movie review the fury

The Fury (1978)

• User Reviews
• The scenes at the school with that bitchy Margot Kidder look-alike.
• When Gillian (Amy Irving) "witnesses" the experiments Robin is going through and Gillian is freaking out as she's watching the bad guys replaying the film footage of the kidnapping of Robin (Andrew Stevens), which occurred at the beginning of the movie. The kidnapping wasn't scary or remotely troubling. It's just a standard shoot-em up scene and yet when Gillian watches the kidnapping, she is shown to be shocked and horrified beyond belief. I wasn't even close to being scared or troubled by the scene as Gillian was, which makes her character look totally silly.
• When Gillian has a vivid ESP moment and she grabs the hand of a woman and blood starts pouring out of the woman's fingernails. Cutex overload?
• When Gillian leaves the building and everything happens in slow motion, which results with the death of Hester (Carrie Snodgress), in a car accident. Cue Kirk Douglas screaming and crying and fighting, all in slow motion. Very funny.
• When Robin attacks the Arab men on the amusement park ride. Hilarious moment.
• When Robin attacks his father (Douglas) and both of them end-up on the edge of a rooftop, where Robin falls to his death. The really funny thing about this moment is that Robin was levitating when his father found him. So why didn't Robin prevent himself from hitting the ground by levitating his body? That scene doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And it's incredibly funny.
• After Robin dies from the fall, his father, hanging on the rooftop, kills himself in anger by letting himself fall to the ground. This scene is straight out of AIRPLANE.
• When Gillian blows up the bad guy (Cassavetes). I was literally rolling on the floor, like the dismembered head in the movie. Shake and Bake?

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

• User Ratings
• External Reviews
• Metacritic Reviews
• Full Cast and Crew
• Release Dates
• Official Sites
• Company Credits
• Filming & Production
• Technical Specs
• Plot Summary
• Plot Keywords
• Parents Guide

Did You Know?

• Crazy Credits
• Alternate Versions
• Connections
• Soundtracks

Photo & Video

• Photo Gallery
• Trailers and Videos

Related Items

• External Sites

Related lists from IMDb users

Recently Viewed

Advertisement

Supported by

They’re Buddies, but as Coarse as the War Around Them

• Share full article

Movie Review: ‘Fury’

The times critic a. o. scott reviews “fury.”.

By A.O. Scott

• Oct. 16, 2014

“We’re in the killing Nazis business. And cousin, business is a-booming.” So said Brad Pitt (in the person of Lt. Aldo Raine) in Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds.” Five years later, and nearly 70 years after World War II, Mr. Pitt returns to combat in “Fury,” playing the leader of an American tank crew fighting its way across Germany in the spring of 1945. His character, Sgt. Don Collier (nicknamed Wardaddy), is a wearier, less garrulous fellow than Raine, and the film’s director, David Ayer, has a more linear and literal sensibility than Mr. Tarantino, but the business of Nazi killing remains brisk.

And why shouldn’t it be? The world is a complicated place, and war, as a subject for novels and movies, often presents a tangle of moral ambiguity and a fog of confusion. But while the Allied fight against Germany may sometimes raise thorny questions about ends and means, it also retains an ethical clarity, a righteousness, that at least partly accounts for its durable appeal among commercial filmmakers and their audiences. Nazis are just about the only real-world figures who consistently merit the fates reserved, in other genres, for zombies, aliens and orcs.

The first time we see Mr. Pitt in “Fury,” he leaps from his tank, tackles a German officer and stabs him through the eye. Then he calms the dead man’s beautiful white horse and sets it free across the battlefield. Later, he will order the summary execution of an SS officer who has just surrendered, after confirming that the man was responsible for the deaths of children.

These killings are staged with an air of grim necessity, and Mr. Ayer, a hard-boiled screenwriter ( “Training Day” ) and action director (“Sabotage,” “End of Watch”) venturing into ambitious genre territory, has a way of filming violence that is both intense and matter-of-fact. Like many other post- “Saving Private Ryan” combat movies, this one emphasizes the chaotic immediacy of battle, staking its claim to authenticity on the unflinching depiction of bloodshed: Heads are vaporized by mortar rounds. Limbs are severed by bursts of automatic-rifle fire. Human flesh is charred by flames and shredded by shrapnel.

But within this gore-spattered, superficially nihilistic carapace is an old-fashioned platoon picture, a sensitive and superbly acted tale of male bonding under duress. Wardaddy — an archetypal squad leader, tough and quiet, with sad eyes that testify to the terrible things he’s seen — is in charge of four other men, and the long hours they spend together, in constant danger and the limited space of the tank, result in an atmosphere of rough and unpretentious intimacy.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Den of Geek

The Fury: Brian De Palma’s Underrated, Explosive Movie

Director Brian De Palma followed Carrie with another gory vaunt into the supernatural. Here's why The Fury deserves a revisit...

• Share on Facebook (opens in a new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in a new tab)
• Share on Linkedin (opens in a new tab)
• Share on email (opens in a new tab)

When it comes to telekinesis and gory visual effects, the movie that generally springs to mind is David Cronenberg’s 1981 exploding head opus, Scanners . But years before that, American director Brian De Palma was liberally dousing the screen with claret in his 1976 adaptation of  Carrie – still rightly regarded as one of the best Stephen King adaptations made so far. A less widely remembered supernatural film from De Palma came two years after: De Palma’s supernatural thriller, The Fury .

The Fury was made with a more generous budget than Carrie , had a starrier cast (Kirk Douglas in the lead, Nick Cassavetes playing the villain), and it even did pretty well in financial terms. Yet The Fury had the misfortune of being caught in a kind of pincer movement between Carrie , which was a much bigger hit, and 1980’s Dressed To Kill , De Palma’s deliriously sordid and blackly comic homage to Hitchcock.

As a result, The Fury is one of the less commonly-discussed films from De Palma’s creatively fertile period between the middle of the ’70s and the middle of the ’90s – a point in his career that brought us a few misfires, for sure, but also such striking movies as Blow Out , Scarface , The Untouchables , Casualties Of War , Raising Cain , Carlito’s Way , and Mission: Impossible . The Fury   is arguably up there with some of the best of these. 

Adapted from the novel of the same name by its own author, John Farris, The Fury takes place in an alternate version of the late 1970s where a segment of the Central Intelligence Agency is attempting to create an army of supernatural warriors. The shadowy Ben Childress (Cassavetes) is the mastermind behind this operation, and he kidnaps a teenage psychic, Robin (Andrew Stevens) with the intention of moulding him into a new recruit.

Ad – content continues below

Robin’s father, Peter (Douglas) is himself a former member of the CIA, which is why he’s capable enough to survive a very public assassination attempt on a beach somewhere in the Middle East. Resolving to track down his son, Peter tracks his son to the Paragon Institute, which specializes in turning young psychics into weapons of the state.

Like Scanners , The Fury places its warring psychics in a recognizably ordinary, sometimes grubby real world: teenager Gillian (Amy Irving, who previously appeared in Carrie ) goes to a school where telekinesis is demonstrated matter-of-factly in class. Robin’s initial search for his son takes in the kinds of down-at-heel Chicago hotel rooms and apartment buildings you’d associate more closely with a conspiracy thriller of the period than a typical supernatural horror movie. 

Douglas brings all his movie star intensity to his role of a father-turned-detective, and De Palma even allows him to indulge Douglas’ tendency to strip off for his movies – such as the scene where Robin escapes from a pair of assassins by fleeing across a railway line wearing nothing but a pair of ice-white underpants.

It’s worth pausing for a moment here to talk a bit about where De Palma’s career was in the late 1970s. Murder A La Mod was his first feature in 1968, released in one solitary New York theatre and poorly reviewed at the time. While Murder A La Mod was full of the grisly murder and cinematic back-flips that De Palma would become well known for later in his career, its rapid disappearance meant that the director would become better associated with off-beat comedies thanks to Greetings (1969), The Wedding Party (1969), and Hi, Mom (1970). The success of those underground movies, which provided early roles for a young Robert De Niro, led to another comedy, the quirky Get To Know Your Rabbit . De Palma’s first film for a studio, it proved to be a bruising experience, with the filmmaker fired from the production and the movie shelved for two years. When Get To Know Your Rabbit finally sneaked into cinemas in 1972, it was a commercial failure.

It was after the stinging experience of Get To Know Your Rabbit that De Palma began to make the kinds of films for which he’d be associated for the rest of his career, beginning with the macabre psychological horror Sisters in 1973 and then exploding with the critical and financial success of Obsession , written by Paul Schrader and released in 1976 and  Carrie , released later that same year. But while the success of those films meant that De Palma’s name would forever be synonymous with a certain brand of ultra-stylish thriller, I’d argue that his capacity for comedy never left him – it just took on a new, blood-curdling hue. 

