenson, and Sigourney Weaver in minor roles, serving as witnesses to Capote's personality. These characters are used in much the same way as Warren Beatty used his `witnesses' in `Reds' or, in a wildly different context, as Woody Allen used them in `Annie Hall'.
  
  These talking heads do contribute an amazing amount of detail and understanding of Capote to the movie. When I reviewed `Capote', I remarked on the amazing lack of narrative in a book about a famous writer. This movie suffers from no such problem; however, some people may have to tax their memories a bit to recall who Babe Palley (wife of CBS chairman William Palley) and Bennett Cerf were in their own time.
  
  Near the end of the film, the Capote character says that an author takes the pain of life and transforms it into art. While there is certainly much art in this film, it seems to reflect reveal much more of the pain which comprises the raw material of the art, while `Capote' does more to celebrate many of the more artistic aspects of the cinematic craft.
  
  This DVD includes a director's voice-over commentary that, for me, easily doubles the value of the DVD. Should you be inclined to own one of these films, I suggest you get both, as they are far closer in quality than the lopsided contest between `Dangerous Liaisons' and `Valmont'.
  ...more info
• Already on its way back to Blockbuster...
  I had seen the incredible Capote, and was looking forward to Infamous as a companion piece. Forget it. This movie comes off as a poorly-made joke.
  
  Infamous has none of the gravitas, humanity or insight seen in the earlier film. What humor it has is without any subtlety, and pops up in the most outrageous places. Characters are weakly introduced and disappear again, leaving only a shallow impression. The actor who plays Capote does look strikingly like him, but interesting enough, Hoffman's Capote was more effective, more real. He worried less about "the look", and instead gave a performance of intelligence and fragility, and heart.
  
  Infamous took an ugly and ridiculous turn with the introduction of Perry Smith. This Perry was so over-the-top, especially compared to Clifton Collins' nuanced and heartbreaking portrayal of Smith , that it was almost insulting.
  
  There were just so many bad aspects to this movie that it's hard to touch on them all. From the off-handed capture of the killers, to the bland cinematography, to the inappropriate humor, Infamous is a mess. Stick with the far superior "Capote"....more info
• Hollywood Timing
  This kind of thing happens all the time in Hollywood. Remember when Kevin Costner's WYATT EARP didn't beat Kurt Russell in TOMBSTONE to the screens and didn't get the audience it deserved for trying to stick closer to history rather than offering a good guy/bad guy shoot-em-up? Or when DEEP IMPACT and ARMAGGEDON dueled at the multiplex?
  
  It even happens with serious art films.
  
  CAPOTE made it out first, fetching Philip Seymour Hoffman an Academy Award for his brilliant performance. Then INFAMOUS came out...with a brilliant performance from Toby Jones as Truman Capote.
  
  Between these two films, I read the biography that served as the basis for CAPOTE and got a lot of insight into the life of Capote. Actually, I felt the bio had LESS about his writing of "In Cold Blood" than the film but much more about his early and later years, as well as his life in New York City.
  
  Based on that book, INFAMOUS probably comes closer to the real Truman. (Also, after listening to the commentary on CAPOTE, I heard Philip Seymour Hoffman talk about how he ended up playing certain scenes differently from the script--improvised acting that added a sympathy for the character that would not have been there otherwise).
  
  If you enjoyed CAPOTE, I think you should definitely check out INFAMOUS. There's a great cast, a broader sweep of Capote's life, and an interesting insight into how the book came about...and its harsh consequences.
  
  But I also enjoyed (and appreciated) both TOMBSTONE and WYATT EARP. A good story is a good story....more info
• THE BEST OF THE "CAPOTE TWINS"
  Of "The Two Mr. Capotes" (the other being the more commercially popular "Capote", released at the same time last year), this is definitely the best one. While Phillip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal may have been Oscar-worthy, Toby Jones really brings the pain here - the mincing walk, overdone eye gestures, and chalkboard-grating high voice are dead on. Plus, you get the feel of his relationship with what were then "true socialites", Babe Paley (Sigourney Weaver), Slim Keith (Hope Davis) and Marella Agnelli (Isabella Rossellini), who kept it real by keeping their designer clothes on. (Paris and Nicky Hilton could learn something about self-respect and dignity from just watching this film!) The most scandalous thing that they appeared to have done was kick off their pumps and do the "Twist" to the sounds of Chubby Checker!
  
