Rating: 
Summary: Worth watching for the
Review: Forget the hype - it's not one of the greatest films, and it's not particularly scary. But it is a thoroughly engrossing movie to watch - not a wasted frame here... and the creepy style is much more interesting to watch than the modern-day digital gore.And it has fine performances from the main cast - and an interesting portrayal of the American South in the depression era - compare it for fun's sake to the Coen Brothers' O Brother, Where art Thou? There is a relevant moral as well - the blood-thirstiness of 'false prophets' is as relevant today in every religion, as it is in this movie... The best reason to watch however is the depiction/portrayal of the child character Pearl - one of the 2 kids being 'hunted'. If there has been a more delightful and authentic child character in film, I haven't seen it. And there are no gimmicks used here - none of the syrupy cuteness a la "Sound of Music", nor sitcom style clever lines, nor any attempt to string tears out of the viewer. No - "Pearl" steals every scene she is in - at least for me - simply by being there - and being the kid she is supposed to be - utterly naive, trusting, greedy for candy, and so on. Whether it is her Southern curls - or her baby face in a bonnet, or simply her nodding to acknowledge she is making a promise, the way she drags her doll, or naively adopts a song that other children sang that actually mocks her hanged father - she is priceless. To get this kind of natural, unaffected 'performance' from a seven or eight year old child is a work of genius by Charles Laughton. No - this movie hasn't aged - it is still great!
Rating: 
Summary: Deserves to be ranked with "Citizen Kane."
Review: Charles Laughton, one of the greatest actors of Hollywood's Golden Age, made his directorial debut at age 56 with "Night of the Hunter." The film flopped so badly with critics and public that Laughton was never allowed to direct a movie again. It's hard to tell which is worse: the tragedy for the cinema, or the idiocy of the critics and the public. "Night of the Hunter" deserves to be ranked with "Citizen Kane" and the works of Pabst and Murnau among the great Expressionist film masterpieces. Its artiness probably meant it would never be a great popular success, but it deserves to be more than a cult favorite. Its combination of stark realism and extreme stylization, of magical beauty and Hitchcockian suspense, has never been replicated in any other movie. The performances are all superb and, in the cases of Robert Mitchum and Lillian Gish, extraordinary. Mitchum pushes the envelope just enough as the evil preacher Harry Powell, giving a performance that might seem way over the top if a scene were taken out of context, but which masterfully evokes diabolical menace as a whole. As for Gish, she creates an unforgettable character in Rachel Cooper, whose prim, strict exterior barely conceals a combination of wisdom, backbone and moral splendor rarely found in the cinema. Shelley Winters is also very fine as a woman blinded by desire and guilt. Too little, I think, has been said of the supporting players in "Night of the Hunter." Billy Chapin is very touching as the little boy Powell menaces, but the standouts have to be Don Beddoe and Evelyn Varden as Walt and Icey Spoon, a sort of Richard and Hyacinth Bucket gone to seed. Icey is all idiot compliance with the loathsome Powell, taking his protestations of piety at face value while imagining herself the arbiter of morality and common sense. Walt, her henpecked husband, occasionally voices doubts but is quickly brought into line. So when Powell is revealed as the murderous monster he is, who leads the lynch mob? Why, Walt and Icey, of course! There are hundreds and hundreds of Walts and Iceys in small-town America. I know that firsthand.
