227 reviews
I had very low hopes for FEAR . I'd read the synopsis in the TV guide and the plot sounded like one of those psycho killer stalker from hell thrillers that were being churned out without any thought in the mid 1990s . Considering it starred singer Marky Mark , Reese Witherspoon and William Petersen who's a rival to Eric Roberts in the straight to video / cable TV movie stakes I didn't think this was going to be up to much
While not being a classic thriller FEAR certainly did hold my attention , probably because much of the characterisation is credible . All too often in this genre the actor or actress playing the villain really goes to town showing the audience what a bad ass they are thereby parodying the role . Mark Wahlberg as David is very restrained for the most part which makes David and credible character and his on screen chemistry with Reese Witherspoon's Nicole is believable , you can believe these two characters are genuinely in love with one another something that is all too rare in this type of movie
I should also point out that much of the movie revolves around the interaction of Petersen's Mr Walker who is concerned about his daughter's relationship with David . You can't blame the guy for wanting what's best for his offspring and it enhances the credibility of the story . It's refreshing to have a more thoughtful approach to this type of genre because if people start turning up dead after 15 minutes then things start to get silly , so the violence is kept to a minimum until almost at the end of the movie which does suffer something of a plot hole because no one seems to have a mobile telephone at readily hand and don't tell me professional people didn't have mobile phones in 1996 . Also watch out for references to STRAW DOGS , THE SHINING and NOSFERATU at the climax
Even if you're burned out on those 90s stalker from hell thrillers you could do worse than watch this on a wet Friday evening
While not being a classic thriller FEAR certainly did hold my attention , probably because much of the characterisation is credible . All too often in this genre the actor or actress playing the villain really goes to town showing the audience what a bad ass they are thereby parodying the role . Mark Wahlberg as David is very restrained for the most part which makes David and credible character and his on screen chemistry with Reese Witherspoon's Nicole is believable , you can believe these two characters are genuinely in love with one another something that is all too rare in this type of movie
I should also point out that much of the movie revolves around the interaction of Petersen's Mr Walker who is concerned about his daughter's relationship with David . You can't blame the guy for wanting what's best for his offspring and it enhances the credibility of the story . It's refreshing to have a more thoughtful approach to this type of genre because if people start turning up dead after 15 minutes then things start to get silly , so the violence is kept to a minimum until almost at the end of the movie which does suffer something of a plot hole because no one seems to have a mobile telephone at readily hand and don't tell me professional people didn't have mobile phones in 1996 . Also watch out for references to STRAW DOGS , THE SHINING and NOSFERATU at the climax
Even if you're burned out on those 90s stalker from hell thrillers you could do worse than watch this on a wet Friday evening
- Theo Robertson
- Sep 2, 2005
- Permalink
Nice, innocent teen Nicole (Reese Witherspoon) falls for handsome, muscular, soft spoken David (Mark Wahlberg) not knowing he's a psycho who wants her--forever. Good thing she's got a nice, muscular, protective father (William Petersen).
OK, it's no masterpiece and the plot is very familiar, but I was never bored. It's well-directed (especially a roller coaster ride), has beautiful scenery and architecture (look at the house where Witherspoon lives with her family) and a script that, if not always credible, never stops moving. The last 20 minutes really rock. A little unpleasant at times though. As for the acting--Witherspoon is OK. At times, she's totally believable--other times she's not. And she's obviously over 17. Petersen is very good playing the understanding, protective dad. A nice, understated performance. Mark Wahlberg is (surprisingly) very good as the psycho. He plays the nice guy and the evil guy very effectively. REALLY nice bod too--what a chest! But he needs some serious voice lessons--his Boston accent kept creeping in. So, a pretty good thriller. You could do worse.
OK, it's no masterpiece and the plot is very familiar, but I was never bored. It's well-directed (especially a roller coaster ride), has beautiful scenery and architecture (look at the house where Witherspoon lives with her family) and a script that, if not always credible, never stops moving. The last 20 minutes really rock. A little unpleasant at times though. As for the acting--Witherspoon is OK. At times, she's totally believable--other times she's not. And she's obviously over 17. Petersen is very good playing the understanding, protective dad. A nice, understated performance. Mark Wahlberg is (surprisingly) very good as the psycho. He plays the nice guy and the evil guy very effectively. REALLY nice bod too--what a chest! But he needs some serious voice lessons--his Boston accent kept creeping in. So, a pretty good thriller. You could do worse.
