The Night of the Hunter

#136 of the all time greatest movies????? Was I watching the same movie? This was awful! When I wasn't rolling my eyes at the dialog, I was laughing at the "scary" parts. (Without spoilers) In one scene a main character reacts to violent act towards them that should have either killed them or maimed them, but no the character jumps up and runs away like some cartoon character that got shot in the butt. I am beside myself at the number of good reviews of this movie. It seemed like a "art" flick / suspense flick done all gone wrong. I gave this 1/10 and I'm sticking to it.

To Roger Ebert, 'The Night of the Hunter' is one of the Great Movies. To Pauline Kael, it's "one of the most frightening movies ever made." To me, well... it's neither. It definitely has its moments. Brilliant actor Charles Laughton's one and only directorial effort is a very offbeat, stylized film that takes a lot of chances. Unfortunately, not many of them work. The main problem I think is that the story it tries to tell is at odds with the presentation and performances. The latter suggest a kind of Twilight Zone-ish children's fable, dreamlike at times, not meant to resemble real life. And yet the story reminds one more of another film starring Robert Mitchum, 'Cape Fear;' gritty, realistic, even mean-spirited. The two just don't blend together into an effective whole. There is humor here and it is perhaps the most effective part of 'The Night of the Hunter.' Small town religion and Americana circa 1930 are spoofed throughout, sometimes pretty heavy-handedly, but it's hard not to laugh when Shelley Winters' character exclaims, "I feel clean! My body's a-quiverin' with cleanliness." Winters herself looks like she can barely keep from laughing after delivering the line. Mitchum has his share of funny moments too. It's when he's supposed to be menacing that the movie comes up short. His Preacher Harry Powell can't touch 'Cape Fear's' Max Cady in terms of malevolent creepiness. Powell is a con-artist posing as a man of God who discovers that two young siblings, John and Pearl Harper, know where $10,000 is hidden. It was given them by their now-dead father who had them swear never to reveal its whereabouts to anyone, even their mother Willa (Winters). Powell marries Willa for the express purpose of getting his hands on the money. The lack of any graphically believable violence is, in this case, a fatal flaw. When Powell finally comes after the children, his manner is more like a boogeyman in an Abbott & Costello movie than a genuinely deranged killer, which he's supposed to be. Now I know all the art-film critics would call me a numbskull for not appreciating the 'poetic' approach Laughton and his cinematographer take, but again, it just doesn't work for this kind of material. After the children escape, there is a lovely, almost surreal scene where they drift down a river in a skiff and the setting becomes even more like one in a dream or fairy tale. The art direction is beautiful and for a few moments, it is a magical film. The story takes a different direction during the last part of the movie, as John and Pearl are taken in by elderly woman, Rachel, a sort of bible-quoting, occasionally shotgun-toting Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle. She runs an orphanage of sorts and protects the brother and sister when Powell comes after them, though not through any particularly imaginative means. He is eventually arrested and sentenced to hang. There are a few more bizarre scenes, such as the townspeople rising up in anger to lynch Powell once they discover his true past. They tear up a drugstore and march down the street carrying torches (as if they were going after Frankenstein's Monster) and we expect a vicious hanging scene, then the police simply smuggle Powell out a back door and drive him away. So much for the lynch mob. Rachel and the kids celebrate Christmas while Rachel spouts more homely homilies (she's got a million of 'em.) The end. Like I said, I don't know, maybe I'm completely insensitive and unperceptive but the best I can say about 'The Night of the Hunter' is that it's a very mixed bag. Billy Chapin (I wonder whatever happened to him) gives a fine performance as the boy John, who really is the character that holds the movie together. I think lurking somewhere in the myriad of ideas that make up 'The Night of the Hunter' is a great movie, but Charles Laughton just couldn't find it.

