de niro vs. mitchum
Why I liked the original better: Robert de Niro ACTED scary, Robert Mitchum WAS scary. Makes all the difference in the world.
[deleted]
That's so well put I wish I had said that.
share
MovieChat Forums > Cape Fear (1962) Discussion > de niro vs. mitchum
DeNiro didn't have the physical stature of Mitchum. That may be why he had to overact.
shareLet's face it. DeNiro just mugged and yelled for an hour and a half; Mitchum gave a powerful performance and made Max Cady a truly intimidating and memorable character. The fact that DeNiro was nominated for an Oscar for his "performance" and Mitchum didn't get jack makes me sick. If Mitchum's performance in "Cape Fear" isn't an Oscar-worthy one, I don't know what the hell is. The reason Mitchum was so great in that role is that he seems to be fairly normal at first- you're not sure what he's up to, and he seems like a bit of a creep, but personally when I first watched it I actually felt some sympathy for him at first- but gradually his sociopathy manifests itself, and even then we're not quite sure what he's going to do next or why. With Mitchum, you don't always know what his motives are. With DeNiro, you simply don't care.
I'm going to major in theater when I go to college next month, and I'm sure Mitchum's performance in "Cape Fear" will prove to be an inspiration to me and show me what real acting is. DeNiro is a capable actor, but no way in hell does he make a better Max Cady than Robert Mitchum did.
Young one, please learn something… just because *you* think a distinction is important doesn't mean it *is*. Maybe no one does “care” what DeNiro's motives are, but clearly *no one* is denying that he will do what he says he will, and far more. I could just as easily say, “who cares WHY he does what he does, the question is *will* he?”
He is dangerous and what he desires to do (not “is wiling”, not even “is able”, but “DESIRES to do”) far far exceeds anything that we could ever do, even if we wanted to. There is simply no way most humans could ever do what Cady (DeNiro) does in this movie, or even more frightening, what he was *going* to do.
Mitchum was a sociopath, but DeNiro matches that and one better - he is on a *mission* he feels is *righteous* and he will not be swayed.
Now, what is scarier — at the time of violence — a man that is unpredictable, or a man that is very predictably violent? Before the s**t hits the fan, yes maybe we can debate, but once the blood flows and the sick acts begin are you more afraid of someone you aren't sure of, or someone you KNOW has done this before and enjoys it? I'll take the guy I don't know about; at least I stand a chance! But a man that is *surely* deadly, he is the most frightening.
DeNiro isn’t simply inflicting enormous pain and suffering for enjoyment, he is doing it because — in some demented way he thinks he is HELPING Bowden (Nolte). Now, THAT is scary.
Think about it.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
Agree with you for the most part, but I don't think DeNiro is interested in Bowden's redemption. I think he's more into the eye for an eye thing. Like he said (paraphrasing): "I spent 14 years in a prison surrounded by men that were less than human", and you want to pay me less than minimum wage for that.....
He wants to kill Nolte, inflict as much pain on him as possible.
Look at the end. Mitchum just gives up, except when Peck tells him he's gonna go back to prison, and even them he still backs down.
The only thing that stops DeNiro is getting dragged under 'cause he's cufflinked to the boat railing and his last moments as he realizes he can't escape are ones of looking at Nolte with sheer hatred as he awaits the inevitable (being pulled under to drown).
I wish a DeNiro character could have confronted a Peck character with the premise that Peck had betrayed him like Nolte did in his role.
DeNiro wouldn't/couldn't have been stopped without actually being killed.
Now that would have been great.
Simpfann is arguing that Mitchum gave a better performance than DeNiro; you seem to be arguing that the character of Max Cady in the remake is more interesting than the one in the original.
You make a good argument, but I disagree. The second Max Cady comes off like a cartoon supervillain with his superhuman strength and ability to withstand pain. The screenwriter goes to the trouble of giving Cady more complicated and more interesting motivations, but then spoils everything by making him such a hyperbolic character.
And DeNiro makes things worse. He's excellent in that great scene where he seduces Juliette Lewis. But on the whole, he overacts badly.