- ccave-62620
- Feb 23, 2019
- Permalink
Over the years I've caught bits and pieces of this film many times on cable and even premium movie channels. Just finally I decided to sit down and watch it all and I must say overall "Fear" is a pretty decent mind thriller. It's theme fits well with teenage love obsession and the stalker crisis. And the cast here is well known it features some of the early work for most of them before they would go on to TV fame(Brenneman, Milano, and Petersen) and movie stardom(Wahlberg and Witherspoon). Set in Seattle, Washington a teenage girl the innocent and pretty Nicole(in one of Reese's earliest roles)lives with her father Steve(William Petersen)and stepmother Laura(Amy Brenneman)and Nicole has a good loving family life yet her parents are to overprotective and she starts to give into the pressure of her peers especially from her best friend the free spirited and sleazy Margo(the hot Alyssa Milano). It's upon their partying and club going that Nicole meets a young and innocent and nice talking young man named David(Mark Wahlberg). Yet appearances and personalities can be deceiving as after David seduces Nicole and she loses her innocence and develops a false trust surely enough David begins a violent obsession with her. Her family sees it and warns her, eventually this leads to drama all concluding with violence and a hostage situation with Nicole's family that was brought on by David and his thug friends. Yet in the end Nicole will grow to learn love is blind as she faces her fear. Pretty decent thriller of the stalker mode with some early performances from what would later be big stars in both TV and film. So give it a watch some late night on cable or premium TV.
- claudio_carvalho
- Dec 21, 2013
- Permalink
I mean it's ok but so dated and not in a good way. The acting is laughable in many places apart from the step mum and dad but definitely not worth the high rating on here. Easy to watch and it's fine but a 5 is all it deserves
- scarlettimogen
- Feb 20, 2021
- Permalink
The story behind the film "Fear" is nothing new. Obsessive love leading to dangerous fatal attraction. But I'm not ashamed to say that I really enjoyed watching this movie. To be sure, there were the typical cliches (did anyone not know that the security guard was SO dead!). However, the action in the film keeps things moving along at a steady pace, and the tension builds towards the reasonably satisfying climax. Performances by the lead characters were generally quite good. I found Mark Wahlbergs character to be quite convincing and quite menacing, though I agree he would certainly benefit from some speech coaching. The two young female leads, Reese Witherspoon and Alyssa Milano, did a good job playing the victims, and certainly add value to the film for their attractiveness alone. The standout performance for me was that of William L. Petersen as the father. Most of his actions/reactions rang true to me. Was "Fear" a great movie? Not really. Was it a good, satisfying and ultimately entertaining way to spend 97 minutes? Yes indeed. Even my wife stayed awake till the end, and that's worth an 8/10 alone.
- insomniac_rod
- Aug 21, 2004
- Permalink
In 1996, James Foley directed a movie called "Fear." If there is any irony to be found in that title, it may very well be in that Mr. Foley would have had reason to be concerned about his career after making this mindless, overproduced piece of garbage. Five years earlier, now-famous Reese Witherspoon made her debut in a wonderful movie called "The Man in the Moon." In both that film and this one, she played a teenager troubled by her crush on a boy. Except in that much-superior film, it was because her crush was three years older than her and he was smitten by her sister. In this film, it's because he's a sex-addicted psychopath who won't leave her be.
"Fear" could be described as an adolescent version of "Fatal Attraction." But there is a difference. Up until its last ten minutes, "Fatal Attraction" was a splendid thriller as well as an insightful one. It had a sharp, shrewd knowledge about marital affairs. Hence why Glenn Close still claims to this day that her performance stopped several men from cheating on their wives. That movie did lose its mind in its big climactic ending, but "Fear" is a movie born without a mind. And if you thought the ending to "Fatal Attraction" was ludicrous, wait until you get a load of what happens here.
