This movie is not the best Coppola ever, but one of his greatest accomplishments as a director. He was so detail oriented in the production of this flick that eventually led Zoetrope Studios to bankruptcy. Back in 1982 this movie became one most expensive films of the season!

Among many things: first movie ever with a whole sequence fully computer generated (the opening credits), the recreation of downtown Las Vegas, and the Nevada desert inside the studio, the use of multiple computer-guided cameras (as developed by Lucas)...

Although the plot is kind-of-weak and could have used some improvement, the movie became famous for featuring one of the most beautiful scores ever put in a film. The soundtrack by Tom Waits literally carries the weight of the movie and guides the action.

Another aspect worth mentioning is the outstanding cinematography by Vittorio Storaro. The light and the colors are just beautiful: each shot alone is a perfect picture.

If I ever make a movie, I just hope it looks and sounds just half as good as "One from the heart" does.

As I mentioned before, the storyline is weak and too predictable, leaving you the feeling that Coppola left the screenwriting aside in order to focus almost exclusively on the mindbending technical details of the flick. It's worth checking just for the cinematography and the soundtrack alone.


A huge roll of the dice that wiped out Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope studio and saw him spending the next decade churning out pictures to pay off the debts the $28m flop left him with, One From the Heart is one of those films I really want to like  to love, even  but which just won't let me. Visually it's a triumph, but the Tom Waits suicide blues score rarely works as a screen musical and as a human drama its kept firmly on the ground by the fact these characters just aren't likable. Coppola seems more interested in his lavish studio settings than what's happening in them, with even the most mundane sequences shot like an imaginatively staged theatrical musical with intricate shifts of lighting and colour, dissolving walls and neon dreams. But perhaps the biggest problem of all is that Coppola doesn't seem to have made this film for the audience but for himself, and so it probably never connects with anyone not on his personal wavelength. The trailers give away a big part of the problem: the 1982 release stresses the Godfather and Apocalypse Now as evidence of Coppola's genius while the 2003 reissue trailer runs off a list of critical superlatives in a sternly unemotional voice: joy isn't on the menu here.

That the story is so simple as to be almost invisible  a couple split up over the 4th July weekend and become involved with new partners  needn't be a problem: after all, three sailors on furlough looking for Miss Turnstiles or a backwoodsman convincing his six bachelors to kidnap six local girls to marry aren't exactly complex. With good casting, good writing and good musical numbers, there's no real reason it shouldn't work. Unfortunately it doesn't get them. The argument that kicks off the split is atrociously written and just as badly acted  you've seen more vicious spats on The Dick Van Dyke Show  and because we never buy it for a moment the film is handicapped almost from the start. The fact that either lead can carry a movie, is even more of a problem, leaving you with a film without any heart at its centre: Raul Julia is the only member of the cast who really shines, and he probably has the least screen time of anyone in the picture. The constant crosscutting doesn't help, with Coppola cutting away as soon as one scene starts to gel to focus on an awkward one that never does. Despite input from Gene Kelly (barely noticeable) and Michael Powell (visually very noticeable), it's not even quite a musical  aside from a couple of fantasy numbers it opts Yentl-like to keep the singing as an invisible chorus/underscore not so much commenting as setting the melancholy tone that counterpoints the bright, garish visuals. The film's one promising musical number, where Julia's serenade of Teri Garr spills out onto the streets of Las Vegas, is never allowed to play uninterrupted without meandering shots of Frederic Forrest wandering through the neon streets.

Coppola's 2003 re-edit of the film does nothing to improve matters. The revised opening is a little smoother but at the expense of Forrest's character, removing all remaining traces of colour to make him even more of a boring homebody. It's an excellent DVD, however, with everything you could want to know and more and offering some fairly frank insights into the failure of Coppola's attempt to ally the expertise of the old studio contract system with the modern advances of electronic cinema, not to mention the constant financing problems. It's just a shame that the film itself is so damn hard to love.


It is American myth that "Apocalypse Now" drove Francis Coppola to the brink of insanity (see "Hearts of Darkness") and he has never been the same. One From the Heart was made following his Boy Gang trilogy, which has also confused many as to "why?" the creator of the Godfather saga would go so far afield.

Creative masters simply are different. Sometimes their egos and force of will create incredible works of art which also manage to achieve commercial success and mass appeal. Often times their works succeed as art, but fail at the box office.

One From the Heart is homage to the lavish musicals of the 30's, and an expression of Coppola's love of Theater. The sets and effects are beautiful on a large screen. The craft and technical skill is apparent in each shot and throughout the film. Terri Garr and Frederic Forrest are the "everyman" antithesis of Astaire and Rogers. The mix of simplicity and grandeur is not for everyone.

I loved the movie. I also understand why most do not. Viewers go to a lavish musical to escape and be entertained. Coppola wants one to view the movie and appreciate his vision and his life, and perhaps experience some of his romantic notions of times gone by. Most people do not want to spend money and opportunity for such notions.


I bought the DVD on sale and did not expect much. I had heard it had flopped when it was released. I thought it would be a long heavy pretentious film but I was mistaken.

I found myself liking it. "One from the Heart" is a charming and moving film in a simple way. Maybe audiences expected much more from Francis Ford Coppola, something deeper and more complicated. What we got is a sweet and touching romance about a couple who break up and make up.

The leads were a little shaky in the beginning but got warmer as the film went along. I wound up liking them. I thought the second leads were good too. It was nice to see Teri Garr in a sexy part, showing off her body and dance steps. Also, it was cool to see one of Nastssja Kinskis early roles. Maybe because the film bombed the two actresses never became really big in American movies. This film did not have a chance after Coppolas "Apocalyse Now".

Give this bright and colourful film a chance. Great photography with nice tunes by Tom Waits!


It's popular not to like Coppola after Apocalypse Now. Everyone claiming that the Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now are brilliant, yet everything else is "An example of an egomaniac not having objectivity." I've read a lot of reviews and this is all that I've read as the complaints for his later stuff. Sure the negative reviews focus on how thin the characters are thin, and the plot covers a short span of time. But honestly it's a Fairy Tale, and fairy tales have simple plots and thin characters. These same people would praise films like the Princes Bride, or Beauty & the Beast, but not One From the Heart. And why?

Because One From the heart has amazing music, from Tom Waits that almost makes it worth seeing just for that. The movie is a musical, which is gutsy for anyone to write a new musical, but the lighting technical achievement is incredible. The film has what I would call "Color Scenes," where each scene is lighted heavily with certain colors, which play into the emotion of the scene.

The film is an amazing achievement, for the visuals and the music, which is what it sought after to achieve. Ignore the negative reviews about what a disappointment it is, because the people who write those reviews don't have their own opinion, it's nothing but people repeating the Coppola myth of losing his touch. All he lost was the studio support. And because he focuses on perfecting his art and not making millions of dollars.

Great Film, go see it, if you like good movies and don't get doped by the fake critics who talk from a lens that says "this movie is suppose to be bad."


One of Bette's best roles, too bad is not available on vhs/dvd yet. This is her first film after her 18 years contract with Warner Bros. ended, and it proved once again what she could do with a meaty part. Besides her deeply felt performance, the most interesting aspect of the film is the excellent direction by Curtis Bernhardt (A Stolen Life) and great camera work by Leo Tover (The Heiress). Watch the way the flashback scenes were shot, they are among the best ever filmed. This is still, a timeless story about about the devastating effects of a divorce. Great script and beautiful music score, this is a hidden treasure, and one of Bette's best films.


"Payment on Demand" begins when David tells Joyce that he wants a divorce. In flashbacks we see how the couple came from humble beginnings and worked their way into affluence. David started from being a lawyer with no clients and worked his way up to being vice president of his best client, a steel company. Joyce was always preoccupied with security, money and status; she is a selfish, manipulative social climber and we can readily see why David wants out. As always, Bette Davis plays the bitch with consummate skill.

What follows shows the old-style divorce process at its worst and chronicles Joyce's life as a single woman. While this part is very well written, it is dated. We learn that an older single woman has no life (other than having to pay younger men to sleep with them) and you're always better off with a man.

While the themes of this film may seem pretty conventional by today's standards, they were anything but in 1951. Divorce was a subject literally ruled off the screen by the very Catholic-oriented Hays Code. Aside from frothy romantic comedies like "The Awful Truth," people just didn't get divorced because they were fed up with their spouses. Nor do films of that Hays era (from 1934 until 1968) ever delve into the actual process of contested divorce (such as the negotiations about property settlements). This film does all that. While the ending may seem disappointing (and was probably a concession to the censors), the rest of the film is excellent and way ahead of its time.


Is this vintage Bette Davis film w/ Barry Sullivan available on VHS or DVD? Also in the cast was Jane Cowl. I hope it hasn't been destroyed somehow or someone has film rights. Please advise on current status of this good film. "Another Man's Poison" is a film done within a year of this one. The subject of divorce is well documented in this Davis classic "Payment on Demand". I know this film has not aired on any TV networks. I am wondering when it was last aired since its initial release. I know Davis fans are wondering what became of this 1951 film. "A Catered Affair" is another Davis film that has not received a lot of air time but I know this has been re- released since its debut. I procured "Mr. Skeffington" recently in DVD which was a treat having the director comment on making this film w/ Bette

Respectfully, WCM


i had seen this film when first released in early 85. though the pacing is slow and deliberate i find myself hypnotically fastened to the visuals aided by a good john lurie score.

this is one of the few films i've seen where the long lingering visuals (fulton fish market scene,etc),in its unflattering documentation of a bygone nyc era, actually adds the sense of smell to picture. i could actually taste/smell times square while watching.

there has been enough written about the plot/theme in others comments. though i find it an ambiguous film in that the character of christine's awakening of alternative sexual desires seems to leave her more frustrated than fulfilled.

the pacing reminds me in a good way of wim wenders early b&w dramas.

could someone please inform me though if that British accented woman at the bar is an uncredited gina birch of The Raincoats??

i grew up during that period in manhattan, especially around the sleaze of times square. so i may be simply nostalgic in an odd sense when i watch the film.


