User reviews

I'm seeing every Stanley Kubrick feature film in order, and began with his most disliked 'Fear and Desire'. I've heard some awful things about it, but considering the very limited resources to make it, a viewer can easily notice the unlimited potential of the man behind the camera. Fear and Desire has genius that can't be tapped with the restraints had.

It's a war film- with no names. Just soldiers behind enemy lines, wanting to get back and the problems they encounter. There's a certain Shakespearean quality about it- the characters give short monologues about their feelings and morals that aren't grounded in reality. There are some good lines, and some absolutely terrible ones, and some that seem too philosophical for their own good. These lines are delivered by actors pushing melodrama: Sidney goes nuts, but unreasonably. Then there's the technical faults: it's a mess, with some sloppy editing. Again though, there were budget constraints that any full-fledged director could work around.

Kubrick made a thinking film, but it has some poorly communicated ideas. Is this idea that war pushes men past their extremes? There isn't anything horrifying about what the men go through. It seems that while he could later create some of the best war films ever, they are very difficult to make as a first picture/ They just need more money to make. Seeing this reminds me of a much later debut, Reservoir Dogs. Both share similarities of a few characters in isolation, and auteurs behind the camera.

A strong aspect of Fear and Desire is its music, which helps some of the more tense scenes. The plot is good and doesn't linger- the film is around an hour long. It's not as bad as I heard, and lays the groundwork for later Kubrickisms: war and thematic material. Filled with potential. 6.5/10

Let me preface this review with one simple statement: Stanley Kubrick is god. I'm a rabid fan, the man could do no wrong, and his death was the greatest loss that film has ever known -- every other director moved up a notch when Stanley went, because Mr. Kubrick was, is and always will be number one...

That said -- it was actually heartening to see "Fear and Desire" and to realize that the film pretty much sucks. In other words, even genius has to be born somewhere, and in his first feature, Mr. Kubrick just didn't have it yet. Pretty much a still "Life" photog at the time, "Fear and Desire" comes across as a pretentious student film, albeit a well shot one. However, this is in the days before Kubrick developed his own style, and so anything eye-catching in this movie is by way of Sergei Eisenstein. At times, the influence is painfully obvious, as in a sequence in which our lead soldiers make a raid on a house held by the enemies -- it might as well be a re-take of "Potemkin," sans the steppes and the lady with the busted glasses. But, the jump cuts, the creation of scene through editing, the visual ellipses is entirely Eisenstein and none at all Kubrick, and the effect is jarring.

Not that there aren't points to recommend in the film. Oddly enough, a very young Paul Mazursky turns in a wonderful performance as a soldier who cracks under the stress of it all, and Kubrick stages what's basically a rape scene under the constraints of 50s censorship, while infusing it with so much eroticism that it's rather uncomfortable. (Side note to Adam Sandler: if you ever chose to go into drama, study Mazursky's role in this film -- it's everything you could be if you give up the "dumb but pure" roles of "Wedding Singer" and "The Water Boy.")

Pluses in the film are that it deals with the subject of war without ever identifying sides -- there's a vague Prussian-ness about the villains, but if you look closely, none of the soldiers are identified by country. Kubrick also pulls off some interesting double casting in which the leads play the "villains," but are not obviously the same people. On the down side, the film opens and closes with possibly the most pretentious voice over narration ever committed to celluloid. There's a BIG IDEA working here, but given that Kubrick was only 24 when he made the film, it's understandable that the Ooh-Aah idea wasn't really as big as he thought it was. (Then, again, making an anti-war movie during the Korean war was probably about as egregious as one could get. I wouldn't know, I wasn't alive in 1953.)

All of this said -- for film students and Kubrick fans, this film is a must-see if you can track it down -- and good luck trying, since Mr. Kubrick wisely killed all availability of the movie. In a lot of ways, it's actually a very encouraging experience to see a genius like Mr. Kubrick churn out absolute crap -- brilliant moments that add up to nothing. Given his career since this film, it just shows that everyone has to start somewhere, and even the (arguably) greatest director in the history of cinema was once just a young schmuck with a camera, film and some actors.

Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.

I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.

In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.

In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a "doodle pad" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.

