TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

sol1218 ***SPOILERS*** After spending two years in a Communist Chinese POW camp Korean War Vet Capt. Alan Eaton, Dana Andrews, is back home trying to pick up the pieces of his life that he left back in Korea. Not fully recovered from the brainwashing that he received at the hands of the Communist Chinese Eaton gets an even bigger shock when he finds out that his PR firm, Eaton & Baker ass. in now in the hands of Jim McGinnis, Dick Foran. Eaton also finds out, as if he needed any more surprises, that his partner Clark Baker was killed in a hit and run accident the day after he signed away the firm to McGInnis!Trying to get a hold of himself Eaton soon realizes that what's happening at his former PR firm is a bit underhanded when he's not allowed to see how it's conducting surveys on what concerns the Amercan public. McGinnis uses those surveys to get politicians elected by pushing them on TV radio and the newspapers with reports that he purposely had slanted in their favor. Earlier Eaton got a glimpse of what's going on when he was approached on a flight to Washington D.C by a mysterious Doc. Jessup. Claiming to be a major peace activist Dr. Jessup invites Eaton to join his group and it's later that he finds that he's actually connected with Jim McGinnis and his peace group is a communist front!It becomes very apparent that McGinnis is using the former Baker & Eaton PR firm to undermined the US government by pushing communist ideas and communist supported politicians on an unsuspecting American public. It also becomes very apparent to Eaton after talking to reporter Rodney Hillyer, Joel Marston, that his partner Clark Baker wasn't killed in a car accident but murdered by McGinnis when he refused to go along with him in making McGinnis a partner in his firm.The film's very complicated plot has Eaton get together with Sen. Walden, Roy Gordon, to expose McGinnis and his fellow travelers Hal & Vivian Loder, Kelly Thordse & Veda Ann Borg, together with Barney Bond, Mel Torme, as working for the communists and have their whole racket put out of business and them behind bars. The evidence that Eaton would need to put McGinnis on ice is the secret set of master cards, that McGinnis keeps under lock and key, that would prove that his surveys aren't on the up and up. It here that Eaton recruits McGinnis' personal secretary Lorraine Dennis, Marille Earle, to help him break into his office and get the important master cards but what Eaton has to find out is if Lorraine won't turn him in to her boss and have Eaton suffer the same fate that his partner Baker did.Somewhat better then your average "Red Scare" type of movies released by Hollywood during the hight of the Cold War "The Fearmakers" has for once those working for the communist cause doing it for nothing more then capitalistic reasons; the mighty buck. McGinnis and his gang are not at all interested in what communism is and what good it can do for the people but only in the money that the communists, obviously the Soviet Union, will pay them for their services.Theirs also an added treat in "The Fearmakers" with singer Mel Torme, who doesn't sing a note in the film, as the nerdy Barney Bond who's secretly as well as insanely in love with Lorraine. Berney later in trying to save Lorrine, as well as Eaton, from McGinnis' hoods who plan to stage an accident for her gets himself shot and later, as he's dying, informs Sen.Walden by phone to what McGinnis is planing to do having the D.C police come to both Lorraine & Eaton's rescue. Totally unnecessary final scene with Eaton having it out with a fleeing McGinnis at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial knocking him unconscious and downs the stairs. All this happens with some dozen cops who could have easily apprehended and arrested McGinnis, who had no were to run anyway, standing around and doing nothing but watching the fight!

Michael Moricz The real irony, when viewing this film, is the way it views those who lobby for special interests in Washington (and the "marketing" of candidates, skewing polling data to achieve the desired results whether the sampling or data is fair or not) has become the norm in our own era. Hence, the villain in this film is pretty much doing the same sort of thing a Karl Rove does now, but we've just changed our perspective on it. The film purports a high tone of moral outrage at political practices which completely dominate our own time.That to me is the most fascinating thing about this film (which is well-made in a clearly B-picture sort of way: not too many sets, a conspicuously minor set of actors except for Dana Andrews--though I agree with others posting here that Mel Torme's performance is a standout--and a certain unadventurousness in the visuals and pacing, despite Tourneur's presence at the helm). By watching the film, we are made aware just how much we've come to accept certain the vast "untruthfulness" or immorality of the way politicians are marketed and elected. It's as though all of the things deplored in this film have completely become "business as usual" in our time, seemingly because the desire to operate this way in politics has survived tenaciously despite the occasional railing against it the way this film does. These days you might hear objections from alternate news sources or fringe publications to this type of deceptive political lobbying and marketing, but other than that it's clearly our daily contemporary political reality being objected to so strenuously 45 years ago in THE FEARMAKERS. While the film unfolds tightly and economically enough, it does suffer from a certain "pat-ness" concerning the plot coincidences concerning the doctor character Andrews meets on the plane at the beginning of the film. That whole subplot unfolds too easily within the overall story, as though the already claustrophobically tiny world of the characters of this movie couldn't possibly expand enough for some randomness or ambiguity between it's small ensemble of characters. Is there no-one in Washington who isn't in some way related to this plot? If memory serves, I don't believe there is ever a line spoken by anyone in this film who is not in some way part of the web of characters involved somehow for or against the unfolding scam, even though we are in cabs, in hotels, in a boarding house, on a plane, and in the city of Washington, throughout.Still, it's worth the time invested, and presents a curiously brusque performance by Andrews. His character is supposed to be tired and unstable after his ordeal in Korea, and yet it's difficult to know whether the occasionally zombie-like performance of Andrews in this film is entirely intentional. The actor himself seems fatigued and lethargic at times-- is that all for the sake of the character? But there are enough little twists and surprises in this film to hold our interest, and if the film feels at time like an extended episode of the old Perry Mason TV series, that's not necessarily a bad thing if you like that sort of presentation (as I admittedly do).I'd also agree with others here that this is a film ripe for a remake, although there is no doubt it would be a COMPLETELY different movie, with a completely different moral sense.