Comedy is all about timing, of course, and Delmer Daves, the director has horrible timing and no feel for comedy. Scene after scene falls flat, some of which at least had the potential to be funny. He elicits an embarrassing performance from Broderick Crawford as an ill-tempered tenant who sleeps during the day, and yells at everyone with such murderous violence you fear he's going to go on a killing spree, when it's obviously a subplot that's supposed to be played for yuks. Niven, as the pampered pianist, and Wyman, as a down-to-earth print model, are likable as always (and Wyman displays fantastic legs wearing white shorts in one scene where Niven literally can't take his eyes off her) but they can only do so much with the middling material. Victor Moore supplies the film's only laughs as the curious little man who runs the apartment building, Willoughby.

Very familiar "Local Hero" plot line which I'm usually a sucker for but it requires a filmmaker with a much lighter touch.


David Niven is an isolated concert pianist who is swept into the lives of apartment house residents in "A Kiss in the Dark," also starring Jane Wyman. Niven is excellent as a man who knows no other world than that of the concert stage and the practice room, and his handlers like it that way. When an apartment manager visits him, Niven learns that one of his investments is The Cleopatra Apartments. One look at Jane Wyman in her shorts and Niven decides not to be an absentee landlord.

This is a very entertaining comedy, and I agree with previous posters that there are laugh out loud scenes. Some of the comedy is provided by, of all people, Broderick Crawford as a subletter who works at night and sleeps -- or tries to -- all day. It's a different role for Crawford, and he does it very well.

Wyman is very pretty and vivacious as an apartment dweller who falls for Niven, and the two have wonderful chemistry. Handsome Wayne Morris is her insurance salesman boyfriend. This isn't the most fabulous film you'll ever see, but it's a fun one.


This is one of those movies that is just simply enjoyable to watch. I chuckled much of the way through it. I laughed out loud at the antics of Botts when trying to get away from the practicing of our hero. But I precede myself. The hero played by David Niven, who I am an admitted fan of, is a high strung, nervous, major up tight concert pianist and very famous. He is being run by his manager, who in turn runs the butler and every one else who supposedly takes care of David Niven. One day a funny little man comes to see Mr. Niven. The former owner of The Cleopatra Arms, an apartment building played by Victor Moore who is absolutely adorable in the part. Moore takes David Niven to see the building he owns and introduces him to the tenants there. One of the tenants is a model named Polly played by Jane Wyman. As a rule I am not a big fan of Miss Wymans, but in this movie she is quite fetching. Mr. Niven takes one look at her in shorts, is immediately smitten with her and his life begins to change. I do not remember seeing David Niven and Jane Wyman in any other movie together, but in this one they make a very appealing couple. The funniest scene takes place when Jane Wyman, Victor Moore and David Niven are striving to drive the one bad tenant, Potts, out of the Cleopatra Arms by having Niven come and do his 6-8 hour piano practicing in the room next to Potts who works nights and makes everyones life miserable by yelling at them to keep quiet so he can sleep days. Broderick Crawford plays Botts. Crawford usually played such serious roles and rarely had a chance to show his comic flair, but in this movie he gets his chance and he does a very good job. All in all I think this is a very charming movie. I really enjoyed it.


This is one of my favorite films.

Terribly sincere, talks about relationships and silence, about how doubts and questions not answered can turn love in death or slow suicide and about how everything comes to pain.

But is not a sad story at the end. The role of young Martín (Hache), perfect and tender Juan Diego Botto, as the real survivor of the script, turning sour into sweetness, and insecurity into strenght, even though he's lost in hesitations, is a message of faith in life.

The dialogs are intelligent and sharp, the actors, gorgeous. And I fell in love with Martín (Hache) for the rest of my life.

Thank you, Adolfo Aristarain for such a great, sensitive, risky and intelligent movie and thank you, Federico Lupi, Cecilia Roth, Eusebio Poncela and, specially, Juan Diego Botto for your incredible work.


Wonderful film that sadly was not released in the U.S. Beautifully written and acted character-driven piece about many things, among them the role of a parent in our modern civilization - and the role of the child as well; the relationships between men and women, and the friendships between straight men and gay men; the role of artistic expression in the lives of artists and in the lives of those who will never be artists. The film is also noteworthy for its portrayal of the hypocrisy of adults who impose upon their children "values" that they themselves reject in their day-to-day lives. The gay character is refreshingly unapologetic. And the female lead is heartbreakingly real, a brilliant and deeply moving performance by Cecilia Roth. If you ever get a chance to see this film, I highly recommend it.


Once or twice in a lifetime you watch a movie that strikes you exactly in the moment when you need it, and you feel completely identified with it. That happened to me today when I saw Martín (Hache), commenting on movies is a very subjective thing to do, you can like a movie even if it's a flick just because you needed someone to tell you what the movie is saying in that exact moment. Anyway, that's what this movie is about; reflection and not only for young people also for adults.

This movie has lots of social and political opinions in between lines, it's a perfect mirror of the society we live in but it doesn't give a point of view that's what's great about it!, it keeps itself objective. Like Dante would say about drugs, they make everything relative the only truth is your truth, Post-modernism!, XX Century!, there aren't any more rules to obey, society is rotten and it's a dream to try and change it, so you might as well adapt and enjoy the "good" things about life.

After you see this movie I really hope you question yourself, what is the meaning of "good". Everything is relative, remember?


Adolfo Aristarain is one of those rare filmmakers who defines his own world in cinema by writing and directing terrific stories with brilliant dialogue and using a familiar cadre of actors who give the finished product an ensemble effort. He is one of Argentina's finest artists and couples frequently with writer Kathy Saavedra (Roma, Un lugar en el mundo, Lugares communes, Martín (Hache), etc) and elects to use the extraordinary actors from Argentina such as Federico Luppi. Cecilia Roth, Juan Diego Botta and Eusebio Poncela. The results are stunning motion pictures that while addressing the intellect of the audience never fail to entertain as well.

'Martín (Hache)' is just such a film. With a challenging and wise script and a cadre of fine actors in every role Aristarain has created a poignant, philosophical and superlative character study about people and their need for relating in the world as we have altered it today. Martín (the brilliant Federico Luppi) is a wealthy writer who left his family in Buenos Aires five years ago to live and work in Madrid. He has a nineteen year old son Hache (Juan Diego Botta) - Hache is the Spanish pronunciation for the alphabet letter 'J' and since the son's name is Martin J. he elects to be called J or Hache - who is a restless, foundationless teenager who refuses to go to school preferring to simply play his electric guitar and run with the drug crowd. His mother has remarried and has a new baby and Hache is feeling like a third wheel. He accidentally overdoses on alcohol and drugs during a performance, collapses, and his mother notifies Martín that Hache has attempted suicide to induce Martín to return to Buenos Aires and take back his son Hache. Hache of course recovers and his mother insists that Hache is in the way and that he must go to Madrid to live with Martín: Martín begrudgingly agrees.

In Madrid, Martín has been living the life of a recluse whose only contacts are his squeeze Alicia (Cecilia Roth, an actress of limitless talent), who escapes her life by an addiction to coke but loves Martín, and his best friend the bisexual actor Dante (Eusebio Poncela) who is an Epicurean living all aspects of life for the pleasures he finds. Once Hache has moved in with his distant, cold, sullen father he falls under the influence of Alicia and Dante who adore him and attempt to show him a life of sunshine in Madrid while Martín sequesters himself in his writing. How this unlikely quartet interacts, bouncing the Apollonian against the Dionysian poles of living forms the basis for the story. Hache grows to understand the spectrum of worldviews, a tragedy occurs, and the ongoing silent duel between the father and the son comes to a touching resolution.

Hearing and watching this quartet of brilliant actors is not unlike attending a performance of a fine string quartet. Aristarain keeps the long film (two hours +) moving in such a beautifully liquid flow that the story seems to take moments. But the moments are all treasures, the result of the ensemble of writing, directing, and acting. 'Martín (Hache)' is simply a brilliant film. In Spanish with English subtitles. Grady Harp


At times I felt this film might have been adapted from stage-theatre, so good are the dialogues; scintillating, the right way to speak Spanish  if you will excuse the `porteño' accent so very necessary for the film. The old `maestro' Federico Luppi is about as good as in any other film I have seen him in, I suppose; Juan Diego de Botto is better than in other films of his that I have seen; but the real standing ovation is for Eusebio Ponce who plays very delicately and intelligently the philosophical homosexual, and Cecilia Roth is outstanding as the film-director's girl-friend. Though I must say that I am beginning to get accustomed to Cecilia Roth being outstanding in everything she does.

The direction is right  spot on; tight, befitting the excellent playing out of the dialogues and demanding great skill with the camera and later the person with the scissors. Adolfo Arastarain worked hard for this one: the result is a hugely satisfying piece.

Once again, as erstwhile said elsewhere in IMDb, for those who like real character-driven pieces with intelligent dialogues, this film is highly recommendable. However, for those of you with a fair knowledge of Spanish, if you are not used to the Argentinian (porteño) accent you may well have problems, such that you will need the subtitles. It is worth the effort, I can assure you: just over 8 out of 10, which is pretty high on my scale.


Peter Sandza (Kirk Douglas) a government agent is betrayed by a fellow friend/agent Ben Childress (John Cassavetes), who kidnapped his son for his psychokinetic powers. Where we learn that a secret US agency is holding him and that he's being used in dangerous mind experiments. So Peter gets help from a girl with similar abilities to locate his son's whereabouts.

I wasn't expecting too much from it after borrowing it off a friend that recommended it to me. After seeing it, it's probably De Palma's most underrated film in my books. It might not have dated that well and the premise of the film might be considered ludicrous now, but it doesn't stop it from being an exciting adventure.

This is a flashy and mostly fast-paced thriller by director Brian De Palma. It does have a couple of slow moments and maybe it was a tad too long, but it's well compensated by superbly tense situations and blistering action sequences, especially in the first opening hour involving Douglas's character when his son is kidnapped and when his hiding out from government agents. There are also some scenes that are not recommended for the squeamish. As some scenes are filled with a lot of blood and more blood. It's rather graphic violence. Not to forgot the whooping and hearting-pounding conclusion. The make-up and special effects throughout the film are truly stunning.

