A Perfect Murder (1998) User Reviews

Slick and stylish Hitchcock update

[The_Void · 7/10 · 31 October 2005]

I went into A Perfect Murder expecting to enjoy it, but I recognised the fact that I wouldn't be in for a great film. To be honest, I love thrillers like this as they offer a solid two hours (or so) of non-too taxing entertainment, and what's not to like about that? A Perfect Murder is an update of the Hitchcock classic 'Dial M For Murder', and while the film doesn't touch Hitchcock's in terms of how thrilling it is, this update has been well handled and despite losing things such as the claustrophobia and the tight plot, A Perfect Murder still does what you'd expect it to do. The plot has become more expansive for this update, but the filmmakers have still managed to keep it tight so that the plot is focused mainly on the characters as opposed to the actual crime. The plot follows a rich man (Michael Douglas) who discovers that his trophy wife (Gweneth Paltrow) is having an affair with an artist (Viggo Mortensen). When his business affairs start to go awry, he decides to commit the perfect murder so that he can inherit his wife's trust fund. However, as all of us Hitchcock fans know; there's no such thing as the perfect murder.

Michael Douglas was the absolute perfect choice for this role. He may get typecast as the slimy businessman often, but he does it so well! You can really believe that he wants to kill his wife. Gweneth Paltrow, who is often solid but never outstanding; and Viggo Mortensen, who is actually a good actor, join him and make up the three-piece central cast. Mortensen's performance here isn't awesome; but it's good, and hints at the sort of stuff that would be to come - such as a great turn in David Cronenberg's A History of Violence. Like most nineties thrillers, this one is very stylishly shot and there's a focus on the more steamy elements of the story. The locations used aptly convey the groups within society that the characters belong to and the film does a good job of setting its scenes. The central set piece is well executed, and the build up to it is well done also; but it has to be said that the film starts to fall apart a little after that. Still, A Perfect Murder never becomes boring and even during it's down time; the film still manages to be thrilling. As mentioned, this isn't as great as Hitchcock's version - but as modern remakes go - this certainly isn't a bad one, and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good thriller.

Starts promisingly...falls apart in the final third

[smerph · 6/10 · 23 May 2011]

It may be more credible to cite Psycho or Vertigo as your favourite Hitchcock, but my particular preference has always been Dial M for Murder. Sure, it's dated far more than a lot of Hitch's films, but it's still a tightly written and intelligent movie; Ray Milland playing a gentlemanly yet murderous businessman who plots to have his wife killed when he discovers she's having an affair and plans to leave him.

A Perfect Murder, the 1998 remake, is a very different beast with different motivations and some major changes to how the plot plays out. This time, it's Michael Douglas whose wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) is playing away from home but, in a move from the source material, it's her ex-con lover who is hired to do the murder.

Despite this deviation, the machinations of the murder plot from the original film are near-identical. A phone call home, a missing key, the supposed disturbed robbery, the would-be killer killed in self-defence...that's all Dial M. And, because of this, the first third of the film bounces along at a great pace.

Into Act 2 and things are still promising with the introduction of David Suchet as the investigating detective. Suchet is a wonderful actor and his first scene holds much potential and evokes memories of John Williams's memorable turn as Detective Hubbard in Dial M. Suchet's Detective Karaman seems smart as a tack and asks awkward questions of our protagonists. And then, inexplicably, the character all but vanishes from the movie without doing any further detecting. In fact, the big reveal of the murder is actually just down to the wife simply snooping through her husband's clumsily-hidden evidence, rather than anyone actually pursuing a line of enquiry.

As a result, the final third is really just our three main characters lying and and cheating. While it's fun to watch Douglas worm his way out of things by repeatedly changing his story, it all leads to a frankly barmy climax where the bodies start to pile up.

I guess A Perfect Murder is more interested in its characters than the tightly woven plot of Dial M, but the original film had charm that this sorely lacks. While Dial M may not seem realistic in its characters' motivations or the generally breezy tone, it's by far the better movie.

