When comes to older films (and let’s face it, this year Cape Fear will turn 60 years!), you sometimes need to “excuse” certain things. And among one of them is acting. I always say I love any films, so it doesn’t bother me that much. But let’s just say mainly in the acting profession, we’ve had a revolution as I believe a decent actor today is probably better than 95% of actors from the 1950s. I know some people will argue that, and I invite them; I love discussing anything movie-related. Anyway, I also believe that this acting revolution slowly started in the 1960s, and this film is the perfect example.

When you say Cape Fear today, many people would know exactly, what you are talking about, the Martin Scorsese film, right? From 1991, starring creepy Robert De Niro, that Cape Fear? Yeah, I’ve seen it. I would be willing to bet you most people nowadays don’t know that it’s a remake of this film. And why would they, since it is one of the best remakes. Scorsese was going strong, one of the best De Niro performances… but it is a shame (a bit) that people don’t talk about the original version that much, especially when it holds up surprisingly well.

While watching this film, you immediately realise how the times have changed. Robert Mitchum straight-up bullies Gregory Peck‘s character at times, but since he’s got no proof, he needs to be more cautious than ever. And everything slowly builds up throughout the film. And both of these men are excellent in their roles. Especially Mitchum is enjoying his role of… well, you can’t even call him a bad boy/man. Because he is straight-up obsessed with ruining Peck’s (and his family’s) life. I enjoyed his diabolical performance, even though, towards the end, there were scenes where you could argue he was “hamming it up” just a tiny bit. But that doesn’t take anything away from him.

Throughout the film, I thought the fact this film is in black and white adds to the creepiness. To the point, I was surprised that Scorsese’s remake wasn’t also in black and white. There was something about the “scruffy” nature of this film that added to the overall uneasiness of everything. There is this lingering uneasiness throughout the film that culminates in the swamp (as the remake). In a way, it’s a genius move – the film makes you feel uneasy and almost dirty while you watch it, just for its finale to take place in a literal muddy swamp.

While writing about this movie and thinking retrospectively about it, I’ve come to a realisation – modern films don’t do this kind of thing anymore. Sure, they set up things, so they can pay them off later on, but there is something about these older (or classical if you wish) movies that makes them seem like much more thought was put into most of them. That is why I am often willing to see past weaker performances or some things that wouldn’t play well today (whether it’s “casual” racism, attitudes towards women, you name it, old Hollywood got it). But obviously, there are exceptions to every rule.

The only negative thing I would have against this movie is the pacing, especially towards the end. Because for the entire film, we are building up tension, building it up even further and then when the “action” happens in the swamp, it takes some time. And once the tension building is gone, you start to look at the clock to see how much time the movie’s got left. In a sense, it almost felt anti-climatic. But I need to repeat myself – that was only towards the end and, that would be my only complaint. The rest of this film, for me, held up well.

Overall, Cape Fear is almost a perfect film. The performances are (especially for its time) superb, the tension/sense of desperation is palpable, and the movie lets you almost bathe in the uneasy atmosphere it so masterfully creates. If you only know Cape Fear from 1991 and you liked it, give this movie a chance; as I would say, this is almost as good as the remake. One of the rare instances where the remake is as good, maybe even better than the original. But not because the original film would be bad. And that’s what makes it so much more impressive.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

If you are not familiar with the works of Franz Kafka, I would seriously encourage you to read a thing or two about him before watching this movie, as The Trial is quintessentially movie based on his book, rather than a movie made by THE Orson Welles. What I mean by that is even though you can definitely tell it was directed by Welles as his unique director’s eye really compliments the insanity of the story, but it’s the insanity that ultimately seeps through this film, that you either accept and let if frustrate you, or don’t and you are in for a bad time, just as our main protagonist.

