Underrated Masterpiece - The Fury (1978) Discussion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ricky_may1 12 years ago

John Cassevetes as Childress (or Childermass) was a perfect villain in this film. Kirk Douglas was amazing as always, but Amy Irving was amazing!! and so beautiful as well

reply

[–] josebut8 12 years ago

I think DePalma has a string of great films from "Carrie" through "Blowout". Even "Body Double" was visually excellent. I think it was all down hill with "Scarface". He lost his cinematic elegance and mastery of the camera.

reply

[–] OKLacoste 12 years ago

Interesting Movie, and John Williams´s music, great like always
that´s De Palma in his best years.
7.5/10

low-budget, straight-to-video, Cult B-movies,

or nothing

reply

[–] s_jester 12 years ago

DePalma was great until Snake Eyes. Since then it's been downhill. I thought The Black Dehalia would have been a great return for him, but that movie felt a lot like The Fury -- a bloated movie that didn't have any focus.

I love Scarface...it's my favorite DePalma film.

Writing him off after Scarface means you are writing off The Untouchables, Carlito's Way, and Mission: Impossible...all great movies that were made great by his direction.

reply

[–] gioconda 9 years ago

You're joking, right?

I'd love to hear what Amy Irving & Kirk Douglas think of this movie.

reply

[–] brefane 12 years ago

The plot is belabored, the dialog ludicrous, the acting in supporting roles is poor, many scenes feel unnecesary, the plot strands take too long to come together destroying tension, momentum, urgency and pace. And does Gillian have the power to make people disappear? Her mother as well as all other students at the Paragon Institute evaporate. In addition, the potentially most interesting character, Robin, who should be front and center is off screen for too long. Instead we get the lame comedy relief of Mother Knuckles and the off duty cops and the new Caddy which ends with Douglas driving the Caddilac into the lake for effect, and the scene on a bus with Irving and Douglas is embarrisingly bad. The climax with Robin and Peter falling to their deaths is anti climactic. Besides, right before he falls Robin had demonstrated the ability to levitate. The film is notable for it's set pieces, but emotionally you don't really care as you did with Carrie. So much more could have been done with the idea. Even so, the film is very watchable

reply

[–] eolloe 11 years ago

Besides, right before he falls Robin had demonstrated the ability to levitate.

You make a lot of good points, but are you sure he didn't want to die by that point? Either that and/or he wasn't thinking rationally. Why else would he have attacked (gouged the face of) the one person who could have pulled him to safety? Alternatively, maybe he could only levitate if his mind was focused on that act.

reply

[–] brefane 8 years ago

True. Robin may have wanted to die and allowed himself to fall.

reply

[–] MarshallStax 8 years ago

All true.

I saw this in the early 80's and thought it was slow but pretty good. Watched it again in 2016 and thought it was simply dreadful.

Of special mention - the structure is particularly clunky. The pacing (by that I mean the internal scene rhythms and the switching between main plots) is all off; amazing considering the movie was edited by Paul Hirsch, who has sown he knows how to cut a movie. Look up his filmography to see what I mean.

This is a movie that could stand a remake; ditch the comedy relief (Mother Knuckles and the off duty cops), put the focus more on Gillian and Robin and make more of their connection.

All Art is pretense.

reply

[–] BedHeadTalks 9 years ago

I agree, this is a great movie! I too think is underrated!

I like tea

reply

[–] hka-3 9 years ago

It certainly kept my attention! The whole production was better than I thought it would be.

Mag, Darling, you're being a bore.

reply

[–] ricky_may-47537 8 years ago

Would not go so far as masterpiece, but definitely one of DePalma's more underrated films. Personally, I would give it an 8/10.

History is written by the victor. History is full of liars.

reply

[–] metatron1970 8 years ago

As for critics not liking The Fury, that's not exactly true. Pauline Kael--a huge Brian de Palma fan in those days--wrote a lengthy review gushing about how good it was. Indeed, her enthusiasm for it led me to the film in the first place. I don't think it's quite the horror/sci-fi classic Kael thought it was--the film does have its flaws. Still, it never fails to entertain me for a couple of hours when I rewatch it.

reply

[–] TakeARisk 8 years ago

Nope. Mediocre movie at best.

reply

[–] Stanley_Kubrick_2 8 years ago

Mediocre? Well compared to the crap being churned out of Hollywood today the Fury is a masterpiece.

I miss these 70's films and wish Hollywood would make art again. It's all throw away cinema today. The 1970's was the era of the Director and De Palma made great cinema all the way in to the 90's. Only Scorsese is left and perhaps Spielberg. Even Cronenberg can't find the funding to make his art today which is depressing.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]