Miss these movies

[arod_85 · 6/10 · 8 January 2022]

Movies like these are missing from mainstream cinema today. I haven't seen a decent current psychological thriller for over a decade with the exception of Gone Girl. I am experiencing major Marvel fatigue and really wish the studios put out movies like this between all the blockbuster cgi fests. I miss the 90's thrillers like Kiss the Girls, Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Basic Instinct, Seven, Fatal Attraction, etc. This is my first time seeing this movie in 2022. The first half being significantly better than the second half. The first half was clever and fairly surprising and though unlikely, it was realistic. The second half got a little messy with a cliche ending. Still I appreciate the nice change of pace.

good flick, but could have been much better

[lexyflex · 7/10 · 23 December 2001]

Wow, why did they ruin a gem like this. I think thats what most of the people who have seen this movie will say.

What went wrong? Well, the movie starts out pretty good. Immediately there is a certain tense in it, when Michael Douglas pops up a few times, and you're wondering if he knows his wife has a new lover. After that the movie goes in a faster pace, and reaches very high levels. At that time, I was amazed about the script. It was really magnificent. Every time I got really surprised with totally unexpected things happening. Nothing wrong until now.

Then finally, the film makes a crucial mistake regarding the end. The end of every movie is one of the most important things, A part that can make or break a movie. Well in this case, the end totally breaks / ruins the movie.

WARNING: ***SPOILER***

I thought the movie ended when Michael Douglas and Gwyneth Paltrow (the married couple) planned a dinner, Douglas went to the shower, and they would live happily ever after, without Paltrow finding out that her husband Douglas did plan to murder her, and with him being relieved that nobody knows what the hell he did, and the fact that his wife Paltrow is devoted to him again.

But then, it was a shock for me, that the movie continued for several minutes, in which Paltrow finds the tape with the evidence that Douglas planned the whole murder attempt. Then she kills him after some stupid fight between them.

The end degrades the movie. Without the end I would have rated it 9 out of 10, but sadly it has this end so I rate it a 7 out of 10, and it suddenly isnt one of my alltime favorites.

What an end can do ......

Imperfect remake of clever stage thriller...

[Doylenf · 11 October 2002]

Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER was based on the Frederick Knott play of the same name. A PERFECT MURDER takes elements from the play, makes alterations in scenes and characters, changes the ending, and in attempting to modernize the whole thing has added some extra gore to the proceedings so today's audiences won't feel cheated. And yet, the result is not only distinctly disappointing, but inferior.

Only fans of Gwyneth Paltrow and Michael Douglas will relish their performances in this pale rehash of the original material. The complexity of "the key under the stairmat" which was so effectively played out in the Hitchcock film is entirely missing here. The detective work so fascinating in the original play and film is also gone despite the fact that he is played by David Suchet (in a very underwritten role). In short: none of the revisions are any improvement. Nor does Viggo Mortensen impress as Paltrow's lover.

Those who haven't seen the movie or the play DIAL M FOR MURDER will no doubt find some of this absorbing enough--but anyone able to make a comparison is bound to be disappointed. I'll take Ray Milland-Grace Kelly-Robert Cummings under Hitchcock's direction any day over a misguided Paltrow and Douglas under Andrew Davis' direction.

As for the comments of the viewer who said, "Who's Hitchcock?", please...spare me your review.

It's a good take on the original.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 28 October 2023]

Wealthy Wall Street tycoon Steven learns that his wife Emily is having an affair with David, an artist and career criminal, Steven decides to do away with his wife, using David to do the job.

Over the last few months I've worked my way though Hitchcock's catalogue of films, I was sat wondering why none of his films had been remade for an age, the I remembered this one.

So it's basically Dial M for murder, with a late 90's twist, so we've got the tech, The Wall Street tycoon and of course that wonderful 90's vibe.

I have no intentions of comparing, as I don't think you can, but as an updated version it's good, it's a stylish flick, I liked the updates, and of course the heart of the story is magical.

It perhaps has a little too much polish, but on the whole it works, Hitchcock films weren't exactly in vogue in the late 90's, so it gets credit for at least being different.