One of the core faults of the picture is lack of a demanding villain. I've had mixed feelings about Mark Wahlberg before, but this could be his worst performance. As the stalking boyfriend with a household of hoods, he's about as frightening as the stone lions in front of a library. There are two sides to Mr. Wahlberg's performance, one worse than the other. When his character goes psychotic at the end, it's just limp ham-acting. But he's worse at the beginning, when he's pretending to be a nice guy just by speaking softly and hanging his eyelids as if he had insomnia. But I guess Mr. Wahlberg, who can act when given a worthy screenplay, cannot be fully blamed here. For I doubt this material could have been handled well by any actor, young or old. Because I was not the least bit intimidated or frightened by him, I saw no reason why Miss Witherspoon, or her parents or friends, would be, either.
However, the worst sin the movie commits is insincerity. It is tackling a very topical and relevant collection of subject matter: underage sex, early-age affection, the tough times between parents and children at that crucial age of sixteen. But instead of offering insight about these tough times--that everyone of us can relate to in one way or another--it just pushes those opportunities aside in favor of over-the-top exploitation. Take, for example, the denouement of the picture. Instead of going for a plausible conclusion, the movie goes into a cheesy monster-on-the-loose formula, which very well have been a parody of "Night of the Living Dead." This is the sort of film where four teenage boys have been granted special powers like second lives and super-human strength. They apparently also become master electricians and know more about architecture than the designer of a maximum security system. How do they acquire this vast array of skills? By doing drugs, raping high school girls, and playing lots of pool. I don't buy it.
The movie is so unconsciously bad that it is always racing ahead of itself. Even a scene such as a jogger running through some woods (not chased by a bad guy, by the way) is accompanied by whooshing camera motions and a soundtrack so noisy that it would make the world's most obnoxious rock band ask for a little quiet time. I suppose if there was any good intentions from the makers of the movie, it would have been along the lines of Larry Clark's "Kids" released a year before. But whereas that film had a purpose, "Fear" just pretends to have a purpose.
"Fear" could be described as an adolescent version of "Fatal Attraction." But there is a difference. Up until its last ten minutes, "Fatal Attraction" was a splendid thriller as well as an insightful one. It had a sharp, shrewd knowledge about marital affairs. Hence why Glenn Close still claims to this day that her performance stopped several men from cheating on their wives. That movie did lose its mind in its big climactic ending, but "Fear" is a movie born without a mind. And if you thought the ending to "Fatal Attraction" was ludicrous, wait until you get a load of what happens here.
One of the core faults of the picture is lack of a demanding villain. I've had mixed feelings about Mark Wahlberg before, but this could be his worst performance. As the stalking boyfriend with a household of hoods, he's about as frightening as the stone lions in front of a library. There are two sides to Mr. Wahlberg's performance, one worse than the other. When his character goes psychotic at the end, it's just limp ham-acting. But he's worse at the beginning, when he's pretending to be a nice guy just by speaking softly and hanging his eyelids as if he had insomnia. But I guess Mr. Wahlberg, who can act when given a worthy screenplay, cannot be fully blamed here. For I doubt this material could have been handled well by any actor, young or old. Because I was not the least bit intimidated or frightened by him, I saw no reason why Miss Witherspoon, or her parents or friends, would be, either.
However, the worst sin the movie commits is insincerity. It is tackling a very topical and relevant collection of subject matter: underage sex, early-age affection, the tough times between parents and children at that crucial age of sixteen. But instead of offering insight about these tough times--that everyone of us can relate to in one way or another--it just pushes those opportunities aside in favor of over-the-top exploitation. Take, for example, the denouement of the picture. Instead of going for a plausible conclusion, the movie goes into a cheesy monster-on-the-loose formula, which very well have been a parody of "Night of the Living Dead." This is the sort of film where four teenage boys have been granted special powers like second lives and super-human strength. They apparently also become master electricians and know more about architecture than the designer of a maximum security system. How do they acquire this vast array of skills? By doing drugs, raping high school girls, and playing lots of pool. I don't buy it.
