Official Film Noir on Blu-ray Thread

[javy]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

...If for nothing else, I'd like to see the cameos from Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum with a renewed appreciation.

I can appreciate that. But we're talking about Scorsese and De Niro...

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I'm enjoying the above conversation.

Some college friends and I went to see Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear when it opened in theaters in 1991, and I liked the movie so much that I went to see it again not long after that.

A couple of months later, though, I rented the original 1962 film, and it made me forget all about the Scorsese version. I was blown away at how much better I liked Robert Mitchum's performance, and at how brutal the movie was for an old black-and-white film.

It goes without saying that the Blu-ray of the 1962 film was a day one purchase for me.

I should probably give the Scorsese film another go, since, honestly, I've barely thought about it since I first saw the original. If for nothing else, I'd like to see the cameos from Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum with a renewed appreciation.

I do agree that there were some brutal moments in the original for its time. I was just shocked by how bland the characters were and how bad the acting was especially by Gregory Peck and his daughter. IMHO everyone was forgettable in the original and the film itself. I can understand why Scorsese wanted to remake it and it shows in his version. On the surface the remake seems like another 90s psycho thriller but it is so much more than that. I know I've already stated this previously but every character and performance in Scorsese's version were excellent (which isn't anything new from a Scorsese film). Juliette Lewis was outstanding and well deserved her Oscar nom.

You also aren't interested in seeing everyone else's performance's besides Peck and Mitchum? Joe Don Baker played one of the best private detectives I've ever seen.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Well I've just watched the original so now that I've earned my right to post I agree completely with what Rocknblues81 and Arch Stanton said. I felt the original was pretty dull frankly. There wasn't one interesting character and I thought the acting was surprisingly bad. I won't even say that Scorsese's is far superior but it literally blows the original out of the water (no pun intended). Scorsese improved on the original in every way and De Niro's Cady was much more threatening and intimidating.

Happens all the time on movie forums. Somebody watches or claims to watch something just to justify their original, unfounded opinion vs. challenging it.

Congratulations on watching a classic movie just to tell yourself that your preconceived notion was the right one.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Happens all the time on movie forums. Somebody watches or claims to watch something just to justify their original, unfounded opinion vs. challenging it.

Congratulations on watching a classic movie just to tell yourself that your preconceived notion was the right one.

Lol was planning on watching it anyways but the discussion made me want to check it out faster obviously. You have your opinions and I have mine and I was sincere with my opinions btw. Also your opinion on the remake was pretty much how you just described how mine apparently was on the original.

[Hoke Moseley]

All this hostility and I'm over here wondering if there's something wrong with me for liking both Cape Fear adaptations and Max Cady performances quite a bit.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

All this hostility and I'm over here wondering if there's something wrong with me for liking both Cape Fear adaptations and Max Cady performances quite a bit.

Nothing wrong with it whatsoever man. We all like what we like and don't like what we don't like.

[kaseaver]

"J. Lee Thompson struck out quite a bit but with Cape Fear he smacked it out of the park."

No kidding. Watched What a Way to Go when it came out on BD - let's just say it's hard to believe same director as Cape Fear.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Lol was planning on watching it anyways but the discussion made me want to check it out faster obviously.

Whatever you say.

Also your opinion on the remake was pretty much how you just described how mine apparently was on the original.

Our opinions couldn't be any more dissimilar. You're castigating an early 60s film "as bland and forgettable" (which is really funny, since you've reserved nothing but effusive praise for all older classics until now) while championing Scorsese's circus show...a movie where lechery, alcoholism, and pedophilia had to be thrown in to make for "realistic" and "exciting" family dynamics.

A suggestive leer by Mitchum communicated the idea of a sexual predator with more deftness and imagination than De Niro sticking his finger in Lewis' mouth.

And Scorsese didn't have any "vision" when it came to Cape Fear; he only got it because he swapped projects with Spielberg, whom he felt was the better man for Schindler's List. It was by no means a personal filmmaking odyssey that Scorsese felt impelled to make.

Look you're a good guy and I don't want to trammel on you in this thread. From our brief interactions here and elsewhere I can see that our tastes align pretty closely. But to visit a movie only after you've taken a hardened stance is disingenuous.

I'll just say enjoy Cape Fear '91 and leave it at that.

[javy]

May have not been a personal project of Scorsese but he sure put his mark on it. I love this vision.

"What shall my compensation be sir?"884_deniro_27__300dpi.jpg

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by javy

May have not been a personal project of Scorsese but he sure put his mark on it. I love this vision.

"What shall my compensation be sir?"Attachment 168087

Man, deep. Tell me, what are your thoughts on Night of the Hunter and Mitchum's performance therein?

