Maltin's summary, and his star-and-a-half rating, for this quickie film noir fails to put it in the context of other, far more dismal Monogram productions. "Fear" has lots of interesting camera-pushes, nice use of close-ups, relatively interesting lighting, and a great nightmare montage. Plus, an expressive touch at the moment the key murder takes place (which I won't reveal) is just brilliant. Three things link this film to Fritz Lang's work--the marked coat (from "M") the dream-frame ("The Woman in the Window"), and perhaps most explicitly the palmreading of Larry's hand, revealing an "M", which stands for. . . . [supply your own dramatic music here]. Noir fans should seek this one one out for sure. Others may not be so impressed.
Add a Review
-
Honus20 October 2001
-
bmacv29 October 2001The dream (or nightmare) structure was a staple of the noir cycle; The Woman in the Window, Fear in the Night, and its remake Nightmare were some of the films that employed this device. Far from a cop-out, it was a way of packaging a rather subtle psychological insight: that our dreams expressed our conflicts between our superegos and our ids. (In a later film with noirish roots, Brian De Palma's Body Double, the "story" of the movie similarly sketched the protagonist's worst self-estimation, triggered by a claustrophobic episode.)
In Fear, a medical student (Peter Cookson) is on the brink of abandoning school because his money has run out; in frustration, he murders a professor who moonlights as a pawnbroker. Questioned by the police, he ill-advisedly spouts warmed-over Nietzsche like the effete killers in Hitchcock's Rope. Then, out of the blue, a scholarly periodical to which he submitted an article sends him a check for $1000 (!) -- the most implausible occurrence in the entire noir cyle. He grows more reckless, and suspicion continues to grow....
Fear was a low-budget Monogram programmer (clocking in at just over an hour) but looks a lot better, angled and shadowed like more lavish productions. It won't satisfy the literal-minded, but it's a decent enough way to while away a dark hour. -
Leofwine_draca13 June 2018FEAR is a short, middling thriller from Monogram. The main character is a student deeply in debt to an unscrupulous loan shark, who keeps demanding his next payment. In a fit of anger he murders the moneylender, but thereafter finds himself pursued by a dogged detective who believes he's responsible for the murder but has no proof. So far so straightforward; there's a fair amount of suspense inherent in the premise and it all flows along quite quickly. Darren McGavin has a tiny role early on in his career. However, the whole experienced is soured by one of those ridiculous 'twist' endings which ruins the whole thing.
-
dougdoepke18 January 2020The programmer's a compelling noir except for the Production Code's required Hollywood ending. Up to that end point, however, the narrative amounts to a dark look into the ravages of psychological guilt. Larry's got a promising future as a med-student, but he also can't make tuition for his final school year. Dead broke, he's about to get tossed out of his fleabag apartment for non-payment. Desperate, Larry feels driven to murdering his pawn-brokering professor for the cash box riches he's hidden. Trouble is Larry's haunted by his crime, especially when fate delivers an unexpected publisher's check for an article he's written. Had he waited just one more day, he wouldn't have needed to murder for money. How cruel is fate and how relentless now are the cops.
Actor Cookson as Larry delivers an appropriately grim facade up to the end. To me, he, is an unknown performer, but subtly effective in the conflicted role. At the same time, there's something about him reminiscent of a sinister Tony Perkins. And how about the luscious Anne Gwynne. Her available presence makes his predicament that much worse. Then too, there's the magisterial Warren William as the head cop, taking a break from his ruthless pre-Code businessmen, e.g. Employee's Entrance (1933).
There're also some unsettling touches-- the onrushing train that crushes us all, the magic act that beheads without showing us recovery, the ominous black cat that awaits poor Larry. These are just some of the imaginative touches leading us to a bleak world where anything might happen.