The Trial is everything but a conventional film, as it deals with a man, who one day wakes up to him being on a trial for… something. Nobody can tell him what did he do, nobody can give him more information. What I really liked is how you can see the evolution of Anthony Perkins‘ character (if you only know him from Psycho (1960) you should definitely watch this film to see he definitely wasn’t one trick pony, his performance is great!) as when the movie starts, he’s afraid, he wants to cooperate as much as he can, but once he realises the absurdity of the situation, he’s the pretty much the only one who stands up against “the system”. And that is ultimately the message here, if you don’t stand up for yourself, nobody else will.

This film might be one of the only ones I would recommend with a big caveat – get ready to be frustrated. And try (?) to enjoy it. As Orson does really well with the absurdity of… well, everything. Being on a trial and never knowing what for, trying to navigate the convoluted system that is setup for you to fail, the judges having all the power, therefore becoming the most powerful and most feared people in the system… Honestly, I don’t know how else would you go about filming something like this, as The Trial ultimately feels like a really bad fever dream, but you can’t look away, as you are hoping to crack it, to make a sense out of the nonsense presented to you.

But this movie is not just about the nonsensical story or great visuals, we can’t forget the casting! From already mentioned Perkins, to Jeanne Moreau and Romy Schneider, you can tell Orson knew how to pick his actors, as they all fit perfectly in this crazy narrative. Both of these actresses are strikingly beautiful, especially in the way Orson is shooting them… there was something about black and white, where some directors made it look so great, you won’t even mind the lack of colour.

The Trial is really hard movie to review, as it’s so abstract, so frustrating, yet so beautiful, it needs to be seen to be… understood? No, I’ve seen it and I am still not sure whether I got everything the movie wanted me to get. But do I regret the time spent watching this? Not at all. And I would hope you won’t either.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

It can be hard sometimes to review these romantic comedies from 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, as so much has changed – the culture, the way we treat women, how women are portrayed in movies… This movie fascinated me in this regard, as this might be one of the few movies, that has these issues, but at the same time, is surprisingly feminist…?

That Touch of Mink is currently rated on IMDb 6.7/10 and I don’t understand that at all. This movie worked for me story-wise (didn’t feel bored) and comedy-wise (got a surprising amount of laughter while watching it). To me, that’s the “riskiest” thing about these old movies.

Plenty of times you are watching an old Hollywood comedy from “the golden days”, you know where you should laugh, but you barely chuckle, as unfortunately plenty of jokes will get “old”, or the way they constructed that particular line doesn’t work anymore, or it’s been done to death etc., which is strange blaming a movie for not being “future proof”, but at the same time, you know what works and what doesn’t. This movie worked for me.

You can tell Cary Grant was getting there when comes to age (he was almost 60), if he didn’t have the charm and charisma he unquestionably had, it would’ve played much sleazier. Doris Day was charming and her character was truly puzzling me for most of them movie – the main thing about this movie is the fact she’s fallen for Cary Grant, as you do, and she’s too keen on being “the good woman” for him, but at the same time, when he “rejects” her, she is insisting on paying him back, returning everything he’s purchased for her, making something out of herself, not wanting any for free…

That’s why this movie fascinated me – on one hand it’s definitely product of its time (where woman struggles with doing everything she can to please her man) but at the same time, she’s not submissive by any means, she wants and does fend for herself. Also, making Cary Grant being the most generous person ever, where he threatens his employees with pay rises, was a welcomed decision that added to the overall enjoyment of this movie.

Also, the subplot of Gig Young being on the verge of nervous breakdown, where he doesn’t have any worries at all, and that’s what worries him, is fairly hilarious. Plus the whole thing with his psychiatrist, where he sneaked out of his office to phone his broker, just to come back to misunderstanding about his patient being possibly gay (imagine, in 1962!)… let just say, it was funny to see it played out, but also shows you how much we’ve moved forward in the past almost 60 years now.

Overall, there might be a reason for that fairly low rating on IMDb, I know both of these acting giants probably have better movies on their resume, but I genuinely found this movie to be like a warm, cosy blanket where you are there to enjoy yourself. I sure have.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke