TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Animenter There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

gridoon2018 Stanley Kubrick's first film was shot for a few thousand dollars in a California forest with a no-name cast when he was 24 years old!! Under the circumstances, I think it is a remarkable film. A little crude at times, and perhaps with a tendency towards purple prose, but a stark, powerful anti-war indictment, with some otherworldly images and characters who are not easy to pigeonhole (the civilized leader of the group is the first to make suggestive remarks about the female captive, the "gentle" young man is the first to go completely bonkers, etc.). You can tell, even by this first feature, that Kubrick is something special; most directors, even the established ones, would never even attempt an abstract film like this in 1953. **1/2 out of 4.

sol- Trapped behind enemy lines, the stress of the situation has varying impacts on four soldiers in this existential war movie from Stanley Kubrick. The film marked the great director's feature debut, and poorly received at the time, Kubrick subsequently tried to suppress it, citing the film as the work of an amateur. This controversy has lead to the film acquiring a mixed reputation over the years, but it is a far more accomplished motion picture than one might expect. While not as stylistic and innovatively shot as 'Killer's Kiss', it actually spins a more engaging narrative, focusing on war from a psychological standpoint with memorable lines such as "enemies do not exist ... unless we call them into being". In an effective touch, Kubrick also lets the characters' narrated thoughts aloud overlap at certain points, and with the way the characters discuss and debate war, Samuel Fuller's superb 1950s war movies frequently come to mind. The film's biggest weakness is the acting. Virginia Leith is superb in a brief turn in which her close-up facial expressions convey more than words possibly could, but everyone else is uneven at best with dialogue delivery sometimes stilted. A renowned perfectionist, it is no surprise that Kubrick was dissatisfied with certain elements of the film, but had he not disowned it, it is unlikely that it would be as poorly received at it often is these days. The choice to not specify the actual war or any nationalities provides the story with a welcome universal quality that resonates strongly considering all the other wars that have occurred since 1953.

TheLittleSongbird Despite hearing nothing but negative things about 'Fear and Desire', as somebody who considers Stanley Kubrick one of the greatest directors who ever lived I thought to myself "surely a lesser Kubrick film would have a lot of merit and be better than most directors' worst".Finally seeing it, this reviewer really does have to agree that 'Fear and Desire' is a misfire. It is by far Kubrick's worst film, and the only film of his I personally consider bad. The only good things here are some great use of light and shadow and in particular some beautifully done camera work, the one components that showed effort.Kubrick's inexperience badly shows here, very little of his distinctive directorial style showing. Other than the camera work, there is little of the finesse of what would come later with Kubrick's succeeding films. Particularly bad is the editing, which is awkward and borders on self-indulgent.The story, despite being a very short film, is very paper thin and stretched which gives it a very tedious feel. Kubrick's shortest film actually feels like one of his longest. The music is shrill and overbearing, not really adding anything to the atmosphere, it has been described here by a commentator as a bad Bernard Hermann imitation and this reviewer cannot disagree. The characters have no development or progression, most of them even with little personality. Also found myself irritated by the character of Sidney.'Fear and Desire's' worst assets are the acting and the script. The acting is all round terrible, some ham up, especially Paul Mazursky, and others sleepwalk through their roles. The script is atrocious, with supposedly profound narration that's overused, annoying and confusing.All in all, worth looking for historical interest but if you want to see a film to see for yourself why Kubrick was so revered 'Fear and Desire' is not it. 2/10 Bethany Cox

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews With a setting of a non-distinct time, country and people, this represents, and explores, war. A plane with four military men crashes several miles behind enemy lines. The situation is tense, tempers run high... and then a young woman spots them(oh, and this fails the Bechdel test rather spectacularly; more than anything, she's a catalyst), and they stop her from running. They may have to keep her as a hostage - after all, they can't let her warn the enemy general in the house not far from their position...The characters are the hardened Sgt. Mac(Silvera, determined to do something that will matter), the nervous Private Sidney(Mazursky, anxious), the pilot Pvt. Flethcer(Coit, suave, the airman, with the underlying idea that he isn't as brave as the others, the army men) and Lt. Corby(Harp, one caught in the middle). They respond differently to the danger - sarcasm, assigning blame, philosophizing, etc. Rank, identity, strategy and planning come up. Can one remain "civilized" during this extreme state? This also goes into perspective, the needs of the few vs. those of the many. The acting is good. There is some meaningful voice-over by an all-knowing narrator.This is nowhere near the level of the later work of Kubrick(R.I.P.), but it is very clearly one of his films. It does put his, at the time, lack of experience, on full display: the editing is slightly awkward(albeit not uninspired - one part has blood and violence shown via food being spilt and crumpled), the quick cuts to and from faces are too brief to have an effect, and there is not much camera movement, sometimes too little. This is also not as detached, with wide shots, as his later works. The running time is 58 minutes sans end credits, and the pacing is uneven, you lose interest every so often, and the conclusion peters out more than it leaves us on a compelling note. As far as availability, I watched this via my local library.Parts of this are genuinely disturbing and unpleasant, raw and brutal. I recommend this to the biggest fans of the director, as a curiosity. 6/10