I'd heard so many great things about this movie that it was a major disappointment to finally watch it.
Not that it isn't an interesting film. Mitchum portrays menace perhaps better than any other actor ever (his wedding night lecture to Winters made my skin crawl), the cinematography is fascinating (and oddly reminiscent of the 1930s), and Laughton certainly had a decent eye for the striking image; the expressionistic composition of the bedroom shot where Winters is rabbiting on about their marriage while Mitchum stands at the window preparing to kill her is terrific, and the underwater shot of Winters's body is justly famous (though marred by a poor edit as the shot jumps awkwardly between too-similar POVs). I'm even willing to forgive the over-the-top acting, since it fits in well with the 30s-style filmmaking.
But too much of the movie is absurdly overdirected (the opening shot of Heads In Space is just plain silly, and what is with all those shots of animals during the trip downriver?), and Mitchum seems to have a real problem with the charm which the role requires; I never for a second believed he could con anyone into thinking he was anything but a stone killer. The kiddie songs on the soundtrack are annoying and distracting, especially the one that's supposed to be sung by Pearl, who apparently sings much more articulately than she talks (by the way: "Pearl Harper"? Please!). And Mitchum's "failure" to catch the kids, first in the basement and then in the river, is utterly unconvincing.
I find the kids' behavior after they flee completely implausible. This smart kid never thinks to call the cops? And when Powell passes them as they hide in the barn, it never occurs to the kid to double back and head for home, thus *increasing* the distance between them and the guy who wants to kill them? And since he's obviously following the river, wouldn't it be a pretty obvious thought, even for a kid, to get away from the river, rather than continue down it? And I didn't even think about the fact (which another review reminded me of) that these kids were carrying thousands of dollars in cash. Geez, they could hire a cab to take them somewhere.
And don't you think the kid might have considered telling the nice old lady who takes them in that they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac, especially when he shows up at the front door? And is it really plausible that Pearl should have forgotten that he tried to kill them and run to him with open arms? And after seeing the guy chase the boy around with a switchblade, the old lady just chases him off, but doesn't call the police, even though the guy announces that he'll be back? No, she waits around for him to come back, shoots him with a shotgun, *then* calls the police! Incidentally, the police ask her the same very good question, and I don't think they'd be satisfied with the smartass answer she tries to blow them off with. I know I'm not.
And Mitchum's defeat is rather an anti-climax after all that buildup about what a big, bad guy he's supposed to be.
The boy's reaction to Mitchum's arrest is, as others have said, completely implausible, given that we receive no indication that the boy ever felt anything warmer than intense suspicion for Mitchum's character. He certainly does not see him as a surrogate father, which is what we are required to believe in order for the scene to make sense. And there's no way a judge would allow the prosecutor to ask the boy "if that is the man who killed your mother." The boy has no direct knowledge of the crime.
And you know, there's a reason most directors outside of zany screwball comedy don't have their actors address the camera: it cuts the thin thread that suspends the audience's disbelief. Another reason is that it looks really, really stupid.
And the denouement is, let's face it, just ridiculous.
There is too much of interest here to rate this as merely mediocre, but it is too deeply flawed to be counted a success.
6/10.
Not that it isn't an interesting film. Mitchum portrays menace perhaps better than any other actor ever (his wedding night lecture to Winters made my skin crawl), the cinematography is fascinating (and oddly reminiscent of the 1930s), and Laughton certainly had a decent eye for the striking image; the expressionistic composition of the bedroom shot where Winters is rabbiting on about their marriage while Mitchum stands at the window preparing to kill her is terrific, and the underwater shot of Winters's body is justly famous (though marred by a poor edit as the shot jumps awkwardly between too-similar POVs). I'm even willing to forgive the over-the-top acting, since it fits in well with the 30s-style filmmaking.
But too much of the movie is absurdly overdirected (the opening shot of Heads In Space is just plain silly, and what is with all those shots of animals during the trip downriver?), and Mitchum seems to have a real problem with the charm which the role requires; I never for a second believed he could con anyone into thinking he was anything but a stone killer. The kiddie songs on the soundtrack are annoying and distracting, especially the one that's supposed to be sung by Pearl, who apparently sings much more articulately than she talks (by the way: "Pearl Harper"? Please!). And Mitchum's "failure" to catch the kids, first in the basement and then in the river, is utterly unconvincing.
I find the kids' behavior after they flee completely implausible. This smart kid never thinks to call the cops? And when Powell passes them as they hide in the barn, it never occurs to the kid to double back and head for home, thus *increasing* the distance between them and the guy who wants to kill them? And since he's obviously following the river, wouldn't it be a pretty obvious thought, even for a kid, to get away from the river, rather than continue down it? And I didn't even think about the fact (which another review reminded me of) that these kids were carrying thousands of dollars in cash. Geez, they could hire a cab to take them somewhere.
And don't you think the kid might have considered telling the nice old lady who takes them in that they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac, especially when he shows up at the front door? And is it really plausible that Pearl should have forgotten that he tried to kill them and run to him with open arms? And after seeing the guy chase the boy around with a switchblade, the old lady just chases him off, but doesn't call the police, even though the guy announces that he'll be back? No, she waits around for him to come back, shoots him with a shotgun, *then* calls the police! Incidentally, the police ask her the same very good question, and I don't think they'd be satisfied with the smartass answer she tries to blow them off with. I know I'm not.
And Mitchum's defeat is rather an anti-climax after all that buildup about what a big, bad guy he's supposed to be.
The boy's reaction to Mitchum's arrest is, as others have said, completely implausible, given that we receive no indication that the boy ever felt anything warmer than intense suspicion for Mitchum's character. He certainly does not see him as a surrogate father, which is what we are required to believe in order for the scene to make sense. And there's no way a judge would allow the prosecutor to ask the boy "if that is the man who killed your mother." The boy has no direct knowledge of the crime.
And you know, there's a reason most directors outside of zany screwball comedy don't have their actors address the camera: it cuts the thin thread that suspends the audience's disbelief. Another reason is that it looks really, really stupid.
And the denouement is, let's face it, just ridiculous.
There is too much of interest here to rate this as merely mediocre, but it is too deeply flawed to be counted a success.
6/10.