Not impressed


(NOTE: Updated 29 July 2014)

Not impressed at all, given all the hype and high praise about this film. My expectations were not met at all. I'm a film buff, the one that barely stomach a 2000s slasher but is bonkers about the early Universal Horror films. There's some directors I really look up to with high regard: Jack Clayton, Robert Wise, Alfred Hitchcock, Terrence Fisher, Robert Aldrich, Orson Welles, Billy Wilder, James Whale, Tod Browning, etc. The Hammer films have a very special place in my heart. My childhood nightmares included the silent John Barrymore as Jekyll/Hyde and Max Schreck as Orlok.

This film sure receives a lot of commend and I'm pretty much feeling like I'm rivaling the world, but it's my opinion and my right to voice it.

Robert Mitchum, sorry to say, I found him to be blatantly and laughably overacting. His is one of the hammier performances I've ever seen, and I mean it in a bad way (and not in a good way like the great Vincent Price in Theatre of Blood). Not only was he extremely irritating to watch, his character didn't feel like a villain at all. At least not a villain in the vein of such a film. He was more like a caricature of a villain, the ones found in Looney Tunes cartoons. I've seen him in Cape Fear and he was much, much superior in that role. I can’t comprehend people claiming that the Preacher is his best performance (well, I guess it’s their opinion, too). I can picture many other actors who could do justice to the character and amplify the scary factor such a character is supposed to convey (eg Ray Milland, Charles Boyer, Vincent Price himself, Henry Daniell, etc).

Apart from Lillian Gish as Miss Cooper, I never felt any of the other characters were even remotely likable or had any actual importance during the context of the film. Many of them were incredibly obnoxious (*cough* Icey *cough*). The girl playing Pearl was atrocious. I could tolerate John. Shelley Winters was mediocre at best.

There was zero suspense. I was just merely curious as to the children’s fate, but that’s about it. Uninteresting main characters are the worst thing that can happen in a film, and this is a similar case. They’re children, yes, but for the most time, I felt that they were merely plot devices so that we could scrutinize the Preacher’s wild escapades. There wasn't any tension, apart from the scene were the children rush to the boat and the Preacher almost seizes them.

The film also seemed to endlessly drag for hours. There were a handful of elements thrown here and there but without any real purpose, meaning or development at all, e.g. the people’s hate toward the end (shown in the mob scene), the mild suggestion of child abuse, the barn the kids slept in (a scene which Laughton just put there so that he could show off with some marvelous cinematography of the Preacher with his horse), John shouting “No!! Don't!!” to the policemen that arrest the Preacher in the end, etc.

There were plenty of opportunities to convey some serious chills to the audience that were not handled very well: the Preacher’s insanity, his past murders of widows and their kids (clumsily shown at the very beginning with the camera slowly craning toward the body of a woman being discovered by children), his rage over children, Willa’s murder, the Preacher outside Miss Cooper’s house, the Preacher INSIDE the house. People call this film disturbing but it’s beyond my comprehension. I was disturbed by “The Innocents”, “Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte”, “Our Mother’s House”, “The Haunting”, “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”, “Rosemary’s Baby”, etc. But not here.

The cinematography, admittedly, was beautiful. There was a lot of German Expressionism in Laughton's visual style which I greatly appreciated. The music score was amazing. These things helped endure the film to the end.

reply

Actually I also had hight expectations before starting to watch this movie and after finally having seen it I felt a little disappointed. By no means was this a bad film but I would hardly call it a great picture.

reply

I love this movie.

By the way, the Coen brothers reference Night of the Hunter in just about every movie they've made--the line about the world being hard on little things in Raising Arizona, the dead body in the submerged car in The Man Who Wasn't There, the line about "devil's own strumpet" in O Brother, the song "Bringing in the Sheaves" in The Ladykillers, etc.--because they're big fans, too. So there must be something in this movie that they appreciate.

reply

Spike lee paid tribute to Night of the Hunter in 'Do the right Thing'

reply

Please take no offense when I say that you must be crazy and I hope you've viewed this film more since your original post and enjoy it more.

I think I first saw this film when I was 15 and already a hardcore classic film buff. It truly frightened me and the friends I showed it to at a birthday party. I can see how some people would think he is hammy but holy crap, Robert Mitchum gets me in this one. He seems utterly insane and I wonder why he never got the Oscar for it. I think its one of his best performances along with Cape Fear.

