A waste of 90 minutes of my life

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.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Scorsese has done a great directing work and acting is amazing in this film. I personally thought it was gonna be a cool thriller, but it was quite disturbing. In the movie there is also included teen-problems, which is not nice to watch itself, but this movie has a lot to deal with rape (Although a clear rape scene is not shown, that's good). Also shown is women being tortured and mistreated. There is some hardcore violence. Gives off a lot negative vibes.But Overall, it is a well made movie. Some scenes and shots are really cool and memorable. Although I really don't recommend this to be watched under 16 (it deserved a R rating).

If you hang onto the past, you die a little each day. I was 11 years old when this movie came out and I remember all the "grown ups" talking about Cape Fear. Finally, at 37 years old I watched the movie since it was on Netflix. I thought it was great!I studied the characters in detail and how their daily lives where fear based (for obvious reasons.) But, the plot was great because it brought out some sins tucked away. Each day that passed, their fear grew stronger.Numbers 32:23, "Thy who chooses not to, behold, thy sinned against'd the Lord; and be sure your sin will find you out."Robert De Niro and Nick Nolte did an excellent job going back and forth as lawyers.

In short, a bad man and convicted rapist (DeNiro) is released from prison after 14 years for a crime he probably did commit although it is open and questionable that he was guilty of that crime. The man who defended him (Nolte) is a criminal lawyer who withheld evidence because he didn't want to see this animal go free but he cheats on his wife and does a number of other questionable acts. So now DeNiro has come back to stalk Nolte and his family for revenge. Quite predictable and few surprises. And somehow, DeNiro's character is just super, super smart, savvy and able to accomplish anything so he can be creepy.Robert DeNiro's horrendous southern accent is horrendous, making what could be a serviceable but predictable thriller into a comedy in every scene he is in. Sometimes you have to question the decisions of directors to force actors to play parts that may not be necessary, such as that of a southern criminal. But if you're going to butcher it so badly that any American will laugh his/her ass off, you're never going to pull off a thriller. As it moves on, it becomes more preposterous and choppy editing and absurd ending that is more worthy of a first time director. It was hard for me not to get a good long laugh at the twisted, overly long ending. If this movie didn't have the cast and DeNiro's name it would probably rate a 3-5.This film is only redeemed by mostly excellent performances by the cast, a great Jessica Lange and a fantastic Juliette Lewis. DeNiro does what he can but that accent is truly cringeworthy and out of place. This is a "nothing to do what's on cable?" movie. Don't expect to be impressed, color by numbers and quite mediocre with a generous 5.

SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's natural to want co compare remakes to original films. And for some reason, there seems to be even more of a desire to do so with the two "Cape Fear" films. By pure coincidence, I happened to watch the original on cable (I don't believe I had ever seen it), and just 2 weeks later the 1991 version was on cable.I have always had a great deal of respect for the body of work of Gregory Peck. And while I don't think that Nick Nolte's body of work compares, this film was in what I consider to be Nolte's most productive period. With Robert Mitchum, I didn't always like the roles he chose, but he, too, had many admirable performances. Robert DeNiro was not a favorite of mine in his early years, by the time this film was made, I was really beginning to respect his work. So, my comparison has little to do with whether or not I like the lead actors, I like them all. But then there is Polly Bergen, not a favorite of mine, though I also didn't dislike her performances. In 1991 it was Jessica Lange, also not one of my favorites.But let's get the point -- I strongly preferred the 1962 film. And here's why (not in any particular order):1. I liked the feel of the old South in the 1962 film, which is virtually absent in most of the 1991 film. 2. I admired the restraint and subtlety with which Robert Mitchum approached his role in the original, far more than the over-the-top nature of Robert DeNiro's performance (which is unusual for DeNiro). 3. Gregory Peck was the pillar of virtue in the first film, all the better to draw a distinct line between him and Mitchum. But Nolte is a compromised (though successful) lawyer. The line is blurred. 4. The rape scene in the original was tragic, but eating part of a woman's face is way too far over the top in the later film. 5. The wife in the latter film is emotionally damaged to the point where the viewer feels little sympathy for her. 6. Even the daughter in the later film gets no sympathy here...she's too far along in her sexuality, where the daughter in the early film was almost prepubescent, in practice, if not physicality. 7. The one thing that the newer film has in its favor is a very strong performance by Nick Nolte. It's not better than the Gregory Peck performance, but it is Nolte at his peak before the long slide. 8. The Cape Fear island locale of the ending of the first film was far more spooky than the family house in the second film. 9. It was nice seeing Gregory Peck (this time as a bad guy), Robert Mitchum (this time as a good guy), and Martin Balsam in supporting roles here. But Mitchum and Peck are in roles that just don't fit them. 10. In the first film, there was building suspense throughout the film. Here, the real suspense only comes toward the end of the film. 11. In the original film, violence was used as needed. Here the violence is excessive and over-the-top in order to thrill the audience. 12. The husband and wife sliding around in the blood in this film was simply childish excess. 13. The final insult to our intelligence in this film is that the family all lived despite the violent storm where the boat was destroyed and sank. Trash. Just trash.The original -- Robert Mitchum's masterpiece, This remake -- just tawdry excess. And my respect for everyone connected with it is just a little less after seeing it again after all these years.