Ilya Mauter The Fearmakers is one of the last films directed by Jacques Tourneur. He made it soon after completing his Night of a Demon which also starred Dana Andrews in the title role and which now is considered a horror classic and by many even his masterpiece. Unfortunately such words don't apply to The Fearmakers, which had most certainly marked beginning of Tourneur's decline. The film is based on a book by Darwin Teilhet, which was published in 1945.The main character Allen Eaton (Dana Andrews) is a Korean War veteran who has recently returned from Korea where he had been a prisoner of war for the last two years. When back in U.S., he learns that one of his best friends was killed not a long time ago under unclear circumstances. He naturally wants to find out about the reasons for his death as much as he can. Meanwhile he finds a job at a poll agency and very soon discovers that the poll results are being manipulated with the intent of causing a disturbance and fear among the population as well as twisting public's opinion concerning certain important political figures. Soon he finds his life in danger when he discovers that what he is in contact with is a powerful underground organization operating in the U.S., which is apparently responsible for his friend's death as well.The Fearmakers might be called a typical 1950s Cold War period movie and a kind of predecessor of 1962 The Manchurian Candidate. But unlike John Frankenheimer's masterpiece, The Fearmakers has almost nothing remarkable about it neither in terms of the story nor in terms of acting. See The Manchurian Candidate instead. 5/10

Paul Curtis This low-budget 50's thriller has a treatment standard for its time, but the premise is fascinating. Dana Andrews plays Alan Eaton, a veteran of the Korean War who comes home (after years of being brainwashed as a POW.) When he returns to his Public Relations firm in Washington, DC, he is surprised to find it has been sold by his former partner, who later died; his own name has been retained only for the goodwill value he had generated. Soon after, he comes to suspect that the firm no longer uses polls and surveys to shape its PR campaigns, it conducts its surveys in accordance with a hidden agenda and shapes the data to meet its own demands. By the end of the film, the entire conspiracy (and its plot to get a man elected Governor) is exposed. Americans are free to believe everything they read, once again.Everything about the movie is just what one would expect from an inexpensive thriller from the era, and that's not bad at all. Probably the most appealing character is played by Mel Torme (Andrews is much too surly - and for good reason - to capture audience sympathy), a number-cruncher who remains oblivious to the moral implications of the data he is massaging for his employers. His best moment comes when he picks EXACTLY the wrong moment to strike up a conversation with Marilee Earle; the audience knows she can't possibly tear her attention away from a task she has been sent to perform, but we all know how it feels to want to break through another person's preoccupation.Thematically, the film bites off more than it is prepared to chew. The premise (that some distinct group may control a substantial part of the information we Americans receive every day) is both disturbing and plausible. We do our best to make sure that no single source can exert too much power over information, but we can never be sure just how much of the data we believe to be factual, is actually cooked up by people with an agenda. Exposing one conspiracy (as seen in The Fearmakers) does not stamp out all such conspiracies at once, and the film offers no hint of assurance that the public will be any wiser, the next time information is manipulated. One may extrapolate that there is a terrible danger in trusting ANY source of information, but no solution is suggested.A minor disappointment comes from another important topic that is introduced at the beginning and then thrown away: Eaton's brainwashing. He has apparently been subjected to gruelling torture and mind control in the recent past, but it has no effect at all on his behavior except to make him grumpy and subject to sudden headaches. Basically, this is used as a plot device which allows the bad guys to get the upper hand at times, but nothing in the story really turns on it. Perhaps after seeing The Manchurian Candidate, one's expectations are set too high; certainly one can't fault the scriptwriters, as the novel had not yet been published. The most unfortunate aspect of the movie is that a 1950's happy ending is predetermined. By the 1970's, filmmakers would be comfortable creating conspiracy stories with darker endings, and today it is difficult for viewers to accept a movie in which a problem like this one is completely solved. By current standards, the last few minutes of The Fearmakers are dreamlike and childish...and perhaps this explains some of the film's charm. I'd love to see a remake of the movie, set once again in the 50's, nearly identical right up to the end, and then have Alan Eaton wake up to discover that the conspiracy has NOT been neatly wrapped up at all. It's enjoyable to imagine a finale in which he runs, Kevin McCarthy-like through Washington DC, grabbing away people's newspapers and shouting "Where do they get their facts? Where do they get their numbers?" Who knows? Seems like they're making a lot of remakes these days, and this one would be do-able with a small budget...