BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Jugu Abraham Interesting subject. More interesting to know that Kubrick and Mazursky were buddies when both were unknown. The opening and ending shots are the same conforming to Aristotelian aesthetics.

gridoon2018 Stanley Kubrick's first film was shot for a few thousand dollars in a California forest with a no-name cast when he was 24 years old!! Under the circumstances, I think it is a remarkable film. A little crude at times, and perhaps with a tendency towards purple prose, but a stark, powerful anti-war indictment, with some otherworldly images and characters who are not easy to pigeonhole (the civilized leader of the group is the first to make suggestive remarks about the female captive, the "gentle" young man is the first to go completely bonkers, etc.). You can tell, even by this first feature, that Kubrick is something special; most directors, even the established ones, would never even attempt an abstract film like this in 1953. **1/2 out of 4.

Tom Dooley 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.

JoeKulik The reason that this film got such a poor reception from American movie-goers in 1953 is because, in my opinion, they were incapable of understanding it. Fear And Desire in 1953, would have had much greater commercial success in Continental Europe, especially in France. The Hollywood saturated American audiences of 1953 were conditioned to expect a much different "war movie" than Fear And Desire. European audiences would have immediately recognized it for what is truly is, an Art Film.This film has high artistic merit The cinematography and editing are excellent. The use of montage in this film is very effective.The very small cast of carefully selected and well crafted distinct personality types makes for tight interaction patterns with great symbolic significance.Overall, I'd call this an Existential film that reflects on many aspects of the human condition. That it is superficially set in a war context is only a theatrical ploy against which is investigated the deeper issues concerning human existence in general.The occasional "silent monologue" of the various characters, representing their innermost, most intimate thoughts is an effective plumb into the personality and the life situation of a particular character at a given point in the story line.Although three of the four stranded soldiers are dressed in combat uniforms, all four appear to be "green" and unaccustomed to the realities of combat situations. This combat naivete accentuates their emotional and visceral reactions to the situations in the film where they have to kill enemy soldiers and in their interaction with the peasant girl that they capture.That the viewer is told by the narrator at the very beginning this "war film" that the circumstances regarding the nations involved in the war and the specifics of the theater of this war in which this film takes place are rather "anonymous" and completely unspecified highlights the fact that this film is not at all about actual war itself. The "war" in this film is symbolic of the "war" that we all must navigate through our individual- lives as we traverse the path of Self and Other.