Sissy Spacek’s blood-soaked rampage at the end of Carrie is so effective because it takes on the tone of a blackly comic fireworks display. Like the build up to a great, very grim joke, De Palma makes us anticipate Carrie White’s prom humiliation for several stomach-churning minutes: Amy Irving’s fellow pupil at the prom, spotting the rope that leads to the bucket of pig’s blood at the school prom. Nancy Allen licking her lips in expectation as she prepares to send the bucket of blood pouring all over poor Carrie’s head. The girl’s response, of course, is one of pure rage, and De Palma captures every moment of it in slow-motion, split-screen and intense red filters. It’s horrific, for sure, but there’s also a suggestion of slapstick in the electrocutions and fiery deaths. It’s the friction between horror and black comedy, I’d suggest, that makes De Palma’s work in Carrie and his other great films so effective – just as it did in Hitchcock’s thrillers (the 2013 remake, by contrast, makes Carrie’s prom melt-down into a more straightforward horror sequence).

Join Amazon Prime – Watch Thousands of Movies & TV Shows Anytime – Start Free Trial Now

The same fascination with the aesthetic power of comically outré violence is there in abundance in The Fury . A car chase in thick fog ends with a car flying off a jetty on fire. Robin uses his psychic powers to send a fairground ride spinning out of control, with distinctly messy results (for unexplained reasons, the ride is populated almost entirely by what appear to be princes from somewhere in the Middle East).

Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox!

It’s in these scenes that De Palma’s baroque camera movements, which are largely low-key and understated during the scenes of exposition, suddenly come to the fore. A scene where Gillian demonstrates her supernatural powers on a train set could have been shot with a conventional series of cuts. Instead, De Palma uses a clever split-screen effect, which shows the train whistling by the camera in the lower half of the shot and Gillian’s staring, ice-blue eyes at the top. It’s an instance of De Palma producing a visual set-piece out of almost nowhere. 

He pulls a similar feat near the film’s midpoint, where Gillian learns that the Paragon Institute she volunteered to join, and where Robin was also sent for a time, isn’t quite as idyllic as it first appears. While chatting to the seemingly benign Dr Cheever (Charles Durning), Gillian accidentally slips and grabs his hand to steady herself. As in Stephen King’s later The Dead Zone (adapted by David Cronenberg to memorable effect), this physical connection creates a psychic image of the future in Gillian’s mind. She sees Robin running from Dr. Cheever and falling from a window.

Again, De Palma uses a visual effect to put two pieces of action in one image: Amy Irving’s shot in front of a blue screen with the action projected behind her, thus allowing both foreground and background action to appear in focus. It’s only a brief moment, but it’s also a critical moment in the story, and De Palma’s filmmaking cleverly highlights it and underlines it twice.

Even when The Fury ’s story sags a little – and at two hours, the movie does feel a touch too long – it’s De Palma’s flourishes that constantly engage the eye. The use of overhead camera angles, split diopter shots (a special lens which allows a foreground and background element to remain in focus in the same frame) and POV all add to the film’s suspense – the latter neatly used in a moment which establishes Gillian’s psychic connection to Robin. Robin, who has been largely off-screen since the opening reel, has been driven crazy by the experiments brought on him by Dr Childress. Again, De Palma caps off this revelation with a visceral image – blood issuing from the eyes and mouth of a doctor, her suffering shot from below as her head collides with a glass table. 

The ingenuity of these scenes is such that it’s easy to imagine that De Palma chose to direct The Fury because of the way the story plays with time and space (a moment where Gillian stands in an empty room and sees the events that took place in it months earlier is a prime example). Certainly, the scenes in which Kirk Douglas gradually makes his way to the institute thanks to the help of his insider, Hester (Carrie Snodgress) seem rather flat by comparison.

It’s De Palma’s direction, combined with Amy Irving’s superb performance and John Williams’ operatic score, that make The Fury such an effective movie in its best moments. All three come together in the final half an hour, first in a superb sequence where Gillian escapes the clutches of the Paragon Institute, and shot in glorious slow-motion. Then there’s the grand finale – a dervish of Rick Baker-designed blood and fireworks that, in concert with Williams’ thundering score, creates an ending as bizarrely triumphant as it is over the top. 

With its story of gifted youngsters twisted by evil grown-ups and devastating psychic powers, The Fury could be regarded as the half-forgotten grandfather of such films as Akira and Chronicle . It certainly appeared to have inspired Cronenberg’s Scanners , particularly in a late scene involving close-ups of eyes and the transference of special powers.

In the lengthy and varied catalogue of De Palma’s films, The Fury is one that’s well worth revisiting. Although it isn’t perfect, it’s an example of how much power he can lend to a pulpy story about shadowy CIA bad guys and psychic teenagers. And in a body of work where women often have a rough time, The Fury is one of the rare De Palma films where a female lead gets to turn the tables on the bad guy. It’s a glorious moment worth savoring – just as De Palma’s camera lingers over every gory detail.

This article first appeared on Den of Geek UK .

Ryan Lambie

Suggestions

Review: the fury.

The Fury is the most crucial movie of all De Palma’s movies.

And so we come to The Fury . One of the very highest-rated De Palma films by those who claim the man as a personal favorite and clearly the lowest-rated “red period” De Palma film elsewhere ( check for yourself ). The movie that draws the deepest line in the sand between De Palma apologists and De Palma maniacs, whose attempts to revive the movie are usually characterized as self-aggrandizing test cases to see quite simply how far their role as arbiters of counter-taste can stretch. The movie that Armond White said is impossible not to completely, wholly love if you have any shred of understanding of the film medium and how it works. The movie that gave Pauline Kael occasion to paint a portrait of Orson Welles, Sam Peckinpah, Martin Scorsese, and Steven Spielberg choking to death with laughter (and, presumably, envy). The movie that David Thomson watched while sitting next to Kael during her (presumably only) viewing, and then oh so gallantly recalled her misguided appreciation thereof to eulogize her upon her death in 2001. To be generous, Thomson’s fussy, detached approach to movie appreciation is about as sensual as drying out homemade beef jerky, and we can have every reason to expect a critic of his type to feel a little embarrassed by the vocalizations of a critic who did all but receive head from her favorite movies.

In retrospect, Kael’s review of The Fury doesn’t quite pack the same sort of punch as some of her other famous raves (like Last Tango in Paris , Nashville , even Blow Out ). But nonetheless, her afterglow is palpable. Appropriately, what most endures about The Fury is its vitality, by which I don’t so much mean the relevance of the film’s ideas (though reportedly its stutter-editing patterns were single-handedly responsible for Vertov-period Godard’s desire to return to the notion of popular art filmmaking) or that the film is a radical departure from a general reading on the work of De Palma, but rather that it has a higher sperm count than any of the director’s other films. I don’t say that lightly, considering his trio of gangster movies. Literally and figuratively, The Fury is a landmark, pile-driving, feature-length money shot of a film. On the figurative count, it’s a deliberately paced symphony of narrative tantrism, one whose crescendos and plateaus may arrive with the faint predictability of a writers’ workshop draft but certainly not to the detriment of the stultifying finale (the catalyst for Kael’s roll-call of choking filmmakers, which only goes to suggest a third rogue element they might have lodged in their laughing, envious throats). As a representation of De Palma’s formal potential, The Fury is killer kinema.

But, additionally, there’s a literally prurient element to The Fury that fascinates at a subconscious level, one which refutes claims that the incoherence of the script keep the film at a lower level than De Palma’s other masterworks. Certainly the film doesn’t overwhelm the endocrine system with the attractive distractions as in Dressed to Kill or Body Double , but it’s comparative chastity is a red herring. There is no moment in The Fury that spins as wickedly out of control as “Be Black Baby” or Winslow Leach’s hallucinatory “Faust” composition montage or Tommy and Carrie’s vertiginous prom waltz, but the tradeoff is a film with an insidious stamina. As Kael noted, The Fury is one of those rare films where even the passages of exposition and unnecessary dramatic clutter are filmed in the least boring manner possible. The plot is as square as anything De Palma ever adapted for the screen, but his cinematography has so many abstruse angles that it’s frequently disorienting. Which is exactly what adolescence feels like. Ultimately, The Fury is a film about pre-pubescence by a director whose work had finally reached the level of confidence reflecting a post-pubescent talent. The best of both worlds, baby, and barely legal.

The Fury , a film whose sexual dynamic metaphorically explores the point in adolescence where females hold a legitimate, mystic authority over males (even gay ones… especially gay ones), is a teasing riff on the sort of 16mm coming-of-age lyceums that kids were shown when the boys were sent to the gymnasium and the girls were sent to the cafeteria. Amy Irving (who even begins the film in a single-sex educational environment) and Andrew Stevens, the two young paragons of psychokinetic power being exploited at Paragon, are shown in parallel courses of development. Stevens’s progress is charted by kitschy displays of musculature such as slow-mo pole-vaulting while Fiona Lewis narrates, “His body is getting stronger.” (The clinically-proportioned musculature of Stevens is beautifully cast in this respect; he’s a bronzed bulldog without a leash.) Meanwhile, the more mature Irving (who was already the least credible of Carrie ’s cast as a teenager) is repeatedly embarrassed by the inopportune appearance of blood. It may not be blood from her celestial orifice, but she must claim responsibility for it and thus the sick joke metaphor stands.