Anyway, the programmer may be an atmospheric cheapo, but had the producers been able to complete the tale without the cop-out ending, it would also rise way above that meager status. So, when you see Larry cross the street at the near end, reach for the off-button. It's worth it. -
AAdaSC2 May 2017Peter Cookson (Larry) is a student who needs money – his college fees and rent need paying and he can't do it. He goes to College Professor Francis Pierlot (Prof Stanley) who moonlights as a loan shark to help him out. Pierlot keeps all his money in his apartment in a safe and he's also a pretty unpleasant character. Is he unpleasant enough to be murdered? Yeah, probably .but will his attacker get away with things
This film zips along and keeps us watching as to whether a crime will go unpunished and things are done in a suspenseful manner. Unfortunately, the ending doesn't quite live up to expectations so view this film as a bit of fun. You'll see what I mean. -
MartinTeller3 January 2012A desperate student murders a pawnbroker, but is hounded by an odd but persistent detective... and his own conscience. Sound familiar? No attempt is made to credit Dostoyevsky, but the film is quite clearly a modern adaptation of "Crime and Punishment". And for a quickie (just over an hour) B-movie production with a cast of no-name actors, it's not too shabby. The performances aren't great, but I liked Anne Gwynne as the love interest and Warren William as the crafty police chief. Zeisler pulls off a few nice flourishes and delivers a tight little package. The story makes for prime noir material, and is hard to mess up. However, they blew it with a cheap ending. Not just cheap, but woefully predictable. I should research C&P adaptations.... Kaurismaki's is okay, but there ought to be a better one out there.
-
If it were not for the ending, I'd rate this moody, well photographed noir much higher than "2". But the way the movie concludes is a real cop-out that not only disappoints but that doesn't make a gram of sense. A pity!
This Monogram version of "Crime and Punishment" is well-acted too, particularly by Peter Cookson (hero), Anne Gwynne (an unusual heroine), Warren William (in a rather small part - alas! - as the determined investigator), Almira Sessions (the shrewish landlady), and Francis Pierlot (as the grasping moneylender).
It's a shame that all this clever writing, good acting, moody photography (Jackson Rose) and suspenseful direction (Alfred Ziesler) comes to nothing when the cop-out conclusion suddenly bursts on the screen. And the movie is now available on a very good Grapevine DVD too! -
mark.waltz16 May 2018This is one of those "could have happened" film noir characters where the dark side of the protagonist is revealed to show exactly what somebody is capable of when pushed to the edge. The surprising element of it is that it came from the lowly Monogram studios, best known for the Bela Lugosi "mad doctor" movies, a series of hundreds of B grade westerns, and the Bowery Boys comedies.Medical student Peter Cookson is having financial difficulties and living a life best described as a mess. Landlady Almira Sessions is constantly badgering him for the rent and the state of his room, and he is in hock up to his neck. Learning that a local professor (Francis Pierlot) has stashed cash, he decides to plot the perfect murder, but it appears that once the crime has been committed, his sanity begins to suffer as well. Seemingly friendly police captain Warren William begins to "invite" Cookson down regularly to police headquarters while detective Nestor Paiva begins to follow Cookson and his new girlfriend (Anne Gwynne) around on their dates. Cookson's paranoia begins to grow as the police seem to be closing in on him. And then, bang, crash, the big twist. That's what gives this above average film noir a touch of class, along with the sly way William moves in on the troubled Cookson.
The aging William, in his second to last film, gives a humorous and sly performance as the always happy police captain, carrying a pole and a hook as he tries to catch Cookson with the bate of evidence. Cookson seems to be on a front burner of the stove of sanity, getting hot and bothered by every little question that the police ask of him and every knock on his door from the sour pussed Sessions, a delightful character actress who could get laughs simply by sneering at the person she was snooping on and judging. Pierlot, as the victim, may look like some cute little old man, but his character is filled with darkness as well. This is smartly directed by Alfred Zeisler, an American born producer and director with much experience in Germany who used a lot of expressionism in his work especially as evidenced here. Many have pointed out the similarities to Fritz Lang which is evident in the elements Zeisler incorporates. Even at just 68 minutes, this compact little feature oozes in detail and keeps you glued, with top notch camera work by Jack Rose and brilliant editing by Ace Herman. In fact, it is so notable that this is one of the few times in my reviews that I wanted to single out the photographer and editor. The film noirs made by Monogram and Producers Releasing Corporation in the mid 1940's have completely withstood the test of time and deserve to be listed among the classics. "Fear" indeed is one of the very best of them. -
bkoganbing15 November 2020Poverty row Monogram Pictures produced Fear based on Dostoevsky's Crime And Punishment. We've seen better adaptions.
Medical student Peter Cookson is really up against it financially. Rent is overdue, he owes the college money. He goes to a professor who doubles on the side as a shylock. In a moment of anger he kills the professor.