The plot basis is on psychokinetic powers and at times it's rather absurd and incoherent. With some incredibly cheesy moments within the dialogue. Though, the direction is what covers the story's inconsistencies, with great and simply memorable set-ups and some well-shot scenes. The music score is fairly effective in building up the tension and thrills, but also it has an impact in the quieter moments.

There are great performances from the experienced Kirk Douglas (who's incredibly fit for his age and has some physical roles) and Cassavetes, who really boost and add some class to the film. There is such a great chemistry between them and Cassavetes is simply riveting as a conniving agent. Amy Irving was good in her role as Gillian Bellaver, the girl who is having trouble coming to grips with her strong psychokinetic powers. Though, the same can't be said about the rest. As Andrew Steven's as Robin Sandza is incredibly hammy and Carrie Snodgress as Hester is fairly irritating.

I wouldn't class it as one of De Palma's best, but still it's far away from his worst. Overall, it's a fascinating set-up that has its fair share of flaws, but that doesn't disrupt entertainment factor.


Brian DePalma's follow up to his popular "Carrie", was in many aspects a continuation of the mood he had already established in his former work. Thus, "The Fury" suffered because it was not an inspired choice for a man who knew better, but for whatever circumstances decided to go ahead with this project. The film is based on a novel by John Farris, which we never read, so there is no point of reference. Mr. Farris also wrote the screen treatment.

This ambitious film travels from the Middle East to Chicago in a tale of intrigue and super natural forces that is incomprehensible, at times. The idea of having a gifted young man working for the bad guys and capitalizing on all that can be extracted from his prodigious mind, is a disturbing idea. That there could be another brilliant mind, a young woman, presents a challenge for the evil people that are trying to use them for evil purposes.

The director was not as lucky with "The Fury" as with some of his best known, and more accomplished films. Amy Irving plays the young Gillian, who is terrified once she understands why she is so much wanted. In a way, she is an extension of Carrie, the heroine of the previous film. Kirk Douglas has some good moments. Carrie Snodgress was one of the best things in the movie. Charles Durning, Carol Rossen, and Fiona Lewis, do outstanding work. On the other hand, the great actor/director John Cassavetes seems to sleep walk through his role as the man behind the conspiracy. Darryl Hannah is seen briefly in the scene at Gillian's school.

The film has an effective musical score from John Williams. Although the director didn't succeed in making this a better movie, he still shows an affinity for the genre and cannot be dismissed for trying to create a good entertainment.


Does anyone remember the famous Star Trek episode, one of the earliest ones where an encounter with an anomaly in space leaves Enterprise crewman, Gary Lockwood with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men? If you'll remember he was abandoned on deserted asteroid. The Fury deals with a young man on the way to being another Gary Lockwood.

Young Andrew Stevens has those abilities already, they just need to be focused and developed. Stevens is being raised by his widowed father Kirk Douglas who's a government agent. A raid while they're on vacation in the Mediterranean by some Arab terrorist types allows a ruthless bureaucrat played by John Cassavetes to separate father from son. Stevens believes Dad has died, but Kirk doesn't swallow that so easy.

Kirk's on the hunt for his son and the quest takes him to Chicago where people like Stevens with paranormal abilities are being studied and tested so the USA can have them as a weapon. Carrie Snodgrass and Charles Durning are working there as well. And so is Fiona Lewis who's been given personal charge of Stevens and develops the kid's libido as well as his telekinesis.

Brian DePalma directed this film and it's a good one with outstanding performances by all the cast. Look for a good performance from Amy Irving as another young person with such abilities who literally makes Cassavetes fall apart at the end. And there's a memorable bit from a younger and thinner Dennis Franz before the gain of weight and loss of hair that we all know as Detective Andrew Sipowicz. Franz plays a Chicago police officer who's something of a doofus.

Fans of Brian DePalma in particular and horror films in general will very much like The Fury.


The author of the excellent 'All Heads Turn As The Hunt Goes By', John Farris, wrote his version of 'Carrie' after that novel's success as book and film; it was called 'The Fury'. It also explored the subject of telekinesis (moving objects with the mind), but he stretched it over a broader, international canvas and threw a terrorism subplot, a fractured love story, an Argento-inspired school for cute, gifted girls, telekinetic rivalry, and John Cassavetes as an evil puppetmaster of troubled psychic warriors into the brew. Assisted immeasurably by John William's devastating, baroque score, Brian De Palma's film of Farris's screenplay is another example of stunning visual storytelling. Losing the direct Hitchcockian references, De Palma applies a harder, leaner style to the storytelling and creates a powerful work that is less fun than his later films, but no less compelling. As always, there are a number of stand-out sequences, and the stand-out sequence in this is Amy Irving's escape from the institute where she is being groomed for "evil" by the charming but twisted Cassavetes. Irving's flight into the street, shot in slow motion, is cinema at its purest, most transporting and erotic (Irving is wearing a nightie). William's scoring of this sequence is stunning. A carousel accident, orchestrated by "evil" psychic Andrew Stevens (in a chilling performance), has great entertainment value, and the liberal use of blood and bulging prosthetic facial veins goes a long way towards elevating this film to cult status. The finale, which features an exploding head (a pre-"Scanners" exploding head, mind you) is simply bloody great.


Fortunately, De Palma's hyperbolic, visually compelling, science fiction occult espionage thriller moves so fast that the ludicrous dialog, indifferent performances, and Swiss cheese plot don't spoil the fun. The Fury starts from an interesting premise, but De Palma is clearly more interested in the spectacular set pieces than in logic or characterization. And where Sissy Spacek was touching as Carrie, Amy Irving and Andrew Stevens as psychic teens who unleash the fury are whiny and callow, and you don't really care about their fates. Though Douglas, Snodgress, Cassavetes and De Palma regular William Finley ( Raymond Dunwoodie) are always interesting, the rest of the cast is pretty bad. And a scene between Irving and Douglas on a bus is embarrassingly bad. Still, The Fury with its telepathic visions, its pulse pounding score by John Willams and Richard H. Kline's elegant deep focus cinematography is far superior to junk like The Eyes of Laura Mars. De Palma pulls out all the stops and creates some spectacularly over-the-top scenes. Faults and all, The Fury is far more entertaining, and less pretentious and derivative than most of De Palma's more recent efforts to say nothing of Dressed to Kill, Body Double, Obsession, Wise Guys, Carlito's Way, Raising Cain, and The Bonfire of the Vanities.


Before "Scanners" there was this wonderful little gore fest from Brian De Palma, who all-ready had done such great Hitchcock-like thrillers as "Sisters" and "Obsession" and of course "Carrie", which in many ways is related to this one, another tale of telekinesis with deadly results. It is also worth noting that David Cronenberg's above-mentioned "Scanners" seem to owe a great deal to this movie.

"The Fury" balances brilliantly between weird and unexpected comedy (like the whole scene where Douglas carjacks two off-duty cops, one played by Dennis Franz!) and imaginative horror that will turn off anyone who hates blood. Great acting from everyone; worth noting the star-making performances of Amy Irving and Andrew Stevens, Douglas who has a field-day, Cassavetes who looks great as the sinister bad-guy and Carrie Snodgress who will touch your heart with her performance as the caring nurse Hester.

The last scene is quite a kick, truly one of the most memorable finales ever shown on screen, and it could very well leave you cheering well into the end credits!


The boss of an institute for psychic researches of the American government discovers that his own son and a girl are being sought by terrorists who want to use their mind's powers.Narrative conducted in an agile and suffocating way by the veteran De Palma, responsible for equally violent and full of action classic such as "The Untouchables". In this thriller marked by a great dramatic charge, the excellent supporting cast's work ( beginning with Carrie Snodgress,who has the most shocking, unpleasant and courageous scene , and with Charles Durning, who shows talent in a serious part, different from the characters that made his fame:he became well-known for doing partner's roles in some Burt Reynolds' movies, but here he offers a discreet, silent interpretation) sustains the interest for this confused but well developed and touching story. As already demonstrated in his previous works, the violence in De Palma's films is never gratuitous, however it is always true and raw.


The Fury starts in the 'Mid East 1977' where the head of a secret shadowy Government agency named Ben Childress (John Cassavetes) stages a fake terrorist attack so he can kidnap a teenage boy with powerful psychic abilities named Robin Sandza (Andrew Stevens) & leave his Father Peter (Kirk Douglas) dead. Half the plan works & Robin is whisked away but Peter manages to escape, he vows to find Childress & his son. Cut to 'Chicago 1978' & Dr. Jim McKeever (Charles Durning) is running the Paragon Institute for Childress, an institute that studies psychic abilities & tries to uncover people with these powers. Teenage girl Gillian Bellaver (Amy Irving) has been developing such powers & her Mother (Joyce Easton) agrees for her to spend some time in the institute in an attempt to help her. Meanwhile Peter is in Chicago & hot on the trail of Childress who becomes aware of Gillian & her powers which match Robins, Peter also knows about Gillian & the fact that she can help lead him to his son Robin. However Gillian & Robin start to suffer as they're powers grow stronger, it becomes almost impossible to control them...

Directed by Brian De Palma I thought The Fury was a decent watch but nothing that special. The script by John Farris based on his own 1976 novel of the same name, which I have not read so I cannot compare the two although it's said that the film is considerably condensed, plays more like a thriller than horror for the first half, it sets up it's secret Government agency, the bad guy, the good guy, it has a few chases & even a bit of comedy relief in the shape of two bumbling cops & a new car. Then the film switches to more horror orientated territory with visions to sinister past events & psychic powers being used for evil & the two story elements come together at the end as Peter finds his son & Childress in a final confrontation type cliché. I thought the film dragged a little in places, too many elements just came & went too quickly & it ignores various aspects of it's story for long periods before going back to them which gave me the impression that it was was very inconsistent & at times a bit incoherent & confusing. It's never made clear as to why Childress is so interested in people with psychic abilities or what Government agency he works for. The story is complex, it's fairly engaging & gripping but at the same time it's rather dull & drawn out, I liked it for sure but I don't think I'd be in any hurry to watch it again.