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

I've been dying to see this film for some time now - ever since I first fell in love with Kubrick's movies - but I was also a little hesitant, due to repeated reports that this film was seriously, even fatally flawed. Now that I've finally seen it, I can confirm it: it is quite flawed.

The dialogue, including its attempts at humor, is consistently corny. The music is like a bad imitation of Bernard Herrmann score. The acting is often sub-par. The budget is obviously very low. The editing is often awkward. And so on.

Yet, despite all of this, I found myself getting absorbed in it, and, by the end, I caught myself nodding in overall approval. Despite the films warts and moles, Kubrick manages to create a decent little film. Elements of his later, oft-famed style can be found throughout, especially in the cinematography. Taken for what it is, I think it's an enjoyable movie.

As for the films many flaws, just keep in mind that even the tallest man was born small. I'd recommend this film to any serious Kubrick fan. Watching it, one knows that big things lay ahead.

Fear and Desire is of interest mainly to Kubrick obsessives, who can plumb this pretentious clap trap for signs of his still-to-come greatness. Kubrick was right in seeking to ensure that the film was not screened or available on legitimate video. He considered it embarrassing and amateurish, and he was correct in his evaluation. This is a weak and tedious film--at 68 minutes it still seems longer than "Barry Lyndon"!--it nevertheless is of historical interest, and has its genuine absorbing moments. It's a difficult film to find (only "unofficial" copies are in circulation), though perhaps this may change if Kubrick's estate relents and has it released on video. Recommended only for Kubrick enthusiasts.

Kubrick may have been the greatest director of all times. He may have made more classics than anyone else. He may have been a perfectionist. But man, was his first attempt ever bad!

Kubrick had good reason to try to make this film dissappear from the map: it looks like an Ed Wood film. It has strange narration, cheap shots, bad dialogue, ominous music reminiscent of your 50s sci-fi/horror flick, and what looks like relatives of the cast of "Reefer Madness" going insane for no reason.

Sure, you can see an undeveloped Kubrick in there. It is a psychological/horror study of war. The characters became dehumanized and insane. There are people playing more than one role. There are constant shots of the faces and particular facial expressions of different people. And there are a few interesting shots around there. But really, this is a mess.

Of course, I am not discouraging you from watching it. If you get a hold of it, you are joining a select group of myself and a few thousand people world wide who have had access to it.

An extra point for style. Kubrick style, without a budget, without experience; don't re-make a hit/classic if you can re-make something like this. The story is interesting but makes no more sense than the madness of war, which is what is depicted. Could be a bit shocking, dealing as it does with moral issues that are so basic many people would rather not admit that they exist. Attempting to depict such weirdness is part of Kubrick's (now) well known genius. Really interesting and sometimes downright good use of camera and sound. Always do your best, dear reader, for even you first movie could be your last.

OMG, it's like the Ed Wood version of Full Metal Jacket. Really, it's that bad.

Clearly, as producer-director-cinematographer-editor (especially editor), the 24-year-old Kubrick was in way over his head. Being saddled with a screenplay by the future scripter of Jaws II didn't help. Truly, if this were a blind test, and given the multiple choice, I suspect more viewers would finger this as the first effort of Ed Wood rather than Stanley Kubrick.

For further curiosity value, there is grizzled Hollywood veteran Paul Mazursky in his first screen role, looking impossibly young and cute at 23. For his sins, he gets to deliver the line that serves as Review Summary above.

For better or worse, the TCM broadcast of this movie will give succor to every first-time filmmaker in the world. No matter how unspeakably bad your first feature may be, hey, who knows, you might go on to make Dr. Strangelove. Or Plan 9 From Outer Space.

'Fear and Desire' (1953) is noted amongst film enthusiasts as being the first feature length film of legendary director and screenwriter Stanley Kubrick. Adding to this initial infamy is the fact that Kubrick frowned upon the film in his later years, calling it "amateurish" (which in his eyes and when compared to his other masterpieces, it most likely was) as well as refusing to re-release the film. Essentially, Kubrick did everything within his power to keep 'Fear and Desire' from public consumption. In a particular city (the name of which I cannot recall) the film was scheduled to be screened long after its initial release, but prior to the screening the theater management received a call from Kubrick and his associates asking the theater not to show the film. From such evidence one may draw the conclusion that the film is quite dismal and forgettable, but such is not the case. 'Fear and Desire' is a film far ahead of its time, by a director far ahead of his time – one which we all may never even catch up to. Even as early as 1951/53 can Stanley Kubrick's genius be seen emerging – and brightly at that.