The plot follows fairly closely the Dostoevsky story, but it has one big cop out of an ending. In addition leading man Peter Cookson gives a rather bland performance.
Police captain Warren William and dpgged detective Nestor Paiva do a lot better.
For a Monogram feature and Sam Katzman this is fine art. -
***SPOILERS*** Updated version of the Fyodor Dostoevsky crime classic novel "Crime and Punishment" as well as Fritz Lang's 1931 classic crime film "M" but with a major twist in the end. The person committing the crime does get what's coming to him but not the way he and we watching the film expected it to be. Medical student Larry Crain, Peter Cookson, is down to his last dollar and about to be evicted from his boarding house and thrown out of medical school for not being able to pay the tuition. Desperete for cash to pay his bills and stay afloat Larry goes to collage Prof. Stanley, Francis Preriot, who besides teaching medicine is also the school's unofficial loan shark as well.
Things don't go that well with Larry and Prof. Stanley who demands a cut of 20% for every dollar he lends him even before Larry has a chance to pay it back. Talking things over with his fellow students about Prof. Stanley Larry hears that the professor doesn't believe in banks and has all his cash in his apartment. This gives Larry the bright idea of whacking Prof. Stanley and taking his money the next time he sees him to pay him back what he loaned him. Tricking Prof. Stanley to turn his back on him by trying to pawn off a silver ashtray Larry smashes his skull in with a fireplace poker killing him. But as Larry soon finds out the place where Prof. Stanley keeps his cash a steel safe-box isn't that easy to open. And when Larry finally opens it a number of Prof. Sanley's customers, fellow medical students, are banging at his door trying to get a loan from him.
It's all downhill for Larry from then on with after whacking Prof. Stanley in his hast not taking a cent of the what seems like thousands of dollars that was in his safe-box but also freaking out the next day when an article he wrote for a local crime magazine was accepted and him being given a $1,000.00 check for it! There's also the fact that the police are now on the case of Prof. Stanley's murder with Larry feeling that their on to him as well and he'll soon to be arrested for it.
****SPOILERS*** Guilt ridden and at the point of hysterics Larry's consciences starts to take over. With Det. Shaffer, Naston Paiva, seeming to stalk him at every turn and police Captain Burke, Warren William, taking a keen interest in him in the Prof. Stanley murder investigation. Larry now feels for certain that his goose or butt is going to soon be cooked in the state's electric chair. The surprise ending in the movie takes a while to digest in that it come on so unexpectedly that all the characters in it have to be reintroduced to us. That's after Larry gets away Scott-free as an innocent but mentally unstable man the house painter,Earnie Adams, confessed to the murder that he in fact committed! -
hhg216 November 2020I can appreciate that the budget constraints were severe, but I cannot appreciate how anyone could rate this film any higher than I have. The story was not "an original screenplay" by any measure. The acting was stilted. And the ending was horrible. Even noir aficionados will have a hard time sitting through this 68-minute torture fest.
-
LeonLouisRicci2 August 2013Extremely Low-Budget Film-Noir that manages to entertain due to a strong Storyline (cribbed from Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment) and some nifty Camera Work and a creative overall Style. What it lacks in slickness it makes up for in Mood and some expressionistic flourishes.
There is a rather tacked-on, weak ending that is a misstep of the first order, but that disappointment aside, this is one of the better attempts at Bargin Bin Noir. There is a sombre and fatalistic tone throughout and there is much more Psychology found here than in most Bottom Rung Programmers. There is a good deal of Cat and Mouse and a lot of Soul Searching.
Despite its restrictions, this can entertain at a deeper level than a lot of Major Studio B-Movies. In fact it is downright amazing how well it works its Magic through tone, style, and execution. This is not to be missed by Fans of Low-Budget Noir's. -
Cineanalyst26 September 2019Spoilers Warning Elaborated: Review may contain spoilers for the films "M" (1931) and "The Woman in the Window" (1944), as well as for the novel "Crime and Punishment" and this film, "Fear."