Ignore trolls|Start good threads|Reply to good threads|Make the board what you want it to be
"The second Max Cady comes off like a cartoon supervillain with his superhuman strength and ability to withstand pain. The screenwriter goes to the trouble of giving Cady more complicated and more interesting motivations, but then spoils everything by making him such a hyperbolic character. "
I agree i think at the point where it became the remake maybe the director wanted to take the character in that direction.Maybe he saw things from a more super villain angle..If he didn't then this was a cheesy acting choice on deniro's part.Effective yes but cheesy
All that lengthy discussion aside, I'm more afraid of the undercurrent of evil. Mitchum got that hands down. I love Robert DeNiro but he just played this role. It didn't consume him or he it. Heck, even the elderly Mitchum in the remake has an explosive undercurrent.
shareJeeeesus mate, lay off the freaking asterisks! If you want to put emphasise a word, you can make it italic really easily. You just put this around the word: (i)italic(/i). Except instead of using round brackets, use square brackets [ ], so it ends up like this: italic. I don’t want to sound patronising at all (although it probably will end up sounding that way, so sorry) but when you’re trying to emphasise words left right and centre it just becomes a cluster *beep* of stars and becomes pretty heavy-going to read. Once you learn the italic code it becomes really easy and quick to do. You can use it to make words bold as well (with a b instead of an i).
Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...
If you check my comments, you will see that I know exactly how to manipulate the HTML code. I used asterisks because that is what I use to emphasize a point. If you don't like it, then I suggest you use italics, bold, red, green and an afro if you want. Me? I use asterisks.
And if that doesn't work, soak your head
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
Okay, good for you. Unfortunately when replying to a comment I don't take it the level that I research into the past habits of the user I'm replying to. Just pointing out that asterisks are *beep* annoying. It's like people who put speech marks around every “movie” they are describing in case whoever is reading their comment is too stupid to realise that “Schindler’s List” and “Star Wars” and “Hunt for Red October” are possibly anything else other than a movie title, much less the one they are actually talking about. But whatever, each to their own. Enjoy your red, blue and bold afroman html skills; I’m sure they serve you well.
Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...
Keep your pants on, Hazzer and consider de-caff next time, huh?
I think a good idea would be you spending more time worrying about Hazzer and less time worrying about what everyone else is doing, mmmmk? I don't need the Haz-man giving me a lecture on what he does or does not find "annoying". What I find annoying is a little fella like yourself, running around and chastising people for their punctuation.
We're all here trying to have a little fun, talk movies, enjoy ourselves, maybe (if we're lucky) make a friend or two and it just isn't necessary for you to come along and pose as the punctuation police. Ease up and have some fun and leave the wagging finger in it's holster, ok? Thanks.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
I don't think too many people are here to find friends. But whatever, I don't disagree... we're all entitled to our pet hates and I *beep* hate asterisks and incorrect use of speech marks. It just pisses me off, I can’t help it. And on top of that I wasn’t aware you were an html wizard and I was trying to offer some advice. But fine, you’ve made your point. This debate is going nowhere. The finger is reloaded and back in the holster. I just won’t wag it at you next time.
Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...
I enjoy meeting new people and I have made a couple of good friends here in the IMDB forums. It can happen.
There are many things I hate, but I overlook most of those things because I realize that this isn't a spelling contest or grammatical tutoring center.
Thanks for holstering the finger. Peace to you and yours.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
Peace out
Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep*'s coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...
Wow Bladerunner. Someone responds to one of your messages 3 years after you posted it, and you replied. How did you know? Do you check all your messages?
As for my opinion on which is better, I liked them both. I found the newer Max a little scarier, yet I liked the older movie a lot more. I like horror and suspense, but suspense will always be my favorite of the 2. The newer movie almost seemed borderline horror.
No, I don't check them all (that would take forever). Instead, I just have IMDB send me an email when someone responds to one of my posts.
I tend to agree with your opinion, for me mystery is number one, then suspense and then horror. I agree, the newer one did border on horror. Good post.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
Oh ok. I didn't know you could do that. Have an email sent to you if someone replies.
shareYeah, just click on your account (upper right corner, under IMDB Resume button), then click on "Message Board Profile", then under Notifications click on: "Notify new private messages with an email", and you're done.