I try to think of the time period. In 1955, this is something they never would have seen before. When I take into account the time frame, it really blows me away. In my opinion, this movie is pitch perfect. Pearl gets on my nerves once in a while but every time I watch this movie, I'm successfully freaked out.

reply

Please take no offense when I say that you must be crazy and I hope you've viewed this film more since your original post and enjoy it more.

None taken. I had already made a post on this thread when I had rewatched the whole movie again. Here's the link:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048424/board/thread/160981274?d=170408753 &p=2#170408753

Overall, the movie was actually much better than I expected, and the fact that I had read the book before rewatching the movie made me appreciate the movie a bit more. But still, Mitchum is still my main problem. I just can't see how great his performance was. He was overly pompous and sometimes hammy in his role. I didn't find him scary at all, unlike his character Max Cady in "Cape Fear". This whole allegory thing that everyone talks about sounds interesting (the Preacher being the personification of evil) but still...can someone please enlighten me just why is Mitchum's performance as the Preacher soooo scary/great?

Btw, Pearl was indeed annyoing. "John made a sin. John told a lie". Uurgh, shut you brat! And Icey Spoon wasn't any better...

reply

Not sure if this will answer your question but Mitchum's "hammy" performance has never bothered me because that's the way his character is supposed to be (I always thought). He's a country, revival preacher. Aren't they often hammy and over the top when they give a sermon putting the fear of God in you. Mitchums preacher just never drops the act and interacts with everyone in that manner. What makes him so effective in my opinion is that as he preaches he's actually beliving his own act and doesn't see his own hypocrisy,madness,and brutality.

reply

Not sure if this will answer your question but Mitchum's "hammy" performance has never bothered me because that's the way his character is supposed to be (I always thought). He's a country, revival preacher. Aren't they often hammy and over the top when they give a sermon putting the fear of God in you. Mitchums preacher just never drops the act and interacts with everyone in that manner.

I've never thought about that...Now that I think about it, you're absolutely right. Most preachers, when they preach, are indeed pompous and hammy. Thank you for a fine, simple explanation. Others failed to explain Mitchum's weird performance and kept insisting "It's a great performance and you simply don't get it". Again, thanks for the explanation.

I'll give the movie a third shot. Who knows?

reply

I just reread the book after many years. I can't imagine why anyone would love the book and not the movie. I think it's one of the most faithful cinematic adaptations of a novel I've ever seen. All of the characters and incidents are almost exactly the way they are in the novel, huge junks of dialogue come directly from the book, and most crucially the gothic tone, scary, homespun and darkly comic all at the same time comes through perfectly. Mitchum's Reverand Powell is more blustery and robust than he is in the novel, but I actually think it's an improvement. As explained before, you have to believe he could con an entire town.

reply

I liked the movie but didn't love it. I've read the book after viewing the movie, which I found to be enchantingly lyrical with a fairytale quality in it without using purple prose or flowery writing. Reading the book, I tried imagining everything differently than the movie when I realized it was actually quite faithful to its original source. I viewed the movie again after reading the book and it wasn't as bad as I originally thought, and a very well made adaptation of the book. It kept the lyrical feeling you had when reading the book and I'm glad it did.

My only problem was how the Preacher was depicted in the movie. In the book, I found him to be a perfect villain --is there a cooler bad guy than a psychopath preacher?-- but in the movie he came across as a caricature of his character in the book. Mitchum was pompous (and hammy in some points) in his perforance. Another fellow user here in this thread pointed out that most preachers are pompous when giving a speech and that Preacher in the movie was always into the "act". I found Mitchum to be a much more threatening bad guy in "Cape Fear".

reply

Plus, when he gets shot at the end, he whoops and hollers and runs off like a character in a Warner Bros. cartoon--but I think that's to show that he's not this scary force of evil. He's just a pathetic bully.

reply

Not Impressed?

Don't care.

reply

You know, despite me usually saying 'grow up' to nay sayers on here, I think you've got a point. I think the cinematography is lush, the sound is great, and I do have to disagree with you, the character Mitchum creates is creepy, but also at the same time I think there are a bunch of opportunities missed to really ratchet up the tension.

I think in a way it's like one of those near-masterpiece films where the parts are greater than the whole. Another film example I can think of that's sometime overlooked as a classic is Black Narcissus. Brilliant climax. Amazing cinematography. But some hammy acting and ill pacing in the middle makes it not quite brilliant. I think the same here.

Also, I really agree with a few other sentiments... Mitchum running to a barn whooping and hollering towards the end was pretty damn average as was the kid throwing the doll over him at the end as the same scene replays out. Heavy handed and really averagely done stuff.