The movie is so unconsciously bad that it is always racing ahead of itself. Even a scene such as a jogger running through some woods (not chased by a bad guy, by the way) is accompanied by whooshing camera motions and a soundtrack so noisy that it would make the world's most obnoxious rock band ask for a little quiet time. I suppose if there was any good intentions from the makers of the movie, it would have been along the lines of Larry Clark's "Kids" released a year before. But whereas that film had a purpose, "Fear" just pretends to have a purpose.
- TheUnknown837-1
- Apr 3, 2012
- Permalink
- seymourblack-1
- Jun 18, 2015
- Permalink
- TOMASBBloodhound
- Jan 6, 2007
- Permalink
Fear? Oh dear, I really don't know where to start with this awfully dull "thriller". I managed to sit through all of it but for a fairly short film it dragged on and on for what seemed like an eternity and the only thing that I was really fearful of was that I might fall asleep with the TV on and waste money on my parents' electricity bill.
With a thriller you are supposed to build up tension throughout the film and then release it all in a nail biting climax that leaves you gasping for breath and on the edge of your seat. It's a fairly simple idea, but Fear manages to botch it up royally.
You are introduced to a fairly tedious rich family, apparently facing all sorts of problems, and then after about quarter of an hour of mindless bitching the daughter meets supposedly the perfect boyfriend. As the guy says himself "if something seems too good to be true it probably isn't", meaning that he is obviously going to be a psycho. So much time is spent on them being "loving" together it doesn't really add anything to the plot except for making you want to throw up. One particular scene on a roller-coaster was particularly distasteful and quite disturbing for entirely the wrong reasons.
The premise isn't actually that bad, they probably could have squeezed a decent movie out of it if they had really tried but they decide to ignore subtly and hit you in the face with the obvious. They could have let the boyfriend slowly display his psychotic side, flashing the audience hints that the girl doesn't notice, so our fear for her grows the more and more the relationship goes on. The more she doesn't know he's bloody mental and the more we do, the more we care. Instead they decide that he is going to display his mentalness right in front of her face by going ape-**** and attacking one of her buddies, all because the poor dude gave her a hug.
After this the plot just gets more ludicrous and keeps going round in circles but somehow manages to get to a really promising climax. Just when I thought the film might just be able to redeem itself, the director manages to mess up the ending as well. Brilliant.
There isn't really coherent message to the film and the acting from everybody is well below par. The entire film plays out as an endurance contest for how many clichés you can handle before you are forced to turn the TV off.
With a thriller you are supposed to build up tension throughout the film and then release it all in a nail biting climax that leaves you gasping for breath and on the edge of your seat. It's a fairly simple idea, but Fear manages to botch it up royally.
You are introduced to a fairly tedious rich family, apparently facing all sorts of problems, and then after about quarter of an hour of mindless bitching the daughter meets supposedly the perfect boyfriend. As the guy says himself "if something seems too good to be true it probably isn't", meaning that he is obviously going to be a psycho. So much time is spent on them being "loving" together it doesn't really add anything to the plot except for making you want to throw up. One particular scene on a roller-coaster was particularly distasteful and quite disturbing for entirely the wrong reasons.
The premise isn't actually that bad, they probably could have squeezed a decent movie out of it if they had really tried but they decide to ignore subtly and hit you in the face with the obvious. They could have let the boyfriend slowly display his psychotic side, flashing the audience hints that the girl doesn't notice, so our fear for her grows the more and more the relationship goes on. The more she doesn't know he's bloody mental and the more we do, the more we care. Instead they decide that he is going to display his mentalness right in front of her face by going ape-**** and attacking one of her buddies, all because the poor dude gave her a hug.
After this the plot just gets more ludicrous and keeps going round in circles but somehow manages to get to a really promising climax. Just when I thought the film might just be able to redeem itself, the director manages to mess up the ending as well. Brilliant.
There isn't really coherent message to the film and the acting from everybody is well below par. The entire film plays out as an endurance contest for how many clichés you can handle before you are forced to turn the TV off.