Rating: 
Summary: A Simple Review
Review: First of all i would like to say that people either love this film or hate it. That is what i got by reading all 109 reviews which came before this one. I thought it was odd that all of the bad reviews received virtually zero 'was this helpful to you' yes votes. Some of the negative reviews were thoughtful and insightful. Most of the positive reviews seemed to rehash the same things and some of them lacked any substance (yet most of these were 'very helpful'! Go figure.). I wanted to see what the fuss was all about so i rented this film from my local video store. Oh what an atrociously bad film. My date and i laughed hysterically throughout most of the movie (and i don't think it was supposed to be comedy). Scary? My scum-filled tub is scarier than this light opera. Mesmerizing? I suppose, if you count falling asleep between laughing fits as being under mesmer's spell. Haunting? Unforgettable? Uh, what was this film about again? Now that i have seen it, i find myself in agreement with several of the earlier pans listed below. The acting really was amateurish. The editing turned the film into a quagmire of choppy scenes in which the viewer is constanting getting lost. I really loved the arty look of the film (the cinematography was very good - several scenes were visually stimulating, but such diamonds in such a rough desert sand!). Overall, a mess. You would do well to steer clear of this film unless you want something to have to which you can compare well-made, tightly-structured, professionally-made films. This movie has the annoying resonance of fingernails on a chalkboard. For those of you who cherish this film or simply love it, there is little to say. Some people aspire to shovel manure for a living. Some would like nothing better than to guzzle pabst blue ribbon. And even more root for the arizona cardinals (alas, I am guilty as charged on this one). And then there are those who can actually sit back and get gratification from watching 'night of the hunter'. What poor souls. For those of you intrepid enough to have the courage of your convictions to post a negative review with your own name, kudos to you. Even roger ebert is off is rocker once in a while. Sorry rog. For those of you on the fence as to whether or not you wish to buy this film, you may want to take the time to read through the myriad of reviews and inspect closely those who had only good things to say and those who did not. If you detect a hint of sterility from the 4 and 5 star reviewers, you may be closer than you think to the truth. Then again, maybe the real ringer is the price of the movie. There is little wonder that this is one of the cheapest buys out there. Maybe that ought to be the deciding factor, one way or the other, you know? Cheers.
Ken
Rating: 
Summary: Hunting for Meaning
Review: What is there still to say about a movie that most critics seem to feel is the best thing put on celluloid since Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE (1941)? Overrated, maybe? Because that's exactly what 1955's THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER is--overrated. That is not to say that it isn't a good film, because it is good. But it's hardly the flawless masterpiece it's often touted to be. It is also frequently misrepresented as a noir film, a thriller, or a horror movie, but at most, it is merely a better-than-average melodrama. The film stars Robert Mitchum as Harry Powell, a man who claims to be a Christian preacher but whose morals and ethics are rather suspect. While sitting out a relatively short stint in prison, Powell shares a cell with Ben Harper, a man convicted of robbery and murder (and played rather woodenly by Peter Graves). Powell learns that the $10,000 Harper stole was never recovered, and he pumps Harper for information about where the money is hidden. Harper never gives Powell specifics, but the counterfeit clergyman learns enough to conclude that Harper's wife (a young and pretty Shelley Winters) or children may know the whereabouts of the cache of cash. After Harper is hanged for murder and Powell is finally released, the pretended parson makes a beeline for the home of Harper's widow. What follows is mayhem, maliciousness, and murder. Mitchum's performance is excellent and decidedly the best in the film. His Harry Powell is the embodiment of expediency, selfishness, and evil. However, most of the other performances--including those of Shelley Winters and the usually excellent Lillian Gish--are at best histrionic and at worst stiff and unconvincing. Though she is an especially sweet-looking young lady, Sally Jane Bruce, who plays Harper's young daughter, is an especially stilted actress; it is obvious that she was cast so that her doe-eyed appearance would add a maudlin tone to the film. And the soliloquy with which Lillian Gish closes the film is so saccharine that one can almost see the syrup dripping from the screen. But effusive and maudlin performances are what the script requires, as nothing about how the characters are drawn is in any way balanced or true to life. All of the adult males are portrayed in a negative light--they are either drunkards, sloths, henpecked scatterbrains, misguided miscreants, horny dawdlers, or cruel opportunists. And all of the women are portrayed as innocent victims or as determined go-getters who always triumph in the face of hardship. In THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, the world is painted with only two distinct shades: Men are dark and displeasing; women are bright and beautiful. To be fair, not all of the film's flamboyance and histrionics can be blamed on the script. THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER marks the only credited directing stint of actor Charles Laughton, probably best known to American audiences for his roles as Captain William Bligh in 1935's MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, as Inspector Javert in 1935's LES MISÉRABLES, and as Quasimodo in 1939's THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. As is evident in Laughton's own acting style, he was very foppish and flamboyant himself, so it is not much of a stretch to assume that he would demand the same of actors under his direction. This film is not particularly scary, nor does it have a truly gritty feel or a sense of hard-boiled cynicism, so it really is inappropriate to file it under thriller, horror, or noir. While it's true that Mitchum's Harry Powell is contemptible and vile, the character reads more like caricature than monster. Indeed, all of the characters are cardboard-cutout stereotypes, which leads one to conclude that the film is meant to be read as dark parody or satire. And in understanding that Laughton is herein taking pokes at religious expedients, the henpecked, the witless, the feminists, the romantics, and probably just about every other aspect of 1950's Western society, one gains more enjoyment from and a deeper appreciation of the movie. In short, THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER is not the awe-inspiring work of art that many hold it to be, but when interpreted correctly, it is an enjoyable film nonetheless. And though short on extras, the price of the MGM DVD makes the film well worth acquiring.
