MovieChat Forums > Fear and Desire (1953) Discussion > Good or rubbish?

Good or rubbish?

posted 19 years ago by Balibari
9 replies | jump to latest

There are plenty of threads for this movie, mainly relating to availability and then loads of posts about how bad it is. For those who've seen it, what are your thoughts in more detail?

Am I the only one who thinks it isn't that bad? OK, the copies available are very poor quality and the film has plenty of problems, but I still enjoy it. It displays more of Kubricks sensibilities and themes than his next 2 features combined, and it feels very light and digestible. I guess I'm in the minority, even the man himself hated it, any thoughts though?

[–] modenadude 19 years ago

It's funny how you say that "even the man himself hated it", because I thought the same thing. I enjoyed this film, I honestly thought it was much more superior than Killer's Kiss, but The Killing blew this out of the water. But I agree, this has a lot of parallels to his future films, and I appreciated it greatly for this.

I'm not sure why everyone is so down on this, including Kubrick. Maybe it had something (deep down) to do with his wife (Toba Kubrick) during filming, that is why they split up, via IMDb. see u.

[–] bboy5365 19 years ago

I'm sorry, but I believe this film is awful. By far one of the worst debuts around, especially for such a genius. Let's be thankful that he moved on.

Jack Edwards

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bboy5365 19 years ago

A student of what? What school?

Jack Edwards

[–] suckerdwsp316 19 years ago

kubrick never went past high school, so the previous poster just meant that kubrick made it when he was very young (24). sometimes people refer to a film made by a very young person who didnt necessarily go to a film school a "student film". btw i thought it was pretty bad. i did see shades of potential, and it wasnt all terrible. i gave it a D+/C-, but thats being a bit generous...

p.s. the first, last, and only film that got a grade below a B from me. and the only poor film he ever made. he is/was/always will be the definition of cinematic brilliance... just thought id throw that out there...

[–] Vivek-Anand 19 years ago

. . . the previous poster (spiderguy524) could've just been wrong. He might've assumed this was a student film wrongly.

Anyway, Welles was kicked out of lots of schools, and never went to film school, either. And he made Citizen Kane when he was around 25, the same age Kubrick was when he made Fear and Desire. (The actual difference is in the budget -- Citizen Kane was a studio film with Welles retaining complete creative control, but, he had earned it at 24 years of age.) So, it is hardly valid to say, "Did you expect Citizen Kane from a student film???" And, it is not as if Kubrick hadn't tried his hand out at filmmaking before. He'd made three shorts/docs.

If you can't afford LSD, try colour TV.

[–] suckerdwsp316 19 years ago

welles was a well-known and famous figure at the time the film was made. and like u said it was studio financed. kubrick was an absolute nobody and remained one at least until "the killing". plus his financing came from his father who cashed in his life insurance which was i believe $2,500.

[–] Vivek-Anand 19 years ago

. . . and after he became a nobody, were still great. Look at The Trial and Chimes at Midnight, both masterpieces . . . and Welles had to scrape for financing them.

Also, many good movies have been made by young nobodies with next-to-no-budgets. Nolan's Following, for one -- while it looks like crap, it is still a very good film.

If you can't afford LSD, try colour TV.