Director De Palma does a good job as you would expect from an accomplished director such as he. The Fury reminds heavily of Carrie (1976) with it's troubled teenage psychics which, by co-incidence or not, was the film De Palma made directly before The Fury. There is one sequence that inspired a few unintentional laughs though, the bit where Gillian breaks out of the Paragon Institute is played out in slow motion without any sound effects only some really awful & inappropriate music, it feels like it goes on forever. There's not much gore except for a cool bit at the end that looks like it belongs in David Cronenberg's Scanners (1981) when someone explodes all over the place, it's replayed several times in slow motion & from various different camera angles as well.

With a supposed budget of about $5,500,000 The Fury is a very well made film & certainly has that Hollywood polish about it. One area where the film suffers from is that it has dated badly, the cars, the interiors, all the sharp suits & the latest 70's fashions tell it's own story. The acting was OK, I didn't think Irving was that good as Gillian but Douglas manages to bring a certain likability to his role.

The Fury is a good watch, it's a bit long & a bit inconsistent but it entertains & tries to tell a thoughtful story. Definitely worth a watch if you have a couple of hours to spare.


De Palma's films generally fall into two camps:

- the ones where his visual bravura, deeply satirical worldview and smart self-referencing compensate for his discarding of more grounded storytelling tools: perceived realism, narrative cohesion, plausible characterisation.

- and the ones quite simply where they don't.

In the former camp, find Carrie, Femme Fatale, Dressed to Kill, Snake Eyes, Blow Out and Body Double.

In the latter, see The Black Dahlia, Bonfire of the Vanities, the M:I film, Raising Cain and Mission to Mars. Interesting failures, but failures all the same.

Now to The Fury. Forget all the hysterical parodies of Carrie here, the hokum concerning psychic powers and government agencies and broken parental bonds. These things are the mundane prism through which De Palma shines his light, it refracting into a million shimmering little pieces.

What is important is De Palma's relationship with The Fury's villain, John Cassavetes. Learned viewers will also recognise Cassavetes as the great, independent director of caustic dramas like Shadows, Woman Under the Influence and Faces. Check them out if you haven't already - they're soul-searing stuff.

As a director, Cassavetes relied a lot on a realist aesthetic: harsh cinematography; an unshowy camera; claustrophobic interiors and close-ups; loose, improvisational performances. His characters are often trapped in their own psychological prisons. The harsh emotions that uncurl themselves slowly, cumulatively, in his films, are caught with the precision of a scalpel.

If you're still with me, hopefully you see where I'm going with this.

De Palma's operatic brand of film-making is an anathema to Cassavetes'. His camera takes flight like an angel and swoops like a demon. His eye is a voyeur, a lover, an aggressor, a stalker, a liar, a comfort, a cheat. One thing it isn't is passive.

So The Fury sees a battle not between silly FBI men and even sillier psychics, but between two opposing cinematic approaches. De Palma as ever throws everything at the screen - overhead scans, dervish swoops, roaming pans, POV shots, gratuitous slo-mo, shots within shots, temporal shifts, imagined futures and projected pasts, disguises, hysteria, romance, death, the deep, deep red of spilt blood.

Then we have Cassavettes' performance - a jet black presence lingering at the fringes of the frame. He understates every scene he's in, working against De Palma's rhapsodical movements. Its great fun to watch.

There could however only be one winner. And how. Cassavetes' character literally explodes, destroyed by the strength of emotion (fury?) that is evoked by a great, rich vision (De Palma's). Neat.

Can't believe someone as smart as Cassavetes went into this not seeing the bigger picture. He must have been paid handsomely.


After the success of Carrie (1976), Brian De Palma followed up with another outstanding film about youths with incredible telepathic powers.

Government agent's telepathic son is kidnapped and along with a similarly-gifted teenage girl he seeks to save him.

Based upon the novel by John Farris, The Fury is a film that could have easily became a mundane action film if not for the splendid direction of De Palma and an outstanding cast. De Palma once again shows his excellent directorial style and his technique for grand suspense. The Fury has some great action sequences, a tremendous climax, and one outrageous conclusion! Makeup FX artist Rick Baker lends his talents to create some good blood-letting, especially for that knock-out closing image. John Williams also deserves special mention for his wonderfully powerful music score.

Star Kirk Douglas is great as the government agent searching for his son. John Cassavetes is good as the films cold villain. Amy Irving and Andrew Stevens are both sympathetic as youths attempting to live with their amazing mental powers. Supporting cast Snodgress, Durning, and Lewis are also good.

All around The Fury is a pretty under appreciated thriller that firmly ranks among the best of De Palma's films.

*** 1/2 out of ****


Really dreadful piece of schlock. I can only imagine that the author of the book it was based on was disappointed (or was handsomely paid) for the rights.

I can't complain about the acting, such as it is. It features a good cast but there's not much they can do with what they're given.

I have never been impressed with Brian De Palma. I find his work highly overrated and over the top. What he does to poor poor Cassevetes in this is just awful.

The worst part is the very end and in a way reveals the De Palma's worst instincts. The Amy Irving character basically makes him explode. This is gory enough. But it gives De Palma an opportunity to show the body exploding (and it being special effects circa 1978 its not anything realistic) from five or six angles. I mean you see the body explode over and over again as if the Amy Irving character used her blue eyed powers to explode and stitch together again and explode the body again and again. Just ridiculous stuff. If Mystery Science Theater was still around and lasted for another 15 years, I have no doubt they would've gotten around to screening "The Fury."

A waste of talent all around.


i enjoyed this Brian De Palma paranormal thriller/horror.it.may seem tame by today's standards,but back then,i'm sure it was probably pretty terrifying to some people.i thought it was also revolutionary.there are some pretty graphic images that i found a bit disturbing,even though i've seen a lot of horror/thrillers.but this is not just some slice'n dicer.there's a story in here,and the gory parts are part of the story.John Farris wrote the screenplay adapted from his novel.and he has quite a few excellent novels that in the right hands would make good films.***possible minor spoiler ahead***like many people i thought Scanners(which came out 3 years later) was revolutionary.but the Fury paved the way for that film.(and yes,The Fury borrows form Carrie,another DePalma film.in fact some of the sequences in Scanners were nearly identical to those in the Fury,but were actually not as graphic.i think The Fury is actually a superior film.Amy Irving is terrific,and steals the show.the supporting cast is also good,with Kirk Douglas,Carrie Snodgress,John Cassavetes,Andrew Stevens,and Fiona Lewis.Charles Durning also has a small role.an unrecognizable Melody Thomas Scott(Nikki Newman from the long running soap The Young and the Restless)also has what amounts to a cameo.but it's Dennis Franz in his very brief appearance that is hysterical in a bit of comic relief performance.as for the movie itself,if you have a weak stomach or don't like horror films,i suggest you avoids this.but if you like being scared,pop this in late at night for maximum effect.my vote for The Fury is a 9/10 P.S. some people may find this movie slow by today's standards,but that merely builds up the suspense and is well worth sitting through.


When a former (?) agent in a supersecret government agency is on holiday with his son in Israel, a "terrorist" attack separates the father, Peter, from his son, Robin. Peter apparently dies, and the boy is whisked to "safety" by Peter's best friend, and government agency man.

Peter isn't really killed (though his son is made to believe so) and he both takes some vengeance on almost being killed by wounding his former friend, and tries to reunite with his son. The following may contain spoilers.

Robin, as it happens, has a powerhouse of psychic abilities. This was never hinted at before the attack, which makes it odd that the action was even staged. However, Robin is taken to a facility where agency folk work at developing his powers. (A little of this is akin to a setup in Firestarter, but that film spends more time on the testing than this).

Robin is becoming increasingly powerful, and increasingly dangerous.

In the meantime, a young girl, Gilliam, starts developing her own psychic abilities, particularly psychometry. She demonstrates this in class, and eventually is referred to an institute for "gifted" youngsters, actually a front for the agency that has Robin. As her powers develop, she shares visions from Robin and others that make her a tad unstable.

In the meantime, Peter learns of her, and staying literally a step ahead of the secret agency, rescues her from the institute, inadvertently killing his newly found lover in the process (life has been unkind to Peter).

Robin is getting so restless that he's allowed a night "on the town," where he both gets increasingly insecure and sees Arab tourists, and psychokinetically causes a machine malfunction that kills or seriously injures them.

Peter and Gilliam track Robin to an estate, with high security grounds, where, inside, Robin detects Gilliam's presence in the yard, and flips out, thinking that she's to replace him, and he's to be killed. So he kills his mentor and bed partner by psychokinetically spinning her to death as if she became a centrifuge.

The violence of his actions cause Gillism to freak out, and her screams alert the security forces that capture her and Peter. Peter finally is allowed to see his son, who has in the meantime killed a number of agency people by hurling them away psychokinetically.

If Robin recognizes his father as a loving family member, it isn't evident. He leaps at Peter, the two go through a window, and despite Peter's best efforts at trying to rescue his son, the two fall to their death, one by one. Life definitely hasn't been kind to Peter.

Major Spoiler Alert! As he lay dying, Robin apparently passes something -- his power? A compulsion? no matter -- to Gilliam. With everybody dead but Peter's former friend and Gilliam, she awakens to find him trying to soft-soap recruiting her. She takes revenge, destroying him psychokinetically.

End of film!

The film built up a fairly complex, interwoven story, but left Gilliam in limbo. What happens next? Does she get away? Does she hook up with her globetrotting mother? Are there other agency types who will capture her or die trying? The film would have been much better without these many loose ends.