Some nice twists and turns, I particularly liked the way the tech is used, and the way that David turns the tables.

Paltrow and Mortensen are both very good, but I'd argue it is Michael Douglas that stands out, and boy does he look sharp here.

I'd forgotten David Suchet was in this, at the time it seemed as though he'd turned away from Poirot somewhat, output was lower, it felt like he was going to leave the role behind, thankfully he didn't.

7/10.

Not perfect, but pretty good

[cardsrock · 7/10 · 7 November 2020]

I enjoyed most of this film up until the messy resolution. The plot doesn't play out in a supremely satisfying way, which hampers the overall impact. The performances are all fine and there's some good suspense throughout. Gwenyth Paltrow's character makes some odd choices and seems generally clueless throughout, but also makes some remarks that appear as if she knows things. It's rather confusing. A Perfect Murder kept me invested all the way through with its sleek and stylish story, I just wish the ending had been a little more thought out.

Nothing is perfect.

[Streetwolf · 7/10 · 31 December 2002]

I actually liked this movie, but the ending was bad.

Summary: Steven Taylor and Emily have been married for quite some time yet Emily feels trapped and controlled by Steven so she seeks comfort in the arms of David, a broke artist with a hidden past. Steven knows about the affair yet Emily has no idea that he knows. Steven approaches David and lets him know that he knows everything about David's past and then blackmails him. He pays 100 grand and tells David he will pay another 400 grand after the job is done. What job? Oh, for killing Emily, his wife. David accepts and Steven tells him how to murder Emily and it sounds flawless until Emily manages to kill the intruder in her home and at Steven's surprise, it's not David!

In such cases as these where rich people get married, I understand why there should be a pre-nuptial agreement! The movie is a great thriller yet it lacks....something. Viggo Mortensen was David, the lover who does love Emily but loves money more. Michael Douglas, the loving yet control freak husband Steven, whose empire is falling apart and the only option he has is to kill his wife played by Gwyneth Paltrow, who works for the UN, speaks a few languages but is dumb as a doorbell when it comes to the men in her life.

I rate this 7/10, the movie has lots of great twists and so on, but I saw only Michael Douglas making a real effort in this movie. Viggo was great too, but Gwyneth seems so confused through out this movie.

A Perfect Murder is the perfect example of a great thriller from the 90s

[eva3si0n · 9/10 · 19 June 2022]

A Perfect Murder is the perfect example of a great thriller from the 90s. There's a great cast here, a good plot for a thriller and a solid ending to the film with a climax. One of Michael Douglas' best works. It is these films that are not in modern cinema, so A Perfect Murder only gets better over time.

Perfect Thriller

[Luigi Di Pilla · 7/10 · 27 July 2003]

Don´t miss this thriller. It's one of the best of Michael Douglas and Gwynieth Paltrow. Viggo Mortensen played his role as a villain lover very well. It was well directed by the master Andrew Davis. Please create another good movie. The story is very hot from the begin to the end and the music by James Newton Howard was as usual perfect. I will add this one to my best of dvd collection. I highly recommend it and check out "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas. 7.5/10.

Too many plot holes to be a good thriller

[bhcpc · 4/10 · 13 October 2002]

A fine cast (Douglas, Paltrow, Mortensen, Suchet) was wasted in this feeble attempt. There were simply too many illogical holes to ignore and at the end you will feel cheated. I'll list just a few as examples. I would encourage you read on, so you may save your money and go rent Hitchcock's original instead.

*****SPOILERS AHEAD*****

1. David was just a con artist, so what made Steven think he could be turned into a hired killer?. Sure enough it didn't work, did it?

2. In fact, David as a con artist was much more likely to try blackmail. Sure enough, David tapped the incriminating conversation. Now that he had the tape, he could easily get $400K (or even more) from Steven. So why bother to kill (or contract out some thug to kill) Emily at all?? This is totally ABSURD. David just wanted to con some money and get out of town as he always did, with no incentive to kill his lover at this stage.