The Fury ’s Sturm und Drang sides with the paired-off salt-and-pepper shakers of pent-up psychic-sexual bloom, but De Palma’s anarchic sense of humor and undercurrent of luxuriant, tragic mortality (unforced as in Obsession ) belongs to Kirk Douglas as Stevens’s father, John Cassavetes as Stevens’s governmental kidnapper, and Eleanor Merriam as Mother Nuckells, the dotty old woman whose apartment Douglas crashes while escaping Cassavetes’s goons. They’re the flip side to the pertness of the two walking psychic genital diagrams. In fact, the one-scene-wonder that is Merriam’s performance, as a woman who’s delighted by Douglas’s intrusion because it inconveniences her adult children who consider her a burden, represents an anomaly in The Fury . When the old biddy, while fussing over Douglas and helping him prepare a disguise to escape surveillance, talks about life ending “when the old ticker gives out,” it is the indication of life terminating on a reasonable timetable. Everyone else who dies in the film does so in increasingly incorrect moments. This accounts for why De Palma stages each progressive death set piece more and more like an extended requiem, and bids John Williams to howl “Ases Tod.”

So even though Thomson’s own requiem for both The Fury and Kael as an apparent phase that cinema just had to go through but has now passed boils down to a remarkably condescending “it exists, trust me,” The Fury is the most crucial movie of all De Palma’s movies. When Paragon doctors come to Irving’s private girls’ school to “recruit” her under the guise of a paranormal sort of career day, one of the doctors tells her to achieve alpha state by picturing herself in an empty movie theater in front of an empty screen, to gradually let the screen fill her mind. Even so, the 360-degree rotation of the sequence indicates that Irving’s “screen” is a poster board with various paranormal definitions, finishing with “psychometry,” or the ability to sense and understand an object’s past, present, and future conditions just through physical contact. Defending a film like The Fury might run you the risk of understanding what it feels like to achieve alpha in a totally empty theater, but making contact with the movie will snap everything De Palma has to offer into clarity with the shuddering force of an orgasm.

You might be interested in

Review: John Sturges’s Gunfight at the O.K. Corral on Kino Lorber 4K UHD Blu-ray

Review: Brian De Palma’s Carlito’s Way on Arrow Limited Edition 4K UHD Blu-ray

Review: Brian De Palma’s Carrie Gets 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray Collector’s Edition

Eric Henderson

Eric Henderson is the web content manager for WCCO-TV. His writing has also appeared in City Pages .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Review: 49 Up

Review: Brian De Palma’s Phantom of the Paradise

Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Movie Reviews

Starring in 'fury': the horrors that people are capable of in war.

Kenneth Turan

The WWII drama Fury is about a U.S. sergeant and his five-man crew on a mission behind enemy lines. Kenneth Turan reviews the film, directed by David Ayer and starring Brad Pitt and Shia LaBeouf.

Copyright © 2014 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

War Is Almost Over

By David Denby

“Fury,” a fictional account of an American tank crew fighting in Germany in April of 1945, is one of the great war movies—right near the top, within range of Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” (1998) and other classics. Spielberg’s film, after its tremendous early sequence devoted to the D-Day landings, turns into a platoon movie—a grander version of the pictures made during and after the Second World War in which an ethnically (though not racially) mixed, highly individualized group of Americans (Wasp, Jew, Italian, etc.) triumphs over anonymous Fascist helots. “Fury,” written and directed by David Ayer, is a genre movie, too: five guys in a tank, led by Sergeant Don Collier (Brad Pitt), fight desperate battles against the Germans, in ravaged fields and along country roads. When the men aren’t fighting, they try to come down from the nauseating exhilaration of combat. They curse, pray, and bash each other around, but the horseplay is no more than a temporary release from the grim wariness they display the rest of the time. The movie’s prevailing coloring is shrouded browns and grays, mixed with clouds of white (smoke from exploding shells), bursts of flame, and the glowing flight of shells and tracer bullets. “Fury” is literally visceral—a kind of war horror film, which is, of course, what good combat films should be.

In just a few weeks, the war will be over. The Americans know they will triumph, but the Germans fight to defend every last acre of their homeland. The S.S. hangs citizens who won’t join the struggle and leaves their bodies dangling from posts along the roadside. An extremely unpleasant irony is built into “Fury”: the Americans are a winning army, but, half-terrorized themselves, they feel like a losing army. A tank crew faces special nightmares. With its many guns and its crushing weight, a tank destroys everything in its path—right up to the point at which enemy tanks or artillery threaten to turn it into a furnace. The four men and Collier (or Top, as the crew calls him) fight in a Sherman M4, which is fast and maneuverable but only lightly armored. (It was known in the Army as “the Ronson lighter”—it lit up easily when hit.) The new German Panzers, especially the Tiger II, are heavy and slow but protected with thick plate and outfitted with a long-range, armor-piercing gun.

At the beginning of “Fury,” Top and his crew drag themselves out of their vehicle; they are the only survivors in a meadow of burned-out Shermans. A few days later, in the most nerve-racking battle in the film, they try to scuttle around a Tiger to get a shot at its more vulnerable rear. In this and other scenes, David Ayer, who wrote and directed the excellent cop-buddy movie “End of Watch” (2012), maintains the continuity and the coherence of space which make an action movie work emotionally for an audience. Ayer depends on digital special effects, but he never deviates from what could be called the illusion of reality—which, in this case, is almost hallucinatory. Long stretches of the movie will remain in your mind, rather than slip into the digital abyss. The air is the air, gravity is gravity, and when you get hit by something you’re in serious trouble.

The interior of the Sherman is cramped and hazardous, with steel support beams, long gear shafts, a steering wheel, and lots of other obstacles, and the men can escape only through tiny hatches. In this mobile prison, Ayer, working with the cinematographer Roman Vasyanov and the editors Jay Cassidy and Dody Dorn, establishes his characters and energizes his actors. As the Sergeant, Brad Pitt, now fifty, squares his shoulders and hardens his voice; he brings the right weight to such portentous lines as “The dying’s not done, the killing’s not done.” This is a different performance from Pitt’s revelatory work as the father in Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life” (2011). That man, who considers his life a failure, loves his sons blindly, with little idea of how to prevent his self-disappointment from spilling into punitive anger. But Top, a successful career warrior, is always alert. A natural psychologist, he draws on the strengths of each crew member to keep them all alive. Like Dana Andrews in this kind of movie seventy years ago, he’s an ideal leader, decisive and stoical, but with one difference: out of sight, kneeling by the side of a tank, he falls apart.

As the driver, Trini (Gordo) Garcia, Michael Peña expands his usual persona of a blunt truth-teller, and he’s never been more likable. Jon Bernthal plays the growling Grady (Coon-Ass) Travis, a Neanderthal with big ears and a high-standing brush cut, his limbs askew, as if God had granted him courage but not coördination. Shia LaBeouf, wearing a thick black mustache and spectacles, abandons his brash overgrown-boy routine. As the gunner, Boyd (Bible) Swan, he’s a tangle of violence and piety. The men’s conversation, mixing Biblical incantation and profanity, slang and shorthand, is not so much spoken as spat out; some of it is close to indecipherable. The crew has its own rhythm in everything it does. We are with them, and we are not with them.

At first, young Norman (Logan Lerman) thinks that he couldn’t possibly fit in. A pale and skinny kid, trained as a typist, he’s thrown into battle as the tank’s forward machine-gunner. He’s the audience’s surrogate—terrified, ignorant of combat, and nonviolent by nature—and he’s the one cliché in the movie, the heir to those gentle fellows (Gary Cooper’s Sergeant York, Audie Murphy’s Audie Murphy) who start off quietly but learn the higher wisdom of war, which is that you must kill, and kill well, or be killed. (Jeremy Davies’s Corporal Upham, in “Saving Private Ryan,” doesn’t learn the lesson, and freezes as his friend gets stabbed by a German soldier.) Ayer’s message is that war creates courage. Maybe, but I could have done without the scene in which Top makes Norman into a man and a soldier by forcing him to shoot a howling German prisoner. Such therapeutic lessons raise more questions (psychological damage? mercy?) than they settle.

But Ayer does something original with another typical scene: in a conquered town, Top and Norman barge into the apartment of two cowering women, the fortyish Irma (Anamaria Marinca) and her beautiful young cousin, Emma (Alicia von Rittberg). The men’s behavior is not chaste, but it’s not abusive, either. When the rest of the crew shows up, drunk, the ambiguities of lust, contempt, and respect for the defenseless play through a prolonged scene with many odd turns and surprises. The scene is tense in its own way, but it provides a gentler emotional tone, an altered rhythm, in a movie so obsessional and frightening that it makes a “tough” Second World War film like “To Hell and Back” (1955) look more like “To Heck and Back.”

No one really understands why General Dietrich von Choltitz, the German military governor of Occupied Paris, did not blow up the city in the summer of 1944. The war in France was in its final phase, the Allies were approaching, and Hitler wanted to leave nothing behind but rubble. Monuments, bridges, and museums were wired with explosives, yet Choltitz, who earlier in the war had followed orders to kill thousands of Russian Jews, never lit the fuse. On August 25th, he surrendered the German garrison to the Free French, leaving the city intact. What stopped him? We know that the Swedish consul-general in Paris, Raoul Nordling, who had spent most of his life in the city and loved it, had several meetings with Choltitz that August, during which he negotiated the release of political prisoners. Yet what happens in Volker Schlöndorff’s “Diplomacy”—an all-through-the-night confrontation between the two men, on the eve of the surrender—is essentially a fiction. Secretly entering Choltitz’s quarters at the Hotel Meurice, Nordling (André Dussollier) charms, cajoles, exhorts, and effectively blackmails the General (Niels Arestrup) into non-action.

The scenario is familiar from the 1966 film “Is Paris Burning?,” with Gert Fröbe as Choltitz and Orson Welles as Nordling. The principal suspense in this fascinating movie is generated by the polite, and then not so polite, ferocity of the arguments between the two men. “Diplomacy” was first a play, by the French writer Cyril Gély (who did the screen adaptation with Schlöndorff), and Arestrup and Dussollier created their roles onstage. There’s little pretense that the movie is much more than a filmed play, but the intimate camerawork allows us to see each man’s point of view as he watches the other for an opening. The ferocious Arestrup, with his intimidating upper lip and his outraged glare, makes the General a Prussian aristocrat who is contemptuous of weakness and death. But Choltitz has a quirk, which Arestrup plays to the hilt: he has an asthma attack every time he has to decide the fate of the city. Dussollier, who has one of the great French film voices, guttural yet smooth, powers through the role of a life-loving man who can be both insinuating and ruthless.

By implication, the movie presents an argument between civilization and barbarism, between the pleasure principle and the death instinct. But the filmmakers mostly avoid high-flown rhetoric in favor of the intensely practical give-and-take of negotiation. Schlöndorff, dedicating the movie to the late Richard Holbrooke, makes a case that diplomacy can solve the most intricately knotted problems. As Hemingway wrote, in a slightly different context, it would be pretty to think so. ♦

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Robert Sullivan

By Ian Parker

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• A Quiet Place: Day One Link to A Quiet Place: Day One
• Inside Out 2 Link to Inside Out 2
• Daddio Link to Daddio

New TV Tonight

• Star Trek: Prodigy: Season 2
• Grace: Season 4
• Down in the Valley: Season 1
• The Great Food Truck Race: Season 17
• SPRINT: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• The Bear: Season 3
• The Boys: Season 4
• My Lady Jane: Season 1
• Supacell: Season 1
• Presumed Innocent: Season 1
• Dark Matter: Season 1
• House of the Dragon: Season 2
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• My Lady Jane: Season 1 Link to My Lady Jane: Season 1
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

Box Office 2024: Top 10 Movies of the Year

All 54 Billion-Dollar Movies, Ranked by Tomatometer

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

The Bear : Season 3 First Reviews: Still One of the Best Shows on TV

A Quiet Place: Day One First Reviews: A Tense, Surprisingly Tender Thriller Anchored by Fantastic Performances

• Trending on RT
• The Bikeriders
• Billion Dollar Movies
• The Bear Season 3
• MaXXXine: First Reviews

Where to Watch

Rent The Fury on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, or buy it on Fandango at Home, Prime Video.

Cast & Crew

André van Duren

Hadewych Minis

Hannah Hoekstra

Frank Lammers

Nico van Dartel

Gijs Scholten van Aschat

Robert de Hoog

How Historically Accurate Is The Movie Fury?

World War II inspired hundreds of films that were produced both during and long after the conflict. Yet how they represented the brutal reality that millions faced is often limited by a number of factors, including budget, societal sensibilities, technological limitations, and romanticism. "Saving Private Ryan" was among the first movies to faithfully represent the war's horror, both thematically and visually, to the point that veterans were reported as experiencing PTSD at screenings (via Showbiz CheatSheet ).

2014's "Fury" is perhaps not held in as high regard as Steven Spielberg's film, but similarly shows the hard truths of total war as Norman, a fresh recruit with no prior experience, is drafted as the machine gunner for an M4 Sherman tank called "Fury." He is subjected to cleaning the remains of his predecessor from the tank, deciding whether or not to kill Hitler Youth members, witnessing German civilians being both executed by the enemy and harassed by his peers, and is even forced to shoot a prisoner. Much of this and more is based on actual accounts and presented on-screen in a visceral level detail that many mainstream war films tend to partly or entirely avoid (via  Bustle ).

In spite of the liberties that Fury takes, a great deal of care went into it

On the technical side of things, "Fury" does take dramatic and constructive liberties. In the case of the latter, the film's admittedly inaccurate depiction of nearly all artillery shells, tank rounds, and bullets as tracer rounds has two positive effects: allowing viewers to clearly see who is shooting and being shot at and helping them see the physics of projectiles when they hit the ground or glance off of a target. Meanwhile, the battle between the titular tank and a German Tiger I drew criticism on account of its tactically unsound progression. (Interestingly, unlike the dressed-up T-34 in "Saving Private Ryan," this tank was the sole functioning example of one in existence,  Live Science  reports.)

Bill Betts, a British tank radio operator who fought in Germany, stated that such battles were, in any case, best avoided altogether due to the advantage in armor and firepower enjoyed by late-war German tanks (via The Guardian ). Other than that, the film takes care to show important details, such as how tenacious the German resistance could be. Notably, machine guns and anti-tank guns were packed into forests and small towns, as every German was expected to fight or be killed as a traitor. American veteran Lloyd Emerson attests to this, especially as one of the tanks he served in was hit by two Panzerfausts (a spiritual precursor to the Soviet RPG) like those used in the movie (via HistoryNet ).

Advertise   Contact   Privacy

Browse All Reviews

New Releases

List Reviews by Rating

List Reviews by Author

List Reviews by Title

The Fury (Review, Book Summary & Spoilers)

By alex michaelides.

Book review, full book summary and synopsis for The Fury by Alex Michaelides, a layered five-act mystery-thriller about a former movie star who invites her friends and family to a getaway on a private Greek island.

In The Fury by Alex Michaelides, Lana Farrar is a retired beloved movie star who invites her friends to come with her and her family on a getaway to a private Greek island that she was once gifted by her former husband.

The island is idyllic and serene, but as fierce Aegean winds blow through -- known as to menos , or "the fury" -- tragedy strikes. A body is found lying in a pool of blood.

With the police unable to reach the island until morning due to the winds, the seven people on the island look to each other to try to figure out who the killer might be...

(The Full Plot Summary is also available, below)

Full Plot Summary

The book opens with a narrator explaining that he's going to recount a story about a highly publicized murder that took place on a Greek island.

Lana Farrar is a famous, retired movie star who suggests that her friends, Elliot and Kate, join her and her family for a quick getaway at a tiny private Greek island near Mykonos that she owns, Aura. The island was a wedding gift from her first husband 25 years ago. They agree and meet her here, along with her husband Jason and teenage son Leo. Her longtime housekeeper Agathi joins them as well. Also, Nikos is the caretaker for the island and lives there year-round.

On the island, they eat delicious food and enjoy the beach, but the weather soon turns windy and gloomy. Jason and Kate have been having an affair, and Kate suspects Lana knows about it. Jason can't afford to have Lana find out, since he's in a financial mess after unsuccessfully managed other people's money, and he'll go to jail without Lana's money to bail him out. Their second night on the island, they have a tense dinner together on Mykonos, and three gunshots are heard. Leo is the first one on scene, followed shortly after by Agathi and Jason. Lana's dead body is found in a clearing, lying in a pool of blood.

The narrator, Elliot, then retraces the events of the first act, filling in some missing information. He explains that Lana had discovered an earring in Jason's dry cleaning in the days before the trip, and she'd found a matching earring in Kate's makeup bag. Lana had long suspected there was something going on between them. Kate originally met Jason and was dating him, but when Jason met Lana, he fell for her, and Kate stepped aside.

Elliot then suggested going to the island to confront them -- a place where they'd be trapped and forced to face up to their misdeeds. On the island, Lana sees Jason and Kate kiss. The night after the dinner on Mykonos, she ends up asking Nikos for his help, asking him to do something for her in exchange for payment. Nikos tells her that all he wants is a kiss, and Lana consents. After she leaves his place, she's shot. The police aren't able to come until morning because the winds are too strong. (The narrator notes that by then they'd already know who the killer was.)

In Act III, Elliot explains how he came to know Lana. He was a bullied and sad kid needing an escape from his life, so he first fell for her seeing her in her movies. He ran away from home at 17 and ended up broke and desperate, doing unspeakable things to survive. Barbara West, a famous older novelist, came across him at a bar and took him home. He ends up staying with Barbara as a kind of escort. She gets her needs met, and in exchange Elliot gets shelter and exposure to her social circles. Elliot transforms himself, parroting the people she knows, and adopts the name "Elliot Chase".

One evening, he meets Lana at a party and befriends her. Their friendship grows, and he continues to fall for her, though she's already said she's not interested in romance. One night, he confesses many of his secrets to her, tells her he loves her and kisses her. Soon, he decides he wants to propose to her -- with a cheap ring in hopes of replacing it someone with something appropriate. But that night, Lana meets Jason and is all over him. That same night, Barbara tells Elliot that she met with Lana and told her the truth about his past and who he really is, and she let Lana know how money-hungry Elliot is.

Barbara soon dies, and Lana and Jason marry after a whirlwind romance. Elliot then happens to find out about Jason and Kate's affair purely by chance. He starts surveilling them and tries to find ways to expose it to Lana. He eventually comes upon the idea to plant the earring.

Elliot reveals that there was more to the plan. Even after Lana discovered Jason and Kate's affair, Lana had told him that she had no intention of leaving Jason. So, Elliot's real plan was to destroy Jason.

At the island, after Lana is "shot", she wakes up and tells a very alarmed and upset Agathi that it's just a hoax. The point of Elliot and Lana's plan was to cause Kate and Jason to turn on one another, destroying their relationship.

Elliot then goes to talk to Kate. He tells her that he thinks Jason meant to shoot her, and not Lana. He says Lana had been wearing Kate's shawl. He knows that Jason is in financial trouble and that Jason couldn't afford to have Lana find out about the affair, so Jason wanted Kate dead. He also tells her that Nikos apparently fell off a cliff, according to Jason, while they were searching for an intruder, and he's dead. Elliot thinks Jason intends to frame Nikos now that he can't defend himself.

Kate is horrified and goes to confront Jason, but before she goes, Elliot presses a gun into her hand -- his real plan all along was to get Kate to shoot Jason. Elliot thinks that his plan has worked, but then Nikos shows up, alive and well. Kate, Jason and Nikos all turn on Elliot, accusing him of being the murderer and they decide they need to kill him. They force a gun into his hands and they force him to point it as himself and shoot.

It's revealed that Lana actually knew about Elliot's plan to kill Jason all along, since she had found a notebook at his place detailing his scheme. Lana had then gone and made up with Kate, and the two of them had plotted the revenge scheme together, looping in everyone else (other than Jason since Lana wanted to punish him, too).

Elliot is actually okay, though since they used a blank. The point was not to kill him, just to freak him out and teach him a lesson for planning such a psychotic plan begin with. Afterwards, they all go back into the house to celebrate and tell him to leave. Elliot is humiliated and embarrassed and his feelings of being a bullied kid are reawakened.

Elliot returns to the house and in a fit of rage, he shoots Lana (for real). In the Epilogue, Elliot is now in jail for Lana's death. His former therapist Mariana comes to see him and suggests that writes down his feelings.

For more detail, see the full Chapter-by-Chapter Summary .

If this summary was useful to you, please consider supporting this site by leaving a tip ( $2 , $3 , or $5 ) or joining the Patreon !

Book Review

The Fury by Alex Michaelides came out in January, a standalone book that takes place in the same world as his previous mystery-thrillers, The Silent Patient and The Maidens . There’s brief mentions of the characters from his previous books, but definitely no need to have read either of them to get into this one.

The reviews of The Fury have been mixed, so I was actually originally planning on skipping this.

But I went through some of the reviews the other day, and I found it curious that it sounded like people were reading two completely different books. Some people thought it was a convoluted mess, while others thought it was brilliant. I eventually decided I might as well read it and find out for myself.

The In Fury , a retired movie star plans a getaway to a private Greek island she owns, inviting a few close friends to join her and her family. But soon a body is found. With only seven people on this secluded island, it’s clear the killer won’t be able to hide for long…

The Book Structure

Michaelides’s intentions with this book were ambitious. It’s structured as a classic five-act tragedy, but with a twist. Each act in the book reveals new layers to the story and sheds a different light on previous events.

Before I get into any criticism, I really want to give him credit for trying something inventive and difficult. I don’t think this was ever going to be an easy trick to pull off, and he comes somewhat close to making it happen.

This format works … at first. In Acts I and II and III, each additional act feels not quite as clever as the book wants it to be, but it does manage to add something to the story. In Act IV, however, you can feel the story starting to strain under the weight of its conceit. The book manages to hold it together, but I was starting to doubt if there was enough payoff to justify the additional complexity in the story. This was the “is the juice still worth the squeeze?” part of my reading.

By, Act V, I had my answer. The story crumbles in the last act, and in order to add another layer, it renders so much of the rest of the book as being moot and pointless. The characters’ motivations stop making very much sense. It definitely feels more convoluted than clever by the end.

Why it Didn’t Work

In the end, I don’t think the problem was the complexity itself — I didn’t have a hard time following it, and I imagine most other people wouldn’t either. I think the problem was that in order to create complexity and add increasing layers of new information to what we’d already learned, Michaelides ends up sacrificing the story itself.

In other words, the storyline itself just isn’t compelling enough to justify wading through all these layers. And in order to add the layers, Michaelides renders pointless a lot of stuff in the previous layers and the last act doesn’t make a ton of sense. Basically, the payoff of all of this feels inconsequential at best, nonsensical at worst. And the psychological characterization of these characters is completely all over the place.

In the original, Act I iteration of the story, you’re led to believe that the characters have certain motivations and there’s certain events driving their actions. With each Act and layer, these things sort of disintegrate.

For me, in a psychological thriller, when there’s a good plot twist, there’s a feeling of stuff clicking into place as truths are revealed. In this case, it’s mostly just a continual feeling of “okay, well I guess that’s a semi-reasonable explanation”, with an ending where it’s like “okay well now it stopped making sense”.

Anyway, obviously this is hard to discuss without spoilers. If you want to read the rest of my thoughts, I’ll address them in the Questions, Ending & Explanations page.

The Writing Style

Also, I should mention that the writing style in The Fury is another issue. The novel employs the lesser used second person omniscient perspective, and it’s written in a very conversational tone with frequent asides, errant commentary and a lot of meta discussion from our narrator.

At times, it works really well. There’s one chapter where, after the body is discovered, the narrator explains what would happen if this were an Agatha Christie novel. He says that in that case, an investigator would show up and break down all the facts and question each character. I loved this because it was a great way to succinctly give a rundown of the situation — quickly establishing basic facts, each character’s alibi and what we know about their motives. But other times it feels a lot more pointless.

Problematically, the second person omniscient perspective also adds some confusion to an already all-over-the place story, since it’s not clear where he’s getting his information from. How does this omniscient thing work, are we supposed to take what he’s saying at face value or view it from the lens of his character?

Also, sometimes the conversational style gets a little tiresome. I do think that listening to the audiobook helps. The way the book is written, it works well as an audiobook.

Read it or Skip it?

As I was reading this, I could tell how hard Michaelides tried to make his layered five-act book work, and I wanted very badly to enjoy this book more than I did.

But the story and these characters really weren’t compelling enough to withstand all these layers of complexity. At some point the book became complexity for complexity’s sake and the thin storyline breaks down under its weight.

Every time I read a novel from Alex Michaelides, I end up feeling like the book is imperfect in different ways but there’s hints of cleverness that are so satisfying that it really makes it worth it to me. I felt the same way about this book, and I am still glad I read it. I just wanted for the sake of the effort that clearly went into this for the story to be more enjoyable than it was.

See The Fury on Amazon.

The Fury Audiobook Review

Narrator : Alex Jennings Length : 8 hours 8 minutes

The book is written in such a conversational way that I think it’s almost better as an audiobook. I also think Alex Jennings does a fantastic job of narrating the book in a way that gives a lot shape and texture to the writing.

I would definitely recommend considering the audiobook if you’re interested in reading The Fury.

Hear a sample of The Fury audiobook on Libro.fm.

Ending & Explanations

See the Questions, Ending & Explanations for The Fury

Book Excerpt

Read the first pages of The Fury

Share this post

This is a tale of murder. Or maybe that’s not quite true. At its heart, it’s a love story, isn’t it?

Lana Farrar is a reclusive ex–movie star and one of the most famous women in the world. Every year, she invites her closest friends to escape the English weather and spend Easter on her idyllic private Greek island.

I tell you this because you may think you know this story. You probably read about it at the time ― it caused a real stir in the tabloids, if you remember. It had all the necessary ingredients for a press sensation: a celebrity; a private island cut off by the wind…and a murder.

We found ourselves trapped there overnight. Our old friendships concealed hatred and a desire for revenge. What followed was a game of cat and mouse ― a battle of wits, full of twists and turns, building to an unforgettable climax. The night ended in violence and death, as one of us was found murdered.

But who am I? My name is Elliot Chase, and I’m going to tell you a story unlike any you’ve ever heard.