Brian De Palma, for better or worse, loves to mess around with some of the expectations from the audience through the genre he's working in, and the Fury is a good, messy, peculiar case of how to do a highly stylized picture. It was the director's follow-up to Carrie, and here the horror of suburban school life is replaced with some more outrageously violent, practically astounding moments. There's also a lot of plot going on, too, or at least it might seem that way. Sometimes, too, the action and turns have to depend on a complete suspension of disbelief logic. De Palma holds this logic steady enough, and provides a combination of a Government thriller and psychic power drama. What helps though is the casting, as Kirk Douglas in hero mode works best through this very narrowly focused man on a mission; John Cassavetes in one of his very best acting roles as the cold- though devil-friendly- antagonist as he kidnaps his 'gifted' son. Amy Irving fills up the rest of the main acting bill as the female counterpart to the son, getting images and (bad) connections with what's happening to him. So, it is sort of silly stuff, but also taken seriously enough in this thriller form to go with.

Occasionally there will be something that isn't directed quite well enough even when something interesting is going on. But most, if not all, of the scenes with a lot of action and multiple, gruesome deaths and various bleedings via psychic boy/girl, are fun and entertaining in that very stylish way that De Palma has with his thrillers, giving the audience what they've paid to see and such. And for the greater part of the film I bought into it, that Douglas could be this old man with enough sense to match skills as an ex-agent, or that Andrew Stevens as the son and Irving could be convincing as vulnerable, confused teens with certain 'unstable' ways. De Palma also gets some great atmospheric backup from John Williams' score, and the pleasure in the plausibility of some of the more graphic scenes. Whether it's up to par with the director's best work would depend on how much of a fan one might be of his more crazy, over-the-top pictures with darkly comic scenes amassed into a potboiler of a story that would make Hitchcock probably grin and wince in equal measure.

By the way, the hype that has been brought up by the critics regarding the final scene lives up to it, and it's one of the best scenes of De Palma's career in just the sheer 'wow' level of gustiness, some pun intended.


When I first saw "The Fury" I was blown away, there wasn't a thing I disliked about it. The story was fascinating, the casting supreme and it just hit me with a hook that I could not let go of. I don't know if it was just the time in my life or what, but I have always considered "The Fury" as one of my favorite movies. The story line was plausible, if you believed or considered that our minds are capable of more than we use them for, and the tension seemed real at the right times. I did not read the book, if there was one, so the movie held up and there was no let down, just a nice roller coaster ride for all to see. This movie has held up for me in, "the test of time".


"The Fury" came out after Brian DePalma's classic, "Carrie." And like the previous film, it's about a girl with a mental ability, but she's far from alone.

As the film opens, we find out that Peter Sandza (Kirk Douglas)has been double crossed by his best friend (And fellow government agent) Childress (John Cassavetes). It seems that Childress wants Peter's son Robin (Andrew Stevens), who has an amazing psychic ability. Childress wants Robin so bad that he stages a shootout while they're in Israel and attempts to kill Peter (His son thinks he's dead).

Peter turns up in Chicago sometime later, searching for his son and staying a step ahead from the government agents that want him out of the way. He finds out that Gillian Bellaver (Amy Irving)may be able to help him find him. Gillian is freaked out about her ability: whenever she touches someone, it causes them to bleed. Seeking help from The Paragon Institute, she soon finds out 2 things: Robin was there before her and that she has a connection to him. What she doesn't know is that Childress has become interested in her abilities, and wants to replace Robin with her.

Robin, meanwhile, has become increasingly unstable (Despite incredibly high dosages of medications that would kill a normal person, they have no effect on him at all)and increasingly dangerous (He's developed an ability to manipulate machines and doing the same to himself). He is so much of a threat that he causes a section of a ferris wheel to crash into a building because the guys were Middle Eastern (A trigger for what happened in Israel to his father).

There are some plot holes that have nagged me (You would figure after the incident at the carnival that they would have had a clue to how increasingly dangerous he's become). The film gets bloody, but the ending in which Gillian causes the bad guy to explode (using her powers)is still effective (Keep in mind that this was 3 years BEFORE the exploding head scene in "Scanners"). Some of the content may be a bit "politically incorrect" in this post 9/11 society: Robin's actions at the carnival were triggered by what happened in Israel, even though these guys had nothing to do with what happened. So basically, Robin had committed a "hate crime," killing them because they were Middle Eastern men.

Keep your eye out for Daryl Hannah, Laura Innes, James Belushi and Dennis Franz in small parts. And John Williams fans will like the score to the film.


A scene in this movie brings back fond memories of my childhood. The indoor amusement park/mall, known as Old Chicago, was an amazing place to me back in the mid 70's. First of it's kind and SADLY short lived as it went bankrupt and was demolished 6 years after it's closing. I remember always seeing the commercials on TV advertising the place and we begged our mom and dad to take us there. I had been there a few times with my parents and never thought I would/could see it again until I learned a scene in this movie was filmed inside of it. It made me feel good when I watched the scene and remembered the interior of the place exactly. If anyone that reads this has any souvenirs, t-shirts or other memorabilia, please let me know.


When his son is kidnapped by government agents who want to exploit his telekinetic powers, Kurt Douglas is determined to get him back. Staying one step ahead of the organization he goes after Amy Irving. She's a young woman who is dealing with her own psychic powers. Together they attempt to save Andrew Stevens who is being driven insane by the inability to control his gift. John Cassavetes is convincingly chilling in a villainous role. There are plenty of shocking scenes. A woman is turned into a human sprinkler in one. The ending where Amy Irving takes her revenge is one of the most gruesome scenes ever. Director Brian Depalma lives up to his reputation for creating inventive scenes. Be prepared, blood will flow.


He certainly has mastered his style of making movies, the Hitchock-ian manner which looks so full of details and carefully planned, but God save this director's soul for using such poor looking fake blood, it's in all of his movies. The color is so incredibly fake it's just bad, especially when you have a movie as gory as this one. The acting is good, I liked the attractively stunning Amy Irving, the story was interesting as hell and kept me wondering what was going to happen, the script was above average (incredible even), some scenes (the one where Mrs Irving's character escapes from the psychic school) were absolutely amazing and overall it was a very entertaining movie. But the ending, as with so many De Palma movies, just came on to quickly, left too many questions unanswered (one of them being why the baddies did the experiments on Robin in the first place) and just felt over-rushed in every sense of the word. Do recommend a view. 7/10


Ignore those who suggest that this is nothing but retread for DePalma. On

some levels, it surpasses his greatest films and is uniquely original. There isn't a performance in the film that's weak and the storytelling (both through script and camerawork) unfolds like a dream. Bloody where it needs to be and tragic in places you don't expect, "the Fury" is one of my all-time favorites. I saw it as a young kid in the theater and hope one day to see it again on the big screen.


A true Classic, of 1970's Cinema, and some!

That is the best way that I can begin to describe this, one of my all-time favorite Movies.

Once again, I first saw this Movie on my Mum and Dad's old Phillips V2000, when it was first released onto the U.K's Home Cinema market (hired from a seedy old Video rental shop on the Woolworth road), and boy did it leave it's mark!

In short, I LOVE THIS MOVIE!

O.k. At times the story, does tend to plod along at an almost snail's pace. But this is really a small price to pay for the Film's wonderfully inspired set pieces. Which, when they come, seem to hit you with the force of a speeding freight-train! In fact, just writing this review makes the hairs on the back of my neck tingle! As I remember each, and everyone of them. With such crystal clear clarity, that you would think I had only just finished watching the Film, for the umpteenth time! Truth is, it has now been about a year, since I last saw it!

Boy, doesn't time fly, when you're having fun!

If you've seen this Film before, no doubt, you'll have your own views on it, and so don't need me to tell you how good/bad it is!

However, if you haven't...

Trust me, when I say that this Film is a Classic, of the HIGHEST magnitude, and that it would be an absolute crime for you not to see it!


The Fury contains a number of excellent scenes and sequences -- Kirk Douglas evading capture in Chicago, the sequence at the amusement park -- but put the parts together and the movie is just too muddled.

Keep eyes open for NYPD Blue's Dennis Franz.


A scary and good old-fashioned joy ride that concentraits on an aging goverment agent, Peter Sandza (Kirk Douglas - "Ben-Hur") who finds help from Gillian (Amy Irving - "Traffic"), a teenage girl who's surprised to learn that she has special abilities and he relies on her to find out where a crooked adversary of his, Childress (the late John Cassavetes - "The Dirty Dozen") is doing with his psychic son, Robin (Andrew Stevens).

Brian DePalma ("Carrie", "The Untouchables") directs here and he applies the hair-raising details where they're needed. John Farris used his novel in adapting the screenplay. Rick Baker's make-up and special effects are a delight to see and the ending is a good example of that. And legendary composer John Williams serves up a tense and enjoyable musical score. The opening theme is the best one to listen to.

As for the movie itself, the performances are first-rate hands down. Douglas is reliable as he usually is, Cassavetes is up to his usual antics, and Irving shows here why she can looked upon to be a good actress.


"The Fury" is another underrated thriller from Brian DePalma, the "Master of the Macabre" (a title he earned, in my opinion). This film actually owes little to Hitchcock, other than a few directorial touches. DePalma here creates a dazzling original, with superb special effects and strong acting and a solid plot.

"The Fury" shares a few similarities with DePalma's previous film "Carrie". It is based on a best seller (by John Farris, who adapted his novel). Both films feature Amy Irving, then a newcomer to films. Both deal with psychics and telekinesis. And both are strong character studies grafted onto a thriller.

"The Fury" is a great deal more complicated in terms of the storyline than "Carrie" was. The film stars Kirk Douglas in a strong performance as a government agent whose son (a psychic) was kidnapped. John Cassavetes plays the kidnapper, who happens to be Douglas' partner (all these connections are established within the first 20 minutes, so I'm not spoiling it for you) The bulk of the film deals with Gillian (Amy Irving), another psychic who Douglas enlists to find his son. Over the course of the film, there are a great many surprises and revelations that DePalma just throws at the viewer. But don't worry about being confused. DePalma makes everything clear as it progresses.