  Capote's murder masterpiece "In Cold Blood" was the very first "true crime novel" that I ever read. It was chilling in a way that no other written account of a murder has been able to duplicate since. In this film, one not only gets an accurate account of the crime, you also get a look into the angst of the writer and what it must be like to be that close to such a heinous deed. Truman Capote's later mental decline, substance abuse, and fall from society's fickle grace was not just the result of his inability to match this book, but from the unstable and dysfunctional life he had even before this, "Breakfast at Tiffany's", and his other fabulous works.
  
  Sandra Bullock gives a stunning turn as Truman's childhood friend, writer Nell Harper Lee. And David Craig's portrayal as killer Perry Smith is sympathetic and pathetic and raw. You find yourself wishing that this was a work of fiction so that this time he wouldn't be executed.
  
  If all you know about Mr. Capote involves a disco ball, Andy Warhol, and Studio 54, watch this film before you watch anything else written or filmed about him. The only other story about his life that really gives you a look into the man is "in Cold Blood". Now that's scary!...more info
• Extremely Well Done
  I was having a hard time watching or thinking of watching another "Capote" movie as I liked the last one that came out, but I did anyway and I have to say that I became SO drawn into it, as its done so differently than the other, and drew upon different aspects, ones more close to my heart. The review by the director was extremely helpful, I really wanted to know what was true and not, and it seems most of it was. It was tragic, really, but so well done. Everyone is so carefully and diligently researched and the acting so wonderful, its hard not to be glad you watched it, sad and wild as Truman Capote was. ...more info
• Truman and Perry Sitting in a Tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G
  This is an extraordinary tribute to a writer who I think is overrated. Years ago a Broadway show made the rounds called "Tru," which depicted the master as a drunken loser with heart. The recent film "Capote" and now "Infamous" seek to show the man as a complex figure who wrote a very good book about the famous murders in the mid-west that would have been forgotten had it not been for this strange little genius. The film is well made, although I don't see dramatic differences between the stories, which both show Capote as a writer who was made and destroyed by this singular success. The acting is uniformly splendid. Especially noteworthy is Sandra Bullock, who plays southern extremely well. Juliet Stevenson is great. Weaver is a hoot, especially with that height that shows her towering over Capote. Toby Jones is very good as Capote, in many ways fulfilling the role fully, but Hoffman's performance in the rival film was equally good. Both give performances which convince us of Capote's his inner torment. Here, it seems to me, the part of Perry Smith was better written than in "Capote." There is more to him than meets the eye. The performance by Daniel Craig is memorable. Much is made of Perry's sexuality, and one is given the impression that Capote fell for him, which may or may not be true. Who knows? Two strong films about one very little writer are enough. Let's move on now to our many other gifted writers. ...more info
• Infamous
  Interesting movie, Toby Jones is an actor to be compared with Anthony Hopkins in talent and most any movie he is in will be great. Also the movie A Harlot's Progress is just riveting....more info
• A - M - A - Z - I - N - G
  This infamous movie should have been
  more publicised then it was accorded credit for.
  
  The entire cast is just amazing,
  performances topping Oscar nominations
  that were never given.
  
  Very touching and fun.
  Should not be missed by anyone
  (With an opened mind, of course,
  some machos will drop dead when
  they will see Daniel Craig performing here.
  Be advised...)...more info
• Better than the other one
  I couldn't get through the more highly acclaimed "Capote" the first time I tried. But I had no trouble with this one which nicely tells the "In Cold Blood" story. Nice cinematography. This actor as Capote is every bit the equal of Philip Seymour Hoffman's, I think. Watch it if you are into literary bio-pics. Compare it to its rival. It's worth watching both, and I did....more info
• And the winner is...
  I'll just add my voice to those who found this a superior film to the earlier 'Capote.' It is more robust, well-rounded, and more interesting than the latter. This film is truly a 'film' and does not pretend to 'document' the story of Capote and the writing of the famous book. There is more opportunity to see the range of dynamics at work intrapsychically as Capote displays contradictory and complex feelings toward his subject. It is also aesethetically more original--one can see the artist/writer/director at work here, shaping the story, rather than allowing the original story, i.e., that of Capote researching and writing the book, shape it....more info
• much better than "Capote"
  
