ritera1 Very ironic that it was based on a novel called "The Blunderer" as it was a mess at every turn.I'm guessing but being that they somehow had the authentic locales, wardrobe and the shockingly numerous vehicles of the times, tried to build a movie around those. Or just didn't care about anything else. Even that failed as there were countless wide shots that should have been nice but just didn't work. The broad strokes were the actual direction that only essentially employed wide shots of interactions between characters with very few close-ups when close-ups are what these "noirs" rely on most. A vast majority of the dialogue and plot were delivered in a matter-of- fact way that completely ignored subtleties and nuances. Eddie Marsan and Vincent Kartheiser at least made a half-hearted attempt to act while the rest of the cast and leads essentially walked through the piece.(Being that the whole thing was delivered in a very flat manner and the prevalence of foreign money in films, I have to speculate that had an influence as some foreign films have that kind of storytelling. Further research showed it had Japanese, Philippine, Singapore, Middle Eastern and German money behind it. But there was a very stark example of such in a movie called Child of God by James Franco and had a prevalent Chinese company, Well-Go USA, behind it. It, too, was a period piece in the 50s South but extremely esoteric and the last thing you'd think Chinese audience would relate to. And of course the obvious Marvel and Transformers films.)Even the snow was bad as it often had a snow effect but none to very little snow on the ground. Jumping to the end, it also ignored the tried and true rule about this genre. The killer is always the one you least expect. But no, it was the first person you expected and was completely devoid of being clever. And it never answered the question about the Biel's death. I GUESS it was suicide although never clarified such. We are introduced to Wilson's eventual love interest Bennett in a completely non-dramatic way. He is not shown to be smitten or awestruck. She just---appears. They have a conversation and she leaves. Biel is jealous.And then the rest was just sloppy nonsense. We see the killer obviously set up an alibi by making himself known to the kid in the movie theater. He then leaves and it looks like he's up to no good. In all but this movie, that turns out to be a red herring. But here? No. He is actually the bumbling killer who ended up murdering his wife in a very sloppy and public way. Then we see a few scenes where the killer and the kid seem to have some sort of arrangement or agreement about all this. In vague terms, the kid is on the killer's side. But does he know the killer is actually the killer? Just bumbling nonsense.Bennett then shows with the potted planet and seems to flirt with an uninterested Wilson, who then shows up at her singing gig. It's at THAT point that we see he is smitten. For a very long time we do not see either Wilson or Bennett together whatsoever. No reason to think anything has happened. Biel insists that she followed her husband to Bennett's apartment. (In what? They have one car. She took the bus to her mother's house.) I got the impression that she was just crazy as we the audience did not see any further interaction between the two.But no. That did in fact happen as we find out much later in flashback.Wilson follows Biel on the bus and loses her somehow and we are never told how. He quickly makes himself known to a witness but lies about it to the detective later. Even though the detective easily finds out Wilson is lying, Wilson continues to lie (about the bookseller/murderer) coupled with being very obvious about his new girlfriend and telling everything to his supposed best friend.And where did Bennett hide in Wilson's house when the detective showed up?Frustrated and at the end of his rope, the detective then somehow enrages the killer with a feeble argument about class-ism so the killer then can go after Wilson. Sure enough, the killer does that and, for some reason, chases Wilson out of a very public bar and into the shadowy catacombs that were apparently adjacent and very accessible to this bar. Police of course close on their tails.A little point about wearing glasses, which the killer did. The cop crushed the glasses under his foot (off-camera) and the killer was without his coke bottle specs. But this didn't seem to slow him down one bit. Anybody who wears glasses would call BS on this one.Miss it. Don't waste your time unless you like laughing at bad film making.

pho-53835 Best movie I seen in years. The bad reviews? It's simply not for attention-deficient, thrill junkies who play video games all day. This film builds tension slowly and believably in the Hitchcockian tradition (which makes sense since it is a script from the one of Hitchcock's favorite script writers, Patricia Highsmith). It is beautifully filmed, with rich sets and fabulous, era-perfect costumes and props. The performances are all flawless. It's a great script full of psychological tension that builds to a dramatic and poetic ending. Film buffs will love this movie.