"The Fury" finds DePalma working with mostly new collaborators, although a few (editor Paul Hirsch and some of the actors)are DePalma veterans. Despite the change, the technical credits are still first rate. The cinematographer is Richard H. Kline, who has shot many different kinds of films (exploitation, Hollywood, independent) and his photography is excellent, with great use of shadows and light. The score is by John Williams (famous for "Jaws", "Star Wars" and many, many Hollywood films) and it is an extremely effective one, but one wonders if Pino Donaggio might have done a better job (especially after his mesmerizing work in "Dressed to Kill", "Carrie" and especially "Blow Out"). But still, I want to say that Williams' score is very good, especially towards the films' climatic moments. And Paul Hirsch's editing accomplishes exactly what it did for "Carrie".

The acting is first rate as well. Kirk Douglas gives his usual strong performance and I go on record as saying that he is one of our most overlooked actors. John Cassavetes makes a memorable villain and although this job was most likely for the money (he acted to finance his own films; this job probably financed "Gloria"), he doesn't sleepwalk through his role unlike some actors. Charles Durning returns as another villain, adding to his collection of offbeat and memorable performances (The Muppet Movie added another)and Amy Irving is very good as the psychic who helps Douglas. And if you pay close attention, you'll see Bill Finley in a cameo in the first 12 minutes or so. (And if you pay really close attention, you'll see Jim Belushi)

As is the case with most DePalma thrillers, "The Fury" has a wow of an ending. It is probably the greatest of the DePalma endings, one of such satisfaction and plausibility that you won't stop talking about it for hours after the film is over. There is a deliberate pace and some of the middle scenes are sluggish, but fortunately, they don't last long and DePalma gives us our money's worth. "The Fury" is not the best of the DePalma thrillers ("Dressed to Kill" gets my vote), but it is an excellent film that combines intelligence and craftmanship. It is a must see.

**** out of 4 stars


this movie was Excellent.. lots of excitement... and scary at the same time.. i really enjoyed it.. but the only thing i didnt like about it was Amy Irving.. shes not one of my favourite actresses.. but Andrew Stevens and Kirk Douglas were very good in this one..

I highly recommend this movie..


This movie is imperfect (it sags a bit in the third quarter, and some major factors in the plot are unexplained or confusing), but it is a great mix of fear and excitement. The cinematography is quite ahead of its time (the camera rarely sits still, yet remains unobtrusive), the drama is milked for maximum effect (and there are numerous sudden shocks), and the science-fiction/occult aspects of the film never overshadow the human element. Two similar movies, David Cronenberg's Scanners and The Brood, have more science and are more amusingly grotesque, but The Fury has a coolness and tightness to it that might just beat them both.


This is one gorgeous knockout of horror movie--beautifully directed by De Palma and acted by Amy Irving. The script is elaborate junk, but on imagery alone this ranks with Murnau's Nosferatu and Dreyer's Vampyre as among the greatest horror movies ever made. Like those classics, the imagery is more entrancing than terrifying--I never wanted to hide my eyes. The last half-hour is just incredibly intense. Check out the way De Palma cuts from the Gothic night horror of Douglas's confrontation with his demon son to Amy Irving's cozy sunlit bedroom the next day. I always laugh out loud at this transition--because of course the director is just softening us up for the greatest horror climax in movies.


Well, I initially saw this movie because I am a major Carrie fan and I wanted to see another movie with Amy Irving when she was still young. The movie was good, but John Cassevetes and the Kirk Douglas characters were kind of boring. I always thought that john Cassevetes is a little overrated because I've never seen him display a personality that is incredibly enjoyable(even with Rosemary's baby) and in this movie he was his usual negotiating boring self. There was some cool action scenes with Kirk Douglas but my main love of the movie was the majority of the scenes with Amy Irving--who really(despite the billing) is the main stand out character of the film. We watch some really cool scenes with amy involving her watching Andrew Stevens psychically as Andrew watches video tapes of his father being attacked, blood running down other people as Amy's emotions are racing with energy., a sleepwalking scene, a show where she is escaping from the hospital, a scene where she gives a girl a bloody nose, and blue glowing eyes. Amy and Andrew were the two telekinetic teens and they were young, fresh, emotional, and attractive. I really enjoyed their presence and their performance really made the film work. The other characters are really just there for support except Kirk Douglas who gives his usual masculine role. Overall I thought the film was pretty good, 2 1/2 mainly because of the acting, special effects, and the way some scenes just looked so cool! I'd recommend this.


"The Fury" has gotten better with age and can now be viewed as one of DePalma's most satisfying thrillers. It consists of two stories which eventually overlap. The first story deals with a former government agent (Kirk Douglas) who searches for his son, who has been kidnapped by the feds who want to exploit his telekinetic powers. The second story revolves around a teenaged girl (Amy Irving) who discovers that she too has paranormal powers. Eventually, Douglas enlists her aid in finding his son. The film includes some unexpected humor and several breathtaking sequences, to include a stunning shot where Irving's character is surrounded by past images of Douglas' son (you gotta see it to believe it). The denouement is contrived, but effective and has been ripped by other films.


The OMEN, CARRIE, DAMIEN, CARRIE, LAURA MARS, and even HIGH ANXIETY... wasn't he late 70s full of ghastly eye-rolling trubbbble! BURNT OFFERINGS and even AUDREY ROSE.... some paranormal some psychic most pukey (but DAMIEN OMEN 2 was terrific, and ANXIETY genuinely hilarious) .......and then the worst this one, THE FURY. It is a weak link in an ordinary chain of thrillers. I really disliked it 30 years ago and groaned even more again tonight. As the film progressed, with awful back projected car chases and hammy faux Hermann/Hitchcock music score, implausible plot twists (personal phone calls to pubic railway platforms etc) and basically disgusting bleeding and body part effects THE FURY was considered a major misfire in 1978. After his fabulous PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE and horrible CARRIE and spew worthy BODY DOUBLE and the hilariously awful but compelling SCARFACE in the 80s, I basically gave up on De Palma and I actually believe most audiences did too. I ran cinemas at the time and the audiences let us know their irritation at his bad films well known. Andrew Stevens was a surprise in the casting and effective very early on as the male version of Amy Irving but sadly absent for most of the rest of the film. Cassavetes. like Douglas must have wanted some cash to buy a holiday house and accepted the silly parts offered here. THE FURY should be remade as an orgasm comedy even with the same script, then it would be more plausible and enjoyable. That's its best and only possibility for a new century audience.


I stumbled across this one as a surprise on my local PBS station; and fell in love with it immediately.

Jake's embittered by his situation and not the most likable person as a result. He falls in with a bunch of folks who, in his view, might well be escapees from the Twilight Zone. Conversely, his new co-workers regard his as a stereotype come to life...and an escapee from the Twilight Zone.

Watching the Yank and the Canucks learn first to tolerate than take a positive delight in one another is a riot. Judy, the news producer who is Jake's boss and foil, is a delight: Mary Richards as woman of (mostly) steel. Bill, the station manager is a continual laugh as a man who really believes he knows all about Americans but who really needs to get a clue or three.

This show is always fun for what is says about Canada and Canadians as much as what it says about us. Ultimately, no one escapes unscathed.


I saw this series a long time ago when it was aired on TV. I really liked it. Especially the mix between drama, humor, cop stories and a attorney stories. All rolled up in one. The chemistry between the characters was good. And i also remember different kinds of interesting side stories concerning family matters. It is a pity that it wasn't successful. Because it stopped after only one season. Unfortunately, because i really liked it. So now i have a question. Because I'd like to see this series again. Does anyone know if it is available on DVD (or download) anywhere? Please leave a comment on that. Í would be grateful. thank you very much.


Such a shame that this program was canceled mid-season. It was a great chick series! Such a romantic series with a lady lawyer and a policeman husband. The families were Catholic and very close. It was sort of a step-back in time for those of who remember when families were close and shared Sunday dinners along with great conversation around the dinner table. The acting was really great and the young couple seemed so natural and true. Did anyone else out there ever see this program besides me? I always seem to get hooked on programs that are canceled early on in the season and I know it is because I am the only one who watches the show.


Development phases familiar from covert Pentagon pet projects beckon misunderstanding from the gaming cadres, and Prey exemplifies this nicely.

Bound for tragedy, the nine year old title has made it to stores this summer triumphant, albeit the interminable delay from first showcasing in 1997 to shelves circa 2006 has resulted in much confusion, hence the less-than-stellar critical reactions you may see elsewhere.

For Prey is being bunched with the on-going, and oft exhilarating, slew of first person shooters, still in vogue and dominating proceedings, particularly on the PC. However, it isn't one such game despite following the genre's visual conventions. In fact, it has more in common with 80's pioneers Cinemaware, whose glorious and ignominious interactive movies on the Amiga were cast aside, like Prey accused of low difficulty levels and pre-scripted events.

Of course quite easy and pre-scripted, because Prey doesn't wish to come across hard to get or sophisticated, but, lo and behold, simply fun. It is one of the smoothest games we've seen in recent years, compelling players along not by hardened challenge but rather sheer pleasure and a desire to see what's in store next.

It is also an amazingly stable game, suffering none of the encumbrances known to occur with alarming regularity in other titles. To that extent, Prey resembles last year's Area 51, another roller coaster ride crucified by industry and players for being too timid and lacking the simple press power of its Doom, Half-Life and FEAR siblings.

Forget all that: Prey is a masterpiece, putting fun and superlative storytelling first. A big boon is the maturity of the tale, with a lot of good language, real gore and even fighting against wicked children.

Reasonably enjoyable action and quite attractive visuals help, but above all else it's the game's consideration of players that wins us over. It's never too hard or frustrating, and gives you those vital ingredients somehow often missing in other releases.

For starters, the way it all begins, at a remote reservation bar on a dark, stormy night. Protagonist Tommy, considered Cherokee by his grandfather Anisi and girlfriend Jen, but really eager to shed that identity and look for a new one. This scene introduces characters and play mechanics well, preparing Tommy for the fight ahead, as an unknown force kidnaps him and his loved ones, forcing the reluctant hero on a path of discovery and courage.

But here we also glimpse Prey's professionalism: jukeboxes come with a host of full rock tracks, clocks animate and change in real time, rain falls outside in rhythm, and Don't Fear the Reaper plays just at the right moment. Beautiful.