  I just watched this movie and I can tell you it's much better than "Capote" which was rather dull to sit through. Infamous is a lot more convincing and interesting, and the acting and supporting cast are much better than the Philip Seymour Hoffman version. That said, it still doesn't have the power and depth of the original "In Cold Blood" with Robert Blake. I don't think any remake will ever be able to match it!
  ...more info
• The Best Capote-Related Film I've Seen This Week!
  Which is really saying something, seeing as the other Capote-related film I saw this week (I forget the title) won a bunch of those Golden Award Statuette Thingies (including Phillip Seymour Hoffman for his slick portrayal of the Tru-man himself). But seriously, how ticked off must writer/director Douglas McGrath have been when he found out That Other Film was going to hit theaters first, relegating his outstanding piece of moviemaking - which chronicles the exact same period of Capote's life - to the status of sloppy cinematic seconds? I listened to the entire commentary track hoping to get some info on this, but Mr. McGrath was all class, never mentioning a thing about it (could it be no one has had the heart or the nerve to tell him yet?). Regardless, I find "Infamous" to be the more emotionally satisfying and flat out better biopic for many reasons.
  
  First, McGrath and lead actor Toby Jones had better source material from which to mine this particular mix of truth and speculation; for instance, McGrath's friend (and sometimes creative conspirator) Woody Allen introduced him to Dick Cavett, who let Doug and Toby have total access to the decades of tapes of Cavett's talk show, upon which Capote himself was a frequent guest. Also, Toby's godmother works at a New York City library and through her got to see all of Capote's "papers" - actual notebooks written by the man himself, including the one he took to killers Dick Hickock and Perry Smith's final hearing. To me, these materials, along with the George Plympton book from which the screenplay is adapted (along with Capote's own In Cold Blood, of course), made for more sturdy script construction materials than the Richard Avedon photos, anecdotes and bios that were use to make That Other Film.
  
  In addition, McGrath grew up in Midland, TX but has lived in New York City for twenty-six years, so he was/is very comfortable and skilled when it comes to writing about both the small-town Midwest setting in which the "Cold Blood" killings occurred as well as that of the bigtime socialite scene of the Manhattan elite.
  
  Add to all that the fact that McGrath is no stranger to adapting great novels for the screen (he previously wrote screenplays adapted from Jane Austen's Emma and Charles Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby), and you can see why this was the more charmed and charming Capote project from conception to completion (except for that pesky release date, that is).
  
  Oh, and have I mentioned the acting? Well, funny thing about that. You would think That Other Film's acting duo of Chris Cooper and Catherine Keener would blow away this movie's more tepid-seeming tandem of Jeff Daniels and Sandra Bullock in any movie, but the latter pair actually make it a close contest by turning in strong performances as the "foxy" Alvin Dewey and voice-of-reason (and Pulitzer Prize-winning author) Nelle Harper Lee. Dazzling luminaries from Gwyneth Paltrow to Sigourney Weaver and Isabella Rossellini add cinematic sparkle to smaller roles as the Manhattan social stars who populate Capote's New York universe. But the real star of the show is "New Bond" Daniel Craig, all but completely transformed behind dark hair and contact lenses, in a powerful and chameleonic command performance as the doomed killer/artist Perry Smith. Such a potent mix of ferocity and sensitivity, his raw and revealing portrayal is the best (and most surprising) thing about the film.
  
  But the screenplay, as I may have mentioned, is also something really quite special - McGrath exhibits tremendous affection for both source material and subject but certainly doesn't pull and punches about the book or the man. In his director's commentary, he describes the adaptation of any book to the screen: "you take an engine apart and then you have to put it together inside a smaller car" "and when you take it apart - boy, you see how really good they (the authors) are, and how carefully they construct, and how artfully they put their story together."
  
  McGrath displays an almost equally skillful craft in the words he chooses and uses. The movie itself is structured like the book In Cold Blood (for example, we learn about the crime early in the novel, but don't actually "see" the crime until much later). And the movie's tonal arc mirrors the true-life arc of Truman Capote - it starts out full of boisterous bombast and uproarious joie de vivre (p.s. I have no idea how factually accurate the dialog is or isn't - and frankly I could give a rat's rump, because it's so well written and I was enormously entertained), but then slowly there is more and more sadness until the gloomy and bitter end. The film's score does an exceptional job in, er, underscoring this tonal transition, as it too moves from a delightful jauntiness, through spare and spacious emotional (and cinematographic) moments, to the more mournful moments at the closing stages - a fantastic job by Rachel Portman, here.
  
