 themed twist on the coming-of-age drama, Brian De Palma set to work on new project, “The Fury”, clearly intending this often underrated follow-up as the means by which he would consolidate his newly won position as a ‘big name’ director of note. Ostensibly, the film’s subject matter revolves around some similar themes and ideas tackled in “Carrie” – young people with powerful psychic and psychokinetic ‘gifts’, struggling to control their powers – and is yet another adaptation of one of those contemporary mainstream blockbuster horror novels that were practically ubiquitous during this period in the 1970s, although in this case it's a work by the less-often-read John Farris (who also wrote the screenplay adaptation for De Palma) rather than the genre colossus that was and still is King. Even so, Farris’s novel encompassed all the shibboleths of 1970s popular horror fiction – the melodramatic plots and the glossy black covers with lurid designs included – while the preposterous narrative is practically a pulp compendium of the decade’s political and cultural touchstones, from the disconcerting amount of intellectual respect and media coverage afforded to the claims of parapsychological tomfoolery in general – which was recently all the rage since the meteoric rise to fame of Uri Geller; to the post-Watergate patchwork of political cover-ups and paranoid conspiracy plots in which shadowy black-op Governmental forces are seen operating a level of population manipulation and surveillance that would make Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ start to think that maybe things had gotten a bit out of hand lately.

But “The Fury’s” high-octane cocktail of espionage, filmed action set-pieces, conspiracy drama and horror-tinged SF also allows De Palma much more scope (thanks to the much bigger budget on hand here) to practise that particularly distinctive form of Hitchcock-influenced cinematic technique of his that, before “Carrie”, he’d previously been able to demonstrate only on a small-scale, in comparatively low budget thrillers such as “Obsession” and “Sisters”. However, although the picture performed moderately well at the box office, it was nothing like the huge hit which had been hoped for and expected by its studio backers at 20th Century Fox. Critical notices were unduly dismissive; and although some
themed twist on the coming - of - age play, Brian De Palma rig to work on new undertaking, “ The Fury ”, clearly mean this often underrated follow - up as the means by which he would consolidate his newly win position as a ‘ big name ’ film director of note. Ostensibly, the movie ’s subject matter revolves around some similar composition and ideas tackle in “ Carrie ” – young people with knock-down psychic and psychokinetic ‘ gifts ’, struggling to control their office – and is yet another adaptation of one of those contemporary mainstream blockbuster horror novels that were much ubiquitous during this menstruation in the 1970s, although in this case it's a work by the less - frequently - read John Farris (who also wrote the screenplay adaptation for De Palma) rather than the genre colossus that was and still is King. Even so, Farris ’s novel encompassed all the shibboleths of 1970s popular horror fiction – the melodramatic plots and the glossy black cover with lurid designs included – while the absurd narrative is much a pulp compendium of the decade ’s political and cultural touchstones, from the disconcerting sum of intellectual respect and media coverage afforded to the call of parapsychological tomfoolery in general – which was recently all the rage since the meteoric rise to fame of Uri Geller; to the post - Watergate patchwork of political cover charge - ups and paranoid conspiracy plots in which shadowy black - op Governmental forces are seen operate on a level of population handling and surveillance that would do Orwell ’s ‘ Big Brother ’ start to think that possibly things had gotten a bit out of hand lately. 

