Alienator

'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.

When I watch a film for the first time it is generally quite easy for me to establish an initial opinion of the film at hand. At times I will come to this very website and submit a rating of the given film or perhaps I will turn to a friend and give my thoughts of the film (which tend to be quite clear). Well, after reading quite a few extremely hyped reviews and discussions throughout the internet, I decided to try my luck and buy the alleged worst film of all time: ''Manos': The Hands of Fate'. Let it be clear that this review does not pertain to the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of the film; rather it applies to Hal P. Warren's original, cut-and-dry, El Paso-born version of the film. ''Manos': The Hands of Fate' may very well be, one of the only films of which classification is painstakingly difficult to near-impossible. The film leaves a quaint, surreal, and indecisive effect upon the viewer which is what leads to the formulation of this strange conclusion.

Warren's film opens on a vacationing family traveling through El Paso, Texas. The family consists of little Debbie (Jackey Neyman), Margaret (Diane Mahree), and Mike (played by our very own Hal P. Warren). Surely enough, the travelers are soon found lost on the way to their vacation site. They eventually turn onto a long dirt road marked by a sign promising a "Valley Lodge". After a great deal of aimless meandering throughout the backwoods of El Paso, the vacationers come across a mysterious Lodge run by an awkward and deformed Satyr named Torgo (John Reynolds). Seeing as it is getting late, the visitors ask about staying the night only to be deterred by Torgo's ominous words "The master would not approve." After some pressure from the family, Torgo folds and allows the newcomers to stay. As the visitors enter the lodge they are welcomed by a mantel full of strange hand-like pagan icons and sculptures, accompanied by a strange portrait of presumably The Master and his hound. As Michael and his wife Margaret observe the strangeness of the portrait and their surroundings, a strange howl is heard from outside in the desert. Soon strange happenings begin around this lodge of sins, as Michael and his family's fate is determined by "the hands of fate"

To be blunt, the film is simply quite technically limited. Supposedly the film was shot entirely on one camera which was only capable of shooting 60 seconds of film at a time. To say that this hurt the film would be an untrue, if anything it helped the pacing of this little low-budget flick. Hal P. Warren was a director with literally no experience or conceived directorial abilities; he had no knowledge of pacing or camera work (if he had any it was most likely limited to home videos). The acting for the most part is quite dismal, the only exception being a wonderful character conceived by Warren named Torgo. Reynolds' portrayal of Torgo is supreme; although having no professional training or profession acting experience in cinema he creates a one of-a-kind character, which has been quite unparalleled in cult-cinema. No matter how much one hates this film, they will always remember the timid and tormented Torgo, uttering his infamous line: "The Master would not approve." The music featured in the film is quite repetitive and amateur, although at times it does add to the feel, aid the pacing, and promote the overall camp-factor of the film (which was sometimes delightful). The cinematography is certainly not note-worthy, nor is the lighting. The editing seemed to have been done with haste and is one of the key factors which seems to have earned this film its reputation. One thing however, which is not widely criticized by viewers is the plot. It is a plot with great potential that was realized by Warren; at the time it would have been quite fresh. Interestingly enough, it could vaguely be seen as a blundering, early version of 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' (not to say that Tobe Hooper drew any influence from ''Manos': The Hands of Fate').

Well, this is widely considered to be the downright worst of the worst – the bottom of the bottom. As stated earlier, I cannot place this film on a scale of one to ten, yet I can argue that this is a false statement. Almost every aspect of the film is done poorly, yet as odd as it sounds, the movie generates a charming and enjoyable little atmosphere; it simply does not feel like the worst one out there. There are plenty of films which are far less enjoyable to watch than Manos. Technically speaking the assumption can be made that it is the worst, but then again there are films with far more dismal lighting, far more sloppy camera work and far worse pacing. One could contend that the acting is downright dismal and corpse-like in every respect, yet there are films with worse acting and absolutely no memorable or quotable (Torgo - whether it be mocking or homage) characters. Hence, in many respects Hal Warren's single 1966 production isn't the worst piece of celluloid out there, yet at the same time it possess many, if not all of the qualities which could be attributed to the worst film of all time. However, the goal of this review was not to debunk the position in cinema history ''Manos': The Hands of Fate' has achieved, but rather to offer a little insight into what this film has to offer. In all fairness, I enjoyed it in a wonderful, campy, and surreal sort of way... after all, what other film is out there like this? What film is there that was made on possibly the lowest budget of all time, featuring the work of the most cinematically inept individuals, yet despite these obvious flaws has kept people talking about it for years to come?