3. When detective Karaman mentioned the missing key, Emily said nothing and went into Latino slum and tried to play detective herself. It just does not make any sense. Emily obviously would not protect Steven at that point since she not only didn't love him anymore but also had a reasonable belief that the thug was hired by her husband to kill her for her inheritance. Moreover, she and Karaman clearly developed a sense of mutual trust, so she logically would show Karaman the missing key and let him do the investigation (after all he's a police).

4. The explanation Steven tried to spin on Emily about the missing key did not make sense at all. He claimed he took the key, put it on Emily's key chain and jammed the door lock because he thought the thug was David getting in with Emily's key and he tried to protect Emily's reputation. Then, he claimed the thug turned out to be just a burglar. Well, if that thug did not use Emily's key and did not pick the lock, how on earth he got in??

5…...

I did find one quote to be ironically hilarious. When they met at the ferry, Steven told David that they should wait and carry on business as usual. When Steven started to walk away, David asked, with a deadpan face, "Should I continue screw your wife?"

More Than Just A Remake Of An Old Movie

[seymourblack-1 · 8/10 · 19 November 2010]

This stylish 90's thriller about a love triangle that turns murderous was based on Frederick Knott's play "Dial M For Murder" (which was also the inspiration for Alfred Hitchcock's movie of the same name). Patrick Smith Kelly's screenplay updates the action, relocates it from London to New York and features enough plot twists to keep most viewers fully engaged throughout. The interactions between the characters at the centre of the story involve a toxic mixture of jealousy, lust, deception and blackmail which inevitably adds to the tensions which exist between them right from the very start.

Steven Taylor (Michael Douglas) is a wealthy Wall Street trader with an unfaithful wife and an investment portfolio which is losing its value so fast that financial ruin seems to be a certainty. In order to deal with these problems he meticulously devises a complex and seemingly perfect plan to murder his wife so that he can solve his financial problems when he inherits his share of her $100 million fortune.

Steven's wife Emily (Gwyneth Paltrow) has for some time been having an affair with a struggling artist called David Shaw (Viggo Mortensen) who Steven visits at his loft studio. Having already researched David's background and discovered that he's actually an ex-convict with a track record of being involved in scams in which rich women were his victims; Steven blackmails him into carrying out the planned murder for $500,000 in cash.

When things don't work out as planned, Steven moves quickly to cover up what's happened, David tries to blackmail Steven because he has some incriminating evidence of his involvement in the murder plot and Emily gradually starts to realise what her husband's been attempting to do.

One of the strengths of this movie is the brilliant casting as Michael Douglas is perfect as the cold and ruthless Steven, Gwyneth Paltrow portrays Emily's natural elegance, refinement and vulnerability convincingly and Viggo Mortensen looks suitably bohemian and at various times shows the mild amusement that David derives from what he does. These three characters all have their secrets as Emily doesn't tell Steven about her affair, he doesn't tell her about his financial problems and David doesn't mention his multiple identities, his criminal record or his background as a con artist.

"A Perfect Murder" isn't as stagy or as claustrophobic as Hitchcock's movie and the new elements which have been added really work well and make the plot more interesting. A wonderfully moody atmosphere is created and maintained throughout the film and some of the remarks made by the characters make a great impact. Examples of this are when Steven and Emily both say at different times "what if there were no tomorrow?" and "that's not happiness to see me, is it?".

It's easy to see why "A Perfect Murder" was such a commercial success because it's actually a great deal more than just a simple remake of a well known movie.

My wife liked it

[mm-39 · 7/10 · 21 March 2001]

This is a good movie, the more I watch it the more I like it. When I first viewed this movie I thought it was ok, but when we bought the video it began to grow on me. The acting is excellent, and the story twists along at a good pace. Douglas is a good actor and his performance alone is worth renting this film.

Does not compute

[er-usmani · 5/10 · 18 August 2022]

Too many plot holes, too many coincidences. Average acting by everybody but michael douglas. Viggo mortensen definitely grew into a better actor later on but in this movie he is a total miscast. He has the emotional range of a soft guy but the sinister side was totally lacking. He is supposed to be a sinister guy when not in view of emily. He is supposed to be a guy that cons women, been to prison, has ghetto ex-con friends, hires a guy to kill the woman he is conning, blackmails her husband and then double crosses him in the end anyways. What we needed was Robert Knepper's teddy from prison break.