'Fear and Desire' takes the viewer to the forests of a distant land, which is currently warring against (presumably) the United States in a fictitious conflict. In the dense forest the viewer finds four men stranded behind enemy lines as a result of a plane crash. These four military personnel are Sgt. Mac (Frank Silvera), Lt. Corby (Kenneth Harp), Pvt. Sidney (the debut of the wonderful Paul Mazursky), and Pvt. Fletcher (Stephen Coit). The men quickly decide that to return to their camp they must travel by night down a river which runs through enemy territory and down into their own territory. As the men begin to formulate their plans to return to safety, they become aware of enemy forces within the area and the stress, instability, and perhaps futility of war begin to set in around them physically, as well as within their minds.

Over the years, 'Fear and Desire' has strangely enjoyed harsh criticism by even those individuals lucky enough to view it. The picture essentially takes an above average stab at a subject matter which would resurface throughout Kubrick's history. Most notably, the subject matter is revisited more thoroughly in the excellent 'Full Metal Jacket' (1987). The film's main underlying message and social as well as political commentary focuses on the futility, horror, and dehumanizing effects of war and that which it embodies. In 1951 when 'Fear and Desire' was filmed the world was still recovering from WWII, the effects of the cold war were already being seen, and in U.S. affairs, the Korean War was underway. It was at this time many insightful thinkers such as George Orwell (author of 1984) and evidently Stanley Kubrick were recognizing and speaking out against the grim and ever-increasingly violent world in which we were becoming. Kubrick did this through the profound art of film-making. If this alone, during the conforming time period of 1951, does not earn this film and Kubrick a great deal of praise, then perhaps nothing does. Despite this, there are a few minor problems with this production, but none which hold much weight. In the beginning narration, the film is quite prophetic and at times quite philosophical. This works most of the time, but at times it says things blatantly that would perhaps better be left unsaid and left to the viewers' imagination. Essentially, it sometimes overstresses the somewhat obvious. All of the technic al aspects within the film are exquisite and Kubrick's skill is already shining brightly. The photography and the cinematography within the film are brilliant. The scene in which Sgt. Mac's silhouette is seen rafting down the river is breathtaking, as well as the vast shots of the great wilderness of nature's battlefield. Also, Kubrick's trademark facial shot of "insanity" is seen on the face of the soldiers (namely on Pvt. Sidney). Not only is the film daring for its time in the field of social commentary, but also it is quite vulgar by 1950s standards. Kubrick even directs a rape scene, as well as death sequences which are vividly depicted around the sensors of the era. With fitting performances by all of the actors (although Mazursky's over-the-top acting is at times regarded as ridiculous, I find it to be the acting highpoint of the whole film) and a shocking ending quite reminiscent of 'The Twilight Zone', the film proves itself to be an extremely dark, moody, intelligent, and insightful experience.

Why 'Fear and Desire' enjoys such harsh criticism could very well be Kubrick's actions in its destruction, the influence of other critics, or perhaps a subconscious comparison to Kubrick's other works. Regardless, upon my viewing I found it to be an extremely wonderful piece of cinema. One thing I am convinced of which does in fact bog down public opinion of 'Fear and Desire' is the various bootlegged releases of the film on DVD and VHS. Truly to experience the film as it was meant to be experienced one must watch the 35mm cut of the film, it really does add to experience. Although rare, there are a few prints left in existence and those presented with the opportunity to view one would be wise to accept. Given the circumstances and the status which Kubrick enjoys, it is sadly inevitable that this will be compared to Kubrick's other classics and, as many feel, will pale in comparison. Is it truly a poor film in any sense of the word? Most certainly not; the film is atmospheric, insightful, visually breathtaking, bizarre, and vastly ahead of its time. Had 'Fear and Desire' perhaps been directed by another director, well-distributed, and honored today it is quite possible that the film would live on as, if not a classic, a cult classic and highpoint of 1950s cinema.