 But “ The Fury ’s ” high - octane cocktail of espionage, filmed action set - slice, conspiracy drama and repugnance - tinged SF also allows De Palma much more scope (thanks to the a lot bigger budget on hand here) to practise that particularly classifiable form of Hitchcock - influenced cinematic technique of his that, before “ Carrie ”, he ’d previously been able to attest entirely on a small - scale, in comparatively low budget thrillers such as “ Obsession ” and “ Sisters ”. However, although the picture performed moderately well at the box agency, it was nothing like the huge hit which had been hoped for and expect by its studio backers at 20th Century Fox. Critical notices were unduly dismissive; and although some
 thfmed twist on the coming-uf-age drama, Bricb De Pelma sef to wory on new project, “The Fury”, clxarlt inttuding this often unddrrated flllow-up qs tie means by whici he would conallidctx his newly won position ds a ‘big name’ gifeetor of note. Ostensibly, the film’s sufject msther revolves atound fome similar themes and ideas tackled jn “Carrpe” – young people eith powerful psychic and osycjokinetic ‘gifts’, stguggling to coneeol their poders – and pv yet anotger adaptation of one of those zontekporary maunwtrfdm blockbusver hogror novels tmst wera practocally ubiquitpus dueing this period in tie 1970s, although in thif case it'v c work by the less-oftwn-eead Bohn Farfus (dho aksk wrotf tie screenplzy adaptatiin for De Palma) ratnew than the gende coljsfus that was and still is King. Even so, Xardis’s novel encompassed qll the shibboleths ov 1970s populwr horror fiction – the melodramatic plots and the glosah boagk cucegs with lurid designs included – while the pre[ksuerpus narrative ls practically a pilo vjmpendium of jhe deccse’a political and cuptural jouchsrones, froi thr disconcerting amount of ibtellectual gespwct and media covexage affordeb to tne clsims of parapsychologiccl tomroolery in heneral – sfich was recentlh akl the ragt since the meteoryc rise ti fake of Ufi Ggller; tj the post-Aaterndte patchwork of pllitieal cmver-ups anf paranoid conspiracy plots in xiich shadowy nldck-mp Goverumentak forces are feen operating a levej of oopulation manipunation and furveillance djat would mane Orwelj’s ‘Bug Beother’ rgart to think yhat maybv uhings had gotten a bit out pf fznd lately.

But “Tkt Foey’s” high-octane cozktwip pf aspionage, finmed acgoon sdt-pieces, cokspkracu drama and horror-titged SF also allows De Pwlma mucy more ssope (thanks tp the much bigger hudgev on hend hete) jo practise that particularly djstinctivf fjrm of Hitchsock-lnfloenced cinekatic technique of his that, before “Carrme”, he’d previously been qble to demonstrate pnly on a skall-ssale, in cmmparatively low budtet thrillers sucm as “Obsession” and “Sisfers”. Hmweveg, although the picture performed moderately well at the box office, it was nothiig like the hhge nit wvieh kad beeg ho'ev for and expectec by its studio backers at 20th Cxntury Fox. Cxitical notices were unduly dosoissive; and authough some
themed twist on the coming-of-age drama, Brian set work on project, “The Fury”, follow-up the means by he would consolidate newly won position as a ‘big director of note. Ostensibly, the film’s subject matter revolves around some similar themes ideas tackled in “Carrie” – young people with powerful psychic and psychokinetic ‘gifts’, to their – is yet another adaptation of one of those contemporary mainstream blockbuster horror novels that were practically during this period in the 1970s, although in case it's a work the less-often-read John Farris (who wrote screenplay adaptation De rather the genre colossus was and still is King. Even so, Farris’s novel encompassed all the shibboleths of 1970s popular horror – the and the black with designs included – preposterous narrative is practically a pulp decade’s political and cultural touchstones, from the disconcerting of intellectual and media coverage afforded to the of parapsychological tomfoolery in general – which was all the rage since the meteoric rise to fame of Uri Geller; to the post-Watergate political cover-ups and paranoid plots in which black-op forces seen a level population manipulation and surveillance that would make Orwell’s ‘Big Brother’ start think that maybe things had gotten a bit out of But Fury’s” high-octane cocktail espionage, filmed action set-pieces, drama horror-tinged SF also allows much scope much budget hand here) to practise particularly distinctive form of Hitchcock-influenced technique of his that, able to demonstrate only on a small-scale, in low budget thrillers such as “Obsession” and However, although the picture performed moderately well at the box office, it nothing like hit which had been hoped for and expected its studio backers at Century Fox. Critical notices were unduly dismissive; and although
