Infamous (film) - Critical Reception

Critical Reception

Unsurprisingly, much of the critical discussion of the film focused on comparisons with the previous year's Capote, which had received considerable critical acclaim and for which Philip Seymour Hoffman had won an Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance as Capote.

In his review in the New York Times, A.O. Scott called the film "well worth your attention. It is quick-witted, stylish and well acted… warmer and more tender, if also a bit thinner and showier, than Capote… it is in the end more touching than troubling."

Rex Reed of The New York Observer opined, "They gave the Oscar to the wrong Truman Capote. I do not begrudge the versatile, popular Philip Seymour Hoffman his Oscar for playing the tiny terror in Capote, but he was doing an impression. In Infamous . . . a diminutive actor with a titanic talent named Toby Jones literally becomes the man himself. This is no lisping impersonation learned from watching old Johnny Carson shows: Mr. Jones moves into Truman's skin, heart and brains. Infamous shows you the man’s soul. It is a monumental achievement of great artistry and depth. In some ways, the movie is better, too . . . is infinitely fascinating, cinematically breathtaking and largely impeccable. It proves that there's more than one way to tell a story and view a life. It is one hell of a beautiful movie to see and savor."

In Variety, David Rooney felt the film "doesn't measure up to its predecessor and seems unlikely to echo the attention it received . . . In the central role, British thesp Toby Jones is a good physical match for Capote, getting his flamboyant mannerisms and creepy, nasal voice down. But unlike Philip Seymour Hoffman's Oscar-winning turn, there's no texture, no under-the-skin sense of the conflict between Capote's ambition for his book and his compassion for, and attraction to, Perry . . . Sandra Bullock's understated performance as Capote's friend Lee is a high point here - wrapped in a cardigan and puffing on cigarettes, she creates a bracingly sturdy character of this plain-speaking, unfussy woman amid a cardboard gallery of flashy sophisticates."

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle observed, "By the standards of most pictures, this is intelligent, thoughtful filmmaking . . . it's only against the exalted benchmark standard set by Capote that Infamous falls short . . . It's a worthy film in its own right, with its own virtues . . . Either through studying Lee or channeling someone else, Bullock adopts mannerisms and facial expressions that are not her own for this role and then works them into a well-crafted portrait of a highly internal, observant and deep-revolving spirit. It's the performance to take from the movie."

In The Village Voice, Robert Wilonsky stated the film "never comes close to approaching the quiet, devastating brilliance of Capote . . . Which is not to say Infamous . . . is a far inferior version . . . it's just a lesser version, light in weight and absent the ache . . . It's good, especially during its first half, just not good enough."

Steve Persall of the St. Petersburg Times rated the film B and added, "Infamous might have been viewed as one of this year's better films if Capote hadn't told the same story about the same characters a year ago and done it so well . . . Infamous is inferior, although not drastically so, in almost every respect . . . The most obvious comparisons are to be made about performances. Jones is a much more accurate physical representation of Capote than Hoffman, his high-pitched voice sounding a little more affected than his Oscar-winning predecessor. However, the relative shallowness of McGrath's screenplay doesn't offer as many emotional land mines for Jones to play. delivers an uncanny impersonation, while Hoffman's portrayal was a studiously researched impression, a likely more challenging task. Call this race nearly a draw, with Hoffman simply crossing the finish line first."

In comparing this film to Capote, David Thomson of The Independent asked, "What does it have that's different? . . . has a gallery of Truman Capote's Manhattan friends, people who adored him without ever quite trusting him . . . These cameos give a tone-perfect sense of Capote's life before In Cold Blood. He is placed as the phenomenon of culture, celebrity and outrage that he was."