Having said that though, where's my Night of the Hunter. Haven't got one. Haven't even got a mexican B Grade soap episode, so for that alone you gotta give kudos where kudos is due, and the fact that a pretty full on subject was handled in the mid 50s makes it one of the more advanced movies going for the age and stands up well against its contemporaries.

reply

I just watched this for the first time since I first saw it at age 21 and found myself thoroughly chilled by it. I did feel let down by the ending, but otherwise consider it great and hope that my movie group enjoys it as much as I did when I show it Saturday night.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

reply

Film is very personal; not every film will appeal to every person. That is entirely natural and even a joyous thing. Boards like this, where one person insults another simply for having a different opinion, are a dire example of state of education in social difference, argumentation, logic and simple plain politeness. Oh well! So it has ever been.

It takes a certain perspective to get over the melodramatic nature of the film. But there are good reasons for this tone. First, the film is entirely of its time, and even a bit of a throwback to the melodrama of silent films. (Gish is cast for a reason.)

Second, Night of the Hunter deliberately portrays a larger-than-life fairytale world. Bunnies frolic in the fields. Owls appear on cue to hunt down prey. Giant fantastical spider webs appear exactly when the on-screen lyric tells of trapped children. This is a grim and sometimes ludicrous fairytale. And Laughton is some kind of a genius for portraying the narrative this way.

I find most of the acting just fine, especially the children who are quite naturalistic... for the time. Gish is a vision and Mitchum is brilliant here. Provided one takes on board a little perspective, this film is, and will always be, beautiful and disturbing like few others.

But it's OK not to like it! :-)

reply

Yeah, it's a fairy tale. People don't like it when you tell them they don't get something..."oh believe me, I get it, I just don't like it." But when you complain about Robert Mitchum's acting in this movie, trust me, you don't get it. If you have a problem with the performances here, your issue is with Charles Laughton, not the actors. Because they were certainly doing exactly what he wanted them to. Every performance in this film is supposed to be a little over the top...so of course the psychopathic-preacher-villain is going to be the most over the top of all. It's not "The Godfather". Realism is not the goal. To me NotH has always felt like a parable...a dream...yeah, maybe a fairy tale. Its characters are archetypes, and portraying them like the people you work with is going to diminish their impact, not enhance it. At least if you "get it." If you don't, well, there are plenty of realistic films around. Don't worry, there aren't any more "Night of the Hunters" out there.

reply

I have to say normal bates that I whole heartly share your opinion of this film .YES some outstanding cinematograhy...coupled with some terrible acting.In short, I found this film to be one of the most uneven films I have ever
seen.(and I have seen many)I did not even keep my dvd but traded it in a few years ago at my local blockbuster.

reply

I imagine that my response - coming so late in the game, so to speak – isn't likely to add anything to the conversation, but still, I feel it's interesting to ask: How can you claim to be a film-buff (i.e.: “I am a movie buff. I have watched and enjoyed many, many movies, black-and-white and in colour, I've watched a zillion classics which almost all of them I liked, I've seen movies that are famed for their brilliance in movie making and acting.” But go on to admit that you've never seen a Bob Mitchum picture (i.e.: "I haven't seen Mitchum in any other movie (I might watch Cape Fear, though)...” That alone is, at the very least, a huge hole in your claim of any film expertise. (NOTE: the term “to speak of” as in “I have no real expertise to speak of” is begging me to find a place in this “Reply.”)

It's difficult to take your opinions very seriously when you're apparently so very seriously ignorant of film.

Nothing personal and I do believe, however uneducated, you still have the right to state your opinion. And, by the way, do see the original CAPE FEAR. It's fantastic.

reply

There are many reasons to enjoy or dislike any one film. You might have an affinty for crime dramas, or movies set in certain locations. I believe your mood can also affect your opinion of a movie. I'm not here to critique the acting, plot or directing. That being said, I thought TNOTH was good, but one that just didn't click for me personally. Maybe it helps to be fairly religious to better enjoy it. I have a hard time accepting this as film noir. In support the OP, this film is most likely overated on IMDB, currently at 8.2. However, the concept of an evil preacher is pretty cool, even if it was a lie, the underwater grave scene was brilliant and hauntingly beautiful.

Cape Fear is a great Mitchum movie dripping with tension and I hope you enjoyed it. I also highly recommend Out of the Past, for its great dialogue and Mitchum's savvy coolness.

reply