The whole mythos surrounding "Bigfoot", "The Abominable Snowman", or "Sasquatch" is an enthralling one, captivating the general public since the first alleged Bigfoot sightings in the early 1950s. A number of Bigfoot films have been made, capitalizing on the general population's interest in these anomalies. Needless to say, many of these films have gone relatively unnoticed or dismissed as the campiest of B-Movies (excluding Hammer Studios' 1957 classic 'The Abominable Snowman'). This brings us to Ryan Schifrin's feature-length directorial debut 'Abominable'. Not since 1957 has such an enthralling, riveting, yet original picture hit the screens pertaining to this subject matter - a true creature feature with a Hitchcockian twist.

'Abominable' begins with the paraplegic Preston Rogers (Matt McCoy) traveling up to his mountain-home for the first time in six months after recovering from a mountain-climbing accident. Preston is accompanied by Otis (Christien Tinsley), an impatient and condescending physical therapist (The viewer soon learns from a local newspaper that the town has received an alleged "Bigfoot" report from a local resident). Preston soon reaches his cabin. As the evening progresses, he resides on his deck (overlooking the forest and a neighboring house) gazing off into the woods through a pair of binoculars. When Otis steps out to get a carton of soy milk for Preston at the nearest store, a group of girls arrive at the neighboring house. At the same time Preston soon begins to notice strange happenings in the woods surrounding the neighboring house and watches helplessly as the tragic events of the night unfold.

Standing drastically alone from the pseudo-horror produced by major (and minor) studios of this day and age, 'Abominable' is an excellent, extremely original, and extremely unrelenting film. The film accomplishes an atmosphere and storyline unachieved and untouched since the heydays of drive-in horror that were the 1950s through the 1980s. 'Abominable' possesses a certain quality which has been vacant within the horror genre (especially the monster-movie sub-genre) for years and years: it is devoid of CGI. The Monster (Michael Deak) is, in fact, a man in a suit! To some, this conjures up a question; does the suit look excessively "cheesy" and unrealistic? Fortunately it does not; the effects used are executed quite well and The Monster doesn't generate a phony-vibe in the least. Many of the facial movements of The Monster seem to be achieved through robotics (ala 'An American Werewolf in London') and the result looks extremely realistic and life-like. The film's plot is the result of a winning combination; it features the classic creature-feature storyline, coupled with a very Hitchcock-styled, 'Rear Window'-esquire, premise. The screenplay is excellent; practically all of the events within the film are experienced from Preston's helpless perspective. Whether it is at his window or on his balcony, Preston overlooks almost the entire series of events, giving the film an extremely claustrophobic and helpless atmosphere. The cinematography and lighting are also ingenious; the shadowy woods seen from the balcony add depth and an eerie uneasiness to the film. Matt McCoy proves himself to be an excellent actor, as does Christien Tinsley, but the character interactions between McCoy and Haley Joel prove to be the true acting highpoint within the film. A broad range of emotions are showcased between the two, all of which are executed with precision.

'Abominable' achieves a certain charm lacking in practically all horror films of this day and age. It showcases a style of film-making that has been lost, a style of film-making that is the horror genre: the classic monster movie. No, it doesn't have "breathtaking CGI", no the plot is not Steven King-worthy, but it manages to entertain and it manages to illustrate that which is the embodiment of American horror. Schifrin's film stands firmly as an instant cult-classic, on par with great titles and counterparts (dare I say) of the 1980s such as 'Pumpkinhead', 'An American Werewolf in London', and 'Prophecy'. 'Abominable' stands alone in a time when horror has gone to the dogs; it breaks the trend of spineless PG-13 horror films and shatters the standards of pointless special effects showcases such as 'Cursed'. The creature feature is back ladies and gentlemen, and in full force. The way horror should be – "Abominable".