When I think of the special terror that comes from the vulnerability of the helpless I am haunted by the shock-memory of two films ("The Night of the Hunter" and "Cape Fear") which, by no means coincidentally, both starred Robert Mitchum Now there is an actor who would no doubt have attracted more critical garlands if he had not been so incredibly popular, if he had not intercepted such a variety of roles, and if a sardonic air of self-deprecation did not tend to obscure a high talent… If he had decided to specialize in villains, he might even have come to out-play the great Bogart because, to the menace they both could share, Mitchum was able to add a genuinely frightening brutality... In 1955 Charles Laughton went round to the other side of the cameras to direct one and only one motion picture… Laughton used every cinematic device of camera-angle, sound and lighting to tighten the tensions Mitchum played a psychopathic preacher with a restrained malice who married and murdered Shelley Winters for her money – only to find that her young children had it, and he proceeded relentlessly to terrorize them Mitchum constructed a really superb characterization of the obsessed drifter, with "love" tattooed on one finger and "hate" on another to point his terrifying parables

First of all, I have seen Cape Fear. And I admit Mitchum does a good job of playing creepy-yet-charming. However, in this particular film he was all over the place going from creepy, to charming, to comical. The few times he played "creepy" were when he was running after the Harper children...Particularly when they were hiding from him in the barn. The lullaby made him less scary, and at times (like when he called little pearl a "worthless little wench") he was so over-dramatic that it threw off the whole character. Then, by the end of the film, when we see Rev. Powell's own cowardice he becomes so laughable that you wonder why anyone feared him at all. He went from Max Cady to Lou Costello in a matter of minutes. Sadly, he was one of the Two best actors in this cheese-fest. The other, Lillian Gish, whose portrayal of a tough, strong matron who protects the Harper children stands out as the best (and only noteworthy) performance in this less-than-thrilling thriller. As good as her performance was, however, it was weighed down with trite lines and a monologue at the end that went on about 5 minutes too long. The script was horrible, and the supporting cast (especially Ruby and Pearl) made small-town community theater performers look like Oscar winners. The plot dragged out until the very end, when the children finally find safe haven with Gish. But then it all wraps up too neatly. With Mitchum whooping and jumping like daffy duck, a pointless scene with a lynch mob...and a soliloquy about protecting children.

The first time I saw this film was probably more than ten years ago on a late Monday night on the BBC. At such a time on such a day one never expects to be shown something decent. But 'Night of the hunter' proved to be one of the best films I have ever seen. The cinematography is breathtaking, especially the river journey of the two children who are fleeing for the evil and demented preacher who killed their mother. Never have I seen nature being portrayed in such a mysterious and dangerous way. The sharp contrasts of light, the dark church in the distance which symbolises the dangerous preacher. The film made me think of the books of Flannery 'O Connor, especially the strange and mysterious southern tale Wise Blood.

I give Robert Mitchum's performance a 10. Every part of the film with him in it is perfect (or nearly so). The problem is that despite this, the film really bogs down when the plot centers only on the children or their rescuer (Lillian Gish). At times, Gish is GREAT as a spunky old woman determined to defeat the embodiment of evil in Mitchum, while at other times her role is just too syrupy and heavy-handed. It's as if there were two films (one great and one poor) grafted together. The moments of action and suspense are great while the moralistic and preachy dialog later in the film serves to reduce the film's impact. I would have much preferred the film if it were more heartless and film noir in its sensibilities.

The Night of the Hunter sees Robert Mitchum play a corrupt preacher in a well-done atmospheric thriller that gets increasingly confused as it draws to its overdue conclusion. The first half is fantastic. It's shot brilliantly, the use of shadow and contrast very effective (although perhaps easy in a black and white film), and it is well acted for the most part. Mitchum plays his role brilliantly, and even the children play their parts well, but some of the older actors are guilty of over-eagerness and put in comically "hammy" performances. The score is guilty of being similarly over the top; as it announces Mitchum's entrance, there's no doubt that you really aren't supposed to like him. But it is unfair perhaps to criticize it for sticking to the styles of the times. The second half is a different matter, as the children run away to escape the evil preacher's clutches. From this point onwards it turns into a form of social commentary ("Gee, look at the problems they had back then"), complete with seasonal workers and a sort of orphanarium. On top of the theologizing such a message is a bit unnecessary and only serves to slow down the film's pace and delay it's inevitable conclusion. It even turns into a TV Christmas movie of sorts before announcing its end, and such an off-key conclusion spoils the great work put in in the first half. Overall, it's very good and is definitely worth watching, with some good performances and cinematography, but as it draws towards its slow end and Christmas scenes you'll be left wondering what might have been.

This film is way ahead of its time, not only in subject matter but also in cinematic style. The subject is a psychopathic preacher who believes that God is telling him to murder women, usually widowers, and take their money. From the opening two shots and the first few lines of the preacher, the characters history and intent is laid down. As quickly, the first few scenes with the children show the circumstances that will bring about the main premise. After that you are allowed to wallow in Robert Mitchums role as the over acting preacher. Laughton directs very well, with some visually rich scenes and wonderful shots. However, there are a couple of cheesy moments of dialogue, and a few, almost laughable, scenes. Despite this it's a very good movie with some stunning acting from Robert Mitchum.