- Doctor_Mongoose
- Sep 23, 2009
- Permalink
Movie like this either reach out and pull you in or they don't. Fear pulled me in. I rented this movie about a week after Halloween of 1996 and put it in my VCR not sure what to expect. 2 hours later I ejected the movie from the VCR feeling somewhat dazed and overwhelmed. Fear isn't a classic. But it works well. It is scary, violent gory and well made. The reason it works so well is because it was made by people who knew what they were doing. The whole stalker style of movies is full of uninspired trash that sounds like it was made for the USA network.
Fear stands heads and shoulders above that (And to some extent above the original Fatal Attraction). It's not afraid to push, to pull us inside, to scare us and give us a good conclusion at the end, one that movies of this type always mess up.
***
Fear stands heads and shoulders above that (And to some extent above the original Fatal Attraction). It's not afraid to push, to pull us inside, to scare us and give us a good conclusion at the end, one that movies of this type always mess up.
***
Fear is not a film that will leave you feeling like you just watched something special, but it is a film that you will walk away from feeling like you didn't waste your time. If you take it for what it is, it's actually quite entertaining.
It's a 1990's teen thriller that involves a jealous boyfriend, a naive daughter, and a distraught father trying to protect this family the only ways he knows how.
It's not a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I've always found it enjoyable to watch. The great cast really helped bring the characters to life, and the end was always very memorable. If you've never seen Fear, I would recommend giving it a watch.
It's a 1990's teen thriller that involves a jealous boyfriend, a naive daughter, and a distraught father trying to protect this family the only ways he knows how.
It's not a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination, but I've always found it enjoyable to watch. The great cast really helped bring the characters to life, and the end was always very memorable. If you've never seen Fear, I would recommend giving it a watch.
- JakeRfilmfreak
- Jun 30, 2023
- Permalink
Fear is directed by James Foley and written by Christopher Crowe. It stars Mark Wahlberg, Reese Witherspoon, William Petesen, Alyssa Milano and Amy Brenneman. Music is by Carter Burwell and cinematography by Thomas Kloss.
One of the number of psycho-sexual thrillers that surfaced in the 80s and 90s, Fear has the narrative hook that it involves teenagers. Witherspoon is the girl who invites drifter David McCall (Wahlberg) into her life, only to find he's as unstable as unstable can be. Director Foley and his team then produce a film that pretty much cribs from a number of other similar themed movies. All of the key scenes will be instantly familiar to genre film watchers, and unfortunately the plot twists and turns come as no surprise.
However, in spite of the lack of originality in structure and narrative thrust, Fear is never dull, not even when Wahlberg is wistfully looking into Witherspoon's eyes like a love sick puppy. Suspense is on hand for the big finale, which unfolds with kinetic brutality, and it's also nice here to find that some thought has gone into the characterisations of those in peril. Kloss' photography around the various Seattle locales is vividly appealing, as is Burwell's music compositions, while the acting performances are all on the good side of good, with nobody harming the balance of the piece.
A teenage Cape Fear – cum – Straw Dogs - cum – Fatal Attraction, but good with it regardless. 7/10
One of the number of psycho-sexual thrillers that surfaced in the 80s and 90s, Fear has the narrative hook that it involves teenagers. Witherspoon is the girl who invites drifter David McCall (Wahlberg) into her life, only to find he's as unstable as unstable can be. Director Foley and his team then produce a film that pretty much cribs from a number of other similar themed movies. All of the key scenes will be instantly familiar to genre film watchers, and unfortunately the plot twists and turns come as no surprise.
However, in spite of the lack of originality in structure and narrative thrust, Fear is never dull, not even when Wahlberg is wistfully looking into Witherspoon's eyes like a love sick puppy. Suspense is on hand for the big finale, which unfolds with kinetic brutality, and it's also nice here to find that some thought has gone into the characterisations of those in peril. Kloss' photography around the various Seattle locales is vividly appealing, as is Burwell's music compositions, while the acting performances are all on the good side of good, with nobody harming the balance of the piece.
