a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

The scariest thing there is is the unpredictable, the unknown. I'm getting political for a second because I am beginning to see this as an eventuality for our country in the coming year. All that aside, in his role as Max Candy, Robert Mitchum becomes about as Satanic as one can be. He is always out there. Because he commits no specific acts, Gregory Peck's character cannot do anything. The police are forced to be on Cady's side. He becomes the persecuted. As time goes on the family constantly under surveillance and threat. It's not what happens; it's what is going to happen to them. These are common people who don't have the means to protect themselves. Mitchum's very appearance is threatening, a kind of smiling, "you don't know what I'm thinking" kind of monster. This is great casting. Peck plays the everyman. His daughter is pretty and the target of unnamed threats. Polly Bergen is the maternal one. A really scary film.

Overall, I think Gregory Peck is a better and more versatile actor than Robert Mitchum. But Mitchum was almost always very good, and here I believe he exceeds Peck. I would go so far as to say that this may be Robert Mitchum's masterpiece.But unlike a painting, a film masterpiece requires the efforts of many, and I must give equal credit to director J. Lee Thompson and screenwriter James Webb. They prepared the canvas and the paints, then Mitchum and Peck painted the picture.Peck as the lawyer-father whose family is threatened by Mitchum was perfect for the role, and plays the role to perfection. But it's Mitchum who steals the show. And what I admire most about this film is the director kept Mitchum's performance realistic and believable, instead of over-the-top, which would be a real temptation in a suspense film like this. And the reason it works better is that Mitchum seems even more calculating when things are kept more psychological than violent. That's not to say there's not violence here, but, for the most part, the suspense builds slowly to a violent (and logical) conclusion.For Mitchum's character, the task is to portray an obsession for revenge. AND Mitchum plays it as if his character knows everything will work out, he just has to plot things out carefully. On the other hand, Peck's character's motivation is the upstanding man having to go dirty to protect his family. He doesn't like it, but it's the only way he can accomplish his goal. Because he plays it deviously smart instead of violent, the role is more creepy.By halfway through the film we all know the outcome. The question is how will it all go down? Upon its release in 1962, this was a controversial film due to its sensationalism. Take the first murder scene by drowning...creepy. And, of course, the film is full of sexual tension as Mitchum stalks Peck's wife (well played by Polly Bergen), and even more so his teen-aged daughter (Lori Martin). And, perhaps I'm wrong, but in the scene where he is preparing to rape Polly Bergen, I could swear Mitchum had significantly more hair on his chest than in several earlier scenes. Very interesting.While I like this general type of suspense film, I would rarely give such a film more than a "7", but on the strength of Mitchum's and Peck's performance, this one gets an "8".

A lawyer (Gregory Peck)'s family is stalked by a man (Robert Mitchum) he once helped put in jail.This may be one of the greatest thrillers of all time. And why not? You have Mitchum, who is great at playing dark and evil characters. This one is by far his darkest and most evil. And then you have Gregory Peck, who is best known for playing upstanding citizens, most notably Atticus Finch. So seeing him as the hero is easy.And then you have a story that goes above and beyond. This was 1962, and movies were relatively tame by the standards of today (2015). But not this one. Threats of murder, blackmail, rape... this is a vicious movie that is legitimately scary, and not in the campy way that a lot of early thrillers now are.

Lawyer Sam Bowden's life becomes torturous when Max Cady re-enters his life, after going to jail for 8 years when Bowden testified that Cady attacked a young woman. Now that Cady has been released, he begins to terrorise Bowden and his family, particularly targeting Bowden's daughter, Nancy. Initially, Cady uses his newfound knowledge of the law, to annoy the Bowdens, but then poisons the family dog.......It's a difficult one this. I was at an age where an '18' certificate movie was like a treasure chest full of forbidden fruits, and when Scorcese's remake was released, I was 14 years old, and just getting into my lifelong love of the cinema.Plus, it was 1992, and trying to source the original wasn't as easy as it is today thanks to streaming, DVD, and other media, so this film went begging for a while.So watching this, without comparing the two is extremely difficult, because core scenes are almost identical, but this film has a lot more depth, and Peck and Mitchum are more desperate, more emotionally charged than De Niro and Nolte, and after seeing this, the remake feels more like an exploitation piece, enabling Scorcese to experiment with cameras and filters.The camera-work here is wonderful, and adds more to the mise en scene, particularly the scene where Cady goes to attack Bowdens daughter,the camera is used in a way to emphasise Cadys intimidating figure, almost making him giant like, whereas she is made to look almost mouse like.Regarding the ending, its a much, much satisfying ending than the remake, and the boat scene is far more tense, as Sam is not on the boat when Cady infiltrates it.So again, it's proof that a classic film cannot be remade as a better piece, no matter who is involved. Having said that, I still like the original, if only for its experimental camera work, and exploitation element.