Hope that helps.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
I really like both versions of this movie. To compare them, it's almost variations on a theme, except there's the original theme and only one variation. In the original, the family is happy and well-adjusted, whereas in the second, the Bowdens have many internal problems which are somehow woven into the misery they are going through -- Leigh: "I wonder just how strong we are. I guess we'll find out by going through this." (I think that's close to the dialogue). We find out Sam "gravitates to women" and that they have moved to New Essex to escape the demons of their past marital problems but are haunted by broken trust as well as Max Cady. Rather than the sweet, innocent Lori Martin, we have the rebellious "Dani" in the remake - the family is a far cry from the one we see in the original, but in a way, more interesting.
Both Max Cadys are terrifying in their own individual ways. Robert Mitchum, always smooth, and unruffled, is terrifying with his swaggering confidence. DeNiro's Max is of course, terrifying, with some elements of Freddie Krueger thrown in. Strangely enough, I found some humor in DeNiro's Max: "Are you offerin' me sumthin' hot?" when Dani throws the hot water in his face during the houseboat showdown. And his answer to Sam's inquiry about following him: "Small town anyway you look at it -- bound to run into each other." His matter-of-factness tells you the answer to Sam's question is "YES!" And I suppose my favorite is, "Granddaddy handled snakes and Granny drank stricknine (sp.?)...guess you could say I've got a leg up, genetically-speaking." ("Stricknine's spelling doesn't look correct, but I don't feel like getting the dictionary).
I really liked both of these movies -- each different in their own ways, depending on the context of time, but entertaining -- I own both of them.
I was so annoyed by asterisks that I missed the point. All I saw: stars all over a page. Thank you.
shareWhat really impressed me about Mitchum's take on Cady was the fact that he just has this almost stony, don't-give-a-damn attitude that makes him the frightening villain that he is--not all that removed from the evil preacher he played in NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. DeNiro, though no slouch as an actor, nevertheless overacts so much in the remake that he makes even Jack Nicholson's frequently maligned performance in THE SHINING look restrained, in my opinion.
shareBravo, you will do well!
shareI just re watched this film today and nothing was more scarier to me than when robert mitchum is in the room with that chick.She's lying on the bed and he comes in the room looking at her like a predator eyeing it's prey .He moved like a lion or a panther stealthy and graceful .He's got this fixed looked on his face then as he stands over her .He breaks his poker face and he's got this mean mugg on his face .He just gets really mean all of a sudden and he just pounces on her and dominates her .
You don't need to see the actual beating you see the door going back n forth is enough so you get the picture .Deniro is a great actor no doubt but he doesn't compare to mitchum . Rob mitchum has just a raw animal magnetism similar to marlon brando's . He's just and animal he unravels through out the whole movie his performance keeps you on the edge of your seat .Subtly is the main ingredient in this film it has a greater effect than being excessive.
Only when society changes will the culture change "
DeNiro looked (and gave evidence) of being a lot more buff than Mitchum did.
Mitchum, while not weak looking, didn't look like a coiled spring ready to pound somebody into the ground like DeNiro did.
"Mitchum, while not weak looking, didn't look like a coiled spring ready to pound somebody into the ground like DeNiro did."
well said :) Also in the remake we did get De Niro hanging under the car, I thought that was a great stunt to have.
...
Let's face it, in the real world Mitchum probably would have squashed Peck like a bug.
shareIn case you haven't noticed DeNiro, almost always overacts.
shareWell, he (DeNiro) is a method actor, and there may be a propensity for method actors to overact. However, I don't think DeNiro always does it. An example is "Heat," where he palyed the mastermind criminal in a brilliant, understated way, in contrast to the showy, loud police lieutenant played by Pacino, who was really over the top in that film.
share[deleted]
deniro didnt have the physical, the mind, the spiritual, the self of Robert Mitchum.
What a crap actor, with the same fu%&king face for all characters
Darn Remakes!
Just read intelligent answers
"DeNiro didn't have the physical stature of Mitchum. That may be why he had to overact."
DeNiro was much more physically strong. Mitchum had rounded shoulders which indicates weakness. DeNiro had perfect muscles structure. Beleive me he could have kicked Mitchum's a$$. 20 years later and Deniro now have the shape of a jelly donut.
