PopcornTreeCt

I watched this recently. Perhaps it was the hype I read on internet boards but this movie failed to deliver. I thought the LOVE/HATE on the knuckles was a bit cheesy, which is something I rarely think of when watching older movies. I found the way people acted in the movie to be terribly unbelievable. Maybe people were just naive back in the '50s but how anyone could trust a man with HATE tattooed on his fingers is a little cuckoo.

Maybe there was something I missed but I just don't get it.

Supermallet

I'll admit it's been a long time since I've watched Night of the Hunter, but I recall a very palpable sense of tension coming from Laughton's direction and Robert Mitchum's performance.

William Fuld

"What's so great about..." threads are always a fool's game. Everything you need to know about the film is right there in front of you. If you don't like it, you don't like it.

PopcornTreeCt

Well, yeah of course, but maybe if I learn something new about the movie or hear from others' point of view, I can gain a greater appreciation when watching the movie again.

marty888

This is a highly stylized movie, actually a fable, in which evil (Mitchum) is set against innocence (not just the children, but the Gish character, the animals, the river itself). The photography makes use of some noir techniques, particularly in the use of shadows, and the Dutch angles never seems forced or gimmicky. The acting fits quite easily into the camera style - both are heightened and not quite real.

There are so many memorable images: Mitchum with outstretched arms chasing the kids up the cellar stairs, the "church" motif in the bedroom as Mitchum raises the knife, the underwater grave, the kids in the barn at night looking out toward the river bank, Ruby trying to be seductive in town, Pearl innocently playing with the doll, Billy finding a modest Christmas gift to give - incredible photography that enhances the characters and serves the plot.

In case you haven't guessed, I like this one a lot - it has a firm place on my Top Ten list!

Mosskeeto

marty888-
You really hit the nail on the head with your analysis. The film defied a lot of entrenched Hollywood conventions and presented a murderous bible toting preacher who was the personification of evil. I recall scenic compositions that were framed and lit as if a chiaroscuro Old Master did them; the chase at night especially. A shame that Laughton never directed another film.

inri222

http://www.filmsite.org/nightof.html

Told with inventive, stylized, timeless and dark film noirish images, symbolism and visual poetry, it blends both a pastoral setting with dream-like creatures, fanatical characters, imperiled children during a river journey, a wicked guardian/adult, and salvation and redemption in the form of a old farm woman, 'fairy godmother' rather than a saintly Bible-totin' Preacher. In Laughton's words, it was "a nightmarish sort of Mother Goose tale."

From its start, the film is designed to have the special feeling of a child's nightmare, including the difficult keeping of a secret, and a magical journey to safety - all told from a child's point of view. It also accentuates the contrasting, elemental dualities within the film: heaven and earth (or under-the-earth), male and female, light and dark, good and evil, knowingness and innocence, and other polarizations including equating the Preacher with the devil.

Daytripper

Bump. I watched this for the very first time tonight and was blown away. It was one of the eeriest and darkest movies from that era I believe I've seen. I read up on it on Wiki afterwards and kind of see why it bombed when it was first released. Perhaps it was a bit too dark and heavy for audiences at the time, but glad it found it's fans later. Robert Mitchum was amazing. And the production was gorgeous. Laughton's direction was also very tight. It's criminal he never directed again. This gets my highest rating (10/10).