Brian De Palma's The Fury - March 12, 2013 - Limited to 3,000 copies

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

But this is where I'm coming from then, if it has always looked that bad, that doesn't mean it deserves a 4 for PQ right????? That's just my thought, now I know there are those that would give something high marks for PQ if that's as good as it's going to look, but I don't agree there. Give it a 3 or a 2.5, but not a 4. So then if someone gives Jaws a 5 for PQ (and rightfully so), and the Fury a 5, I'd expect them both to be preaty much blemish free, and when one is and one isn't, then I'd say the one with blemishes derverves a lower rating.

It deserves a 4 for PQ IF it replicates the film perfectly. That's what they're grading on these sites (I rarely agree with the assessments made here and elsewhere) - they're not grading the negative or IP or whatever, they're grading the TRANSFER. If a film always looked like crap (The Honeymoon Killers on Criterion comes to mind - ultra low-budget and shot in 16mm), and the transfer of it perfectly captures that with no additional artifacts or bad bit rates or whatever, then yes, it deserves the highest marks for the TRANSFER. That is where you are erring in your posts.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Blow Out and Dressed to Kill were made by other studios, processed by other labs and neither were made in the year 1978. Christine is a different studio, different lab, different director, different cameraman, different lighting and way less opticals - I'd have to watch Christine again, but I don't even recall a lot of dissolves in the film - but even if there are, they are short and over with quickly.

And yes, this film looked like this in 1978 because I remember distinctly sitting in the theater the four or five times I saw it back then and thinking that there was some really bad lab work and that it was very grainy because the night scenes' film was pushed. I have no idea what this transfer was taken from, whether a CRI or IP or the negative. All I know is you cannot fix what cannot be fixed.

My problem is not with the grain, it's with the various marks, scratches, bumps, blips etc. which I think are a tad excessive (okay maybe I shouldn't have used the razor blade thing because I didn't mean to insinuate that this film looked like the Death Proof section of Grindhouse, I just threw that out there to make a comment on how reviewers give high PQ marks for something if it's filmlike even if it wear to have excessive damage....like Godzilla Criterion does), and obviously you think is normal and part of the source. Maybe the negative was damaged during filming? My thought was maybe this was a film that could've benefited from a restoration of some kind...which I assume it did not..but you seem to know a lot so if you know, please pass on the info. I guess I'd feel a lot better about this transfer if I knew De Palma actually had a hand in it like he did for the Blow Out and DTK ones, which I am guessing he didn't since most directors like John Carpenter for instance with Christine had no clue it was even coming to blu ray from Twilight Time. Once again so you understand...I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE GRAIN AMOUNT ON THIS BLU RAY, it's the damage....or what appears to be damage in scenes that DO NOT INVOlVE OPTICALS that I am disappointed in with this blu ray, especially one put out by Twilight Time for 30 bucks, my expectations were a little higher, but like you say if it really never looked good and this damage has always been there, then that's just how it's going to be.

[klauswhereareyou]

I bow down. I never acted like an expert, I just threw out my thoughts, obviously you're the expert on film stocks, what The Fury looked like in 1978, etc........ I guess it always looked not so good. I just assumed since almost every other film I've seen from the period on blu ray looked better (other De Palma films included that were actually shot on lesser budgets, and Taxi Driver which always looked like trash prior to the blu ray), this one could've looked better too with a little restoration work. I'll be honest I probably wouldn't have given this much thought had I not had to spend over 30 bucks for it from Screen Archives. When I spend a premium, I expect a premium picture. I just assumed that maybe the problem was Fox could've slightly restored this and chose not to, not realizing that the problems I had were with the actual negative.

I will say though give De Palma another try though, I don't see how anyone who enjoys films can only like two or three that he's made.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

My problem is not with the grain, it's with the various marks, scratches, bumps, blips etc. which I think are a tad excessive (okay maybe I shouldn't have used the razor blade thing because I didn't mean to insinuate that this film looked like the Death Proof section of Grindhouse, I just threw that out there to make a comment on how reviewers give high PQ marks for something if it's filmlike even if it wear to have excessive damage....like Godzilla Criterion does), and obviously you think is normal and part of the source. Maybe the negative was damaged during filming? My thought was maybe this was a film that could've benefited from a restoration of some kind...which I assume it did not..but you seem to know a lot so if you know, please pass on the info. I guess I'd feel a lot better about this transfer if I knew De Palma actually had a hand in it like he did for the Blow Out and DTK ones, which I am guessing he didn't since most directors like John Carpenter for instance with Christine had no clue it was even coming to blu ray from Twilight Time. Once again so you understand...I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE GRAIN AMOUNT ON THIS BLU RAY, it's the damage....or what appears to be damage in scenes that DO NOT INVOlVE OPTICALS that I am disappointed in with this blu ray, especially one put out by Twilight Time for 30 bucks, my expectations were a little higher, but like you say if it really never looked good and this damage has always been there, then that's just how it's going to be.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean or annoying, I'm trying to set the record straight - that's the only reason I'm posting here. Others have given the transfer high marks, too. What I'm trying to do is to get people to stop the hysteria because it really doesn't do anyone any good. I don't need anyone to bow down before me, I don't know everything, but I've managed to eke out a living in one form or another of show business for over forty years now, I've made films, I've been in labs, I've been in the transfer rooms, I complained bitterly about the dirty opticals in a film I made to no avail because that's what they were and I have owned over 500 35mm and 16mm prints over the years and have a friend who has over 3,000 35mm prints, and I go to screenings at his place often (he ended up with some of my prints) and so I see films a lot.

