Wonderful Movie

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Good movie/ great acting. I can see where alot of ideas that gave birth to Natural Born Killers came from. I loved Dirty Grandpa, I caught 4 to 5 scenes very close to in the movie.

Those soul wrenching words uttered by Robert De Niro's "Max Cady" in Martin Scorsese's 1991 Thriller Classic, "Cape Fear" gives a lot of us, the chills, even today. But while we're at it, let's think back to the original Cape Fear from 1962 first, with silver screen greats Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum as the leads. The movie was the pinnacle of suspense in the early 60s' (except Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho) with Mitchum's Max Cady being the epitome of creepy. His sole intent was to terrorise the family of his former lawyer Sam Bowden, and succeeding, until Bowden pulls a gun and ends the reign of terror without further conflict. Bowden lives happily ever after, Cady goes back to prison, the end.Territory like that was only beginning to be approached in the early 60s', and viewers were legitimately disturbed by the film's content; in the era of creature-features and sock hops, the scariest monster was the human one. However, come 1991, the true definition of the human monster was returned to the big screen when Martin Scorsese brought back Cape Fear with Nick Nolte as Bowden and Robert De Niro as Cady. The remake took the extra steps that the original couldn't, and as a result, the film was much grittier and darker as De Niro's Cady stole the show with a very terrifying interpretation."I am like God, and God like me. I am as large as God, He is as small as I. He cannot above me, nor I beneath Him be." – Max Cady.De Niro's Cady was the perfect villainous specimen. He was lean and muscled from his time in prison, heavily tattooed, eloquently spoken, and (go figure) his heavy Southern accent was both charming and unsettling. But the most unsettling aspect was his intensity. Cady came out of prison a hardened convict bent on revenge. He wanted recompense for the lost years that he received courtesy of Bowden and he wasn't afraid to cross that line.That's what defines De Niro's Cady as a villain. He wasn't above invading the Bowdens. He invaded them personally, emotionally, mentally, and literally. He invaded their sense of peace, their security, their privacy, and even went as far as seducing Sam's teenage daughter. He raped their sense of normalcy and forever changed their lives. He was a plague who made your skin crawl just by looking at him.Of course, that doesn't mean we didn't enjoy De Niro's Cady. His performance made the film. Only De Niro could properly perform a character as psychotic as Cady. His performance was so in depth that he even playfully tormented Scorsese while in character. De Niro was committed to the role, going as far as having a dentist alter his teeth for the role as well as study the "Southern dialect" by recording a bunch of Southern people talking into a mic. Somehow, someway, everything in the South only adds an element of terror in films.With all that being said, it's a smart film with a ripped, tatted, Southern, and just outright psychotic, De Niro's Cady is the epitome of a horror villain.

The original "Cape Fear" is a bone-chilling tale of pre-meditated violence. While all the elements of that original are indeed here in this remake, the new elements that director Martin Scorsese adds to the tale only cheapen that visceral sense of terror.For a basic plot summary, "Cape Fear" tells the story of lawyer Sam Bowden (Nick Nolte), wife Leigh (Jessica Lange), and daughter Danielle (Juliette Lewis). When Max Cady (Robert De Niro), an ex-con freshly released from prison who was unsuccessfully defended by Sam, begins to terrorize the family, they must make some difficult decisions in order to deal with such a terror.All the basic elements of the classic Peck/Mitchum thriller are present in this version of the tale, but its the new elements that downgrade the experience. I realize that Scorsese wanted to be his own little twist on the story, but unfortunately all the additions are negative rather than positive:For example (spoilers included):-Making the family a "troubled unit" does no service to the plot. Gregory Peck as the stout, unshakeable lawyer is better than Nolte's more ambiguous soul.-The subtle romantic hints between Danielle and Cady are utterly ridiculous. For this story to really work, the daughter character needs to be pure as the driven snow, not on the verge of being roped into a romantic relationship with him! Of all the changes made to the original in this effect, I found this change to be the most "unforgivable".Finally, though no fault of anyone's, the performance of Robert Mitchum in the 1962 version is un-matchable (e.g. iconic). De Niro gives it his best effort, but it just isn't quite as good.Overall, then, I will be steering people AWAY from this version and TOWARDS the original after this viewing. This isn't a bad movie, per se, but it clearly takes a back seat to the expertly crafted '62 version.

SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's natural to want co compare remakes to original films. And for some reason, there seems to be even more of a desire to do so with the two "Cape Fear" films. By pure coincidence, I happened to watch the original on cable (I don't believe I had ever seen it), and just 2 weeks later the 1991 version was on cable.I have always had a great deal of respect for the body of work of Gregory Peck. And while I don't think that Nick Nolte's body of work compares, this film was in what I consider to be Nolte's most productive period. With Robert Mitchum, I didn't always like the roles he chose, but he, too, had many admirable performances. Robert DeNiro was not a favorite of mine in his early years, by the time this film was made, I was really beginning to respect his work. So, my comparison has little to do with whether or not I like the lead actors, I like them all. But then there is Polly Bergen, not a favorite of mine, though I also didn't dislike her performances. In 1991 it was Jessica Lange, also not one of my favorites.But let's get the point -- I strongly preferred the 1962 film. And here's why (not in any particular order):1. I liked the feel of the old South in the 1962 film, which is virtually absent in most of the 1991 film. 2. I admired the restraint and subtlety with which Robert Mitchum approached his role in the original, far more than the over-the-top nature of Robert DeNiro's performance (which is unusual for DeNiro). 3. Gregory Peck was the pillar of virtue in the first film, all the better to draw a distinct line between him and Mitchum. But Nolte is a compromised (though successful) lawyer. The line is blurred. 4. The rape scene in the original was tragic, but eating part of a woman's face is way too far over the top in the later film. 5. The wife in the latter film is emotionally damaged to the point where the viewer feels little sympathy for her. 6. Even the daughter in the later film gets no sympathy here...she's too far along in her sexuality, where the daughter in the early film was almost prepubescent, in practice, if not physicality. 7. The one thing that the newer film has in its favor is a very strong performance by Nick Nolte. It's not better than the Gregory Peck performance, but it is Nolte at his peak before the long slide. 8. The Cape Fear island locale of the ending of the first film was far more spooky than the family house in the second film. 9. It was nice seeing Gregory Peck (this time as a bad guy), Robert Mitchum (this time as a good guy), and Martin Balsam in supporting roles here. But Mitchum and Peck are in roles that just don't fit them. 10. In the first film, there was building suspense throughout the film. Here, the real suspense only comes toward the end of the film. 11. In the original film, violence was used as needed. Here the violence is excessive and over-the-top in order to thrill the audience. 12. The husband and wife sliding around in the blood in this film was simply childish excess. 13. The final insult to our intelligence in this film is that the family all lived despite the violent storm where the boat was destroyed and sank. Trash. Just trash.The original -- Robert Mitchum's masterpiece, This remake -- just tawdry excess. And my respect for everyone connected with it is just a little less after seeing it again after all these years.