Wow, these guys sure knew their movies. Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment," on the other hand, for which this film is patently an uncredited adaptation--a loosely reworked update notwithstanding--not so much. Indeed, "Fear" is more so a remake (again, uncredited) of another film adaptation of the book, the 1935 Hollywood version of "Crime and Punishment" starring Peter Lorre. I know no other reason for the alteration of the murder weapon from an axe to a poker or for the addition of the protagonist ironically receiving a surprise check for the publication of his article after the crime. Neither of those details appear in the book; both are in the aforementioned 1935 film. One wonders if the filmmakers of "Fear" even read Dostoevsky. They certainly saw some Peter Lorre pictures, though, as well as some by director Fritz Lang--namely, as fellow IMDb reviewer Honus pointed out, "M" and "The Woman in the Window" (I found the allusions to the former blatant, but I wouldn't have caught those to the latter otherwise), although I wouldn't be surprised to discover other references, as well. Bizarrely, the result is a remake that's better than the original adaptation and that's an otherwise faithless adaptation itself that nonetheless manages to thematically translate the novel in intriguing ways by, instead, ripping off still more films (hence my beginning this review with an exclamation).
This is kind of brilliant methinks. I reviewed the 1935 film before this in my quest to see a bunch of movie versions of Dostoevsky's text after reading it, and in that review I complained about my disappointment in a film from a director, Josef von Sternberg, who clearly knew how to make a quality crime picture as evidenced by the early gangster flick "Underworld" (1927) and an actor, Lorre, who had already given the best performance of a wanted murderer to date in Lang's "M." The 1935 picture was a failure, though, as von Sternberg admitted himself. "Fear," then, is a pleasant surprise for me. I had no idea going in that it was essentially going to remake the 1935 film by removing much of the clutter and rubbish I found at fault in the original and replace it with elements from "M," as well as from the noir "The Woman in the Window."
One benefit of this is that many of the minor and unnecessary characters held over from the book to the screen in 1935 are here cut. There's no time in this barely-longer-than-an-hour picture to go into novelistic subplots concerning Raskolnikov's mother and his sister's three suitors, nor of the threat of blackmail from another suspected murderer--all of which the 1935 version clumsily attempted to retain, while also adding a superfluous introduction concerning Raskolnikov's graduation. Nope, "Fear" cuts directly to the meat of the thing by primarily focusing on the relationship of Larry (the Raskolnikov of the film) and Eileen (its Sonya) and the cat-and-mouse game with the police.
Larry seems to murder the pawnbroker (here, he's also a man and a professor--perhaps inspired by Edward G. Robinson's prof from "The Woman in the Window") as much for poverty (he's overdue on the rent, and he's just lost his scholarship for school) as for any political philosophy as written in his article. Although the financial irony of the publication of the article is an invention of adaptation, the article was part of the book, too. It was an ingeniously self-reflexive device there--being literature-within-literature. Besides retaining this, "Fear" aptly adds a mise-en-abyme of a magic act performed on stage involving the swinging of a weapon. This play-within-the-play, or illusion allusion, neatly reflects the killer's actions earlier in the picture--art reflecting life, or rather art reflecting art, the stage reflecting murder.
"M" is an especially clever piece of cinematic reflexivity in its exploitation of the semiotic mark of the letter "M" on the murderer, which is spotted in a window reflection, and mirrors, it should be noted, are analogous to cinema, as well. Both capture and reflect images. These images are signs, or traces, of that which they capture and reflect. "The Woman in the Window" likewise involves window reflections and traces from the crime leaving their mark. Especially in "M," there's the further police business of traces with fingerprints and such (also exploited in "Fear"). And the "M" mark is also a sign in the indexical sense of signifying something (in this case, that he's the murderer). All of this is behind, in this film, Eileen's reading the same letter in Larry's palm and inquiring, "What else begins with M?" For Larry, the incriminating trace involves paint marking his jacket and vise versa.
There's some other good stuff here. The inspector recreates the crime scene by amusingly having his murder suspect reenact his role as the murderer--going further than Robinson's professor revisiting the crime scene with the police in "The Woman in the Window." There's a nice match cut to the scene of Larry buying a new suit. And the framing of his face behind a bird cage at the pawnbroker's flat while eyeballing the Prof's safe is an apt visual metaphor of Larry's potential future behind bars. For a B-picture, that's some good imagery, and I don't so much mind the scratches, speckling and occasional skipped frames of the print I saw, nor that some of the technical values here seem poor, including the lousy sound quality for off-screen dialogue. And I'm more perplexed by than critical of the seemingly unnecessary inclusion of a neighbor providing diegetic music for Larry's apartment, or of the reason for Larry's strange reaction to Eileen presenting a wine bottle. Then, there's the picture's utterly bonkers ending.