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

Four soldiers are stranded behind enemy lines. They hatch a plan to get back to their side but it is fraught with danger. Then something occurs which forces them to choose between self-preservation and duty.

Stanley Kubrick's first movie, though, considering the low quality of it, you wouldn't know it was directed by him. Very weak script: plot is quite basic and dialogue is silly at times. Even worse is the internal monologues: stupid, rambling, superficial and pretentious. These, more than anything, explain why this movie is so poor.

The performances are not that great either, but aren't as bad I was expecting, knowing the budget Kubrick had to work with.

On the plus side, there are early signs of Kubrick's genius as a director and editor, gained from his background as a photographer. The camera angles and changes of angles are great for a debut movie, as is the editing.

Overall, dull and pretentious and only worth watching because it is Stanley Kubrick's first film.

Kubrick himself had such a low opinion of the film he tried to disown it, once his career took off. He tried to have all copies of it destroyed. Luckily for film historians and fans of the great man, at least one copy survived.

It's remarkable how much of a mess this film is. The mythology is that Kubrick himself hated the film in his later years and wanted to suppress it, and you can quite see why. The only upside is that this film proves that even geniuses have to start with some terrible work to learn from and improve. Only watch this if you are a Kubrick completist, otherwise avoid.

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.

"I wonder if my own grave isn't being planned."

It is true that eventually Stanley tried to have the print of this film destroyed, as he didn't like the film and didn't want people to see it.

A 5.4 rating on here at the moment? What a joke! Sure, it's not an outstanding film in every way, but the rating here is beyond silly. This is not a groundbreaking film, like most Kubrick films are. In fact he even disowned this film basically and wanted it destroyed. Nonetheless, it does have one very great quality that nearly all of Stanley's films have, it's thought provoking for sure! It is technically speaking his first feature length film. It's not nearly the greatest debut film around, but it's far from bad. It is in my view without doubt, Stanley's worst overall film. However the majority of filmmakers wish their best film was this interesting in all truth. Fear and Desire is very watchable, and in fact it's well worth watching. This film and Spartacus are the only two feature films that Kubrick ever directed where he didn't receive any kind of writing credit.

7/10.

When people look at the early work of any artist who is later acclaimed a genius, there are two standard views. The first is that it is a failure, because it isn't as good as the artist's later works, when his techniques and budgets will have caught up with his talent. The other is to rate it a success and find the same greatness that will appear later, even though the artist's technique and budgets have not caught up yet.

I liken the latter attitude to looking through every manger for the baby with the halo. Look! There's some straw! It must be him! Neither is the former attitude any better. Works should be judged on their own merits and with a movie like FEAR AND DESIRE, the proper standard is not the mature, big-budget Kubrick of PATHS OF GLORY, but the contemporary, low budget war movie. It's tough, because this is a movie about the insanity of war, a theme Kubrick would return to many times.

Still, at this time a jaundiced re-examination of the the Second World War was beginning, with works such as EIGHT IRON MEN in 1952 and THE CAINE MUTINY in 1954, both directed by Edward Dmytryk, presaged by Samuel Fuller's STEEL HELMETS in 1951.

Looking at those movies, we can judge this one more accurately. We can see the remarkable, if still compositions that Kubrick uses -- just the sort of picture he would offer to his editors at LIFE. Do you like your photography out front or subtle? Me, I like my compositions subtle. Otherwise they distract from what is going on. Some movies, though, are about striking images and because of weaknesses in other departments. This is one of them.

Now we listen to the words as they are spoken by the actors and think about what the words mean and how they are delivered. The script about this squad trapped behind enemy lines is melodramatic and the actors are way over the top, with little modulation.

The pieces -- pictures, script and performances -- don't fit together well. The result is a fitfully interesting but overall poor movie, not really worth your time.... except it is Kubrick, and given my exhaustive (and exhausting) academic attitude towards these things, I want to see everything he did. I'm glad I saw it.

So that makes it decent. Which, come to think of it, is what you'd expect of the first feature film of a great director.

Four soldiers trapped behind enemy lines must confront their fears and desires.

This was the beginning for one of the greatest directors in film history -- a beginning so humble, the project was financed by his father and uncle (making it a truly independent film in the best sense of the word).