** SPOILERS ** There are many and have been enumerated by other reviewers but the worst of the worst I cannot get over is the very observant "suspicious at first sight" detective not finding the key behind the pipe. Come on, it was JUST THERE!

I love this movie! Creative, artsy, and many cliffhangers

[VigtoriousPainter · 7 June 2004]

Micheal Douglas (Steven) and Gwenyth Paltrow (Emily) are a married couple. Emily falls in love and has an affair with a young painter, David Shaw (Mortensen). Hiding the affair and making a tense move, Emily is put in the position to tell Steven or not. One way or another Steven has a plan, a plan to murder his own wife....with a little help from the someone else.

I really love this movie. I try to watch it as much as possible. In this movie it is set to the level of Micheal Douglas's creepy and insanity side of his acting. He scared me so much that I didn't feel comfortable about seeing this for the first time. Gwenyth Paltrow on the other hand, plays a very innocent and lovely role. She really doesn't have a clue what Steven and David are up to in this twisting thriller. Viggo is absolutely excellent in this movie. He gave an outstanding role and put another character on my favorite list. This is a very good movie and I recommend this movie to Alfred Hitchcock and mystery/murder fans. I would rate this 10/10

I thought Gordon Gekko Married Sean Young?.......

[FlashCallahan · 7/10 · 7 May 2012]

Millionaire industrialist Steven Taylor is a man who has everything but what he craves most is 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.

Brilliant in her own right, she works at the U.N. and is involved with a struggling artist who fulfils her emotional needs.

When her husband discovers her infidelity, he sets out to commit murder and inherit her considerable trust fund in the bargain.

Back in the nineties, even though he is arguably brilliant, with the exception of Falling down, Douglas played the same character in every film he made.

It's not a bad thing, but this movie should have simply been Wall Street 2, and Gekko has escaped from prison and wants his wife's money, wouldn't have been a remake to the Hitchcock classic and would have made more money.

For what it's worth, it's still one of those glossy thrillers that were rife in the cinemas in the late nineties, all about money and power.

Paltrow and Mortenson are very good, but what this film does ask, is who are 'you' rooting for? At times I must admit it was Douglas, because Paltrows character was introduced in the worse way possible, but then Douglas became more and more pantomime villain up until the predictable climax.

The film isn't nothing special, Douglas owns the film as usual, and it's very flashy, and very expensive, but forgettable.

Pretty Suspenseful, But......

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 31 August 2007]

I hate to say it but I found myself wanting to help Michael Douglas cover up his crime. I kept saying to myself, "Yeah, that's a good excuse." That's pretty sick. Of course, you set this up with this clutching corporate bastard stereotype, messing up his marriage by controlling every aspect of it. Gwyneth is his wife (couldn't get much better than that) but he runs the house like the business and soon she is in bed with Viggo Mortenson, who is himself a small time crook. Douglas, wanting to control even more, decides to kill her off and the fun begins. This, of course, is Dial M for Murder where Grace Kelley becomes the potential victim (give me your rejects, please!). Douglas is about as cold as a man can be; Mortenson is artistic one moment and dumb the next. Things get a little uneven at times, and if one thinks too much, it could fall apart just a bit. But just like the first film, it's suspenseful and captivating. One character who is wasted is David Souchet, who played Hercule Poroit on those PBS Mystery things. There is a hint of a connection made between the Paltrow character and his, but it is never capitalized upon. In the original, I remember his associated character being a much greater part of the movie. This would have helped a great deal, especially at the end.

This update of the Hitchcock thriller is not bad...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 4 September 2021]

... the original being "Dial M for Murder" from 1954. Lots has changed in the ensuing 44 years, and those changes to society are reflected in the remade film. Here the wife is cheating, not with a guy who is an upright citizen if you overlook he is bedding a friend's wife, but with an artist who has a criminal past of conning rich ladies. Gwyneth Paltrow is the young wife, Emily, with inherited wealth, Michael Douglas plays Steven, the older husband whose financial interests are crumbling and figures out his wife is cheating and with who. He threatens the artist with exposure - to his wife and the police - if he does not agree to kill his wife for money so that Steven can inherit her money and save his business.

