MovieChat Forums > Cape Fear (1962) Discussion > A disaster of a film with characters mad...

A disaster of a film with characters made from cardboard

posted 19 years ago by alex-bradley
11 replies | jump to latest

I'm afraid that that is what the film was. I turned on the film expecting to see a classic thriller that I would enjoy but i'm afraid this film was way off the mark. This was an unpleasant and drawn out attempt at a suspenser with characters from cardboard and situations from stock which is not what is required to make a good suspense thriller. The acting was wooden apart from Robert Mitchum who was able to give this film some life with his chilling performance as Max Cady but Gregory Peck, one of my favourite actors I am sad to say was poor as Sam Bowden but with such a weak character no wonder he failed to give a performance of any note. The rest of the acting was wooden and there was a severe lack of chemistry between Peck and Polly Bergen and Lori Martin. Mitchum is the only thing that comes close to saving this film.

The remake was superior to the original and was a grimly effective thriller with a sense of brooding and menace. It was gripping,suspenseful and De Niro played one of the scariest characters I have ever seen on film. The rest of the acting was good from Nolte,Lange and Lewis who all gave life to their characters with good performances, a career best performance from Juliette Lewis. I'm sure alot of people won't agree with me but I feel that the 91 Cape Fear is a much better thriller than the 62 Cape Fear.

[–] Stalward 19 years ago

I agree

[–] dcm5 19 years ago

You are insane.

[–] alex-bradley 19 years ago

I'm entitled to my opinion I am sure I am not alone in thinking that Cape Fear 91 was better than the 62 garbage. At least I actually gave reasons for liking the 91 version better unlike you.

[–] kenneglds 19 years ago

>>> At least I actually gave reasons for liking the 91 version better unlike you

The 1962 version was much better. The dyfunctional family aspect of the 1991 version came off as very much an over-used cliche. The 1962 version was simply a story of good against evil (that made it somewhat simplistic, but very effective in this case). It also had the chilling aspect of the possibability of losing everything you cherish to outside forces of evil. This aspect was watered down in the 1992 version by making the family dyfunctional. Also, while I am a big Robert De Niro fan, this was not one of his better performances. He relied on "props" (the phony menacing accent, the pumped-up physique) that were much to obvious, to convey his character's evil. Mitchum didn't relyt on any "props" He just was evil. He conveyed it naturally, without trying. To put it another way, with De Niro I saw an actor acting, giving a performance. While with Mitchum, I saw the evil character he was playing.

[–] novastar_6 15 years ago

Here's another thing to consider. Part of what made the original Cape Fear frightening is, it could happen to you. Now, consider the storyline of the remake, how many of us are going to become lawyers who put our own clients away? Not too many, but any one of us could be minding our own business and come across a man attacking a woman and be called to testify and put him away, and when he gets out, then what? The movie really does not work without that element of horror that it could actually happen.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wolfefan 19 years ago

You're right. Can't quite agree. But, I won't disparage your opinion. Nor will I disparage either movie (as you did). I prefered the original, though I thought the remake was fun and entertaining - a strange description perhaps. I thought the "chemistry" between Peck, Bergen and Martin worked a bit better. There is nothing that I can pick out, positive or negative from Nolte's or Lange's performance - does that mean kind of flat performances? - don't know. Lewis's was notable, as it often is. The primary difference for me was between Mitchum and DeNiro. The sense of brooding and menace, for me, came from Mitchum. As I said in another post, DeNiro's character seemed crafted (the accent? - left a bit to be desired). Mitchum was REAL - all around. Intense and scary.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Harvestmoonman13 15 years ago

I just watched the 1962 version and I have never seen the 1991 remake...I don't know...I have to agree with the original poster. I was really expecting something amazing. Robert was great as always and reminded me a lot of night of the hunter but...the rest of the movie was just meh...I doubt I am gonna even try for the 1991 version because I doubt I will like it any better.

[–] pjglynndoora 16 years ago

yeah, i thought the heading sounded Halliwell all right! :-)