Apparently Kubrick disowned the film after it was made and wanted all copies destroyed. Honestly, I did not find it to be as bad as all that. Sure, it is probably the simplest of his creations, but there is nothing so bad about it that it should have been scrapped.

For a while, the film was thought lost, then prints emerged, and for a while you could even watch a cruddy copy on YouTube. Finally, a decent copy has been released -- looking as bright and vibrant as could ever be hoped.

Stanley Kubrick's first feature length shows him to be well versed in Eisentein, Pudovkin and Dreyer as well themes he will go on to explore throughout his illustrious career. Minus the healthy budget, technicians and big stars it intersperses flashes of brilliance with murky storytelling that results in a split decision.

After their plane crashes four men at war find themselves six miles behind enemy lines. The objective is to get back to their side by building a raft and floating down river at night but they are discovered by a peasant girl and have to delay. In the meantime one of the soldiers becomes obsessed with killing an enemy general.

Working within the confines of his lean budget Kubrick does a fine job of buffering the film's look through multiple angles, striking close-ups and jarring editing. Sound synchronization is fraught with problems and the performances erratic and Kubrick as he has done throughout his career lingers a touch long in some scenes but working with what he has to does in moments as impressive a job of conveying the irony, darkness and absurdity of war as Malick does in The Thin Red Line and Coppolla in Apocalypse Now.

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.

"Fear and Desire" is an interesting film for one reason alone. It's so bad that you cannot help but marvel that it was directed by a man that some film critics wet themselves about when they talk, as they LOVE Stanley Kubrick so much. Plus, it shows that even a film that isn't much better than "Plan 9 From Outer Space" doesn't mean that the folks won't go on to better things.

The film is a war film about a small group of strangely garbed soldiers! I say strange because one of these 'American' soldiers actually is wearing a German helmet with a cover over it, another wears a British cap and the rest of their stuff looks like someone went to an army surplus store and grabbed stuff...while wearing a blindfold! To make matters worse, the acting is often bad, the vocal dubbing a bit off and it just looks thoroughly unprofessional and dull.

I could talk more about the film but frankly, it was so dull and bad that I don't really think it's worth your time unless you are bent on seeing Kubrick's progress. By the way, although I thoroughly hated the film, Kubrick did make "Killer's Kiss" and "Day of the Fight" were made around the same time and were so much better. And, only a short time after this, he was making such prestigious films as "The Killing"!

This film, Stanley Kubrick's first feature, has been maligned by its creator and hidden away for many, many years, which is a shame, for in spite of its shortcomings, it is most definitely a Kubrick film. Many of the themes that populate his later work can be found here, as well some of his photographic specialities. Possibly, with his recent passing, the archives that have had to stifle showings of this film, often by request of Mr. K, might now be able to show his many admirers that he knew where he was going right from the start.

Stanley Kubrick's first feature film was thought lost for many years, but fortunately a copy has been restored and now anyone can watch the first work by maybe the greatest director of all time. Sure, "Fear and Desire" is no masterpiece as Kubrick's late works, not even close, but it still manages to somehow show the brilliance that surrounds the director's works. Set in a metaphoric place as the narrator urges us to know (and yes, that's the main problem of the film: it's too explanatory, something Kubrick will grow extremely away from), representing any war and not one in particular, showing how the event of falling into the enemy lines affects four soldiers, leading one to madness, another to the search for glory and so on. Although very heavily expository, the writing is not as bad as many (including the director himself!) say: the concepts are smart, but surely too stuffed into an hour's film. What I really think should be praised is the powerful idea of using the same actors to perform both sides of the conflict, building up an unsettling sequence close to the end of the movie, which also stands to mean that both sides of a war fight for the same values turned upside down.

Obviously, the true highlight of the film is the man behind the camera, with beautiful shots and careful cinematography. The kiddo was already off to a great start.

For those curious to view this early effort from Kubrick, a beautiful print can now be streamed via Amazon Prime. I can understand why Kubrick wanted to destroy any prints of this -- it's an amateurish effort that doesn't begin to hint at the great films to come. Still, for film freaks, it's a curiosity that's hard to resist.

By the way -- that exploitive pink poster image attached to this page is amazing in its lack of any accurate sense of the film!