The Housemaid is Watching

She’s Not Sorry

The Seven Year Slip

Darling Girls

Yours Truly

It Finally Happened + Summer Romances

Best Literary Fiction of 2024 (New & Anticipated)

The Housemaid Book Series Recap

2024’s Best Book Club Books (New & Anticipated)

Bookshelf: Development Diary

Share your thoughts Cancel reply

The Fury Ending Explained – Who’s killed on the island… and why?

The Fury Plot Summary

The book doesn’t really center on Elliot Chase, despite him being the narrator telling this tale. It actually focuses on his best friend, Lana Farrarr. She’s a reclusive ex movie-star and she decides to jet off to a Greek Island for the summer along with six friends – Elliot among them.

Alongside Elliot, these characters hold more than a secret or two, and as the weekend progresses, murder is very much on the table. 

This murder takes place at around the midway point of the book, and the pace up to that point is rather slow and laborious.

Who’s killed on the island?

Lana is killed that night after a big fight at dinner. Kate is high and she ends up in a big argument with Lana regarding the past. Agathi is the one who finds Lana in a pool of blood, with three bullet wounds on the front of the dress.

There’s also a red shawl around her shoulders. This is interesting because Lana complimented Kate’s scarf (she corrects it as a shawl) earlier at dinner. Leo gets there just after and cradles his mum, refusing to let anyone near.

What does Lana find out about Kate?

A day before going to Greece, Lana finds Kate’s earring inside Jason’s pocket. Lana confronts Jason and Kate about this. Elliot is there in the background and smirks as it al plays out.

Jason grabs him by the throat, Lana walks away. Lana went to Nikos late at night before her death and in exchange for a kiss, he agrees to take care of something. But what? Well, we find out what later in the book!

Who is Elliot Chase?

Elliot is the narrator of this tale and he even admits that he’s been in love with Lana all his life. After being bullied at school and laughed at by a bunch of kids, he found salvation while at a bar.

He met Barbara who helped him while he was at rock bottom. She offers him a room and uses him, as he uses her. Elliot chances with meeting Lana at a party and the two hit it off. However, as we soon learn, Elliot is obsessed with Lana and has been ever since she was a kid.

He used to watch her in the movie theatre with a big grin on his face. He doesn’t tell Lana this though and it’s awkward between them to begin with.

Lana tells him she “can’t give him what hr wants” bit Elliot is persistent and the two become best friends. They even kiss too. It turns out Elliot was going to ask Lana to marry him.

What changes for Lana?

Barbara West, before she died, poisoned the well so to speak. She warned Lana that Elliot was trouble and explained away his awful childhood. She also calls him a sociopath and a liar.

As a result, Lana marries Jason several months later, which crushes Elliot – but he continues all the same. Interestingly, Jason and Kate were originally together until Lana swooped in. They were having an affair all this time.

Kate and Lana both wanted Jason but the former was wracked with guilt and wanted to tell Lana. Elliot happens to be watching all of this and has a detailed log of their indiscretions together.

How did Elliot set all of this up?

Elliot stole the earring from Kate and planted it for Lana to see. He orchestrated everything and even stole Kate’s perfume to spray on Jason’s clothes.

Elliot’s plan? The dead body was faked on the island for Jason to see. Lana is very much alive. When Agathi finds out and sees her friend rise from the dead, she hurries off and Lana gives chase. Leo was in on it too, explaining why he told everyone to back ofc from Lana’s corpse.

Lana decides to give up her plan when she realizes Jason doesn’t care. His apathy reminds her of her own awful childhood. She also realizes that Elliot is “evil” and he confesses to wanting to marry her. Lana refuses, laughing at him and points out about Barbara West “falling” down the stairs.

How does everything fall apart for Elliot?

With Lana gone, Elliot tries to make Kate kill Jason after handing a gun over and poisoning her against him. Agathi and Nikos decide to turn on Elliot instead and the group decide to get “justice” by forcing Elliot to kill himself, gun held in his hand.

It turns out Lana was actually going to leave Jason for Elliot and loved him all this time. However, that all changes during that fateful night together, scheming about getting revenge.

Lana found Elliot’s notebook and read it, word for word. She learned everything he’s been plotting, including all the dates and times of Kate and Jason meeting – and the infamous earring incident. She knew from the start.

How do Kate and Lana get revenge?

Kate and Lana make up after the latter confronts her about the cheating and they agree to try and make it work. They also work with Leo, Agathi and everyone else on the island, playing along with Elliot’s plan to make him think he’s in control.  That promise with Nikos? Very clearly centered around working with them to take down Elliot.

The only person unaware of this is Jason, who has no idea what’s going on. Lana is also okay with Kate kidding Jason because Elliot was watching and they knew they needed to make it believable.

Elliot  wasn’t killed either. He just blacked out after being shot with blanks. However, he’s humiliated and Leo laughing at him for wetting himself in fear snaps something deep inside, the repressed self from all those years of being bullied. Elliot tales the shotgun, heads back to the house and shoots Lana 3 times.

How does The Fury end?

We don’t see the aftermath on the island, unfortunately. Instead, we pick up in prison with Elliot writing and seeing his old therapist again. 

In prison, Elliot starts writing and he divulges what happened to Barbara West. Turns out she did fall down the stairs but she’s also written a handwritten play about Barbara and Elliot’s life. Elliot took that idea and warped it into his own, hence the writing. He’s been obsessed with Lana and his psyche comes out in full force at the end – to devastating effect. 

Read More: The Fury Book Review

You can check out more of our book reviews here!

1 thought on “the fury ending explained – who’s killed on the island… and why”.

Agathi wasn’t in on the plot. She was angry that Lana did all that without telling her.

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

10 Movies Like Fury You Must See

In the war-torn landscape of World War II, ‘Fury’ emerges as a gripping and intense cinematic experience directed by David Ayer. Released in 2014, the film follows the journey of Brad Pitt’s battle-hardened tank commander, Sergeant Don ‘Wardaddy’ Collier, and his crew as they navigate the harrowing realities of the European front. As the crew of the Sherman tank ‘Fury’ faces insurmountable odds, the film explores themes of camaraderie, sacrifice, and the brutal toll of war on the human spirit.

‘Fury’ stands out for its visceral and realistic portrayal of combat, coupled with stellar performances from its cast. The film delves into the moral complexities of war, forcing its characters and audience alike to confront the blurred lines between heroism and brutality. For those seeking a similar visceral experience, here are 10 movies like ‘Fury’ that are brimming with similar raw intensity and emotional depth.

10. Tankers (2018)

‘Tankers,’ a Russian war film directed by Konstantin Maksimov, unfolds the gripping true story of a Soviet KV-1 tank crew led by Semyon Konovalov (Andrey Chernyshov). The narrative centers on their remarkable feat during an unequal battle on July 13, 1942, where the crew, including Sgt. Siitov (Vladimir Epifantsev) and Maj. Vasily Krotov (Sergey Gorobchenko), confronted and destroyed 16 enemy tanks, two armored vehicles, and eight other vehicles near the village of Nizhnemityakin. Similar to ‘Fury,’ ‘Tankers’ authentically portrays the challenges of war, the valor of soldiers, and the intense camaraderie formed amidst the chaos of battle.

9. Lone Survivor (2013)

‘ Lone Survivor ,’ directed by Peter Berg, is a harrowing war drama based on the true story of Operation Red Wings, where a team of Navy SEALs is tasked with capturing or killing Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. Mark Wahlberg stars as Marcus Luttrell, the titular lone survivor, alongside Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster as his fellow SEALs. The film chronicles their fierce battle against overwhelming odds in the mountains of Afghanistan. Akin to ‘Fury,’ ‘ Lone Survivor ‘ shows the bonds of brotherhood among soldiers, the brutality of combat, and the resilience needed to endure in the face of adversity.

8. The Forgotten Battle (2020)

‘ The Forgotten Battle ,’ directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., brings to life a lesser-known chapter of World War II, depicting the Battle of the Scheldt in 1944. The film revolves around the struggles of three different characters – a Dutch resistance fighter, a British glider pilot, and a local girl – as their lives intersect during the intense conflict. Notable actors like Jamie Flatters, Susan Radder, and Tom Felton embody these characters, adding depth to the narrative. Echoing the camaraderie and sacrifice portrayed in ‘Fury,’ ‘The Forgotten Battle’ explores the personal toll of war on individuals, emphasizing the untold stories that often slip through the historical cracks.

7. Stalingrad (2013)

Directed by Fedor Bondarchuk, ‘Stalingrad’ presents a haunting portrayal of one of the most pivotal battles of World War II. Set in the eponymous city besieged by the Nazis, the film follows a group of Soviet soldiers as they defend their homeland against overwhelming odds. With standout performances by actors like Pyotr Fyodorov, Dmitriy Lysenkov, and Mariya Smolnikova, the movie jumps into the resilience and courage of the defenders amidst the devastation of war. In a manner akin to ‘Fury,’ ‘Stalingrad’ underscores the bonds forged in the crucible of combat, highlighting themes of sacrifice, loyalty, and the human spirit’s triumph in adversity.

