Fiend

FIEND is an indisputably anorexic little presentation, but it does have a certain something...a hard-to-pin-down eerie quality that makes it click, if only in a small way. The elementary bubblegum story could easily have been lifted from a classic EC horror comic, and concerns a ghoul who kills people in order to claim their souls, sustenance which he requires to perpetuate his own abominable existence.

The special effects in this dime-store spook-show are expectedly primitive, most notably the cartoon neon-blue lightning zaps(a cheap effect which was tremendously overused in tight-budget 80s horror flicks). No worries, though...the murky atmosphere makes up for it.

As with most dirt-floor regional cinema, your average Joe Anyman is unlikely to have an especially positive experience with FIEND. Horror fans of a more lax and forgiving savoir-faire, on the other hand, should have some good fun with it.

5.5/10...Dohlericious!

Is this movie really as bad as the former comments made it out to be? Personally I don't think so. Sure, the acting is (sometimes painfully) bad, the special fx are laughable and the lightning sucks (some parts are so dark you can hardly follow what's happening) but who rents forgotten curiosities like this for it's production values? And does a minimal budget, inexperienced crew and a very 'functional' script necessarily result in cheezy, grade Z 'good for laughs'-kind of movie? I strongly disagree. Somehow the B movie seems to have got mixed up with the grade Z-movie...

Anyway, to the film: the plot is about a devilish fiend (some kind of evil spirit in a human form) that has to kill people and steal their 'lifeforce', so thats it's stolen human body won't decompose. The fiend is a pathetic walrus-looking guy who spends his time giving violin-classes and listening to bad synthesizer music in his lonely apartment. The only people who get in the way of his killing spree is a nice, typical smalltown, middle class couple who of course starts playing detectives. The couple works great, and gives the films greatest performances. The actors are no professionals, but they act and look so normal it gives the film a genuine feel, and even moments of real warmth. The film has no fright or speed, so you'll have to have both patience and appreciation for the rare glimpses of creativity, dreams and simple humanity that sometimes surround B-movies like this one.

I somehow kind of ended up liking this little oddity, but don't take my recommendation too seriously - I often end up liking this kind of nice-spirited, slow horror-sleepers that nobody seems to remember. Also worth mentioning is that there is no gore or nudity, so gorehounds and fans of euro-horror cinema better stay far away.

I'll give it 5/10 for it's heart and humanity. Failure can be beautiful.

Everyone should see at least one (and preferably more) of Don Dohler's low budget indie movies. Fiend is consistent with the Dohler brand; put together on the cheap, stars a bunch of his friends and relatives, and is just good crazy horror movie fun. They're usually horror/sci-fi cross-breeds, and Dohler showcases his specialty, special effects, in the production.

This time, a ghost or spirit looking like a bright light enters a grave and reanimates a body. The walking dead man, frequent Dohler star Don Liefert, gives an adequately sinister touch to his blood thirsty character. He draws life essence from his victims, and has a voracious appetite to do this, since he has to replenish his energy frequently. Of course, this means there will be a high body count unless the fiend is stopped quickly. Only a neighbor of his suspects the guy, who is living amongst his victims in suburbia.

The tone is more sinister and bloody than other Dohler films; even a child is among the victims. The rampaging beast is merciless, and the violence somewhat masks the mediocre acting of the cast.

The low budget is visible at times throughout the movie, and the MST3K gang probably would have bludgeoned this film if they had ever shown it. Still, like all of Dohler's bargain basement horror flicks, it makes for a good thrill ride.

"Fiend" is definitely one of the better examples of low budget "z-grade" horror. When I put this on, I expected it to be one of those "so bad it's hilarious" horror films, and even though the first scenes initially had me in fits of laughter, it's not one of these films.

Once you've seen 5 minutes of the atrocious acting, jumpy editing, bad frame composition, laughable special effects and poor lighting and colour matching, its humour wears off. However, it actually creates a surreal and dreamy atmosphere reminiscent of the classic "Night Of The Living Dead" that will linger even when the film is finished.

The story revolves around a married man trying to prove that his neighbour, a "fiend" that is an evil spirit in the body of a corpse who must feed on the living to retain his youthful appearance, is responsible for the spree of murders that have been occurring in the neighbourhood.

"Fiend" will brilliantly draw you into that neighbourhood yourself and make you suspend your disbelief and the unnatural dialogue and amateur acting soon appears normal as you become a part of the surreal world the film creates.