Again, you mention a LOT of damage - and I'd really like to know where you're seeing this large amount of stuff outside of the opticals. So, please, take the time and point out those times on the Blu-ray. Then I can watch and comment more, which I think will be helpful for both of us. By the way, I'm surprised you didn't mention the worst-looking optical in the film - the big-screen TV, which is a still frame of dubious merit, with the TV picture laid on top of it. That's how it's always been, but talk about bad.

[pro-bassoonist]

I am unsure what the issue is here and people claiming that they have some knowledge that somehow makes this transfer spectacular. It isn't.

There is noise and traces of sharpening. 3.5 stars is about as generous of a score as the transfer can get.

This isn't how the film looked at the theater in 1978 (if this really is your entire point you wish to argue) and it does not matter whether I have seen it in 1978.

Pro-B

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Look, I'm not trying to be mean or annoying, I'm trying to set the record straight - that's the only reason I'm posting here. Others have given the transfer high marks, too. What I'm trying to do is to get people to stop the hysteria because it really doesn't do anyone any good. I don't need anyone to bow down before me, I don't know everything, but I've managed to eke out a living in one form or another of show business for over forty years now, I've made films, I've been in labs, I've been in the transfer rooms, I complained bitterly about the dirty opticals in a film I made to no avail because that's what they were and I have owned over 500 35mm and 16mm prints over the years and have a friend who has over 3,000 35mm prints, and I go to screenings at his place often (he ended up with some of my prints) and so I see films a lot.

Again, you mention a LOT of damage - and I'd really like to know where you're seeing this large amount of stuff outside of the opticals. So, please, take the time and point out those times on the Blu-ray. Then I can watch and comment more, which I think will be helpful for both of us. By the way, I'm surprised you didn't mention the worst-looking optical in the film - the big-screen TV, which is a still frame of dubious merit, with the TV picture laid on top of it. That's how it's always been, but talk about bad.

Oh yeah that looks bad, but that's just a bad "special" effect, not damage. When I get a chance I'll go throught it again, heck, I even still have the VHS put out in 1996 just to see what that looked like, even though I do realize that the blu ray may be presenting more print damage due to added visual clarity.

Don't worry about being mean and annoying, if you think I'm wrong, I deserve to be called out on it, just as I would if I was certain that someone was making the wrong assumptions about something too. Really my whole thing was that I thought this is something that could've looked better with a restoration (still shocked that At Long Last Love gets one from Fox and this doesn't) because in my eyes there seemed to be more blips, bumps, white specks, dirt, scratches, etc. then I have seen on any movie from the period on blu ray other than the Hallooween II blu put out by Universal. If like you say all problems lie in the negative or only available source, well then I guess those are the breaks.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I am unsure what the issue is here and people claiming that they have some knowledge that somehow makes this transfer spectacular. It isn't.

There is noise and traces of sharpening. 3.5 stars is about as generous of a score as the transfer can get.

This isn't how the film looked at the theater in 1978 (if this really is your entire point you wish to argue) and it does not matter whether I have seen it in 1978.

Pro-B

Fascinating. Our opinions differ apparently. And that's what makes horse racing.

I am saying the transfer is accurate to the source. Robert Harris said the same (although I don't always agree with him, I do here). You are saying otherwise. You say this isn't how it looked in the theater and you are also saying you didn't see it back then. In the end, people think what they think, that's what I think. People can simply judge whose opinions they trust in terms of making a purchase.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Fascinating. Our opinions differ apparently. And that's what makes horse racing.

In this case, they most definitely do.

You were most definitely right in your evaluation of Westworld. No argument there. All of your points were valid. But not here.

Originally Posted by whitesheik

I am saying the transfer is accurate to the source.

But this is a slippery road. Technically, the "source" could be anything. In this case, and whatever the source was, what you have on the transfer isn't flawless, which is why people are voicing their opinions.

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Robert Harris said the same (although I don't always agree with him, I do here). You are saying otherwise. You say this isn't how it looked in the theater and you are also saying you didn't see it back then. In the end, people think what they think, that's what I think. People can simply judge whose opinions they trust in terms of making a purchase.