So everybody is guilty to a degree. There are not "good" characters and "bad" characters as in Dial M. Society has become too cynical for that to work. Keys still play a big part in the plot as do phone calls, but instead of the brilliant inspector Hubbard figuring everything out, here it is the wife that unravels the plan. The detective in this modern film is largely useless. In the original film the wife is a damsel in distress, unable to determine what exactly has happened and the forces that are arrayed against her. But Paltrow as Emily is an empowered would have been victim.

Slick, glossy, shallow

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 9 October 2001]

Remake of Hitchcock's "Dial M For Murder" (with a worse title) has the unfaithful wife of a New York City businessman targeted for murder. Unsurprising twists in this updated version do allow Michael Douglas to play a mean SOB again (after too many years of playing the victimized good guy), but the plot feels half-baked. Much of the movie seems to take place off-screen; mostly what we get are fatuous red herrings and character contrivances. What's with all that linguistic talent Gwyneth Paltrow possesses? What's the point?... and when Gwyneth travels to the seedy side of town to try her key in a stranger's apartment, why does the editor cut away after she dramatically enters the building? What does she find inside? Why does she tell Douglas her intentions at the end, only to freeze against the door-jam when he tries to stop her? "A Perfect Murder" isn't a dumb thriller, it's fairly tight and intriguing, and the performances are commendable, but it doesn't satisfy on a hearty level (like Hitchcock). In fact, it ends with a whimper. **1/2 from ****

Really Good Thriller

[mandagrammy · 8/10 · 10 March 2021]

This is the kind of thriller that you can really sink your teeth into. There are plenty of twists and turns, so you cannot always be sure what will happen next. The final scene is the only time that I thought it didn't make logical sense. If you watch the film, you'll understand why I say that. Instead of a character doing what would make perfect sense, they do something that is obviously only there for dramatic effect. That said, it certainly doesn't spoil the movie for me at all. Thumbs up for this one.

Another great movie with Michael Douglas

[HunterDK · 7/10 · 24 October 2002]

I've just watched 'A Perfect Murder', and once again I'm impressed by Michael Douglas' performance.

Maybe Michael Douglas is very good at reading scripts, because almost all his movies are good or at least average. New Douglas movies like One Night at McCool's and Traffic confirms Douglas' skills to choose roles.

It shouldn't all be about Douglas, but I needed to praise this great actor. The movie is pretty exciting with some thrills throughout the whole movie. Gwyneth Paltrow and Viggo Mortensen are good supporting actors and their performances shouldn't be missed either.

If you like an exciting crime story with some complications, then 'A Perfect Murder' is a good choice. It is good, but there are better movies on the market. It deserves 7/10.

Plot Holes....

[CraigHamrick · 4/10 · 15 May 2005]

Definite Spoilers Ahead. Please don't read if you haven't seen the film yet and want to be surprised.

My biggest question -- why do directors/producers think viewers are stupid? Maybe most people just sit back and enjoy the ride...but why spend so much time and money to make a beautiful-looking movie like this, populated with some fairly good actors, and based on a good, classic story, if you don't care enough about the story to employ a thoughtful writer or two?

Anyway...this movie has too many plot holes to count, but here are the most glaring, in my opinion.

Why would Emily leave a comfortable, hot bath to answer the phone? In such a lushly appointed apartment, it's hard to believe it doesn't have an answering system or built-in voice mail. And even if it doen't, there's been no sign that it's going to ring an annoyingly long time when Emily starts moving to answer it.

Why was Steven so easily dismissed as a suspect -- just because he was "on the phone" during the attack? Of course he didn't commit the attack -- the attacker is DEAD. His having an alibi for the time of the attack does not clear him of arranging it. If he was even considered for a moment, he wasn't a suspect for committing the attack, but for planning it...and his "alibi" doesn't clear him of that.