The surreal atmosphere, predictable yet intriguing story, and climatic ending make "Fiend" a forgotten gem that I'd recommend to all fans of low budget horror.

Thanks to a very good performance by Don Leifert FIEND comes very close to being a good movie. Goodness knows it's at least watchable.

Dohler shot in 16mm. Watching this, I kept thinking that if he were working today with digital video he might have the luxury of more retakes, more flexibility with the camera, and this might have given him the opportunity to make this into the movie Dohler saw in his head.

The premise is great. A corpse is reanimated by a mysterious force, rises from the grave, and heads not for London or a castle in Transylvania but a Wonder Bread suburb in Maryland.

The freshly risen corpse takes on the name Mr. Longfellow and opens a music academy in his home. The neighbors find him strange and reclusive, but at first he doesn't seem menacing. It seems strange that I don't remember anyone in the film playing a musical instrument, but oh well.

What the neighbors don't know is that on a regular basis Mr. Longfellow has to go out and kill someone, wrapping his hands around their necks and draining their life essence. When he does this he glows red as he feeds on the innocent victims. He's not a vampire, at least not a traditional one: most of his attacks are in daylight. In the back of my mind there's the thought that filming in daylight is cheaper and faster than setting up lighting, but I'll let that slide.

He needs this life force to continue to live. He looks to be in his late thirties, but when his life force runs low he looks like a man of about seventy and if he goes too long between feeding he looks like the rotting corpse he is.

His next door neighbors are a young couple named Gary and Marsha. How nice a person is Marsha? She leads the local Scout troop. Although they don't have any children (there are a couple of oblique references to children, but we don't ever see them) she's a stay at home housewife content to clean house and cook like a good Stepford wife. If she's ever read THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE, she never shows it.

With the passage of time they begin to suspect that Mr. Longfellow isn't as harmless as he'd like people to think. Then one afternoon, in the woods right behind their house....

Sure, this idea has been used before. It goes back to the Alfred Hitchcock/Thornton Wilder masterpiece SHADOW OF A DOUBT in which a girl in a small town in California comes to suspect that her much loved uncle is actually a cold blooded murderer. And I suspect that the circle at the end of the dead end street is actually Dohler's own neighborhood. But it's an effective use of setting.

The fatal flaw of this movie is the same one that affects so many ultra low budget ones. We have footage of people talking, then the fiend goes out and kills someone, then people talk some more.

If you use the standards of community theatre, these are good performances. Don Leifert makes a nice bad guy. I watched FIEND right after ALIEN FACTOR in which he plays the hero, and there is a clear difference between the two characterizations.

Dohler's direction is more assured here than in ALIEN FACTOR. I guess he learned on the job. He understands the basic structure of film (establishing shot, medium shot, closeup, reaction, etc.) well enough that the story in both films is told coherently. Here he really tries to go a little farther in adding some depth to the characters.

The movie makes extensive use of children, including Dohler's son in a key role. Somehow I don't think that there were the usual complications of child welfare workers and limited hours. Most if not all of the actors probably got pizza instead of a paycheck.

The thing of it is, though, great performances are a collaboration between a great writer, a strong director, and the actor. It's not a coincidence that Robert DeNiro's best performances have been under Martin Scorsese's direction. Look at the number of times Tom Hanks has worked with Spielberg. Adaptations of plays by Tennessee Williams brought out something in Elizabeth Taylor that wasn't there in many of her other films.

And if Dohler had been given the opportunity to tighten up the script (ideally under the guidance of William Goldman, the ultimate unsung script doctor) FIEND could have been a really engrossing little movie.

A big budget doesn't guarantee anything. Look at the expensive flops that Hollywood squeezes out every year. ISHTAR, anyone? How about HEAVEN'S GATE? Star salaries don't guarantee results. Julia Roberts can get $20 million per film, but she still has a limited range and still isn't all that good an actress.

It would be nice if the people who made FIEND had been given a chance to go on and work on bigger projects. But watching the outtakes makes it clear that they had a lot of fun doing this. Since I got this from Netflix I didn't pay a lot to see it; if I'd paid even matinée prices at the movies, though, I'd have been royally ticked.

Parents' note: Nothing that would really disturb children. The violence is more suggested than shown. There are some situations where children are in peril, but there aren't any disturbing images. No nudity. No sex. No cursing. No graphic violence. This would probably have gotten a PG reason because it is about a serial killer, but it doesn't stray too far from G territory.