Alucinado pela Vingança

The reverend George Nader hears noise from his son's bedroom and goes in to investigate. He leaves the lights off to avoid waking the child. When he dimly sees a burglar, he throws a snow globe at him, and kills him. After police lieutenant Harold Stone investigates, he goes home. The papers cover the news, and we see shots of the burglar's father, tailor Eduard Franz, ripping the seams out of a coat with a razor.

Odd things start happening, and eventually Nader concludes that Franz is stalking Nader's son, Tim Hovey. The police refuse to do anything because of lack of evidence.

It's a very slow and very flat build-up, so much so that all the suspense was drained out of the story, and Nader's near-constant, solemn and pastoral demeanor don't help much. There's some good camerawork by DP Russell Metty, including views of the seedy parts of Santa Monica Pier. With Phyllis Thaxter, Reta Shaw and Martin Milner.

Having disturbed and overpowered a burglar in his son's bedroom (No doubt in search of a priceless jigsaw puzzle), church minister George Nader is shocked to find himself at the centre of a homicide case. Who would have imagined that skidding on a toy, seconds before being involved in a head on collision with a flying snow globe would have such tragic consequences?

The relatively tense climax and moralistic denouement only partially mask the fact that much of the plot is just a series of cobbled together contrivances. Terrorized, half blind Phyllis Thaxter contrives to demolish a table lamp and dislodge pictures from the wall as she frantically reels around the room, while hard as nails detective Harold J. Stone contrives to be ultra cynical as Nader shovels more and more clues in his direction. When Nader discovers vital evidence in the form of a tin box full of half smoked dimps, dog ends and roll ups, close to the church bazaar, he bizarrely neglects to hand it in to the police. When he later returns to the spot.....Whaddya know? It's gone!

Home security was clearly low on Nader's list of priorities. Long before the walk-in shower became fashionable, he had a walk-in house. An all too easy target for the passing trade of thieves, prowlers and cops.

Man Afraid is.....Oh Man! A frayed and frazzled stab at film noir. Never rising above routine, a loose retread of the previous year's 'The Killer is Loose', with disturbed loner, Eduard Franz out to avenge the murder of his son paralleling angry, grudge bearing Wendell Corey's eye for an eye fixation in the aftermath of his wife's fatal shooting.

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.

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.