The cavalcade of neat touches doesn't not stop there, with the unfolding alien environment into which Tommy is cast feeling real and consistent. There's cyborg weapons that move and squirm as you hold them, cool snippets of radio host Art Bell's UFO-centric late night show Coast to Coast AM, memorable alien propaganda and even wacky perspective changes. That's among Prey's chief innovations, enabling players to walk on walls and traverse portals that zip one among locations, a feature generating more than a few fun puzzles.

Opponents, most twisted and delectably incorrect in the political department, deploy excellent animation, and while obviously inspired by those from the aforementioned shooter franchises and even the Matrix movies, are engrossing in engagement and leave a lasting, entertaining impression. None are overly challenging or intelligent, and in fact the AI can't do much more than move around or take random cover, but it wouldn't matter anyway, since you can't die.

That's right, not only does the game allow saves anytime, players are also technically invincible courtesy of Tommy's Spritiwalk ability, an alternate game mode akin to Area 51's mutant switch. Learned in the beautifully-realized Land of the Ancients realm, Spiritwalk opens up areas off-limits to the physical body, granting Tommy a mythical bow weapon that's frankly of little use. Importantly, when the material shell dies, the spirit lives on, ultimately allowing for a return to almost the exact spot where Tommy died. No restarting levels and that kind of shinola here.

That's the crux of it: you're not supposed to win, beat or conquer Prey, but kick back and relish the ride, just like a truly good movie. Therefore, its cinematography is definitely up to spec, Human Head's penchant for detail and drama paying dividends as gamers witness moments of shock, horror and suspense.

The Doom-derived engine produces pleasing visuals, but they won't blow you away for technical achievement. Instead, it's the design that matters, even though Prey boils down to another corridor crawl when all's said and done. They're nice, atmospheric corridors, though, thus rarely repetitive, and Prey also avoids Doom 3's problematic love of dark spaces, something it references in one of several humorous moments.

The minimalist, but oh-so appropriate soundtrack shines, delivering psychedelic refrains, sci-fi mood-pieces and addictive rock just where they count. Effects contribute their fair share, and you'll soon be quipping one liners provided by Tommy's prolific adversaries, the Hunters. Weapons and other contraptions sound great, and the Spiritwalk portion comes with chanting voices that get into one's head easy. Do note the top-notch voice acting, making everyone come off as champions of their respective roles, in particular the sinister enemy bosses.

Prey does its literary and cinematic sources of inspiration proud. Stuff like the Alien universe, Shyamalan's Signs, 80's series V, the X Files, Independence Day and classic invasion novel Footfall all find a home here, as do players who appreciate a tight, comprehensive package that simply makes you feel good about being a gamer.

Rating: * * * * 1/2


In the past couple of years, there've been some pretty breath-taking games released. Resident Evil 4, Half-Life 2 and FarCry are just some of the amazing titles to bless retailer's shelves in the 21st Century. These games, when released, were instant classics, and will remain classics until we actually start to be able to feel the sweet squish of virtual Goombas beneath our hyper-technologically clad feet. And so, games developers have come up with a challenge. Games like RE4 and HL2 set the bar pretty high when it comes to what's outstanding and what's average, therefore making it somewhat difficult for designers to take their audience's breaths away. However, Prey has not only managed to jump well over the bar, but has raised it that extra notch higher whilst doing so.

Prey's storyline goes like this. Big nasty aliens come down and abduct our hero Tommy, his girlfriend Jen and his Grandfather Enisi. Anyway, Tommy manages to escape and heads off through the Alien spaceship's eerie corridors in search of Jen and Enisi. However, he soon learns that he has bigger problems than just rescuing the ones he loves

Okay, so admittedly Prey doesn't have the most innovative storyline ever. In fact, it's relatively basic.at first. Later on, things start to get a little more complicated what with spirits and all that shabazz. However, Prey's storyline, however basic, is solid, and will keep you pressing forward through the game just to see what happens next. Now before I go on to talk about Prey's game play etc,. I need to mention the graphics in the game. Remember Half-Life 2? Remember how graphically astounding that was? Forget it. Prey's graphics absolutely kicks Half-Life 2's ass everywhere. I usually don't consider graphics when playing a game because I'm one of those people who prefer game play over graphics, but Prey had me astounded. You can see every little detail in your weapons, in the aliens, in the spaceship, everything looks gorgeous. Never have I played a game before that has had me standing in the middle of a wide-open area admiring my surroundings. If games were based on graphics alone, then Prey would win outright. The game play in Prey is also something that makes this game so great. It's easy to control, as are most PC-based FPS titles, and there's never a dull moment. If you're not taking down a 20 foot alien with two gattling guns attached to either arm (Barrett Wallace eat your heart out), then you're walking up walls or walking through force fields as a spirit. Even when you die, you carry on playing. Confused? Well basically when you die you get taken to a kind of Cherokee limbo, where you must use your spirit bow to kill the "dishonored dead", and by doing so replenishing your health and spirit. It's all innovation in Prey! Oh, and let's not forget the portals! Oh yeah, they can be used as a door and..as a.and a..okay, well the use of portals in this game, while interesting, not very well done. I was hoping to see some pretty amazing stuff done with portals, but basically that's all they're used for; cool-looking doors. However, it is weird the way that you can shoot through a portal and pop yourself one in the back of the head. Fun, but if in a real-life situation, not advisable. The sounds in Prey are also pretty cool. You can hear engines running, pieces of flesh squelching and blood splattering, so again the attention to detail is magnificent. The voice-acting in Prey is also brilliant, which is good because bad voice-acting can spoil a game (Final Fantasy X-2 anyone?). Whilst playing games, I always take notice of the game's music, and how well it is used, and Prey's use of music can be compared to that of Lord of the Rings. In other words, it's amazing. The music really shines through whilst fighting bosses, or a lot of enemies at the same time. Overall, Prey is outstanding. Never before have I played an FPS quite like this. The storyline is terrific and really drags you in, and at one point in the game actually had me not wanting to click my mouse to fire my weapon, because of what would happen. And when I finally got the courage to, I felt sorry. The graphics are stunning, the game play is even better and the music is epic. Forget game of 2006. Forget game of the century. Prey simply has to be one of the best games EVER to grace this planet, and, when it eventually lands in the bargain bin in ASDA, it will stand proudly in Game Heaven alongside Final Fantasy VII and Super Mario 64.


The Developers took a huge chance in releasing a demo for Prey which employed most of the game, and it paid off, big time! I enjoyed Prey because it was not hard or too confusing. Fast paced and with the all important objective to reach, this game seems to have it all. Graphics wise Prey is up to date, I guess it compares well to the likes of F.E.A.R, doom 3 and everybody's favorite, Halfe-life 2. But this is where the similarity ends apart from the Alien weapons you get to Mame and kill with. The biggest feature to my mind is the use of physics in the form of Gravity. Isaac Newton would be astounded. Wall Walking upside down if you please and reverting to a spirit state where you can indeed walk thru walls and invisible (to the human eye only) structures. I enjoyed it thoroughly but not for its shoot and kill aspect but more for its original storyline. I would describe it as "Area 51" meets "doom 3". I guess for me, the true sign of a good game is one that you are looking forward to continuing on with and maybe playing again at a later date. But for my money the obvious reason is that this game has been well developed, probably game tested over and over to bring a game that is satisfying and bug free. Although my system is of the high end type, a lot of games still fail at some stage, not Prey. This was the exception to the rule and I thank the Developers for spending the extra time on making it this way. I'm looking forward to "prey 2".


Each year, I wait for something to come out to blow me away. FEAR was the last one that I actually could not get enough of. Now PREY appears, and WHOA, what a ride. Fantastic visuals (I mean FANTASTIC). Great dynamics in control of the characters, cool weapons, the anti gravity stuff and portals are mentioned quite a bit by most who comment on this game, but they are just part of the whole thing.

The voice acting is almost uniformly great (with the exception of Jen sometimes), and the story is mostly original, save the overall plot, which we've seen a zillion times before. But the characters are new to the genre, (nope, no super human marines, or master gunfighters) and treats the traditions of the Cherokee with respect and dignity.

There are some moments where it feels like some other games, an occasional dopey boss battle, and too many elevators, but wow, the overall pace, artwork, character control, and AWESOME MUSIC makes it the most movie like video game I've EVER played. Yes, even more than Half Life 2. The health regeneration is a little annoying at first, but then you learn to appreciate it somewhat, as it is less disruptive than having to go back 2 or 3 saves and start over.

One more comment on the music. I was amazed at how cinematic it was. I felt like I was in a live action movie sometimes. Just awesome.

My library of PC games numbers over 100, and I've played them all. But this one is in a class by itself. Yes, its somewhat short, but the work that went into it was intense.

I can't wait for more. Kudos to the developers and artists that built this thing. What a piece of work


When I first heard that Prey was coming out for the PC, I expected it to be another normal and boring PC game. It was when I heard that IGN gave Prey a good review along with various other sites, I decided to try it out. I bought Prey off Ebay for 5.00 pounds and When I played it the first thing I realized was the beautiful and realistic graphics. I eagerly jumped into playing Prey and was completely astounded to what I thought would be a sh*t game. You control a Cherokee Indian whose life is a bummer. His girlfriend thinks that Tommy Dommasi is difficult and he doesn't get along with his grandfather because he doesn't believe all that spiritual and superstitious stuff. The gunplay is excellent and the guns themselves are different because they are alive and very different to earthly guns, mainly because he is aboard a alien spaceship. The gore is overly disgusting and disturbing, all the way through the game you will see blood, guts, and livers. The gore is very important to the game because without it the atmosphere will feel dull and pedantic.

After his girlfriend and grandfather get kidnapped by an alien spaceship, Tommy tries to release them from the clutches of evil. As the game progresses onward, you realize it isn't that easy. The ship is controlled by a power hungry leader who steals people from different planets for what they call "Harvesting", meaning to eat. Along the way you earn a power called spirit walking, you leave your body in a state of meditation while you do what you have to do with your spirit, and you shoot with guns that will blow your mind.