6. Company of Heroes (2013)

‘Company of Heroes’ shares thematic similarities with ‘Fury’ through its portrayal of the camaraderie and bravery of soldiers amidst the chaos of war. Directed by Don Michael Paul, the film follows a group of American soldiers who must retrieve a scientist crucial to the Allied victory while battling German forces in World War II. The ensemble cast includes Neal McDonough as the hardened Captain Joe Conti, Tom Sizemore as Sergeant Matherson, and Vinnie Jones as the tough-as-nails Sergeant Rios. Like ‘Fury,’ ‘Company of Heroes’ explores the bonds forged in combat and the sacrifices made for the greater good.

5. The Thin Red Line (1998)

‘The Thin Red Line,’ directed by Terrence Malick, connects to ‘Fury’ through its distinctive exploration of the psychological and existential toll of war on individuals. While ‘Fury’ focuses on the intense camaraderie within a tank crew, ‘The Thin Red Line’ shows the internal struggles of soldiers amidst the Battle of Guadalcanal. The film features an ensemble cast, including Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, and Nick Nolte, each portraying soldiers grappling with the moral complexities of warfare. Both films share a poetic approach to depicting the human experience in combat, transcending the traditional war film narrative and highlighting the profound impact of war on the human psyche.

4. U-571 (2000)

While ‘Fury’ unfolds the intense realities of tank warfare, ‘ U-571 ‘ navigates the perilous depths of submarine combat during World War II, offering a contrasting aquatic perspective. Directed by Jonathan Mostow, ‘U-571’ follows a U.S. Navy submarine crew on a daring mission to capture a German Enigma machine. Matthew McConaughey leads the cast as Lieutenant Tyler, with notable performances from Harvey Keitel and Bill Paxton. The film, centered on the stealthy and claustrophobic world beneath the waves, explores the strategic challenges and camaraderie unique to submarine operations. Although differing in setting, both films encapsulate the courage and sacrifice demanded by specialized military roles in the midst of wartime chaos.

3. Saints and Soldiers: The Void (2014)

‘Saints and Soldiers: The Void’ echoes the tank theme of ‘Fury’ by immersing viewers in the heart of World War II armored warfare, albeit with a different focus. Directed by Ryan Little, the film follows a group of American paratroopers who find themselves behind enemy lines in Normandy during the pivotal days following D-Day. Amidst the chaos of battle, they team up with a stranded British tank crew to accomplish a daring mission against overwhelming odds. Notable characters include Sergeant Gunderson (Adam Gregory) and Corporal Greer (Timothy S. Shoemaker), each facing their own trials amidst the fog of war. Like ‘Fury,’ ‘Saints and Soldiers: The Void’ captures the intensity and unspoken brotherhood of soldiers thrust into the crucible of combat, emphasizing the bravery and sacrifices made in the pursuit of victory.

2. All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)

While ‘Fury’ encapsulates the brutal world of tank warfare, ‘ All Quiet on the Western Front ‘ provides a haunting yet poignant portrayal of the trenches during World War I. Directed by Lewis Milestone, this cinematic classic explores the harrowing experiences of German soldiers grappling with the disillusionment and horrors of war. In contrast to the mechanized warfare in ‘Fury,’ the film underscores the human cost and psychological toll of combat. The ensemble cast, led by Lew Ayres as Paul Bäumer, captures the camaraderie and tragedy of soldiers on the front lines. Both films, though distinct in their settings, share a common thread in revealing the profound impact of war on individuals caught in its inhumane grip.

1. T-34 (2019)

‘T-34’ is a must-watch for ‘Fury’ enthusiasts as it delivers a riveting tale of armored warfare, akin to the tank-centered intensity in ‘Fury.’ Directed by Aleksey Sidorov, the film follows the gripping story of a Soviet tank crew’s daring escape from a German prison camp in a captured T-34 tank. Much like ‘Fury,’ it captures the visceral thrill of tank battles, showcasing the resilience and camaraderie of the crew. Lead by Alexander Petrov as Nikolay Ivushkin and Irina Starshenbaum as Anya, the cast embodies the courage and tenacity essential in the crucible of war, making ‘T-34’ a thrilling and emotionally resonant cinematic experience for fans of ‘Fury.’

Read More: Is Fury Based on a True Story?

SPONSORED LINKS

• Movie Explainers
• TV Explainers
• About The Cinemaholic

How Furiosa Retcons Fury Road's Prequel Comic

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Quick Links

What was furiosa's origin in mad max: fury road's comic, the furiosa movie changed the concept of the peach seed, the furiosa movie cut out mother giddy, the furiosa movie added praetorian jack & dementus, the furiosa movie added a horrific rictus arc.

When fans learned that Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga would detail the history of Charlize Theron's Furiosa, many were skeptical. As interesting as the character was in the 2015 movie, they weren't sure if she warranted an origin story. But make no mistake—new layers are added with Anna Taylor-Joy portraying this younger interpretation of Furiosa.

Fans learn how she ended up in the Citadel as one of Immortan Joe's slaves and what happened to her family at the Green Place—the lush garden she grew up in. Interestingly, this movie retcons the Mad Max: Fury Road prequel comic in massive ways, giving Furiosa a lot more personal nuance regarding why she tried to leave Joe's stead.

Furiosa Came Off As a Bitter Worker

The Original Mad Max Is Required Viewing for Furiosa

Furiosa is a brilliant prequel to Fury Road, but it's even more impactful for fans of the original Mad Max and makes that film required viewing.

• The Fury Road prequel was written by Nico Lathouris, Mark Sexton and George Miller.
• The artists included Mark Sexton, Leandro Fernandez, Riccardo Burchielli, Andrea Mutti, Tristan Jones, Szymon Kudranski and Peter Pound.
• Clem Robins did the lettering, while Michael Spicer and Lovern Kindzierski colored the story.
• This prequel consisted of four issues from May 2015 to Aug. 2015.

In the Fury Road prequel comic, Furiosa was introduced as a sentinel. As this Imperator, she operated in the field, but Joe wanted her to watch over his wives. He wanted them clean, pure and free from disease in the Oasis. Most of all, he wanted Furiosa to ensure his son, Rictus, didn't violate the women. Only Joe was allowed to sexually assault them if they weren't willing to be breeding stock.

Furiosa kept guard as he raped and abused them. He needed a perfect heir, but this loveless, sadistic approach wasn't how to continue his dynasty. Furiosa hated his mentality and was just as repulsed by his pustules as his wives were. She was chided by the wives, though. They considered her a hypocrite for failing to help them with this toxic male. Furiosa did come off coldhearted. She told the wives they needed to appreciate this life. It kept them away from the dusty Wasteland, where food and water were scarce to come by.

The barren landscape was filled with diseases, too. This double standard ate at her soul. In time, Furiosa realized she needed to be better. She longed to get the wives away, especially a pregnant Angharad. Furiosa was torn after seeing her almost commit an abortion using a wire. Not to mention, the wives were given chastity belts. Furiosa didn't want them to lose their agency and identity anymore. She had freedom, but she lost her soul. It was time for them all to get theirs back. This created the path for Furiosa secreting the women away and hitting the asphalt in Fury Road , encouraging Joe and the War Boys to pursue.

Furiosa's Journey Was Tweaked to Have More Meaning & Emotion

Tom Hardy Praises Mad Max: Fury Road and Furiosa

Tom Hardy discusses the importance of Fury Road to his career and his excitement for Furiosa.

In the comic, Furiosa had an arbitrary peach tree at the Oasis. It's unknown how it grew, but the place had other trees, running water and such. It felt like this was just another part of the garden. She plucked and ate peaches. She later admitted the goal was to get to the Green Place and plant a seed as a mark of victory.

In the George Miller movie , Furiosa's abduction was actually witnessed. But she was not taken by Joe as the comic implied. She was kidnapped by Chris Hemsworth's Dementus and traded to Joe as part of a commercial deal. As for the peach seed, this was given to her by her mother before the lady was killed by Dementus. It added endearment, coming off as a truly intimate token and a reminder of better days.

As the years passed at the Citadel, Furiosa had to disguise herself as a boy. She worked in the engine shops. Eventually, she killed Dementus and hid him in the fortress. She planted the seed inside him. It fed off his nutrients, and Furiosa took it as a sign when the first fruit appeared. This was hope springing eternal and a hint they could flourish elsewhere. She took the peach, garnered the seed and slipped away to steal the wives. This gave the seed an origin story of its own and a higher calling. No one knew Dementus was there, so he would suffer until he died. It had a huge dash of irony because while he took many lives, life was now growing from him. Along with the inspiration Furiosa needed to pull her mission off.

Furiosa Grew Up Without This Conflicted Mother

Mother Giddy oversaw the wives but got tired of all Joe's sins. She tried to keep the ladies safe but knew she couldn't do so again in her old age. She worked with Furiosa to hatch the ultimate plan. Furiosa killed the guards, took the women away, scaled perilous parts of the Citadel, and got to a rig. She drove out while Giddy stayed behind with a gun to buy them time. It's implied Giddy was murdered off-panel.