That's fine. Because if your only "authority" on judging films comes from the fact that you have seen them in the theater, I'd say no one is qualified to be an expert on silent cinema. And there are quite a few very good experts on silent cinema that very much know what they are talking about.

This transfer for The Fury would have been what you think it is in 2007/2008.

Pro-B

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

In this case, they most definitely do.

You were most definitely right in your evaluation of Westworld. No argument there. All of your points were valid. But not here.



But this is a slippery road. Technically, the "source" could be anything. In this case, and whatever the source was, what you have on the transfer isn't flawless, which is why people are voicing their opinions.



That's fine. Because if your only "authority" on judging films comes from the fact that you have seen them in the theater, I'd say no one is qualified to be an expert on silent cinema. And there are quite a few very good experts on silent cinema that very much know what they are talking about.

This transfer for The Fury would have been what you think it is in 2007/2008.

Pro-B

I will only say that the majority of the experts, the true experts on silent cinema have seen prints projected of most of the films they talk about. What the quality and nature of those prints is is anyone's guess, but they are not being experts on silent cinema and discussing blemishes or damage to film - they are experts on a form of cinema. This is something wholly other and very peculiar to the Internet and these kinds of forums.

For all we know, the transfer may have been done back when you say - I just know it looks like the film looked like, and we have someone in this very thread who saw a 35mm print not two years ago who says the same thing. Could it be better? Who knows?

[hypnohighball]

Wonder how many are left now since it's been reviewed at some of the big br/dvd review sites?

[dullboy]

Does anyone else feel that Christopher Young borrowed heavily from this John Williams score for his Hellraiser themes? All that brass and timpani from the opening credits sound very similar. I've never heard Young reference The Fury score in any interviews or anything.

[Sporkies]

Originally Posted by hypnohighball

Wonder how many are left now since it's been reviewed at some of the big br/dvd review sites?

Allegedly, there are 1,014 remaining.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Oh yeah that looks bad, but that's just a bad "special" effect, not damage. When I get a chance I'll go throught it again, heck, I even still have the VHS put out in 1996 just to see what that looked like, even though I do realize that the blu ray may be presenting more print damage due to added visual clarity.

Don't worry about being mean and annoying, if you think I'm wrong, I deserve to be called out on it, just as I would if I was certain that someone was making the wrong assumptions about something too. Really my whole thing was that I thought this is something that could've looked better with a restoration (still shocked that At Long Last Love gets one from Fox and this doesn't) because in my eyes there seemed to be more blips, bumps, white specks, dirt, scratches, etc. then I have seen on any movie from the period on blu ray other than the Hallooween II blu put out by Universal. If like you say all problems lie in the negative or only available source, well then I guess those are the breaks.

I agree with you that there is a fair bit of print damage, lots of little scratches. There was a scene towards the end where it was pretty severe. But overall I was happy with the way it looked.

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by #Darren

I agree with you that there is a fair bit of print damage, lots of little scratches. There was a scene towards the end where it was pretty severe. But overall I was happy with the way it looked.

I say that it's better scratched than DNR'd to death.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by bluknight1

I say that it's better scratched than DNR'd to death.

For sure.

[#Darren]

My brief review:

Bargain Basement package but still not too bad

Image was not too bad. A constant grain, good detail and very nice colors. It appears no restoration work was done at all, with a fair bit of light print damage in the form of intermittent thin scratches throughout the presentation, but for the most part I found it to be of no great bother. A plus on the "no restoration" front is that they haven't degraded the image with any unpleasant waxy DNR.

Audio was serviceable. Dialogue did seem to be mixed a bit too low in a couple of scenes.

Super modest extras: Theatrical Trailer (SD) and Isolated Score.

[Jobla]

I wish that TT would do de Palma's OBSESSION and isolate the great Bernard Herrmann score on an audio track.

[Monterey Jack]

The UK Arrow release of Obsession is phenomenal (and region-free).

[Matt_Stevens]

The Fury is a crazy weird film. Love the exploding head but a misfire in my opinion. Worth viewing once. I don't care about print damage. Most studio clean that up by DNRing the transfer to smeary sh**. No thank you. I'll take print damage over DNR any day of the week. I wish to God the RAMBO films weren't so bloody DNR'd. Ruins them. Anyway, rant over.

OBSESSION is fantastic. I love it and would kill to have it on Blu-Ray. I had no idea it was released overseas. Will check that out.

The old Pioneer laserdisc had the score on an isolated track.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens

OBSESSION is fantastic. I love it and would kill to have it on Blu-Ray. I had no idea it was released overseas. Will check that out.

The Arrow release is superb. Wonderful transfer free of smeary DNR, all of the extras from the long-OOP 2001 DVD (mainly the great 35-minute documentary), great packaging with four different cover choices, and a booklet with both a new essay on the film and Paul Schrader's original screenplay (under the title Deja Vu) with an entire third act that got removed before filming. Certainly worth hunting down.