Orginal vs Remake


Im sure this has been posted here before, but I really liked the original, is the remake better? Or is it worth seeing?

reply

I haven't seen the remake myself but personally I don't think I'd give it the time of day, the original didn't have to resort to the animalistic brutality De Niro portrayed in Cady, as opposed to the leering suspension and overwhelming feeling of being everywhere, that was the job Mitchum did to scare the hell out of the audience.

reply

[deleted]

lmao..., get a clue, moron

reply

I saw Scorceses' version and really enjoyed it. I tried to watch the original and I just couldn't get into it. Maybe I would like it more if I had reversed the order of viewing. I went to see the remake at the movies and at the time I don't think I realized it was a remake. There is a very concise review of the remake on the 1992 version boards. I like it that Sam and his perfect family are far from perfect and that Max Cady does have good reason to go after Sam and his family. I just think it makes the story more layered and interesting.

reply

[deleted]

The remake isn't awful, but the original is much better.

reply

I prefer the remake for its more morally murky themes and the pleasure of seeing Scorsese bringing his talents to a commercial thriller, but the original's a great film too.

reply

The remake is very entertaining but I prefer the original.

I can't figure out if you're a detective or a pervert.

reply

[deleted]

The original is very good... but the remake is excellent! Yes, Scorsese is may all-time favourite director but believe me, that has nothing to do with it. The performances are fantastic (even though some people feel De Niro was over the top), it's got more depth to it and it's far more interesting. I didn't like the cliche in the original film of the family being represented as perfect and innocent. Scorsese's representation I felt was more interesting. As well as Cady's seduction of Sam's daughter. I say this however with complete respect for the original film.

reply

I saw both versions shortly after another, and I´m a bit undecisive; I saw Scorsese´s version first, and although I enjoyed it, thought it to be one of his weaker movies (compared to Raging Bull, Goodfellas or Taxi Driver); I heard so much about the original being more creepy , that I believed I would be more impressed by the 1962 version - but I wasn´t. I also found it a good movie, but in the end liked the new version better.

Here is what I liked and not liked about the two versions:

MAX CADY - I found DeNiro in this part much, much more effective. Robert Mitchum was convincing, but I found him to be merely an embittered guy seeking revenge, whereas DeNiro was a chilling, downright sadistic psychopath. Not only because he got into so great shape for the part - I liked Scorsese´s ideas in making him more believeable - his obsession with Nietzsche, religious fanatism and general wish to become an "Übermensch." I know that in 1962 you were not allowed to show rape and violence as graphically (and that the original version already shocked audience, but I thought that DeNiros mistreatment of the woman just underlined the general disturbing nature of his character (in comparison to Mitchum´s slap in the face, which was not really shown).

In contrast, I liked how the original version got straight to the point: While watching Scorsese´s version, I found myself slightly bored by the recurring marital conflicts between Sam Bowden and his wife. I know they were perhaps necessary to make the characters more believable, and I found the ruin of the family through Cady more convincing in the new version, but still, the 1962-version achieved more or less the same thing in less time.
I also found liked Scorsese´s idea, that Bowden was not just a witness, but the lawyer who put Cady in jail: It made the whole story more believable, and in the end gave reason for the climactic intellectual match between the two, as Cady studied law in prison.

reply

[deleted]

The 1991's CAPE FEAR hands down.The original is very good but the "remake" is 10000000000000...better.

reply

Original is better is every respect.
Whenever Scorcese diverts from his usual gangster/street-life flicks, the quality takes a serious downturn.
DeNiro's performance was too extreme and Nolte just isn't very watchable.
Like someone else said, the original drags a bit, whereas the original flies by.
And to the person who said the remake was '100000000000 (times) better', for god's sake grow up.

reply

The Last Temptation of Christ, The Age of Innocence, Kundun, and so much more. Scorsese excels at other types of films.

My three favorite films (order changes): Vertigo, Taxi Driver, and 2001: A Space Odyssey

reply

how about commenting on the original post. who cares what your three favorite films are, stick to the subject.

reply

Haha its my signature. I chose it as my signature because I think you can tell a lot about somebody from what their favorite films/ books/ musicians are.

My three favorite films (order changes): Vertigo, Taxi Driver, and 2001: A Space Odyssey

reply

[deleted]

The Original is 100 times better than the Remake. De Niro fails miserably compared to Mitchum. Robert Mitchum has this sultry danger about him, not just animal brutality. Robert Mitchum makes you wonder what he's going to do, where as De Niro is just going to beat you up. Mitchum add sexy to danger, which is what Max Cady was supposed to be- not just scary. De Niro doesn't have that element and never has.

That being said, Scorsese still did a fabulous job.


Well...my other God calls - The Honorable Sheriff of Nottingham

reply

De Niro´s performance was actually the best thing about the remake - definitely no worse than Mitchum´s original. In other respects though the remake feels too much like just another Hollywood product, there´s nothing edgy or original about it at all despite Scorsese´s attempts to add some additional layers with expanding greatly on the villain´s relationship with the daughter. It´s not a bad film, but definitely one of Scorsese´s lesser works. Original´s clearly better.

I´d say original 7,5/10
remake 6,5/10

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

I like both the original and remake so I would recommend both to everyone. People keep comparing De Niro and Big Bad Bob Mitchum but that's NOT the comparison that needs to be discussed. For me, De Niro's Cady was menacing and animalistic just like Mitchum's hence I had no problems there.

The real issue is Peck versus Nolte. Cape Fear came out before To Kill A Mockingbird but Gregory Peck was one of Hollywood's most wholesome leading men. He was the quintessential All-American guy with the good looks and the wholesome attitude. Peck's good guy qualities only further enhanced Mitchum's ferociousness.

Now look at the remake with Nick Nolte. Nolte is a good actor but Nolte's raspy voice and scruffy looks didn't help enhance De Niro's Cady at all. Nolte plays the role quite well but the remake casting was botched. Scorcese should have gone after a leading man at the time who could have embodied the wholesomeness that Peck brought to the film. I can't believe I'm about to suggest this, but if we're going back to 1991 and recasting this leading man role, I think someone like Kevin Costner would have been far better than Nolte. That's not to suggest that I think Costner is "the" answer for the role... but still better than Nolte for this part.

reply

But that´s the whole point (and one of the main reasons Scorsese took to the project in the first place) - the lawyer in the remake wasn´t supposed to be such a wholesome and utterly innocent dude like Peck was in the original. The intent was to make Bowden actually guilty of some misdeeds of his own and hence Cady´s actions at least somewhat righteous. The blacks and whites of the 1962 were meant to be more gray. Too bad the end result was still too much of a typical Hollywood product.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]