The worst thing about this game is the easiness of it. It will take you about 5 or 7 hours to finish the game. The portals are so important in this game and Prey was the first game ever to have portals in it. Defying gravity was one of the fun things in this game but it can get weird sometimes because you have to shoot in a way which would make your brain dizzy and fuzzy. Prey is enjoyable and somewhat stupid because when the enemy is about to throw a grenade they call out, "Grenade" and then you can easily avoid it. Prey should be in every gamers collection and have a wonderful time playing. Happy Gaming!


The game is great, the story is great with twists i would never had expected had my friend not spoiled it for me.

The creative puzzles will have you confused to the max and the level design is surprisingly small but thanks to the portal technology and wall walks levels seem surprisingly bigger then they actually are.

The thing that surprised me the most was the long lasting storyline that kept going even when you thought i would end but a small downside is the Multiplayer.

The MP is good the weapons and maps are good it's just the fact that the amount of people playing is small and if someone lags everyone else does.

The Single player has a long lasting and lively story as well as inventive puzzles.

Nowadays you can pick it up cheap, i got my copy brand new for £20. I Say definitely rent it at least.

Graphics: 8 The graphics are good but some areas are a bit too shiny for me.

Sound: 9.5 The sounds are pretty good and the voice acting is great.

Story: 10 Play it yourself, you'll understand.

Weaponry: 6 There aren't many weapons but they're cool.

MP: 6.5 Could be better


In many ways "Prey" is a weird case as far as development goes. The normal development cycle for a game these days is 1 to 2 years. Maybe even a couple more for the more higher profile games. However, was originally thought up in 1996. But the development team at 3D Relms had shoved the game aside to go work on "Duke Nuckeum Forever". It was about 2 years ago that "Prey" re-surfaced, and with a new developer in the form of "Human-Head Studios". And now, after 10 years in the making "Prey" is finally out. While all of the original content is mainly still in the game, the game has been revamped and remade with the "Doom 3" engine to run the game.

"Prey" tells a rather different and original story as far as shooters go. You play as Tommy, a native American who lives on an Indian reservation with his girl friend Jen and his grandfather Enisi. Tommy has always rejected the beliefs of his people. Enisi has always tried to teach him of the old ways. However, Tommy just wants to leave the reservation and go out to see the world. The only thing stopping him, is that his girlfriend Jen wont go with him. As she wants to stay. All this is presented to the player rather quickly. With not a whole lot of development, beyond the main subject. Because before long the three are sucked up by an alien space ship. And it pretty much comes down to Tommy trying to rescue his girlfriend. However, in the process ( as you may expect ) you save the world.

The game play in "Prey" eventually does boil down to your basic shooter. As you go threw each level blasting your way through enemies. However, the game has some unique twists that try to set the game aside from the normal shooter formula. These take the form of "Wall Walk" and "Spirit Walk". In the case of "Wall Walk", Tommy can walk on walls in certain intervals threw-out the space ship. There are certain walkways that will lead on the wall, and sometimes the ceiling, and you can walk threw those areas. There is also times when you can actually change the entire formation of the level. In which you can change the gravity pull of the level to the new ground. And the entire level will shift to make that the new ground. During the times, it can be discontenting, especially when you walk from one ground to the other. However, it is a neat effect overall. And helps give the game a different feel in some ways.

The other case of "Spirit Walk", in which Tommy can walk out of his body. These are used mainly for puzzle solving. You will find an area that you cant go to, and you can use "Spirit Walk" to reach those areas. It works well in many cases. However, the one big flaw is when you die. Instead of having to restart a level, you will leave your body and go to the spirit world. Where you will be on a pillar, and you must shoot a certain amount of wraiths that are flying around you to continue on. This effect works in one way, in that it never takes you out of the action. However, where it fails is that it takes all of the challenge out of the game. Because death really has no tole on you in "Prey". And while you will have the will to take more chances ( which is good ) you know that there really is no problem with dying. Since the worst that could happen is you will have to sit out for a few seconds.

These new takes on the genre are interesting in many ways. And "Prey" tries to make them work well. However, they really don't add much to what is otherwise a very linear and strait forward game. In which boils down to a constant corridor crawl threw the space ship.

The action in "Prey" is roughly 90%, with the other being some light and easy puzzle solving. The shooting in "Prey" is good, it feels right and you have a decent amount of weapons. However, the enemies you fight in "Prey" are rather easy. They don't do a whole lot to protect themselves and are very easy to eradicate. It also doesn't help that the game only has a very small amount of enemies. You start out only fighting a couple at a time and having an easy time doing so. The game tries to make things more interesting near the end of the game by throwing more enemies at you at once. However, it doesn't really change the game up much. The weapons have a neat and interesting organic look to them, however, the weapons at times feel under powered.


If only the developers concentrated more on the characters and story, making some innovative levels and lots of enemies, instead of rushing this game out, Prey could have been one of the better 3D-shooters of all time. Unfortunately Prey does not have the scares of Doom-3 nor even the frantic action of Quake-4 and I sadly say that it less memorable than both of those games. Prey does throw out some gameplay innovations at you such as gravity manipulation and spirit walking which allows for some interesting puzzles but all that really fizzles out at the end. Prey also feels too much like Doom-3 and is almost as dark on many occasions. There are very few weapons and enemies too which shows that this game had been rushed. The screenplay for the story which is rarely significant, was very good, showing some great potential which was never exploited.


I bought this game for XBox 360 for 10 Euro or so, and I was expecting a nice shooter without too much story and a lot of graphical violence. And well, frankly even with that expectation it disappointed me.

First of all I want to say that I like the original idea of wallwalking, etc. It cóuld have been very innovative if it wasn't for the developer turning this game into a semi-puzzel/platform game every once in a while. I said this a lot of times and I'm gonna say it again; platformgames and shooters dón't mix, period. I like a challenge, but for example I was trapped in one (big) level for a entire week before I found out that to progress in the game, I had to shoot a small electro-tube somewhere on the wall... What kind of game-logic is that?! So if you want to complete this game and you find yourself stuck, the best thing to do is thus basically shoot at everything and hope it triggers a door or anything... It is NOT the way I want to play a game! The most 'innovative' part of this game are the portals, and even though Valve's Portal-mod does a far much better job at this today then Prey, it is a cool effect (at least for sight). Is it necessary? No. Is it confusing? Very much. Most of the time when you enter a portal, you will flip upside-down , or sideways in a way that it will leave you desorientated for a brief few seconds and thus very vulnerable to enemy attacks even with the most 'elite' shooterskills.

The weapons are also not very great. Every gun looks like a cliché alien-gun, complete with bright lights and shiny texture. You have a sort of plasma-gun, a gun that you can load up with elemental stuff like fire, electricity, cold. You also get a gun that fires what could be described as a load of snot... Well, do I need to say more? Its as if the developers of this game weren't even trying. Oh, and you also get to play with the lamest, and I mean the LAMEST main-character in a shooting-game EVER. At the start of the game, the Indian-guy doesn't bother you much, but further in the game his whining about his girlfriend and his childish and furthermore simply dull one-liners ("Damn, its dark in here!" - as if I didn't notice that myself Sherlock!) will probably tick you off and will leave you with no feeling for the main-character at all.

And some more bugs: some 'puzzles' (read: annoying counterparts) require a lot of 'spiritpower' to turn on switches and so, but if this runs out, you will have no other choise then to kill yourself in order to get more 'spiritpower' (and no, there are no spirit power-ups in the levels apart from a few). And if you don't have any bug-grenades (how original...) or alien-rockets (sigh) you will just have to reload a old game and try again. Also, what is it with the graphics? I mean, the game on XBox 360 already looks like it could have run fine on the first XBox (and I'm not kidding there), but some images are just too dark. And I don't mean just dark, but pitch black... Even a shitty lighter that your character can activate can't change much about that.

So this pretty much sums up what it is; A failed experiment, hyped with the now very popular Doom 3-engine. If you want a innovative and exciting shooter, go play Half-Life 2 (again), or the new Portal-mod I mentioned earlier. Do yourself as a shooterfan a favor, ignore the hype and just leave this game for what it is.


This movie is generally scary, especially if you enjoy movies where the theme is being "kidnapped or killed by serial killers and/or hillbillies". Kim Delaney is a hottie in this one too, but the typical dumb mistakes by the city slickers leads them to get chased all over god's creation, somewhere in backwoods Arkansas. When you receive warnings from the locals not to go somewhere, you should LISTEN!!! Overall, a must see!


A father-and-son team of hunting guides take a group of city folk into the Arkansas woods,despite some warnings that people have been vanishing inexplicably.When they encounter a family of bloodthirsty,hostile and relentless killers,they become the hunted prey and must use all their skills and knowledge to make it out alive."Hunter's Blood" is an exciting and bloody shocker that owes a lot to "Deliverance" and Canadian horror masterpiece "Rituals".The acting is okay and the action is fast-paced.The stalking scenes are well-photographed and there is enough violence and gore to keep most of the horror fans entertained including vicious stabbings and shots in the face.I'm a big fan of backwoods horror flicks and I enjoyed "Hunter's Blood" very immensely.It's a crying shame that this criminally underrated horror film is so rare and tough to find.Give it a look.8 out of 10.


Hunters Blood (1987) is a very entertaining fast paced movie about 5 men from the city who travel 2 hours to Arkansas on a weekend so they can go hunting in the forest, drink beer and have fun!!! Things soon take a turn for the worse tho when they find out that there's a horrible redneck family who live in the area where they set up camp. These inbred rednecks are cannibalistic and will stop at nothing to torture and kill our city boys!! Hunters Blood is a great movie with plenty of action, some really gory images along the way and the cast do a fantastic job, Mason is my favourite, he's played by Clu Gulager but i'm being biased because he was great in "Return of the living dead".

I highly recommend this rare horror movie, if you enjoyed "Deliverance" and "Rituals" then you should love this one, this movie gets a well deserved 8/10 from me.


Damn, this was outstanding. Excellent. Clu Galager kicks ace for a while much like in Return of the Living Dead, and I think he is wearing the same jacket. It gets brutal but call it a Deliverance knock off if you want, but it was awesome! **** out of *****