There was absolutely nothing redeeming about this movie. Just terrible all-around. The performances were almost all awful, save Mitchum, who did the best he could with the horrid script he was dealing with. The laughable fact that the wife of the thief would marry the Preacher when she barely knew him. Oh, and let's not forgot how she hears him threatening her kids, but she does nothing but lay down in bed. The kids are floating down a river for more than a week, apparently with only a potato to eat along the way, with a psychopathic preacher following on horseback, and they never consider getting out of the boat on the OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER? What the hell? The fact that Rachel Cooper accepted some random kids (not to mention hits them) is a joke. I don't understand how anyone can take any of this crap seriously. Rachel Cooper sings a duet with the murderous Preacher who is right outside her house looking to kill her. What sense does that make? The pacing was horrible. Just talk talk talk randomly about religion, and whenever Mitchum showed up, suspense was blocked by hammy performances (towards the end when Rachel had a chance to shoot the preacher, she does nothing but tap him in the butt, despite him chasing the boy with a knife). Yeah, Okay. It ends with at Rachel looking straight at the camera and stating explicitly the "moral" of the film. Again, what the hell was that all about? I just hated this film. Never have I disliked a so-called "classic" film so much. The script for this film has to be among the worst ever written. I give it a 1/10. It has now dethroned Batman Begins for the title of the worst movie on IMDb's top 250.

Extraordinary, unparalleled, breathtaking ... that's how I would appraise the film's visuals, from DP Stanley Cortez. The images are all in B&W, and many have a noir design straight out of German Expressionism. Sharp angles, high-contrast "hard" lighting, and deep shadows amplify form, or rather distort reality, and as such project human experience as an exaggeration of the emotional. Some of the images in "The Night Of The Hunter" are so enthralling that they will live on in the collective mind as long as cinema exists. Who can forget that famous underwater scene wherein a dead woman's body sits upright in a car with her hair flowing along the current like seaweed, accompanied by background music that is so dreamlike? One of my favorite images is the one wherein Willa Harper (Shelley Winters) lies in blissful repose on a bed as Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum) stands by a window in an unadorned room with angular walls that slope upward, as if in a church. One of the most haunting, and famous, sequences has the two children, John and Pearl, in a rowboat, as they make a Homeric odyssey down a river, lorded over by giant spider webs, frogs, and rabbits. And then there's that electrifying scene with Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish) in silhouette, sitting in a chair, holding a shotgun, as Harry Powell sings "Leaning On The Everlasting Arms". Cinematic brilliance extraordinaire! Consistent with its expressionistic visuals, the story is presented from the POV of a child's nightmare. John and Pearl symbolize innocence, and the bogeyman comes in the form of an adult, a godlike man who cons the gullible townsfolk including the children's mom. Our good reverend Powell is less interested in saving souls than he is in finding all that loot stashed away somewhere. Thus, the film's underlying theme is at least as relevant now as it was fifty years ago; the film has not aged one bit. Production design is sparse, true to the film's visual style and to the setting in Depression era West Virginia. The casting is perfect. Robert Mitchum has just the right look and voice for the part of Harry Powell. I like how he calls to John and Pearl ... "chill-drenn?" Lillian Gish is well-suited to represent ... reality. And those two kids likewise are ideally cast. Love the way Pearl, with her round face and those rag-a-muffin curls refers to herself, in that Southern drawl, as "Pell". And the film's horror combines with humor in many scenes, one of which has "Pell" sitting on the ground with scissors in hand nonchalantly cutting up paper currency into paper dolls. Acting is generally exaggerated, again consistent with what one would expect in a nightmare. Evelyn Varden, as Icey Spoon (love that name), hams it up in a gossipy, mother hen sort of way. And Shelley Winters effectively jitters her way through the film, ghostlike, her character lost in delusion. The film's original score is haunting and mournful, and could hardly set a more appropriate tone: "Dream little one, dream; dream my little one, dream; oh the hunter in the night fills your childish heart with fright; fear is only a dream; so little one dream". With its brilliant photography, its unpopular but deeply truthful theme, and its nightmarish story, Charles Laughton's "The Night Of The Hunter" is high up on my list of twenty best films of all time.