Steven was so careful about so many parts of his "perfect murder plan" -- why would he so sloppily toss the cell phone out of his car, on his way from the poker game? If it were found (which it never was, apparently) the fact that it was on his return route would be pretty incriminating. There are plenty of places, like the East River, to toss something.

It's obvious the dead man lived in a very scary neighborhood (Emily visits and it's pretty dangerous looking) -- so we're supposed to believe the killer only used one key and had one lock on his door? I live in a nice part of New York and there are four locks between the apartment and the outside world -- but Emily was able to get into that apartment with just one key. Doubtful.

When Steven confronts Emily, it becomes a complication that there's something at the artist's loft connecting him to them: her wedding ring. Steven says he'll go get it. WHY does it matter if that connection exists? There are obviously many others they can't do anything about -- like the negatives to the photos he's just shown her; money that he's confessed to paying the artist; at least one of her friends who knows about the affair. And, he's supposedly a blackmailer, so wouldn't one assume he has some hidden "proof"? Why does it matter that the ring is in the loft? Surely, no matter what, Steven and Emily don't think they're going to be able to pretend Emily never had an affair with David!?

When Steve hands over money in Washington Square Park, David tells him the tape is a "commemerative copy" -- there's been no guarantee (that we've heard, at least) that there's no other copy of the tape. Who would assume that was the only copy??? And of course, we soon learn it wasn't.

If your husband tried to have you killed, and you had the proof (the tape), would you confront him (even with a gun in your pocket) or get the heck out and go to the police?

Of course David was recording the murder plot, when Steven laid it out at his own apartment. Why wouldn't he? If Steven was such a good planner, why would he not "shake down" David to make sure he didn't have a tape recorder? It would be in character not to trust him.

Argh! I want back the time I wasted watching this thing....

A passable remake of Hicthcock's ‘Dial M for Murder'

[MIKE-WILSON6 · 8/10 · 12 July 2001]

A Perfect Murder ( a loose remake of ‘Dial M for Murder ) is a

stylish thriller in its own right ,but doesn't come close to the

original. As I remember and not to give away any of the plot, ‘Dial

‘M' is all about the key. Where it is hidden, Who knew it was there,

and who finds it. This plot line is gripping, but in ‘Perfect Murder'

this whole part of the story has been overlooked. Having said that

the film still works quite well, thanks to Michael Douglas. He really

is superb. Gwyneth Palthrow looks stunning, but David Suchet is

wasted as the detective. But where the film really falls down is the

ending. In the original the last scenes are gripping in the hunt for

the key, but for some reason director Andrew Davis sees fit to end

with the standard formula of a shoot out. Having said that the film

is still worth seeing, but if you need to watch this story, I

recommend the original.

Good effort, mediocre outcome, redeemed by Michael Douglas

[julieshotmail · 6/10 · 16 January 2022]

There is a good ambience to the suspense and mystery in this movie, however the twists and turns seem typical, almost predictable. There is nothing to captivate you here besides the commanding presence of Michael Douglas. He owns every scene that he is in. In his prime, Michael Douglas for president!

slick Douglas but don't care about couple

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 18 June 2015]

Emily (Gwyneth Paltrow) is the wife of wealthy New Yorker Steven Taylor (Michael Douglas). She's an aide to UN Ambassador Alice Wills and having an affair with painter David Shaw (Viggo Mortensen). Steven suspects her infidelity and is in dire financial trouble. He also discovers that David is con man named Winston Lagrange and offers him $500k to kill his wife. After the break-in, police detective Mohamed Karaman (David Suchet) investigates.

In the original, Alfred Hitchcock is able to create some limited sympathy for Grace Kelly by making her a blackmail victim. There is no such feelings for Gwyneth Paltrow. Also David Shaw is a con man in this version so there is no likability for the cheating couple. Douglas is a great slick puppet master but I don't really care about these people. It's great to have Douglas slithering across the screen but director Andrew Davis is unable to generated the needed tension or thrills.