A teenage Cape Fear – cum – Straw Dogs - cum – Fatal Attraction, but good with it regardless. 7/10
- hitchcockthelegend
- Jun 5, 2014
- Permalink
- paulsrobinson
- Apr 4, 2013
- Permalink
Well this is about as bad as movies get. Nothing to see here, move along. If you must know the threadbare plot follows 16-year old Nicole Walker, played by Reese Witherspoon. Sure is a long way from this garbage to an Academy Award for Miss Witherspoon. But I digress. Anyhow, young Nicole falls in love with seemingly sweet, nice, perfectly charming David McCall, played by Mark Wahlberg who somehow managed to salvage an acting career after appearing in this movie and thus was spared a lifetime of "Whatever happened to that Marky Mark guy" questions. Of course if David is as seemingly wonderful as he initially seems this movie would have a different title. As it is, David soon reveals himself to be a murderous lunatic and everybody does not in fact live happily ever after.
So what's wrong with this movie you ask? In a nutshell, everything. The script is terrible, with some of the most god-awful dialogue ever heard. The characters are all clichéd, pulled straight out of so many similar and infinitely better movies that had come before. This film has nothing new to offer, it's just a painfully bad rehash. It's meant to be suspenseful and shocking. In fact it's just laughable. Nothing here is believable, the whole thing is over to the top to the point of stupidity. Don't even get me started on why Nicole's completely ordinary family lives in a home with more security features than Fort Knox. It's downright ludicrous, an artificial attempt to make the climax of the film more dramatic. Unfortunately by the film's climax you'll be stifling yawns. If you haven't already given up and turned the thing off. You get the sense everyone involved with this movie would like to forget it ever happened. If you ever are unlucky enough to have to sit through it you'll wish you could forget it too.
So what's wrong with this movie you ask? In a nutshell, everything. The script is terrible, with some of the most god-awful dialogue ever heard. The characters are all clichéd, pulled straight out of so many similar and infinitely better movies that had come before. This film has nothing new to offer, it's just a painfully bad rehash. It's meant to be suspenseful and shocking. In fact it's just laughable. Nothing here is believable, the whole thing is over to the top to the point of stupidity. Don't even get me started on why Nicole's completely ordinary family lives in a home with more security features than Fort Knox. It's downright ludicrous, an artificial attempt to make the climax of the film more dramatic. Unfortunately by the film's climax you'll be stifling yawns. If you haven't already given up and turned the thing off. You get the sense everyone involved with this movie would like to forget it ever happened. If you ever are unlucky enough to have to sit through it you'll wish you could forget it too.
Excellent early film for both Mark Wahlberg and Reese Witherspoon. William Peterson was wonderful as the father, James Foley directed a great chilling experience with nice romance mashed in! Not your average thriller, boils your spine with edginess and genuine emotions; would only recommend to someone who doesn't mind having their mind radiated. I love this movie!
- UniqueParticle
- Jun 12, 2019
- Permalink
In this semi-erotic thriller targeting teens and overprotective parents, there's an alluring ambiguity to the passionate relationship that smooth-talking bad boy Mark Wahlberg and semi-rebellious suburb girl Reese Witherspoon strike up after meeting in a bar. Witherspoon is refreshingly natural and Wahlberg's performance is so close to convincing, even authentic, that when things slowly start shifting over from a depiction of real kids to a box-ticking of genre-conventions, we're more disappointed on behalf of the relationship between them than surprised by the script's downfall. After all, the picture never promised us anything else, even if some of us might have expected director James Foley (Glengarry Glen Ross) to handle it all in a more subtle and elegant manner. William Petersen gives an effortful performance as Witherspoon's father, and their affectionate, clashing father/daughter relationship will most definitely ring true with current and former parents of teens.
- fredrikgunerius
- Aug 5, 2023
- Permalink
- chucknorrisfacts
- Jul 27, 2011
- Permalink
I loved this movie when it first came out and still love it!!!!
Fatal attraction with a younger generation...
Not only does "markymark" look incredibly buffed in this movie but Reece Witherspoon looks about
12 years old. If you like thrillers about overly possessive boyfriends you will love this.
Suspenseful but ridiculous. I watched it because of my love for mark and Reese but they went too far when they killed the dog. I wish someone had warned me so I didn't waste my time
- amberguildner
- Dec 30, 2018
- Permalink