de niro vs. mitchum

Both films are really good, and they compliment one another really well, but I have to give the edge to Robert Mitchum. There were too many moments in the remake where it seemed like they were trying too hard to make De Niro seem sick or threatening. Mitchum's character seemed far more natural by comparison.

I also think that the accent was a mistake in the remake. Robert Mitchum sounds like he was born and raised in the South whereas De Niro's accent always sounds somewhat artificial. That said, it's still a very memorable performance and one of the better remakes out there.

I agree with you OP. I think the original film was better too.

Let me explain how the skill was used by the original director and the director of the remake.

J. Lee Thompson (the director of the original) was clever enough to see that Robert Mitchum was perfect to play Max Cady. It wasn't acting that got him that part, it was almost being himself. He looked and sounded scary, kind of like a drunk, he had the lazy glare in his eyes, as well as the lazy voice.

Martin Scorsese (the director of the remake) was clever enough to know that Robert De Niro would do a fantastic job of playing the rapist even though Robert De Niro didn't suit the part at all.
If I was casting for Cape Fear, I would've cast Robert De Niro as the lawyor! Which in my opinion he was far more suited for
But by then, both him and Scorsese had worked together so many times, Scorsese had enough faith in his acting abilities for him to do the job well, which he did.


That's how a skill like choosing an actor can play a part work out so well. Either it's the director that notices an actor being perfect for a part, Or it's the actor that makes themselves perfect for the part.

The same situation goes for Jack Nicholson being cast as the joker in Batman (1989)
Then Heath Ledger playing the joker in The Dark Knight. It was obvious Jack Nicholson was perfect for the part, but It took great trust and confidence for Christopher Nolan to believe that Heath Ledger would do an amazing job of playing the joker, which he did. Because he didn't seem right for the part.

[deleted]

both were great but Mitchum was and IS Max Cady; lethal, calculating and deceptively scary; De Niro you could tell he was psycho, but Mitchum looked like a guy you meet on the street and you wouldnt think he could be capable of malice.

Just watched the original and definitely Mitchum. While De Niro looked more intimidating his performance was too over the top. Mitchum on the other hand was so cool and calm that it seemed a lot more realistic that he'd always be a step ahead of Peck.


On a side note Juliette Lewis was absolutely TERRIBLE in the remake. All I want to know is what drugs the academy were doing when they decided she should be nominated, and can I have some.

I do actually like the remake. If feels like a Brian De Palma film rather than a Scorese film. The exaggerated nature of De Niro's performance seems in fitting with this style. It may not be subtle but it does work to a degree.

Saying that although I like De Niro's performance, Robert Mitchums is unique. Mitchum exudes the threat of rape and sexual violence in this film better than any other actor I've seen. The originality of the Mitchum film comes from this threat of rape and it purely comes from his performance. I prefer the original mainly for this reason.

De Niro's character is more violent and outwardly threatening but he's also much more conventional and the film feels more conventional due to it. The primary threat that De Niro's character poses (the threat of physical violence) has been done hundreds of times, where as the threat of sexual violence that Mitchum poses hasn't been touched on much within thrillers or at the least its a secondary motivation. This is what separates the films, the originality of the threat that each villain poses. The Mitchum film is fairly unique where as the De Niro film is more conventional.

[deleted]