Watch The Night of the Hunter For Free

Best movie of this year hands down!

A Masterpiece!

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Robert Mitchum singing "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" is just about one of the creepiest things on film! And his silhouetted outline is another! Dang, that man can play a bad guy! And this time he's a bad preacher terrorizing two children! Yikes! And Lillian Gish makes her character, Rachel Cooper, come alive as his opposite! It's a good movie, mostly due to Mitchum, but it does have some issues with choppy story telling and/or film editing. But the overhead shots are pretty cool for an older film, and overall, this is was a pleasure to watch! And those LOVE/HATE tattoos on the preacher's knuckles are creepy as heck! As is this quote, my final thought on the film: " I can hear you whisperin' children, so I know you're down there. I can feel myself gettin' awful mad. I'm out of patience children. I'm coming to find you now." eeeeee.....

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.

Charles Laughton, better known as an actor, only ever directed one film in his life. That being The Night of the Hunter, where a small town husband commits a bank robbery, in the process killing two people. He gets caught, but before that he assists his children in hiding the money and swears them to secrecy. In the prison, awaiting hanging, he accidentally reveals to a corrupt preacher the fact that the kids are in the know. The man gets hanged, but the preacher is released, and he promptly sets out to woo the widow and squeeze the hiding place of the money from the children.Laughton was heavily influenced by the German expressionism style of film making and it shows. Heavy shadows, sharp silhouettes, Gothic imagery and stylized dialogue are the order of the day. The film even opens with the detached head of an old woman floating in space, quoting Bible to a bunch of children. Or rather their heads, also floating in space.And I have to be frank, it's more corny than impressive. You get the idea that Laughton likes this art style, but is not fully able to pull it off. The film is filled with artistic touches, but most of them cause the story to flow erratically. Granted, there are also some truly beautiful shots, especially when Laughton plays with silhouettes, but I was still pulled out of the story way too often.Full props to Robert Mitchum as the preacher Harry Powell. He has one of the best voices I've ever heard in cinema, and even though the character he plays is one of the more over the top men of cloth I've ever seen, he almost manages to pull it off, which is a small miracle in and on itself.All in all the film definitely has an identity. Personally I didn't much care for it, but I can see why some people hail this as a masterpiece. It dances just at that razor edge where it could be seen as something unique and daring, rather than presumptuous.

In the theater "expository" is when the actor talks to the audience. It is sometimes necessary to further the play, but is generally thought to be a weakness of writing. In the case of film, it should be absolutely unnecessary. As a visual medium, any expository should be easily handled by the visuals. When it is used, it is a sure sign that the screenwriter (and by extension, the director) just couldn't find a way to express it any other way except having the actors talk to (or at) the audience.In the case of "It's a Wonderful Life" the Angels talk to the audience and it works, moving the story forward. In "The Night of the Hunter" it fails miserably. The morality tale should be carried by the story, not by bible verses directed to the audience.Another form of expository is when the camera is used to show the passage of time or distance, usually through montage. Hitchcock was a master of the visual montage. His technique is crisp and sharp. Other masters of the visual montage are Orson Welles, John Ford, Wes Anderson, and Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately Laughton's visual montages were slow and plodding, using animals in the foreground of the scene to show the passage of distance. It was a good thought, but it didn't work.Laughton was troubled that his first directorial attempt was a box office and critical failure, and he never directed again. That is a shame, because in spite of these weaknesses, most first time directors have failings and they get better over time. Laughton clearly had directorial chops. He just needed more experience.There are many directorial "one-hit-wonders." First attempts are great, and everything after that fails. There have many many actors who turned director. Some failed, and some succeeded.Laughton showed so much potential as a director. There was so much to be proud of, that he could have overcome the weaknesses in later films, chalking it up to a learning experience.The camera work was, at times, exquisite. When the actors were not lined up across the screen (a directorial weakness), he moved them in and out of the foreground and frame (a strength) with the grace of a veteran. The lighting was masterful. Transition between night and day, and the use of light and shadow showed that Laughton had skill.The story that the script is based on is one of the films great strengths, but one of the great weaknesses was the script. Stilted and unnatural dialogue held the cast and director back. The expository, that I mentioned earlier, is something that is used with great effectiveness in a novel, where expository is how things get explained, talking in the third person directly to the reader. James Agee, the script writer, was a novelist. This explains why expository happened. Clearly they should have put the script in the hands of a seasoned screen writer, so the director and actors would have had better substance to work with.Now, let's really get positive. The characters in the story were strong, and the casting backed that up with strong, exceptional performances. Clearly Laughton could have been regarded as an actor's director. He knew what the actors needed from him. As an actor, he possessed natural skill, and was backed by directorial masters. He learned these lessons well, and directed his actors with the skill of a veteran.Mitchum, Winters, and particularly Gish turned in performances that absolutely saved the film and turned it into a film well worth watching. When the script didn't get in the way, the supporting cast was also very good.I am not a big fan of Robert Mitchum, but when he plays evil, it is truly evil. Between this performance and "Cape Fear" I could say that Mitchum (along with perhaps Lon Chaney and Lee Marvin) may be one of the most evil actors ever.Two time Oscar winner, Shelley Winters plays the weak and vulnerable mother. She is emotionally and (sometimes) physically beat down. You can see her try to maintain dignity when she is told she is unworthy. The conflict in her weighs heavily. She tries to hold her head high, but just cannot keep it up for very long. Winters masterfully delivers. She may be the most sympathetic character in the film.Lillian Gish. Ah, Miss Lillian. La Gish. Maybe the greatest actress we have ever had. From the time she comes on the screen, she dominates and the whole tone changes. Even Mitchum cannot keep up with her-it becomes her film. She has a strength and a softness that she brings to every role. If you ever get a chance to see "Broken Blossoms," "Orphans of the Storm," "Way Down East," or "The Wind" take the time.Film acting is, in all cases, in the eyes. It is the eyes that project what is going on in the soul and the mind of the character. Gish is a master of using her eyes to convey what is inside. (There are a very few actors that effectively do this.) If Gish never smiled, never frowned or grimaced, never used her body to convey anything, it would be fine. She acts from her eyes. Her smiles and grimaces are delivered by her eyes. When she looks at someone, she really sees them. She looks inside them. There is an understanding that is conveyed by the way she sees. There is really no acting involved...she is being.This is really a film worth seeing. You should let go of the weaknesses, and focus in on the strengths. In spite of everything, you will not be disappointed. I gave it a 9 out of 10.