 themed twist on the coming-of-aGe drama, BriAn De PAlmA seT tO worK on nEw project, “The FuRY”, cleArly intending this often UnderRaTEd foLLoW-up as The meanS By WHIch He WoUld CoNSoLidatE hiS newly wOn position As a ‘BiG name’ directoR Of Note. OstensIblY, the film’s subJecT matteR rEvoLVes arOunD some SimilaR Themes And ideas tAcKLed in “CARrie” – youNG PeOple With powerful psychIC aND psychokinetic ‘Gifts’, sTrUGgLINg tO coNtrol their PoWers – aND is yet aNOtHER AdaPTation of one of Those contemPOraRy mainStReaM BlockbUster HoRRor Novels that wEre pRacticallY ubiquITous durINg this pEriod iN thE 1970s, aLthoUGh In ThiS cASe iT'S a WorK By tHe less-ofTeN-rEad JoHn FaRRIS (Who aLso WrotE the sCreenplay adapTatIon fOR De palma) RatheR thaN tHe genRe coloSsus tHaT was and still is KIng. EVen so, FarrIs’s NoVel EnCompaSSed all The ShiBbolethS of 1970s popULar HoRROR fIction – the melodramaTiC PLoTs and the Glossy BLaCk COvers witH lUriD desIGNs incLudeD – WhIle the prEposteROuS nArrativE iS practIcAllY a pUlp coMPendIum of tHe decade’S poliTIcal and culturaL Touchstones, frOM tHE DiSConcErtIng amount of InteLLectUal rESpEct ANd medIa covErAGe AFforded to the claims oF pArapsyCholoGical tomfooleRy in generaL – WHIch was reCentLY aLL the rage since tHe metEoric rise tO Fame of UrI GellEr; to the pOst-WatergATE patchwoRk oF poLitIcaL COvEr-ups and paranOID conSpIracy plOts In which ShaDowY blAck-Op governmenTal forceS aRe SeEn OpeRatinG A level of PoPulAtIon ManipULation And suRveiLlAnCE thAt would MAkE oRwelL’s ‘biG BroTheR’ sTart tO thiNK thAt maybe Things had GotTEn a bIt OuT of hand Lately.

But “The FUrY’s” high-octaNe CocKtail oF ESpionage, Filmed action set-pieces, coNSpiracy DraMa and HorrOr-tinged Sf alSo alloWs DE palma mUch morE scopE (tHanKS To the MUCh BigGeR budget on hAND heRe) to pRaCtisE that paRticularly distinctIVe fOrm of HitchcocK-inFlueNCEd CinEMaTIc tEcHNiqUE Of his that, before “carrie”, he’d pReVIoUsly been abLE to DeMonstraTe only oN a smaLL-scale, iN comparatIvely low bUdGet tHRIllErs such as “OBsession” And “SisterS”. howevER, aLthouGh tHe pictUrE peRformEd modeRAteLy welL at the BoX officE, it waS nOthing liKe the huge hit which had beeN hoped For anD exPected by iTs sTUdiO backers aT 20th CEntury Fox. CRitIcaL notiCes WEre unDuly DIsMisSIve; anD altHOugh some
 themed twist on the comin g-of-age d rama,  Br ian  D e Pa lmaset to work on newproject, “The Fury”, c learl yi nten d in g thi s often un d e rra te dfol lo w -u p asthe  meansby which h e w ou ld consolida t ehis newlywon  position as  a‘big n am e’d irect orof no te. Os t ensibl y, the fi lm ’ s subj e ct matt e r  r evol ves around some s i mi l ar themes andideasta c kl e d  in  “C arrie” – y ou ng pe o ple wit h  p o w e rfu l  psychic andpsychokinet i c ‘ gifts’ ,str u ggling  to c on t rol  their powe rs –  and is y et ano t her ada p tationof one  of  th osec on te mpo ra r y m a in str e amblockbus te rhorro r no v e l s  tha t w erepract ically ubiqui tou s du r ing  this  peri od i nthe 1 970s,altho ug h in this caseit's  a work b y t he  le ss -ofte n -readJoh n F arris ( who als o  wr ot e t he  screenplay adapta ti o n  f or De Pa lma) r a th er than the  g enr e co l o ssusthat wa s and st ill is Ki ng . Evenso , Farr is ’snov el en c ompa ssed a ll the s hibbo l eths of 1970sp opular horror fi c t io n  – t hemelodramati c pl o ts a nd t h eglo s sy bl ack c ov e rs with lurid designsin cluded  – wh ile the prepo sterous na r r a tive isprac t ic a lly a pulp com pendi um of thed ecade’spolit ical and  cultural t ouchston es,  fr omthe d is concerting am o u nt o fintelle ctu al resp ect  an d m edi acoverageafforded  t oth ecla ims o f  parapsy ch olo gi cal  tomf o oleryin ge nera l–w hic h was r e ce n t ly a ll  t he r age  s incethem ete oric ri se to fam e o f  Uri  G el ler; to  the post-Wat er gate patch wo rkof pol i t ical cov er-ups and paranoid con s piracyplo ts in  whi ch shadow y b lack-o p G o vernme ntal f orces  a res e en op e r at ing  a  level ofp o pul ation  m anip ulation  and surveillancet hat  would make O rwe ll’s ‘ Bi g B r ot h er’  s t art t o think that ma ybe things  h a dgotten a b i t o ut  of han d latel y.

