Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Tweekums This classic film is set during the Great Depression; Ben Harper has stolen ten thousand dollars, killing two people in the process. He manages to get home and gives the money to his children, John and Pearl. They hide it in Pearl's favourite rag doll and he tells them not to tell anybody else, including their mother, about it. Shortly afterwards he is arrested and sentenced to hang. In prison he tells his story to his cellmate, Harry Powell. Powell professes to be a preacher but he preys on women who he murders for their savings. After Ben is executed and Powell's short sentence ends he heads off to befriend Ben's widow, Willa. Everybody except John takes an immediate liking to Powell. It isn't long before Powell marries Willa and soon after that he starts pressuring John to find where the money is hidden. Things soon get very dangerous as Powell will go to any length to get the money.After over sixty years this film is still gripping and manages to provide some real surprises for the first time viewer. Robert Mitchum manages to be both plausible and genuinely menacing as the evil Powell. The innocent town where the Harpers live certainly isn't ready for a man like Powell. Shelley Winters is solid as Willa and Lillian Gish impresses as the woman who ultimately helps the children. Young Billy Chapin and Sally Jane Bruce are also good in the roles of John and Pearl respectively. Director Charles Laughton did a fine job building the tension, creating the right atmosphere and providing some moments that are surprisingly disturbing for a film of this era. Overall I'd say that this is a must see for any fans of classic cinema in general and certainly for fans of film noir.

Zak Ken Cinematography is great. Music is good and serves to heighten the suspense in the right places. Pacing and direction are decent. However, except for the little girl and Mrs Cooper (most of the time), the acting is generally terrible and quite tacky. Dialogue is so cheesy, sometimes it felt like I was watching a spoof.Overall, it felt more like a stage play. I don't regret watching it but no way it deserves the 8/10 rating it's currently on.

clanciai Charles Laughton's only film is on the level with all his very memorable performances in various classics as anything from Henry VIII, Rembrandt and Nero to the hunchback of Notre Dame and a busker of London. 'The Night of the Hunter' is about a sanctimonious preacher (Robert Mitchum) who plays with knives and kills wives and other innocents. His character of extreme double standards is a devastating blow to religiousness. He gets the scent of $10,000 hidden by an executed cellmate (Peter Graves as a young man and the father of two small children with gorgeous Shelley Winters for their mother) and so beleaguers and weds the mother with disastrous consequences for her, whereupon the children run away to Lillian Gish. That's part of the story.The amazing thing about the film is the highly qualified synchronization of the direction (Laughton), the photography (Stanley Cortez at his best) and the music (Walter Schumann). They worked together exchanging ideas and sentiments, and the result is one of the most magic films ever made. The photography of Cortez, who also worked with Orson Welkles, Fritz Lang and many others, is amazing throughout, especially since most of it is nocturnal. In a color film the effects would not have been as expressive and spellbinding.Another vital point is the masterful psychology. Laughton handles his actors with expert mastership and brings out the best of them, especially the children. Billy Chapin as John is especially noteworthy with his eyes expressing more than any dialogue. No director I know has managed to catch the soul language of the eyes better than Laughton, and he was a master actor with his eyes himself.The fantastic photography makes it vital though to watch it in as high quality as possibly, not to miss perhaps the most important element of the film. Blue Ray is recommended, if possible.

Art Vandelay Where to start? The acting has more ham than Easter dinner. Shelley Winters - fetching in her early years - is trying way too hard. Peter Graves never could act. The older couple - well, the woman, anyway - I wanted to see put in the ground she was so irritating. James Gleason - an old pro who is in too many movies to count - gives the worst performance of his life. Mitchum isn't menacing; he's a cartoon. The opening scene with the disembodied heads? Laughable. The soundtrack? Over-the-top. I watched this years ago and thought it was garbage, despite its reputation. So I watched it again on TCM and, sure enough, it's still garbage. The scene where Mitchem gets gonked on the head with the jar of preserves and then ''chases'' the kids up the stairs with his arms out-stretched is, and I say this without fear of contradiction - the most ineptly staged scene in the history of serious cinema. Charles Laughton made the correct decision to never direct another film. He was an un-talented hack behind the camera.