Fear and Desire (1953)

Better Late Then Never

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Dualistic and Binary this Debut, a Low-Low-Lowest of Low Budget Feature Films, of Iconic Director Stanley Kubrick, is Viewed Today (despite the director actively disowning and destroying prints aggressively) as a Treat and a Tiresome, Embarrassing affair with Touches of a Maverick Artist on Display.The Movie has Moments of Brilliance and Flourishes Unlike any 1953 Films of any Budget or Pedigree. The Violence is Shocking, Expressionistic, and Brutal with Spurts of Nightmarish Images Presented in Unorthodox Displays and Staccato Editing.It has a "Twilight Zone" Feel (many years away from the groundbreaking series) and in a Korean War Time-Space Places the Soldiers in Mismatched Uniforms from the Military of the Sub-Conscious. At the time Only Sam Fuller Dared Showcase this sort of Anti-Establishment Message.But with every WOW aspect there are Cringe Inducing, Dated, Amateurish Aspects like Post Production Dialog Dubbing (the film was shot silent), Awful Acting, Sub-Professional, Low-Brow Writing that Tries Unsuccessfully to be Philosophically Profound, and other Irritants Linked to No Budget, Rookie Filmmakers Straining to make it all Work.Overall, it's the Stand-Out, Unconventional Style of the Director that Surfaces Throughout the Film that makes it a Must See for Film Students, Kubrick Devotees, and Anyone Interested in Primitive Art. However it is one of those that Must be Viewed in Context to Appreciate.

Kubrick's first feature length movie can be seen as a reminder that everyone doesn't start out as a master at making movies. It takes practice, trial and error. You can see that Kubrick learned from his mistakes and improved later on. I honestly didn't think it was that bad. There was a lot of effort put in to this, the movie is just a little off sometimes and there are strange and dull moments. The characters are difficult to get invested in to as well.There is some mystery to the story which I liked. The first half has some dozes of suspense and a psychological element. The way the opening narrator introduces the premise reminded me of the "Twilight Zone". The idea has potential. Soldiers who have been at war for so long they have forgotten their countries and now they have ended up in an unknown land just trying to get home. It feels like it could be a mysterious dream or that it takes place in an alternative universe. The second half gets more muddled and the dialogue didn't work for me. But, the first part was OK.The cinematography is still nice, which you can come to expect from dear old' Stanley. The black and white looks great, the lighting, the framing is all well done and there is a good use of close ups. So, that's probably what's best. I have no complaints on the look of the picture. The music was entertaining. I like how how classically 50's it sounded.The movie has some moments here and there. If you like Kubrick then this can be interesting to take a look at. And if you are studying or learning how to make movies, then I would say you would get something from it. Because it does show that we all start somewhere and you should never give up if you are not happy with your first works. Take the elements that didn't work and keep improving them. Seeing what could go wrong is important so that you don't repeat them. That way you will learn and get better. Well, I think many of you do know this. But, that's always important to never forget.I think the film was just OK. And it was handled pretty well for being someone's first feature length work.

Made in 1954 this was Stanley Kubrick's first film and shortly afterwards he tried to disown it and not deciding not to re-release the print. However, it was processed by Kodak and they had a policy of making a spare copy for their archives and this is the version we see today. It is set during a fictitious war with fictitious armies and no explanation as to why they are at war. Four soldiers are lost behind enemy lines and have to get back to their side. On the way they encounter the locals, the enemies air base and have to face up to a few demons of their own – not always successfully.Now some have panned this film, whilst fans still rave about its authenticity etc. The main characters wear German WW II helmets with camouflage on them and are American – the enemy also speak English and are white American looking. The acting is very one dimensional with no one writing an Oscar acceptance speech. The concepts of fear and desire are examined but in a way that is far from in depth, but it still is watchable but is not a film I will be recommending to friends unless they are a massive Kubrick fan.

If you watch the film as an avid Kubrick fan, you'll love it purely because of the genuine effort you know went into it. Stanley wanted so badly for this movie to be made even after he went over budget by several thousand dollars. I imagine he wanted to stop circulation of this film because in comparison to his others, it is, like he states, "a child's drawing on a fridge." But this does not diminish its value in the slightest. In terms of personal enjoyment, I felt it was difficult to get engaged into the story and I found myself snapping in and out of concentration. I was thankful it was just over an hour long seeing as much more would have truly tested my patience. I've seen A Clockwork Orange, the Shining, and 2001: A Space Odyssey. After having seen those then watching Fear and Desire, I was blown away by how much Kubrick improved. It's clear he understood cinema on a deep level and that's why I love him. Going back to his very first feature, it's nice to see he started just like many other independent artists--creating a film they want to make with all their heart. I don't think this film should be rated based on its quality. It's clear it's very amateur and the storyline is weak, the acting sub-par, sound quality fluctuating, the picture scratchy and inconsistent. Despite all this, I love the movie. It's the first footprint left by one of the best filmmakers this world has ever seen.