This start for Gregory as producer and Laughton as director is rich in promise but the completed product, bewitching at times, loses sustained drive via too many offbeat touches that have a misty effect.
Variety, you know your reviews don't count.
Sep 16 - 03:25 PM
Hey I have an idea!!! why don't you hand in your resignation right now!!! go work at McDonalds where you clearly belong. Or better still, in the words of Jim Gaffagan, "why don't you take this coloring book and sit in the corner?". the golden age of Hollywood is long over and so is apparently the golden age of critics.
Nov 13 - 10:56 AM
I know it has been almost two years, but it's Variety Naseby... just don't bother with them. It's like trying to find out how many licks it does take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.
Aug 17 - 09:51 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how some people get paid to do film reviews who appear incapable of comprehending both subtle nuance and the virtue of simple story telling.Whoever you are, you have allowed yourself to get lost in a cerebral maze of thought, instead of simply immersing yourself in this film. Sadly you have failed to appreciate both its great beauty and artistic brilliance.To other readers, please make your own mind up. In my view, and without going endless detail, I will state that Night of the Hunter is a genuine masterpiece.
Feb 5 - 02:49 PM
I must protest this entry and ask that this spoiler "review" be removed from the tally. This movie is obviously a classic.
Feb 14 - 05:38 PM
this movie is an undisputed classic. i have never read any scholarly resource that criticises this movie for its mystic quality (or "misty" as this reviewer calls it!). it's precisely because of its mystic quality that it is so effective. the movie is supposed to come across like a child's nightmare and it accomplishes this perfectly. i just don't get how this can be perceived as a weakness of the film like variety seems to think. they obviously don't understand what they're reviewing...
Mar 28 - 05:10 PM
Wondered why The Night of the Hunter, an obviously brilliant classic, didn't have a complete %100 fresh rating. And of course, the fault is "Variety Staff".The same reason Village of the Damned didn't receive a 100% fresh rating.
Dec 29 - 01:47 PM
WaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSome random critic doesn't like a movie I love!Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Jan 10 - 06:52 PM
Variety, TIME, and The New York Times are clearly responsible for why classics don't get 100% "fresh" ratings, usually because of senseless jabber.
Mar 11 - 12:59 AM
Are all you people morons? This review was written in 1954, right when the film was released. If you knew anything about this film, you'd know it wasn't received well when it was first released so it shouldn't surprise anyone that this is a negative review. Lord Naseby's comment is particularly hilarious because in all likelihood, this reviewer is dead by now and McDonald's didn't really exist back then. As someone who loves this film and appreciates the history of cinema, I think this nearly sixty year old review is an intriguing testament to how the perception film can evolve over time. Everyone else who who's complaining: quit whining and learn a little bit more about the movie you're "defending".
Aug 17 - 09:02 AM
Hit the nail on the head.
Sep 1 - 09:14 PM
Oh Variety, you're so simple and stupid... how sweet...
Jun 21 - 07:38 PM
Lorenzo De Leon
This review should be removed
Sep 18 - 05:06 AM