Framing the main narrative as a dream seems directly lifted from "The Woman in the Window," and I can see how audiences may have differing reactions to it. For me, I think it's especially ingenious here. As an adaptation, "Fear" had already abandoned all of Dostoevsky's religion and most of the political philosophy, so there's not much point in offering Larry any sort of moralistic regeneration as per the book. "Fear" replaces this with cinematic allusions--traces--to film itself and to the other films it imitates. Why not one more device, dreams, that are analogous to cinema, then. Sure, the "it was all a dream" ploy may've originally been employed by Lang to get around the censoring of the depiction of suicide (and "Fear" suggests a similar scene or two) or getting away with murder, but film has the quality of dreams and, conversely, affects our own imaginations. One may assume that something similar happened to Larry with all of his books--one of which, perhaps, includes "Crime and Punishment," itself a story that includes reflexive doubling and some strange, fevered nightmares.
None of this, however, excuses Larry, once awake, of inquiring of Cathy, "Mind if I call you Eileen?" That's plain creepy. -
WankerReviews19 June 2020A college student has financial woes, and is so desperate he kills a pawnbroker.
This starts off great. The cops immediately suspect he had something to do with it, since he was one of the pawnbroker's customers. The movie does a good job at making you side with the lead character despite his wrong actions, simply because the cops are very intrusive, and pompous. This was a decent thriller and could have had an ending dealing with karma (what goes around comes around). But instead it ends up being a slap in the face to the audience, by giving us a twist ending that came straight out of a fairy tale. -
ulicknormanowen20 June 2022Although the outline is taken from "crime and punishment" , the unexpected twist will remind the viewer of "woman in the window"(1944) .
The movie makes the best of a small budget ; the scene of the crime in the pawnbroker/professor 's flat is particularly well directed ; all happens in dark rooms , and a cop,as zealous as Javert in "les miserables " ,will not leave his suspect alone ; the ending although borrowed from Fritz Lang's movie does make sense in a way : bizarre clues are given to the viewer : the godsend the hero receives , the painter who confesses the crime , a college professor as a pawnbroker ..... There's also this feeling to be above the law ,to eliminate the "inferiors " ,an awful ideology which would be developed in Fleischer's "compulsion" (1959) and Hitchcock's "rope" (1948) ,both based on real events . -
planktonrules21 November 2019"Fear" is a decent B-movie...though I think it could easily have been better...especially the terrible ending.
The story begins with Larry in a lot of trouble. It seems his and all the other scholarships have been rescinded and he is deeply in debt...so much so that it looks as if he won't be able to complete his final year in medical school. Again and again, Larry has been to see a nasty unofficial loan shark...one of his professors! And, in desperation, he feels it's acceptable to kill the man...though after killing the guy, he panics and doesn't even steal the money he'd planned to take. Now, he is slowly becoming a bundle of nerves...and the longer the movie progresses, the more guilty he behaves.
The writer of the film obviously thought of Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment", as Larry feels that he's above the law and entitled to kill if he wants. However, like the man in Dostoyevsky's novel, he later realizes he can't live with himself. First, this is a bit dull....why just do the expected? Second, considering Larry had written an article for a magazine that essentially says some people are special and above the law, he's obvious as a suspect. The film, though interesting, lacks subtlety and surprises....but what REALLY ruins the film is the ending...one that completely blindsides AND annoys the viewer....a magical ending that comes from out of no where. Up until the ending, I might have given this one a 5 or 6...and perhaps my 3 is charitable considering just how badly it ends! -
sibleybridges25 May 2020I rated Fear (1946) 5/10. Pretty great B #noir. A lot of good visuals that are reminiscent of German films of the 20s and 30s. It's too bad it is a bit too trite and kind of like a zillion others to be amazing.
-
Aaron137528 June 2022I watched this movie and it was not too terrible, but at the same time it was not exactly all that good either. While watching this thing I kind of new the direction it was going and I was correct, but man, everything turns out good for Larry! I wish I could fantasize something and then learn something and then be showered with money, rewards and a very lovely caring lady in the end!
