L'Emprise de la peur

I was well entertained by this late 50's film. Normally movies like this have a slow pacing, however this one is more interesting and the pacing is terrific. Your eyes will never leave the screen start to finish.

The plot concerns Rev. David Collins(played by George Nader) who surprises a burglar in his house and accidentally kills him. Feeling profound remorse for his actions, he tries to apologize to the victim's father Carl Simmons(played by Eduard Franz), who is a tailor by profession.

However Carl will hear none of it. He refuses to speak to David. Meanwhile David tries again and again to appeal to Carl's sensibilities.

What will happen next is for you to see and find out!

Verdict: excellent acting, background music, direction and script. I would also recommend for your collection of 50's thriller movies.

George Nader is the priest who is visited by a burglar at home scaring the wits out of his young son and his wife, but Nader interrupts the burglar in his act, there is a fight, and accidentally the priest kills the burglar by just throwing a hard object at him, in defence of his son, his wife and himself. He can not be convicted of the homicide, while at the same time he refuses to call it an act of self defence, as the death of the burglar nails his conscience. The burglar succeeded in damaging his wife's eyes at that, and she has to remain blindfolded from now on, until it becomes clear whether she may keep her sight or not. Since the burglar is dead and the priest can't be prosecuted, the case seems to be closed, but the burglar had a father, and here is the complication. The father can't get over it, and starts stalking the reverend's boy. The reverend tries to come to terms with him, which proves impossible. That father never speaks a word throughout the film.

It's an educating study in the mentalities of fathers, a failed father, another father whose boy ends up in hospital, and the father of the criminal, whose depths of unfathomable anguish we can never understand, as little as his way of acting. He probably isn't aware himself of what he is doing in persecuting the boy. What really gives the film some dynamic dimension is the terrific music by Henry Mancini. It is brutal, subconsciously suggestive and horribly intrusive, like a dramatic illustration of the common nightmare of all the protagonists. The film is unique in many ways, as I've never seen any film trying to cope with the same kind of dilemma of conscience, despair and death.

I decided to watch this movie because the premise seemed promising. And I did watch it all the way to the end, which says something good about it since often I give up on a movie that doesn't hold my interest. What I found wrong with 'Man Afraid' is that right off the bat the parents - especially the father - are playing so fast and loose with the safety of their son, i.e. Having him walk to his friend's house after dark especially after the kid has told them that the father of the dead burglar has approached him. The kid's father knows that the other father is upset and would not even talk to him, so he just dismisses the kid's claims out of hand? Even though the kid has a history of exaggeration, this would be no time to dismiss his claims about being pursued by the dead guy's father.

And the police seem awfully reluctant to do much about the dead guy's father either, even when the kid's mother sees him in her home and she has to try and get away from him. 'Oh, she couldn't have seen him, she didn't know what he looked like,' says the police detective. Over and over the police refuse to believe there's anything really going on to be concerned about.

This movie was only so-so. And I have to say that I didn't find the ending all that satisfying either. This is not in the same league as 'Cape Fear' as someone else said. Not even close IMO.

This 1957 movie is fairly typical of a certain type of film from the fifties, usually made in black and white, often a thriller or crime drama, heavy on the suspense, with hints of madness, obsession or perversity of some sort in the villain. Most of these movies were made independently, but some studios ground them out, too. This one's a studio job, with a good deal of location shooting, and is a tad better than the average.

Competently directed by Harry Keller, a veteran of this sort of thing, the plot revolves around a gentle, decent minister stalked by the father of a man he killed accidentally during a robbery. Most of the cast is competent if unexciting for the most part, with only Harold J. Stone really outstanding in his role as a police lieutenant. He handles his dialog excellently. The big surprise with with this one is the performance of George Nader in the lead. Never the most compelling of actors, I generally find Nader lacking in credibility in most everything he did. In this picture, however, he's excellent as the upstanding reverend. His acting is well above average for him, and elicits genuine sympathy, from this viewer anyway, and this made watching this otherwise generic movie a pleasant surprise.

I'm sorry, but. I wasn't afraid of a man who didnt change his clothes for over a week. You could probably smell him two blocks away. George Nader plays a minister and is relatively convincing. Eduard Franz, however, steals the film as the sicko Simmons, who wants some type of revenge for his son being killed by a fastball to the bean of his son by the minister while he was robbing a house. He had it coming. Nice pitching job by Nader; he might have helped the Yankees that year.

Watchable mess just for the Simmons character. The music by Henry Mancini is not very romanic. Nader's son, Michael Collins, would go on to become a great leader of the Irish resistance in Ireland, although the name might just be a coincidence. Don't waste your time on this one.