Mitchum was 6' 2"; DeNiro 5'9". Thye were both powerfully built; Mitchum had about a 46" chest. I don't get your point about he rounded shoulders for someone 5" taller, who always looked like a he-man. DeNiro at lmost would have been a middleweight; Mitchum a heavyweight plus. But you're entitled to your opinion.
shareI agree, physical stature of an actor counts for a lot in this kind of film. Brando would have been played this role well in his day.
shareMithcum is maybe better than De Niro
The fact that an Italian gave a better performance with that southern accent, makes him far better than Mitchum
Better packin' one not needin' it rather being in deep *beep* not havin' it
I never saw the original, and I bought the De Niro Cape fear out of impulse cuz I am a huge fan of his, but this movie is now one of my favourites. It is well made, very scary and De Niro is perfect for the role. I know nothing can top an origninal, but hey, what more u want.
shareI suspect, with a statement like that, you're probably pretty young. Please do yourself a favor and rent the original. You'll be pleased you did. Then, if you really want to see the definition of evil, rent the original " Kiss of Death " and witness Richard Widmark's portrayal of " Tommy Udo "! His character
is the standard by which I measure all other villains.
[deleted]
Well, for the most part you're probably right. Occasionally though, morons can be enlightened. It's just that I get so frustrated when I see what today's viewers think is good cinema. However, it's my fault for letting it bother me. I should just resign myself to the fact that the movie companies, for at least the last 30-35 years, have conditioned their viewers to have bad taste. And, of course we know that this is only in the interest of filling as many theater seats as possible.
share[deleted]
why there were no tommy udo wheelchair schools after that movie came out still baffles me.
"The fact that an Italian gave a better performance with that southern accent, makes him far better than Mitchum"
Oh yes, because new york is in italy
He has italian descent, he isnt italian
It angers me when people say they are from one country when they arent, but their relatives were
DeNiro is more Irish than Italian.
shareDe Niro is only a quarter Italian.
By Grapthar's Hammer.......what a savings.
Have seen both. Have enjoyed both. The re-make was fun. BUT --- Mitchum far outshines DeNiro. DeNiro did ACT. Couldn't stand the accent. Higher pitched. Crafted. Purposfully insane, - but not insane, tough and REAL combined into one nasty character. Mitchum seemed all too real. That was the key (for me at least). Didn't need to see everything on screen with Mitchum. Thinking about it was enough. Consider the scene in the bar where he was describing how he "occupied her time" when talking about his ex-wife. So calm, deliberate, emotionless, intense, patient. Intense every time I see it.
share[deleted]
You are right, Mitchum is much better in this role than de Niro. That's why actors get casted for roles even when they are top actors. De Niro was miscasted here.
Mitchum made a lot of crappy movies, but here - like in the "Night of the Hunter" - he shines.
-------------------------------
"They don't give you the leads, they don't give you the support, they don't give you dick." (Dave Moss)
[deleted]
[deleted]
I like both De Niro and Mithcum but, despite the similarity of the story, the two films seem so different it's hard to compare them. I'll only say that Mitchum seems like a real creep - the type you'd see on the news, whereas De Niro is almost superhuman, making the latter version more of a horror film. That said, it's a credit to De Niro's skill; in another actor's hands Cady would've been too much like a Freddy Kruger type of villain, i.e. too hard to believe.
Of course there's also the Peck/Nolte factor; Peck's genteel Bowden compliments Mitchum's Cady in the way Nolte's intense Bowden compliments De Niro's Cady.
[deleted]
I much prefer the simplicity of the original movie to Scorsese's 1991 remake, which was too souped-up, trumped-up and over-the-top for my liking, and relied way too much on extreme, grisly violence to create suspense. Robert Mitchum creates one of the most terrifying and unforgettable villains in the history of the movies. He is much more genuinely frightening than De Niro's campy Freddy Krueger/Big Bad Wolf-style villain in the remake. De Niro is a great actor but he went way overboard with the Southern accent and the muscles and the grin. He was clearly acting the whole time, and by the end of the film he's just another one of those cartoonish, unkillable movie monsters you'd see in a Halloween or Friday the 13th movie.
Robert De Niro: 5/10
Robert Mitchum: 10/10
Although I think Robert Mitchum did a better job acting, I like the idea that Robert DeNiro took Max Cady a step (or two) further. It was cool that he took what Mitchum did and put his own twist onto the character. He made the character more insane, instead of just violent.
But I agree that Mascisman said it best: DeNiro ACTED scary, Mitchum WAS scary.