Meet Larry, as the story begins. He is having a tough time as he is desperate for money, his scholarship has been revoked and he is behind on rent! Well, he tries to pawn a watch and gets ripped off by a professor doing a little side hustle. So Larry decides to kill the man and steal his money! He does, but does he? He then meets a beautiful woman, gets money from publishing a paper and gets his scholarship. Seems Larry killed too soon, or did he? Honestly, it ends up being the whole, "It was all a dream" crap.
Larry is a bit of a prick at times, not sure what Eileen sees in him; granted, when she is Cathy he may be nicer as he is not being hounded by police for killing the professor. The cops do the Columbo thing even before Columbo in this thing and Larry just needs to learn patience or something.
In the real world, things do not work out well. My life sucks as I lost my fiance and now just go through days in a daze. Nothing has fallen into my lap and good things have never happened. Never murdered anyone though, maybe I should think about it and then afterwards everything will be peachy! NOT!!! -
RanchoTuVu1 August 2013Peter Cookson is a medical student who receives the bad news that the medical college he is attending is no longer able to afford to grant scholarships. His future becomes suddenly darker as he's faced with having to drop out with only one year to go. How this bad news affects his psyche is more or less what the film is about in a post-war 1940's era take on psychology and dreams. It seems to revolve around a sense of alienation portrayed through a surprisingly riveting dream sequence that occurs on a dark night on the railroad tracks. In spite of its meager budget this movie succeeds in rating fairly high up on the standards of my film scale.
-
The celebrated novel is condensed and reshaped into a 68-minute noir from Monogram. Raskolnikov becomes student Larry Crain (Peter Cookson), who, as in the novel, murders his pawnbroker. The police characters are the good cop/bad cop duo of Warren William and Nestor Paiva. Crain falls in love with the pretty but impecunious Eileen Stevens, played by Anne Gwynne.
Cookson's approach to playing Crain reminded me of Hurd Hatfield in the title role in "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (1945), flat, affectless, but somehow managing to remain "there" as the character. With effective cinematography and lighting, the whole thing rocks along well, especially by poverty row standards... until the last few minutes. The final stretch has two (2) ingredients (a truck or similar motor vehicle, then a dream) that would appear in Michael O'Donoghue's "How to Write Good", which appeared in National Lampoon around 1970. "Fear" ends sappily in the manner of the best (or worst) productions of eighteenth century literary mutilator Colley Cibber. Or W. C. Fields' "The Bank Dick" (1940).
What could director Alfred Zeisler and his Monogram colleagues have done with (or to) "War and Peace"? -
davidcarniglia15 November 2020Fear, 1946.
******** 8.0
A medical student, Larry (Peter Cookson), is desperate for money; he murders loanshark, Professor Stanley (Francis Pierlot) and then guilt haunts him. Police Captain Burke (Warren William) sets out to nail him for the murder. A devastating slice of irony reveals that had he waited a bit longer, Larry's money problems would've been taken care of.
We begin by looking in on Larry; talk about a lonely garret...anyway, Larry ponders a letter informing him that his scholarship's terminated. Then his landlady (Almira Sessions) duns him for the rent. Going up several flights of stairs in another apartment building, he looks in on Stanley. Larry needs money, and pawns his watch. We see the old guy take a strong box from a walk safe. There's a poker by the fire...but nothing happens.
At a diner, he sees Ben (James Cardwell). Ben reminds him that he's waiting to hear on some articles he's submitted for publication. The guys describe Stanley as having "an icebox for a heart." Now it's Larry's turn to be the big guy for Eileen (Anne Gwyne), who's even more broke. Larry, receiving more bills, skulks back to Stanley's room. He talks his way in. As expected, he grabs the poker: blam! The old guy's toast. The strongbox yields a load of cash. A late called notices a light on. Larry gets out, and just in time. He's brushed against become wet paint though.
Back at his humble abode, the landlady knocks. There's a detective with her. Now he gets a letter...no matter, he's got to see Burke. Obviously, the cops have recovered the strongbox. Larry's got no alibi. Aha! He discovers that the letter had a check for a thousand bucks, from his publisher. That would square him all the way around. Back at the bar, he sees that Eileen works there now. Detective Schaefer (Nestor Paiva) noses in on the next stool. No big thing; his next move is to ask out Eileen. On a picnic he gets spooked by a wine label; he's edgy. That night, with his guys, they're discussing the murder. Their considered opinion is "who cares?!" But they continue dissecting the crime.