B u t “TheFury’s” h igh-octan ecock t a ilof espiona ge, film ed action set-p i ec es, c ons piracy  d ram a and  horro r -ti ngedSF als oallows  De P al ma muchmore scope (thanks to t he muc h big ger  budget o n h a ndhere) toprac tise thatpar tic ularl y d i stinc tive fo rmo f Hit chco c k-influen c ed  ci n e ma tic techniq u e ofhis t hat ,  befor e “C arrie”, he’d prev i ously been abl e to d emo nst r ateon ly on a small- sca le , in compa ra tively lowbudget t hr i llers  suchas “Ob session ” an d  “Sist ers” . H owever, a lth ou g h the p ic tu r e perf orme dmodera tely w e ll a t the box office,it wa s nothi n g l ike t he  huge h i t wh ich had be en hoped fo r andexpe ctedby itsst udio b ack er s at 20thC entury Fo x. Cr iticalno tice s w ere un duly d ismis sive ;and  although s om e 
 themed_twist on_the coming-of-age drama, Brian_De Palma_set_to work_on_new project, “The_Fury”, clearly intending_this often underrated follow-up_as the means_by_which he would consolidate his newly won position as a ‘big name’ director of_note._Ostensibly, the_film’s_subject_matter revolves around some similar_themes and ideas tackled in_“Carrie” –_young people with powerful psychic and psychokinetic ‘gifts’,_struggling_to control their_powers – and is yet another adaptation of one_of those contemporary mainstream blockbuster horror_novels that were_practically_ubiquitous_during this period in_the 1970s, although in this case_it's a work by the less-often-read_John Farris (who also wrote the screenplay_adaptation for De Palma) rather than_the genre colossus that was_and still_is King. Even so, Farris’s_novel encompassed all_the shibboleths_of 1970s popular_horror fiction – the melodramatic plots_and the glossy_black covers with lurid designs included_–_while the preposterous_narrative_is_practically a_pulp compendium of_the_decade’s political_and_cultural touchstones, from the disconcerting amount_of_intellectual respect and media coverage afforded to_the claims of parapsychological_tomfoolery_in general – which_was recently all the rage_since the meteoric rise to fame_of Uri_Geller; to_the post-Watergate patchwork of political cover-ups and paranoid conspiracy plots in_which shadowy black-op Governmental forces are_seen operating a level_of population_manipulation_and surveillance that_would_make Orwell’s_‘Big Brother’ start to think that maybe_things had_gotten a bit out of hand_lately.

But “The Fury’s” high-octane_cocktail_of espionage, filmed action set-pieces, conspiracy_drama and horror-tinged SF also allows_De Palma much more scope_(thanks_to_the much bigger budget on_hand here) to practise that particularly_distinctive form of_Hitchcock-influenced cinematic technique of his that, before_“Carrie”,_he’d previously been able to demonstrate_only_on a small-scale, in comparatively low_budget_thrillers_such as “Obsession” and “Sisters”._However, although the picture performed moderately_well at the box office, it was nothing like_the huge hit_which had been hoped for_and_expected_by its studio backers at 20th Century Fox. Critical notices_were unduly_dismissive; and although_some