MovieChat Forums > The Fury (1978) Discussion > Did anyone see the same move I did?

Did anyone see the same move I did?

posted 15 years ago by childers-3
23 replies | jump to latest

I saw this in theaters in 1978 and it was an absolute yawner! Extremely long periods of boring dialogue coupled with mediocre acting made for a very unpleasant movie-going experience. It seemed to be incredibly long, but sometimes a boring movie can seem that way. I have read many positive reviews from folks on this board and it made me wonder if I saw the same movie as everyone else! I happened to catch this on TBS or TNT the other night and it was as boring and talky as I remembered it. The only interesting thing about it was seeing all the newbies that have gone on to other things - I even recognized Nikki from The Young and the Restless. Of course, John Cassavetes was always fun to watch. I always thought he was very sexy!

"Hey, I should be mad at YOU . . . now turn around."-Bender/Futurama

[–] coxm-1 15 years ago

I saw this in the theater in 1978 and I remember an action-pack thriller with Kirk Douglas going around killing people.

[–] mizhu 14 years ago

Similarly, I saw it in a theater (a BIG one, before the tiny multiplexes), and remember an almost full house being enthralled by the story and impressed (and a little repulsed) by the action...

So, yes, I would say we saw the same movie. But you were not part of the majority, which is OK because everyone has different tastes.

[–] baran_erik 10 years ago

There were multiplexes in 1978, as well as the big single screen places. The multis weren't the enormous 25 screen theaters of today, but more like four to eight screens (at least in my city).

[–] gallileo60 13 years ago

i saw it when it came out, and thought it was bad to the bone..Also wanted to bone Gillian, i think was her name..

You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..

Better Living Thru Chemistry

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

It may be - and is I guess - sort of cheesy and silly, but boring...? Come on, it´s in fact so much fun that it reportedly managed to restore the desire for filmmaking in that normally super cranky Jean-Luc Godard. It´s such an energetic, fast paced number presented with quite intoxicating camerawork.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Jeepster7 14 years ago

It's nice to know you feel that way Franzka, but I don't remember a movie quite like the one you're describing. Saw this first run in the theaters as a kid in 78, and I'm not sure about full houses/packed theaters but it was a so-so type of movie and even as a kid who loved this kind of stuff I felt that way. Scariest, most interesting part of this movie is where Robin turned totally evil and killed that lady but first touching her all over her body to make her bleed and then lifting her up and having her spin. OUCH! Now that's a creative way I guess to go and kill somebody if you have that type of power. God, I hate the remakes that Hollywood is doing over EVERYTHING these days but actually I wouldn't mind someone having another go at this. It couldn't turn out worse that's for sure.

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

I don´t find it scary at all - the telekinesis stuff looks pretty ridiculous, but that´s not the point.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] SkaterDave 14 years ago

I like the movie but I agree it did drag at times. It could have easily been cut by a good 15 minutes or so and still kept the story intact while picking up the pace.

[–] jrs-8 14 years ago

I, too, saw it when it was originally released in 1978. Similar to one of the above posts I saw it with a great audience that was totally into the film and even applauded at the end. It's not a perfect movie but I never found it dull, even during the expository dialogue scenes. And I thought Cassavettes made a terrific villain.

[–] PrimeMinisterOfTheSinister 14 years ago

I saw this movie when I was a kid and it freaked me out. The image of the boy and girl both scratching at the same time really stuck in my head. Many years ago, I watched it again and thought it sucked. Not nearly as cool as I remembered. I was incredibly disappointed. I'm watching it right now on TV and, yeah, you're absolutely right. This movie is long, slow and boring. There's some cool stuff at the end like Robin spinning the chick around in the air until she blew up and such but the middle of the movie is incredibly dull and silly. It's also very similar to "Firestarter".

I think this is one of those movies were people just remember the good parts (the last ten-fifteen minutes) and completely forget about the rest which makes them remember this movie being a lot better than it actually is.

[–] ceebeegee 14 years ago

It's also very similar to "Firestarter".

Yes! I thought the same thing--I know Stephen King knows this movie, he explicitly mentions it in his book Danse Macabre. I wonder if it influenced him somehow?