Rating:
Summary: Recommended
Review: When I was a little girl, growing up in New Jersey, my entire family would visit my grandparents every Sunday afternoon. There was nothing to do, so my 5 sisters and I would sit in the day room and watch the Million Dollar Movie on the black & white TV. I probably wasn't more than 6 when I saw Night of the Hunter for the first time and I never forgot it. Of course I didn't have a clue what experssionism meant at the time, but that film touched a nerve. Robert Mitchum's preacher was super creepy. Recommended for those who like something dark and off balance.
Rating:
Summary: Mitchum steals the show!
Review: Aside from some cool otherworldly visuals and Robert Mitchum's smouldering good looks, I thought this movie didn't have much going for it. Charles Laughton directs it like a stage play and the whole thing is very studio bound. It managed to keep my interest 'til the end though. Not a TOTAL waste but not a keeper either.
Rating:
Summary: The second best movie of all time.
Review: I'll be predictable and say "Citizen Kane" is the greatest movie ever. But I've always felt "The Night of the Hunter" is a rather unpredictable No. 2. It answers the question, "Are movies art?" The music, the black-and-white images, the dream-like quality to this work elevate it from entertainment media to artistic experience. Not pretentiously so, I might add. For one thing, we have real big-time actors here, not the no-name wanna-be actors we often see in those low budget independent films. And the two main children, brother and sister, are perhaps the best child actors I've ever seen on screen. There is a sadness in their portrayal which sets the film apart. Robert Mitchum is at his "Cape Fear" creepy best, but one must praise the subtlety he brought to his finest performances. I've never heard enough praise given to James Gleason, maybe because he's confused with Ralph G., but he added to the stature of many-a film, this one more than any other. The car floating under water, dreamily-- an unforgettable image. And the almost unrealistic night sky of stars that are almost too bright. The feeling of helplessness as the young kids try to escape a danger too large to comprehend. The feeling of peace and freedom on the river. The geniune religious quality to the entire movie, especially the final scene. Charles Naughton crafted a totally unique experience in this movie, with an exciting plot and universal theme. Like all great works of art, we can completely enjoy it while we're in it, but after we walk away know that there is so much more to it. I can't be more specific without giving away the plot, but just know this isn't the usual "thumbs up!" (By the way, I'd rank "The Apartment" at No. 3 and after that, I don't know).
Rating:
Summary: Among the Reviewers populating Alice in Wonderland
Review: I got this film because of the incredible array of four and five star reviews it got in this column. I looked forward to a film that would tantalize me visually as well as mentally. Instead, i ended up having to take the terrible taste induced by this horribly-made film by watching "Wait Until Dark" after this piece of trash ended. I have only one question: what planet were these reviewers on when they screened this, what i will loosely call, film? Here is the grade run down: Script = F minus, Acting = D (and this includes Mitchum's performance; more on that later), Direction = F (i now understand why laughton directed only one film), Cinematography = A (the lone bright spot of this film), Editing = F minus (i cannot recall a film which was edited as poorly as this one was; it was choppy to say the least, with the continuity of a pothole-filled back road). It is true that the over-played shot of Shelley Winters under water was spectacularly well done, but one opulent scene a great movie does not make. Poorly designed lines were attrociously delivered by mostly unskilled passionless amateurs (except for a particularly strong performance by the drunk seaman). Powell was played with some force by Mitchum, but compared to say, Harry Roat, played by a true pro, Alan Arkin, in Wait Until Dark, he comes up laughably inane. And what about that script? Did the critic-turned-screenwriter really write a mangled piece of prose, or did it get turned into that by the less-than-hapless editing crew? The script was based upon a real novel which i understand had volumes of more substance than this trash has. But maybe the worst travesty is the injustice imposed upon us by my erstwhile reviewers here. They claim to be film-buffs. They try to make you think you are not a true film connisseur if you do not see the beauty and the splendor of the "artistry" of this film. They call this "the greastest film ever made bar none". And the truly amazing thing is that there are dozens upon dozens of these reviews, most of which say pretty much the same thing. Either one of two things is happening here: (1) these reviewers have no clue what a really great film is (i can put up a few: Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, Usual Suspects, Halloween, 2001 A Space Odyssey, The Third Man, and that list is just the tip of the iceberg of outstanding films); (2) these reviewers want to sound and come off as part of the intelligentsia of filmdom. Take my advice. Stay away from this film unless you are a masochist, or you wish to learn what mistakes to avoid in making a film, or perhaps if you want to see first hand what nuts exist out there who wantonly enter completely bulls**t reviews.
