Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

hourmatt326 The Fearmakers is a bland film. I didn't really enjoy this movie. I couldn't get involved in the story because I couldn't get interested or attached to any of the charters involved. The dialogue wasn't anything special and was bland as well. The only thing I really found interesting was how it was shot, the camera work isn't bad and I thought the it was editited well. But this couldn't help that it didn't have the best story and the people involved in the story were forgettable and from the beginning I found myself not interested in the cold war story line or how the main charter was going to fix it in the investigation of the newly run business. That is how The Fearmakers earned a 5/10.

MartinHafer Dana Andrews was taken prisoner during the Korean War and finally arrives home after being away for many years. But now he has periodic dizzy spells as a result of his brutal captivity. When he goes to Washington to meet his old business partner at a public relations office, he learns that his partner is dead and the business was sold out from under him to a guy that is obviously a jerk. After storming out of the office, Andrews meets with an old friend, a Senator, and learns that his old firm is doing a lot to distort truth and influence opinion--as they are a probable front group. Oddly, they never say "communist", but it's obvious that's what they intend. So, in order to expose this evil plot, Andrews returns and makes nice with the jerk and joins the firm.Generally, it's a pretty good curio of the time and it is one of the few chances you'll get to see Mel Tormé in an important role (though, oddly, he gets very low billing despite all his screen time). As always Andrews is very good, but towards the very end of the film the writers make a bad gaff--making the otherwise decent film really clichéd. This is when Andrews catches the baddies and is holding a gun on them. Just then, of all times, he gets a blinding headache and drops his gun!!! Come off it, this is just ridiculous and sets up an unnecessary final chase scene.Also, it's rather funny that the things the firm is doing to illegitimately influence public opinion and Congress are EXACTLY the same things many organizations do regularly today!! One example in the film is how they ask loaded questions that make it appear the public feels one way when they don't--something we see on news shows all the time today! Overall, it's not a great film but interesting enough to make it a little better than just a time passer, though fans of Andrews (like me) will probably enjoy it.

Michael Moricz The real irony, when viewing this film, is the way it views those who lobby for special interests in Washington (and the "marketing" of candidates, skewing polling data to achieve the desired results whether the sampling or data is fair or not) has become the norm in our own era. Hence, the villain in this film is pretty much doing the same sort of thing a Karl Rove does now, but we've just changed our perspective on it. The film purports a high tone of moral outrage at political practices which completely dominate our own time.That to me is the most fascinating thing about this film (which is well-made in a clearly B-picture sort of way: not too many sets, a conspicuously minor set of actors except for Dana Andrews--though I agree with others posting here that Mel Torme's performance is a standout--and a certain unadventurousness in the visuals and pacing, despite Tourneur's presence at the helm). By watching the film, we are made aware just how much we've come to accept certain the vast "untruthfulness" or immorality of the way politicians are marketed and elected. It's as though all of the things deplored in this film have completely become "business as usual" in our time, seemingly because the desire to operate this way in politics has survived tenaciously despite the occasional railing against it the way this film does. These days you might hear objections from alternate news sources or fringe publications to this type of deceptive political lobbying and marketing, but other than that it's clearly our daily contemporary political reality being objected to so strenuously 45 years ago in THE FEARMAKERS. While the film unfolds tightly and economically enough, it does suffer from a certain "pat-ness" concerning the plot coincidences concerning the doctor character Andrews meets on the plane at the beginning of the film. That whole subplot unfolds too easily within the overall story, as though the already claustrophobically tiny world of the characters of this movie couldn't possibly expand enough for some randomness or ambiguity between it's small ensemble of characters. Is there no-one in Washington who isn't in some way related to this plot? If memory serves, I don't believe there is ever a line spoken by anyone in this film who is not in some way part of the web of characters involved somehow for or against the unfolding scam, even though we are in cabs, in hotels, in a boarding house, on a plane, and in the city of Washington, throughout.Still, it's worth the time invested, and presents a curiously brusque performance by Andrews. His character is supposed to be tired and unstable after his ordeal in Korea, and yet it's difficult to know whether the occasionally zombie-like performance of Andrews in this film is entirely intentional. The actor himself seems fatigued and lethargic at times-- is that all for the sake of the character? But there are enough little twists and surprises in this film to hold our interest, and if the film feels at time like an extended episode of the old Perry Mason TV series, that's not necessarily a bad thing if you like that sort of presentation (as I admittedly do).I'd also agree with others here that this is a film ripe for a remake, although there is no doubt it would be a COMPLETELY different movie, with a completely different moral sense.

bigmoneygriff1 Just watched this on TCM. A problem I've always had w/Dana Andrews is his self-righteousness, but this 'red scare' film does raise concerns that are far more appropriate today regarding how pollsters & PR firms manipulate/create news & opinion versus measuring it. However in this film, the media (Washington Post reporter) & an 'old school' senator (you know, the ones that used to have a conscience & scruples) are the good guys. Nowadays, that just isn't very realistic as the media, political parties, representatives & lobbiests are all part of the Washington propaganda machine, only interested in retaining & growing on their own power base. But I digress. Look for Mel Torme in ridiculous Coke-bottle glasses. Also, DC-philes will enjoy all of the familiar landmarks with far cooler cars surrounding the city. Overall, not a waste of time. I give it a '6'.