[javy]

Never seen it. I've read about it and it sounds good, i definitely look forward to checking it out.

[NoirFan]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Scorsese improved on the original in every way

Especially the score!

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Man, deep. Tell me, what are your thoughts on Night of the Hunter and Mitchum's performance therein?

Night of the Hunter is a bonafide masterpiece and one of the great American Movies. Thompson's Cape Fear, however, really isn't. It's a very forgettable picture.

[BucketheadPikes]

Some interesting facts on both films in the 'Did You Know' trivia section on IMDb. I also read that in the '91 film, in the scene with Sam, Leigh & Danielle, when Sam is on the phone, the couple buying fruit are Scorsese's parents.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Whatever you say.


Our opinions couldn't be any more dissimilar. You're castigating an early 60s film "as bland and forgettable" (which is really funny, since you've reserved nothing but effusive praise for all older classics until now) while championing Scorsese's circus show...a movie where lechery, alcoholism, and pedophilia had to be thrown in to make for "realistic" and "exciting" family dynamics.

A suggestive leer by Mitchum communicated the idea of a sexual predator with more deftness and imagination than De Niro sticking his finger in Lewis' mouth.

And Scorsese didn't have any "vision" when it came to Cape Fear; he only got it because he swapped projects with Spielberg, whom he felt was the better man for Schindler's List. It was by no means a personal filmmaking odyssey that Scorsese felt impelled to make.

Look you're a good guy and I don't want to trammel on you in this thread. From our brief interactions here and elsewhere I can see that our tastes align pretty closely. But to visit a movie only after you've taken a hardened stance is disingenuous.

I'll just say enjoy Cape Fear '91 and leave it at that.

Dude you're making more out of this than it needs to be. I love classics and have grown very fond of them over the years and I love this thread. You think the original is a classic as do many others but I didn't have the same admiration for it. I clearly stated from the beginning that I hadn't seen the original yet but expressed my love for the remake in response to another post. After that you posted a bashing viewpoint of the remake (that wasn't necessary and was no different than the negatives I listed about the original in a response to your post about keeping my opinions to myself) and continued to do so with everyone else who preferred it over the original. I went into the original with a positive open frame of mind hoping that I would love it but it didn't turn out that way unfortunately regardless if you think otherwise. Whatever your personal issues are with Scorsese's direction with certain elements he took the remake those are your views. We live in a time now where not only films from the 40s-70s are considered classics but the 80s and 90s are falling into the classics category as well and I and others consider Scorsese's version a classic. Where does it state that everyone has to like every film that's considered a classic? Mind you I was the third person who stated it but I'm the one you had the biggest issue about it with.

You say you don't have a problem with me but this instance and a previous instance not too long ago where I worded a post wrong in reference to Neo Noir you had to try and stir things up with that as well by telling me I'm not too knowledgeable about noir.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by javy

Never seen it.

Really? Ya don't say.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

It's a very forgettable picture.

Yeah bang-up job you've done in this thread convincing us otherwise, Stan.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

You say you don't have a problem with me but this instance and a previous instance not too long ago where I worded a post wrong in reference to Neo Noir you had to try and stir things up with that as well by telling me I'm not too knowledgeable about noir.

You mean when you demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of neo-noir and myself and others had to get you to reconsider your position? That wasn't a "wrongly-worded" post and any retroactive attempt to say it was is backpedaling.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

You mean when you demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of neo-noir and myself and others had to get you to reconsider your position? That wasn't a "wrongly-worded" post and any retroactive attempt to say it was is backpedaling.

If you seem to recall, out of you and all of the other members who threw such a hissy fit over my post there was ONE member who had the decency to respectfully explain what I was trying to say with the initial post. As far as responding to you and the others who got **** sore about how dare I say the term Neo noir and even lump it with film noir, that lead to an entirely different topic about comparing the two. As far as you guys "correcting" me I would call it stopping the argument due to how ridiculously silly it was. You strike me as someone who has to feel superior though so by all means go ahead and think what you want about that and the Cape Fear discussion.

[javy]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Really? Ya don't say.

Yeah, the first time I came across Night of the Hunter was on here as a recommendation of other noir titles I own. When I first seen the Criterion cover I thought "what the hell is this shit", ya know Mitchum looking like a sexual predator. But I read the synopsis and it sounds awesome: a psychopathic preacher looking to bang some lady out of cash. I can totally f**k with that. Not that I would advocate such a thing, but it is just a movie. And Mitchun is a stud, especially in Out of the Past (who wouldn't agree with that on this thread, well some might I guess). Props too to Douglas in Out of the Past for portraying an excellent crime boss. Cheers.