Rating:
Summary: A must for the movie fans collection!
Review: This is one of my favorite movies! It has the rare ability of holding my attention from the very start to the ending credits.
Robert Mitchum is at his best in this one, and for the most part, the acting is quite good from all the cast. Some people might take off points for some of the low key sets, but they are not getting the whole idea of the film. The use of shadows and symbolism in this movie, is what makes it so amazing, it gives you the idea of what is going on, and your own imagination does the rest, much like watching arsenic and old lace, or the original Haunting. I don't want to say too much about the plot because it is the type of movie that you enjoy much more if you go into it with an unspoiled expectation. I will say this though, it is a good example of how people can be led into accepting terrible things into their lives, and also how the good in some peoples hearts can triumph over evil.
Rating:
Summary: A Grimm tale...
Review: When this came on Finnish television, I was much too young to see it, so I remembered only fragments of the movie - until I was ushered to bed. The film has haunted me since then and I was still unsure, if I can watch it. After watching the film (in bright sunlight!) I was very pleased. Laughton made a magnificent film, that defies the categories. It's full of suspense but also has the same artistic, dream-like atmosphere that French older classics like René Clair's "Orpheus". It is a frightening fairytale for adults, with artistic ambitions. The beautiful pictures go as far back as to the classic silent movies with clever, imaginative use of shadows and shapes and it makes the movie really magic at times. Shortly: the film is about a man, a self-made preacher, who roams the country making a living by preaching and killing lonely women, who search for love. Robert Mitchum is absolutely chilling, using his good looks and droopy eyes in a very different part than usually. He's often seen as a charmer but this is a distorted version of those parts. And we all know, what makes this really memorable: the tattooed 'love' and 'hate' on his knuckles... After hearing in jail, that a condemned prisoner in his cell has hidden somewhere 10.000 $, the preacher seeks out his widow, marries her and starts to look for the money. She doesn't even touch the wife, because lust is a sin. Until he has to - and the wife is never seen again... Unfortunately there are also the two children, the only ones who really know about the money but have sworn their father never to reveal it. The little girl is just as charmed as her mother, so time and time again she's about to tell - and when mother has 'disappeared' she does tell. Children escape miraculously and start their long journey (with the money)to safety through the depression-ridden country, sliding down the river in a boat. And on the horizon rides the preacher, forever looking for them, singing with his handsome voice: "Leaning, leaning..." You'll hear it for days after watching this film, believe me! The acting varies, from Mitchum's chilling, low-key, psychological performance to Lillian Gish's old-fashioned sentimentality, from Shelley Winter's nervous, sensitive gestures to the children's very natural performance, each interesting in their own way. And watch for the bedroom scene, where Mitchum stands beside the bed, ready to get rid of his wife: how the shadows play around them and how the scene is constructed. When Laughton was filming this, he wasn't quite pleased at first, so he asked a cameraman, what he was thinking or feeling. The man answered: "Sibelius, 'Valse triste'." And Laughton said something like: "Of course, this has to be made in the rhythm of a waltz!" Yes, of course I know this: Finns are very proud of Sibelius... The films has lost a lot of its horror effect after all the blood we are used to seeing on television, but there is the magic touch. I'd give it 4,5 stars, if possible, 5 felt a bit too much, because Laughton could have made it a bit better still. Anyway, for someone's first and only movie direction this is really something!
|