Yeah, I thought this movie was so cool as a kid and having just now rewatched it on DVD--not the same at all. Painfully '70s, and Amy Irving's character is badly written (though her final scene is great).

[–] Andres_Barrientos 11 years ago

Yeah! I was a kid when I caught it on TV cause an older cousin of mine was watching it, but I only saw like the last 20 minutes or so, and was so freaked out and impressed that I asked him for the name of the movie so I could look it up. My cousin said: "The Fury.. but don't bother, you saw the only good part". So, 28 years something later and I finally just watched it last night, and despite being a fan of De Palma's, I kinda hate to admit, damn, my cousin was right!

[–] jimmyderzko 13 years ago

I agree this movie was very boring. I think Carrie is far superior.

[–] rascal67 13 years ago

It's a mean spirited film—not that I mind and is probably one of it's saving graces—but I find it way too cheesy and dated looking to be considered a classic of it's genre. 'Carrie' is very much a product of it's time but works better and I agree that it is superior.

[–] bhobnine 11 years ago

I liked it better the first time around.

Saw it in theaters on its release as well.

I think my original fondness was for Cassavetes getting 'SCANNERED' at the end.

(Though not sure where the flames came from.)

Watching it again the other night on some movie channel,

I couldnt believe how lame it was.

Kirk and Stevens wrasslin' on the beach in swimsuits.

Kirk looking like he learned how to shoot from a 40's gangster movie.

YES MR SPECIAL OPS, EVER THINK OF AIMING?

Robin was totally unlikeable and did he get the 'mean face' by

watching THREE YEAR OLD BOYS???

Carrie Snodgrass flies through a windshield made out of OLD SCHOOL CANDY GLASS!

Argh!

And why did he drive that poor guys shiny new caddie into the river?

They had escaped the bad guys, he just felt like being a SNOTBAG?

Or just a writers excuse for a neat throwaway line about

" tell em to follow me!"

I still liked the line about Childress' arm,

"I KILLED IT. . .WITH A MACHINE GUN"

Alas, dropping my rating down a point after this revisit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Pffft, my suspension of disbelief has higher standards than that"

[–] eolloe 11 years ago

Just watched it for the first time, and I have to agree with the OP that it's too long and boring/talky in a lot of places.

There are some hints at brilliance though, such as in the score and the uniquely horrifying Ebola virus-type bleeding from the eyes and orifices. I also enjoyed seeing glimpses of late 1970s Chicago.

We'll see how the 2014 remake handles the story.
There is potential for a great film from this story in the right hands.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"There is potential for a great film from this story in the right hands".

No - I think De Palma got the maximum out of this ultimately silly, schlocky yarn. From here, it can only get worse.

Pretty much the same with his Carrie, which apparently `has` been remade recently.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] eolloe 11 years ago

Carrie is playing in cinemas already.

[–] The_Man_in_the_Planet 11 years ago

I didn't know there was a remake in the offing. I like the novel a lot, so maybe the upcoming film will do it justice.

Next time you see me, it won't be me

[–] OldFriendOfTheChristys 10 years ago

I’ve never cared much for the movie either. The pacing is too slow, the acting is rather silly, and some of De Palma’s techniques become tiresome. Even Cassavetes’s “going boom” ultimately falls flat because it’s too drawn out. I’ve never understood why De Palma wanted to revisit such familiar territory in the first place, considering this was his follow-up to the much-superior Carrie.

[–] Special-Order-937 10 years ago

It didn't bore me. It's not a finished article and I think the script tried to be a bit of everything: horror, dry humour, thriller, melodrama. It succeeds in parts but the parts make a disjointed whole. I still think the last scene is astonishing. It's built up quite innocently, with a sunny day streaming into a deluxe bedroom, draped in chince. Cassavetes talking calmly, and Gillian just lying in bed. What could possibly go wrong?!

[–] Steamboy 10 years ago

You impatient people who can't take it when a movie moves slowly! Not all movies need to move at the same frantic pace. The Fury is more a drama than an action movie, that's what you have to keep in mind when watching it. The focus is on the characters, not so much on what they're doing.

__________________________
www.1up-games.com Last watched: imdb.to/K4tvL9

[–] kaiserblade 9 years ago

Well said Steamboy.