He burns the clothes from the night of the murder. The landlady loves him now, but Schaefer collects him. Burke is sort of a fan of Larry's article--which, ironically, is on justifiable homicide. Larry's arrogant enough to back up his "ends justify the means" theory of crime. Burke mentions the wet paint detail from near the murder scene. Now Schaefer interviews Eileen about Larry. Larry pops in; Scared drops what's probably a red herring--they've arrested the house painted for the murder. Things couldn't bloom better for Larry (other than that pesky murder), as he learns that his scholarship's being renewed. Another date with Eileen. She obviously cares about him. He tries to talk to her, but Schaefer lurking nearby.
Burke is at the murder scene, as Larry goes to him to complain about Schaefer. Perfectly recreating each element of the crime, Burke gets Larry rattled. At HQ, Burke shows him fingerprints on the strongbox; again, probably faked, but this detail ratchets up the suspense. More importantly, they have fibers from a coat (Larry's?) that stick in the wet paint. Pretty much twisting into horror territory, finally Burke invites him to see the cadaver. Well, aren't we a medical student? Back at the bar, there's a magician's act in progress. The trick looks very much like a guy whacking a corpse with a poker. A street vendor gives him a handbill with a macabre message.
Suddenly, he's on railroad tracks, walking right into the path of an oncoming train. A worker saves him just in time. He finds his way to Eileen's. "Relax? How can I relax?!" He starts to talk about Stanley--he admits he killed him. She's more concerned than freaked out; "if only you'd waited (for the check)". He goes to go see Burke in the morning. Actually, he's waiting for Larry. "There were only two suspects--the painter and you" But then Burke leaves. The paper says that the painter has confessed! Larry's off the hook? Hold that thought--he bumps into Schaefer, who implies Is the headline's a plant Or even if true, the painters "a fruitcake" confused and admitting to the crime for some nutty reason.
He sees Eileen waiting to meet him. But, an act of God intervenes: he's hit by a car. Or he dreams that he was. Waking up, he greets the very lively Professor Stanley. That worthy gives him a new loan. Eileen appears to be moving into the same building. But, she's called Cathy. He gets a date once again. The end. Now I see why most commentators hate the ending of Fear.
If it had just stopped with Larry's last encounter with Schaefer the this would be a dead-ringer (really) for film noir greatness. Then we'd have a suitably ambiguous ending to a nightmarish story; with maybe just enough wiggle room for a noir hero to get out of town and put the past (and Schaefer) behind him. He's cleared, he's got is scholarship back, and Eileen is just right for him. It could well be that that to pass the production code, a happy ending had to be tacked on. but there's a good number of noirs that don't flinch by giving us tragic endings.
A dream explanation is a cop-out. It's all the more disappointing in a film with such obvious merit. apparently, director Zeisler had worked in Expressionist-influenced film milieu of Weimar Germany (thanks to TCM's Dave Karger for that background info). These traits show up in a lot of the lighting and motifs here. The black cat seems to be everywhere around the murder site, literally crossing Larry's path as he goes up to kill Standing. There's creepy light and shadow and confined, convoluted spaces almost everywhere in Fear. Another slew of Expressionist touches confront us the most intense sequence--from Burke's reenacting of the crime until the train incident. That reminds me in a dramatic way of the killer's mental torment from Edgar Allan Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart"
If we chop off the last few scenes--the car crash device is almost as trite as the dream--we've got a great and compelling film noir. Almost makes one want to plow into Dostoevesky's Crime and Punishment for the source material. Flawed, but still highly recommended. -
Dostoyevsky abbreviated in American style and turned into a bestselling pulp fiction but not without efficiency - the film is mediocre but not bad, and for a variation of a great theme its Hollywood turnabout of the end makes it quite interesting. Cookson is a very American Raskolnikov, but he is not a poor emaciated student but a medical student not without some social standing, especially among his fellow students, with whom he shares some beer. Cathy (Eileen) here is not a fallen destitute like Sonia, and she is not burdened by that miserable family Marmeladov. The victim of the murder is not an old greedy worthless woman but a male pawnbroker not without some decency. As an American version of "Crime and Punishment" it is not on par with Josef von Sternberg's version ten years earlier with Peter Lorre, which stuck to the book, but the twist to the story makes this version quite original and not be despised, although hardly to be included in any Dostoyevsky films canon.