charlieehrlich Legendary director Stanley Kubrick made his feature debut with this allegorical drama about war. Four soldiers whose plane has crashed discover they're behind enemy lines in an unnamed country. Desperate to escape, they decide to build a raft and travel up the nearby river into allied country. However, their presence is discovered by a local woman who stumbles across them in the woods, and they learn that an enemy general is nearby, determined to flush them out. Stanley Kubrick served as producer, director, screenwriter, editor, and cinematographer on Fear and Desire, which he made on a budget of only $40,000. One of the soldiers was played by Paul Mazursky, who later went on to a distinguished directorial career of his own. Kubrick displayed little enthusiasm for his debut feature later in his career, and is said to have attempted to prevent it from being screened on several occasions

Leofwine_draca FEAR AND DESIRE is a low budget war feature that feels very much like a B-movie; it has a limited cast, a workable script, and a general lack of scope and budget which means there are no big or realistic action sequences. Instead, this is a psychological character drama which looks at the effects of combat on the mind of the average soldier, and how it can drive an ordinary man to madness. This is only of interest for being the debut feature of the acclaimed Stanley Kubrick, whose work here is pedestrian to say the least; I found the whole picture heavy-handed and unremarkable.

paulijcalderon 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.

bandw This is the only Kubrick non-documentary I had not seen so, in spite of having read many negative comments (even from Kubrick himself), I figured I needed to see it. I have a hard time finding anything good to say about it--the acting, story, and music are decidedly sub-par. Usually there is some hint of things to come in the early works of most geniuses. Think of Orson Welles when he made "Citizen Kane"--he was about the same age as Kubrick when Kubrick made "Fear and Desire." Welles did make the comment that he began at the top and worked his way down, quite the opposite from Kubrick. How Kubrick could come back from "Fear and Desire" to direct "Paths of Glory" only four years later is hard to fathom. It would be like Einstein not being able to handle simple algebra in 1900 and then coming up with special relativity in 1905.At just over an hour this has the look of an early, and forgettable, television drama. As director, producer, cinematographer, and editor this is pretty much a wholly owned Kubrick effort. No wonder he tried to suppress its release.