The Fearmakers (1958)

Sadly Over-hyped

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Of the three motion pictures actor Dana Andrews starred in under the direction of Noir-Horror guru Jacques Tourneur, we'll cover two, CURSE OF THE DEMON and THE FEARMAKERS (sans the Western, CANYON PASSAGE)... So let's begin with the most obscure, and perhaps it is for a reason...Very rare a film go after the "Peace at any price" groups even and especially the 1950's when not a (for example and unrelated to this particular movie) science- fiction flick played out without a hidden or not so subtle message against nuclear weapons – and FEARMAKERS is a reverse sermon in a vacuum, beginning with a low-budget, rushed version of patriotism about as obvious as Michael Rennie leaving Earth following his Martian State of the Union Address...But enough of all that... FEAR is no space movie or a Film Noir despite one of that genre's signature leading men from LAURA, FALLEN ANGEL, BOOMERANG, DAISY KENYON, WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS, and especially OUT OF THE PAST director Jacques Tourneur, who Andrews requested after the surprise success and worthy turnout of their first collaboration (reviewed below) the year before, CURSE OF THE DEMON...Our heroic when tortured after being captured in Korea war-vet Andrews has a horrible fake-looking beard in the prologue – and thereafter flashbacks – and it's nice to see him all cleaned up and suited, back home, processed by the Army as sane (despite reoccurring dizzy spells), ready to dive back into work – his own business: A somewhat complicated operation that has a big surprise waiting, and it's no party...At first viewing the plot runs in talky circles and depending on prior knowledge of the "Public Relations Business" of Public Opinion Polls, Consumer Analyses, Industrial Research, Census and Surveys, it really needs some paying attention to...The movie does almost entirely through dialogue what Noir handles with guns and shadows, alleyways and romantic entanglements...After finding out that, while imprisoned overseas, his business partner died in a car accident right after selling the company to a man so obviously crooked he'd need a spinal shoehorn to stand erect, Andrews spends the rest of the picture figuring things out... When he gets word at a restaurant that his new boss may have something to hide, it takes two conversations with two different men – both very similar except one really gets the ball rolling, involving a possible murder...The pace picks up later as the plot clears, and it's not Andrews, looking much healthier and somewhat back to his 1940's dapper style than most of his other 50's B-Pictures, nor is it moon-faced beauty Marilee Earle as secretary/inside-gal Vivian that truly makes this flawed yet entertaining programmer shine...Musician Mel Torme as office dweeb Barney Bond completely owns his scenes, which happen to be the most intriguing as they involve either Dick Foran as the gentleman heavy, or Vivian, or both – with Andrews playing a kind of parenthetical cat and mouse in-between, knowing the business better than anyone and realizing those otherwise kindhearted D.C. idealists are being used as pawns ("useful idiots"), selling their own in-pocket politician through the manipulation of public opinion: Thus, Mel Torme's Barney (foreshadowing Rick Moranis in GHOSTBUSTERS, only more mellow and subtle) knows almost as much as Andrews, and far more than Foran (aided by a big thug henchman), who uses the put-upon, spectacle-wearing underling to weasel back information – but what makes Torme's character stand-out also sets him over the edge, and in that, he eventually "chews up the scenery" yet in a wonderful b-movie fashion...The dwarfish geek lusts for Dana's smitten Girl Friday, while feeling sorry for himself, with a shaky gun at one point, and don't expect a bombastic climax: FEARMAKERS, unlike most of Tourneur's more atmospheric, multi-layered ventures, is basically a Cold War Thriller's desk job. But how the papers are shuffled, as described smoothly by Andrews, is the key in this obscure vehicle that's much better the second or third time around.

Any anti-communist film is guaranteed to bring forth accusations of promoting or defending the 'red scare'. These accusations invariably come from historical illiterates.These deep thinking leftist critics are so well informed that they do not even know that the release of the Venona Papers largely vindicated the McCarthy investigations. These sneering historical illiterates need to learn about large-scale communist aggression that the West was facing at the time. For example, the communists insurgencies in Greece and Malaya, both backed by the Soviets. Then there was the takeover of Eastern Europe followed by imprisonment, torture and execution of opponents. Then there was the 1948 Berlin Blockade, the Korean War, the Berlin uprising in 1953 and the 1956 Hungarian uprising that the Soviets ruthlessly crushed.The Cold War was anything but cold and was the creation of an aggressive Soviet Union. Before any more mal-educated leftists decide to start sneering at anti-communist movies perhaps they will tell us why they choose to ignore the 100,000,000, people that communist regimes murdered. ("The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression", Harvard University Press,1999). Read this book and you might start thinking that anti-communist movies were not too far out after all and that the left's cry of 'red scare' is as phony as a $3 bill, and every freedom-loving person had every reason to fear communism.Like all movies "The Fearmakers' has its flaws. However, its portrayal of communism is nothing to be ashamed of nor is it something that deserves mockery.

Overlooked when first released among the mass of Red Scare pictures, in retrospect, it was ingenious (not to mention prescient) to treat this theme in the form of a corporate thriller. That said, Dick Foran's ruthless villain-in-a-suit is kind of weak (given the title), especially since he is flanked by such stereotypes as burly thug and fidgety geek (effectively played by crooner Mel Torme')! On the other hand, Tourneur regular Dana Andrews (for whom he had just starred in the occult masterpiece NIGHT OF THE DEMON [1957]) is in good form as the distraught Korean War veteran met with betrayal and hostility when trying to return to his job as an honest pollster. Aiding him is an elderly statesman, a crusading journalist (who actually does very little to further his cause!) and Foran's sweet-natured secretary (who obviously feels, and then falls, for our hero). Though not exactly a noir, the pervading mood of this one is quite similar (in fact, it proved to be the director's last in that style) in view of the double-crosses, the investigation, the beatings and the seediness of some of its settings.As a sop to the superiority of the American Way (and the integrity of decent folk), the climax takes place beside Washington's famed Lincoln memorial – with Andrews felling Foran via a series of karate chops (perhaps a nod to BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK [1955]). This, however, rather suggests that the former ultimately benefited from his tenure as a P.O.W. in the hands of the Chinese (incidentally, the film came out a good four years before THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE [1962])! Ultimately, therefore, once one gets past the disappointment that this is not going to deliver on the promise of brainwashing episodes displayed in the opening credits, this emerges an above average thriller nevertheless.

I happened on this film by accident one afternoon and was quietly surprised. I am a fan of film noir and thought this film would be along those lines. And it was a bit in that fashion.( "The Killers" starring Burt Lancaster is one of my favorite examples of the film noir genre). But mostly this movie is centered on Washington D.C. in the late 1950's, and the beginnings of what today is considered lobbying. How the movie reflects our capitol today is almost eerie, with our poll takers and vested interests. Downright prophetic in its nature, I found the correlations between that era and today striking. Witness the beginnings of how you're votes are bought. Disturbing to say the least.I gave the film a "7" rating, because although the movie is worth a look,it is a bit "dated" and does have some "cheese" in the acting.