  Toward the end of the film, Harper Lee offers one of her many "testimonials" to Truman: "One must remember that at the center of any bright flame there's always that little touch of blue." Such is an apt description for the movie itself - it burns brilliantly before flickering and fading to its sad finale. But its warmth and beauty will linger in your memory long after the credits roll. So if you can only see one Capote-related film this week (or this year or this lifetime), I strongly recommend this one....more info
• The Same Story Told as a Celebrity-Filled Account of Unrequited Love
  An unfortunate twist of providence plagued this 2006 film since it was one of two major studio productions covering the same story and completed almost at the same time. The other movie, Bennett Miller's "Capote" (2005), was universally acclaimed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's superbly etched performance winning accolade after accolade including last year's Best Actor Oscar. Held back for a year, this version is decidedly more colorful but somewhat more superficial, coming across less as a character-driven study than an unrequited love story between world-famous writer Truman Capote and notorious murderer Perry Smith.
  
  Both movies focus on Capote's investigation of the 1959 Kansas murder of the Clutter family and the two young men convicted of the crime, Smith and Richard Hickock. Director/screenwriter Douglas McGrath places greater emphasis on Capote's celebrity-filled social circle in Manhattan by using them as a narrative device to move the story along. The other major difference is how the relationship between Capote and Smith becomes less about the author's singular ambition to get his story than how two disparate men find a common bond in their mutually repressive situation. The author's compassion for Perry contains a deeper sense of longing in McGrath's version, and the feelings are reciprocated with surprising candor by Smith.
  
  Yet, the whole venture falls short because the star-studded cast and smart production values cannot compensate for the hollow ring at the core of this film. We are never really privy to Capote's creative genius, nor does his resulting book, "In Cold Blood" feel palpable beyond passing references. There is certainly not a lack of effort here, as character actor Toby Jones is far more of a dead ringer for the real Capote than even Hoffman. At the same time, the startling accuracy of Jones' cadence and mannerisms still cannot match Hoffman's pained gravitas in the role. Prior to becoming the current 007, Daniel Craig impressively conveys the tender and terrorizing sides of Smith with equal aplomb. As author Harper Lee, Sandra Bullock submerges herself into the quiet role of a low-key confidante who keeps Capote on his toes. Jeff Daniels effectively plays the taciturn D.A. Alvin Dewey, although the overall portrayal of the star-struck townsfolk feels overly patronizing.
  
  The remaining star turns amount to extended cameos and frankly a marginal waste of stellar talent - Sigourney Weaver as Babe Paley, wife of CBS chairman Bill Paley; Hope Davis as Slim Keith, who was married to director Howard Hawks and agent Leland Hayward; Isabella Rossellini as socialite Marella Agnelli; Juliet Stevenson as Vogue editor Diana Vreeland; and in the opening nightclub scene, Gwyneth Paltrow as Peggy Lee (whose name has been changed to `Kitty Dean' in the movie). The late 1950's period look of the film benefits from expert, unobtrusive work from cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, production designer Judy Becker, and costume designer Ruth Myers. Thanks to the exhaustive research he conducted on his subject, McGrath contributes an informative commentary track on the 2007 DVD, the only extra beyond the original theatrical trailer....more info
• and the winner is........
  i'm a big fan of philip seymour hoffman and, at the same time, know very little about toby jones. having viewed mr. jones in another excellent movie recently, "the painted veil", i thought he was very good in that film.
  if i had to give an award for what version of capote's trials in writing "in cold blood" was better, i would present the award to "infamous."
  the biggest difference in the films is the relationship that exists between perry smith and capote, and because i do not know which one is more accurate, i thought their connection was more interesting in "infamous."
  from what i know of the real truman capote (he was a regular guest on the johnny carson show), the toby jones portrayal was ,imo, more spot on
  than hoffman's.
  to sum up, both films are of excellent quality, but the winner is "infamous."...more info
• What is Love?
  In writing his masterpiece Capote is led down a path of self-destruction. The viewer sees it all, from New York high society to jail cells in Kansas. Superb ensemble cast. Tobey Jones and Daniel Craig created a relationship that tugged at my heartstrings. ...more info
• Different variation on story
  This film is a different variation on the Truman Capote story, but I liked it just as much. This version is heavier on the drama and shows more of the homosexuality. There's still plenty of humor which prevents the bulk of the story from becoming too heavy with tragedy, true as it may be. Toby Jones does an incredible job as the bizarre Truman. The movie focuses slightly more on the writer who became obsessed with his Kansas story and seems to sell his soul in the writing of it, rather than a full focus on the horrible event. Sandra Bullock also does a phenominal job with the role of Nell Harper Lee. Very well done.
  
  Chrissy K. McVay - Author...more info