tomsview I must admit I'm still not absolutely sure what happened in the end and I watched it twice. "A Kind of Murder" is a quirky little story; a bit like an episode on the old "Alfred Hitchcock Presents".Patrick Wilson plays Walter Stackhouse, an architect and amateur writer who is becoming disenchanted with his neurotic wife, Clara (Jessica Biel). He becomes fixated on the case of Marty Kimmel (Eddie Marsan), a man who may have murdered his wife. When Walter's wife turns up dead, an apparent suicide, a detective, Lawrence Corby (Vincent Kartheiser), suspects it may be a copycat killing and pursues both men with the single-mindedness of Peter Falk's Columbo, but with none of his affability. Finally we seem to be left not really knowing if Walter did it or is simply guilty of an overactive imagination? Patricia Highsmith's novels are tough ones to bring to life on the screen; they never end up as profound as you think they will. The films usually start with a clever idea, but run out of puff by the final curtain - The "Ripley" films and "The Two Faces of January" come to mind.Good looking Patrick Wilson and Jessica Biel play against type creating unexpected characters, and this combined with Eddie Marsan's strange little bookshop owner and Vincent Kartheiser's unpleasant detective give the movie an odd edge; it's a hard one to love.The film has a subtle score with a seductive lilt by Danny Bensi and Saunder Jurriaans, the go-to composers for the slightly off kilter ("Enemy" and "The Gift"). Credit also for the early 1960's setting. From the clothes, the cars and the interiors to scenes at bus terminals and train stations, it captures the look of the period and, if you were around at the time, brings back memories. It also gives the film a point of difference, especially as a film such as this has to compete with dozens of high quality, film length dramas and mini series that pour in through TV, cable and satellite.However, it remains to be seen if "A Kind of Murder" with its fairly contrived scenario and rather annoying ending will stay in the memory.

Norm K I loved the look and texture of this movie. It is beautifully noir without silly overacting and over-the-top scoring (as in De Palma's "Black Dahlia").In the story two suspects in two separate suspicious deaths are pursued by an obsessed detective. The detective, played by Vincent Kartheiser, is smart, sardonic and ruthless... oh yes, and patient.Of the suspects, Marty Kimmel (Eddie Marsen) is a bookish bookseller intent upon getting away with the murder of his wife. He is a sociopath and, as is the case with sociopaths, considers himself superior to the rest of humanity. Walter Stackhouse (Patrick Wilson), is guilty only of wishing his wife were dead. When she commits suicide, his guilty conscience motivates him to make a number of bad decisions which seem to implicate him in her death.Largely, by ironic coincidence, these two men's lives are entwined: Stackhouse becomes fascinated by Mrs. Kimmels murder after reading about it, both women will die outside the same restaurant after riding on the same bus (on different nights), both husbands will follow the bus to the restaurant on the nights of the two deaths.With the detective acting as a catalyst, the two husbands play out their stories. One acts out of ruthless self-preservation, the other out of neurotic, and unjustified, guilt. How wonderfully noir can you get? As we watched, my wife mentioned similarities between this movie and some Hitchcock films. We had just watched "Vertigo" a couple of nights before and I had rolled my eyes through it: Jimmie Stewart being duped when he obviously should have known better and all the messy details being tied up neatly in one short scene at the end. I am not a fan of Hitchcock. To me, this film succeeded in doing what Hitchcock often tried to do--providing reasonable inner motives for unreasonable acts.There are some actions in the movie that don't seem logical at all to me. Maybe I need to watch it a second time. Still, there is a general sense that the characters' emotional states might precipitate those actions, though they are illogical.One comment to blanch-2 in her review, "A Kind of Mess" (love that title), The Chevrolet commercial is not part of the movie "Butterfield 8", it was meant to be part of the pre-movie attractions, along with the newsreels and cartoons often commercials were shown. The fact that the two husbands unknowingly sit a few seats apart as they watch this film is a nice creepy touch.To sum up, this film may not hold together the very best when it comes to sequencing but I think it is well worth the time taken to watch it.