|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 29, 2021 7:12:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jun 29, 2021 7:15:35 GMT
1991
|
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Jun 29, 2021 8:14:23 GMT
The 91 version.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 29, 2021 8:19:49 GMT
1991
|
|
|
|
Post by Hurdy Gurdy Man on Jun 29, 2021 8:45:52 GMT
What I wrote on a similar thread on FG Reddit sometime back:
The original is a masterfully crafted exercise in slow burning psycho-terror.
The remake is overblown, crass and skullfucks to catatonia any semblance of logic as applied on planet earth. Most people praise it only because a) Martin Scorsese is considered an untouchable god among mortals and if you love some of his films, then you have got to pretend that you love all of them, lest the others stare you down till you melt in a puddle, and b) there's also the risk of word getting back to him, especially if you are in America or Sicily. Then he sends the local capo to massacre your family in the street.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 29, 2021 10:04:44 GMT
What I wrote on a similar thread on FG Reddit sometime back: The original is a masterfully crafted exercise in slow burning psycho-terror. The remake is overblown, crass and skullfucks to catatonia any semblance of logic as applied on planet earth. Most people praise it only because a) Martin Scorsese is considered an untouchable god among mortals and if you love some of his films, then you have got to pretend that you love all of them, lest the others stare you down till you melt in a puddle, and b) there's also the risk of word getting back to him, especially if you are in America or Sicily. Then he sends the local capo to massacre your family in the street. When I first watched the 1991 movie I didn't even know who Scorsese was.  I prefer the remake because of how OTT it is. That is why I liked it a lot when I first watched it and that is why I like it a lot now. Also, I haven't come across that many huge Scorsese fans who love Cape Fear. Most people just like it and consider it one of his lesser works, because it is. Your assumptions have no place here. I didn't become of Scorsese super fan until the 2000s and Cape Fear is one of the reasons I became a Scorsese fan in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Jun 29, 2021 10:14:51 GMT
Have you seen the 1962 film?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 29, 2021 10:16:12 GMT
Have you seen the 1962 film? Twice. I am only making these comparison polls for movies that I have seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jun 29, 2021 11:19:19 GMT
Tough choice. Both are good for various reasons. I think the original is a much creepier movie. Robert Mitchum captured Caddy the best and I think Peck is a much better Sam Bowden.
The remake’s Caddy made me laugh. I don’t know if it was the way Caddy was written in the remake or if it was De Niro’s performance, but I was confused as to why every time Caddy showed up I was cracking up almost. I shouldn’t be laughing at him. I should be creeped out by him. Nick Nolte plays Sam like a grumpy old man and that annoyed me, but maybe that’s how Nolte actually is in real life. I did think it was funny to see Mitchum in the remake playing the complete opposite of who he was in the original.
Both work for me. So I’m not gonna vote on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 29, 2021 12:52:26 GMT
The 1962 movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jun 29, 2021 14:18:42 GMT
1962
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jun 29, 2021 15:18:09 GMT
1962
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 29, 2021 15:55:24 GMT
I actually haven’t seen either film. Should I start with the original and watch the remake afterwards or vice versa?
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jun 29, 2021 15:56:55 GMT
I actually haven’t seen either film. Should I start with the original and watch the remake afterwards or vice versa? Just my opinion, but I’d start with the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 29, 2021 18:58:38 GMT
I actually haven’t seen either film. Should I start with the original and watch the remake afterwards or vice versa? Just my opinion, but I’d start with the original. I'd say always start with the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jun 29, 2021 19:37:01 GMT
I prefer the 1962 original.
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Jun 30, 2021 0:16:12 GMT
The 62 film is a little creaky in places, but still highly effective and chilling, and Mitchum is superb. Peck and his family are very bland, though. 7/10
91 reverses this situation. I found Nolte, Lange and Lewis much more interesting than De Niro, who I thought was borderline terrible in this. 5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jun 30, 2021 0:46:50 GMT
The 1962 version.
Mitchum is as frightening here as he was in Night of the Hunter and the film unspools slowly to permit the creeps to gather at the base of your spine. He, Peck and Polly Bergin are believable in an extraordinary situation that is not milked for contrived thrills.
Scorsese threw common sense to the wind by letting De Niro turn the psychotic Cady into a bombastic clown. The grotesque scene between him and Juliette Lewis is almost unwatchable. The final scene even includes an unnecessary jump scare like the worst holiday slasher movie. A squandered opportunity, considering all the talent involved in the project.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 30, 2021 2:10:04 GMT
I saw the remake first and really liked it.
When I saw the original-at first I felt well, it is ok but dated. The 1962 Cady cannot be shown beating up the drifter --we have to hear dialogue to fill in what he did or imagine what he did.
However, looking at it since then, I see that the relationship between Peck and Mitchum is more physically suspenseful--because Mitchum is big and dangerous.
He doesnt have to do anything to be threatening. His expression is enough.
Scorsese's version is different--in that case DeNiro is a kind of Satan figure--so he isn't meant to be big and dangerous--he's supposed to be compact and the family problems are such that he can manipulate them.
The moral issue with the lawyer--that was interesting--it is kind of Frankenstein-like.
I think Scorsese did a really job with that interpretation--except in a couple of places I think it went over the top but this is the only film of his I can think of where the characters change.
Cady we are told-was an illiterate hick and he becomes totally different.
And Bowden and family-they come together thanks to the Cady involvement--and the daughter-who is the central character, not her father, she shows resourcefulness and maturity.
The wife also changes.
So I like the remake--it isn't the same kind of dynamic-as soon as you see DeNiro standing opposite Joe Don Baker and also Gregory Peck-you can see how small he is.
But that is where Scorsese is smart--he uses tricks to make Nolte seem physically less threatening --the weight loss--despite his greater size. I think it works.
One thing though--that victim attack--on Illeana Douglas--is very hard to watch. Her acting carries that way beyond the same character in the original movie.
Why don't we have acting like that anymore?
And why are southern accents associated with evil?
|
|