In the movie, there was no Giddy at all. Furiosa never met her when she became older. Instead, she worked alone, snuck the women into the truck and darted off. They didn't even kill that many guards or scale any walls. It was a heist in the dark of night. It feels like this was done to have Furiosa keep remembering her mother and what Dementus did to her.

The Furiosa Comic Never Mentioned the Pain of Love & Romance

The Bikeriders Star Reflects on Losing Furiosa Role

The Furiosa role was considered for another actor before Anya Taylor-Joy was cast.

After Furiosa was abducted, she dug a map into her hand. She needed to slip away while on one of Joe's missions and head home. She got help from Praetorian Jack -- someone the comic never mentioned. It didn't mention Dementus either. Come the movie, Dementus captured both and killed Jack. He wanted to show Furiosa that love led to pain. He lost his family to vagabonds in the Wasteland, so he wanted other families and lovers to suffer the same way.

Furiosa escaped but lost her arm and the map along the way. Furiosa was taken in by a tribe, patched up and made it back to the Citadel. The movie used this to explain how she got the robotic arm. The comic left this up to viewers' imaginations. The film eventually had her healing up some more and deciding to assassinate Dementus when he came to attack Joe's base. Alas, the map was lost, which led to her winging it to find the Green Place in the 2015 movie.

Furiosa's Origin Made Immortan Joe's Son More Sinister

In the comic, Furiosa was said to have been one of Joe's sex slaves. It's implied she got a promotion to work in the field. The movie didn't follow up on this angle. However, Rictus did love visiting her and playing with her hair. It teased that he sexually assaulted her -- something that actor Nathan Jones has admitted was a tough scene to film. This is why she cut her hair off, tricked him when he tried to caress it and managed to flee. This decision allowed her to disguise herself as a boy and return.

This hair angle became important later on. When Furiosa learned Dementus was coming, she cut her hair off again, steeled up, and built a buggy to hunt. This was her shedding the past permanently. She spiritually killed her younger self. No man would abuse her again, whether it be Rictus or Dementus. So, in a sense, while Rictus caused her pain, the movie had him being a catalyst for change.

This was very different from how they interacted in the comic. Furiosa bullied Rictus a bit. He was scared of her, knowing she had Joe's trust—something he never had. In the end, there were no clues that he violated her; it seemed like all of this was done by his father when Furiosa was growing up as his property. Furiosa expanded on the titular character's origins while changing some important aspects first introduced in the now nono-canon Fury Road prequel comic.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

The origin story of renegade warrior Furiosa before her encounter and teamup with Mad Max.

‘A Quiet Place: Day One’ Review: Alien Invasion Prequel Arrives Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing

Instead of providing answers or much in the way of suspense, director Michael Sarnoski’s contribution stars Lupita Nyong'o as a terminally ill cat owner tiptoeing through a mostly off-screen apocalypse.

By Peter Debruge

Peter Debruge

Chief Film Critic

• ‘The Imaginary’ Review: What’s a Pretend Friend to Do When His Human Creator Outgrows Him? 2 days ago
• ‘A Quiet Place: Day One’ Review: Alien Invasion Prequel Arrives Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing 3 days ago
• ‘I Am: Celine Dion’ Review: The Canadian Diva Has Never Seemed Stronger Than She Does in Prime’s Revealing Doc 2 weeks ago

Related Stories

Summer movie season testing 3d cinema’s recoverability, marvel's 'blade' loses second director as yann demange exits film, popular on variety.

As it happens, director John Krasinski’s excellent 2020 sequel flashed back to Day One, revealing the pandemonium the aliens’ arrival caused for unsuspecting humans, before jumping forward more than a year in the “Quiet Place” chronology. In theory, what “Day One” promises — but doesn’t actually deliver — is a more expansive look at the mayhem. Most of the action occurs off-screen, and no one (not even the authorities) so much as attempts to fight back.

What about cats? Is Frodo ever really at risk? For the curious, Sarnoski includes a tough-to-decipher scene where a trio of aliens feed on what looks like a feathered version of the ovomorphs from “Alien.” Perhaps this explains why the Death Angels are so aggro: They didn’t pack enough snacks for their intergalactic mission, and Earth doesn’t have what they need. But what do they want?

Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, “Day One” is served up as a disaster movie, à la Roland Emmerich’s “Independence Day,” with money shots of the Brooklyn Bridge collapsing into the East River and deserted streets that suggest “I Am Legend” by way of 9/11. Where did everybody go? “Day One” makes it look like just a few hundred people call Manhattan home. Surely New York would be crawling with residents, pouring out of the skyscrapers and into the streets, or else retreating into their apartments. It’s Day One of the invasion, and the city is a ghost town.

It’s kind of a fluke that Samira agreed to come along for a field trip to a Manhattan marionette theater, led by a nurse (Alex Wolff) who should have worn quieter clothes. When the aliens land, they immediately start picking off the noisiest humans. Scream, and you’re toast. Call out for your missing partner or child, and a Death Angel is guaranteed to spring from off-screen and rip you in half. While the characters try their best to keep silent, the film’s sound designers do the opposite, using low tones to make the whole theater rumble (Imax and 4DX viewers can literally feel the attack unfolding off-screen).

In the two previous films, the thrill came from watching how characters reacted to these sinewy, double-jointed monsters, whose rattling, Venom-looking heads fold open in a series of flaps as they stop to listen. The terrifying creatures can’t see, but their sense of hearing is hyper-acute, which is why our world went quiet . For some reason, all that stuff it took humans 474 days to learn in the other movies is already known by the characters in this one (like using running water to confound the aliens).

As Samira hides out in the marionette theater with a crowd of strangers (including Djimon Hounsou, the film’s lone connection to the previous installment), military choppers fly overhead, broadcasting instructions: Keep silent. Stay off the bridges. Carefully make your way to the South Street Seaport, where ships are standing by to evacuate people. As an inexplicably small crowd of survivors move south, Samira and Frodo walk in the opposite direction. She wants that pizza.

Through it all, she remains more committed to protecting her cat — which is ironic, since the animal seems all but guaranteed to attract the wrong kind of attention. It is Frodo who finds Eric and leads him to Samira. Their instant bond feels contrived, though a more charitable viewer might be moved by this nothing-to-lose connection between two lonely souls — what writer-director Lorene Scafaria called “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World.”

To his credit, Sarnoski orchestrates a few high-tension set-pieces. But there aren’t nearly enough of these for a movie set in the “Quiet Place” world, as Sarnoski (who put Nicolas Cage through all kinds of nonsensical behavior in “Pig”) winds up putting sentimentality ahead of suspense.

Just compare these movies to the century’s best zombie franchise: “A Quiet Place” ranks up there with “28 Days Later” in its immersive, world-turned-upside-down intrigue. “Part II” was bigger and scarier, à la “28 Weeks Later.” “Day One” ought to have been the mind-blowing origin story, and instead it’s a Hallmark movie, where everyone seems to have nine lives — not just that darn cat.

Reviewed at AMC The Grove, Los Angeles, June 26, 2024. MPA Rating: PG-13. Running time:

• Production: A Paramount Pictures release and presentation, in association with Michael Bay, of a Platinum Dunes, Sunday Night production. Producers: Michael Bay, Andrew Form, Brad Fuller, John Krasinski. Executive producers: Allyson Seeger, Vicki Dee Rock.
• Crew: Director: Michael Sarnoski. Screenplay: Michael Sarnoski; story: John Krasinski, Michael Sarnoski, based on characters created by Bryan Woods & Scott Beck. Camera: Pat Scola. Editors: Andrew Mondshein, Gregory Plotkin. Music: Alexis Grapsas.
• With: Lupita Nyong’o, Joseph Quinn, Alex Wolff, Djimon Hounsou.

More from Variety

Lana del rey and quavo set release date for ‘tough’ collaboration, what the european box office could teach hollywood, the making, and remaking, of johnny cash’s ‘songwriter’ album: how john carter cash, marty stuart and others brought the icon’s buried treasure back to life, ‘sing sing’ star colman domingo hopes prison drama’s profit-sharing budget model will inspire more films to be ‘equitable above and below the line’, playstation state of play underscores muted release year ahead of summer game fest, ‘fly me to the moon’ director greg berlanti on channing tatum and scarlett johansson’s ‘instant’ chemistry and landing an unexpected theatrical release, more from our brands, spain vs. georgia livestream: how to watch today’s euro 2024 match online, rimac is launching a self-driving ride-share service. here’s what we know., tour de france’s out-of-country starts a lucrative proposition, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, eric dane reflects on being ‘let go’ from grey’s anatomy: ‘i was f–ked up longer than i was sober’, verify it's you, please log in.

• Children's/Family
• Documentary/Reality
• Amazon Prime Video

More From Decider

'The Bear' Season 3 Review: Carmy Secures His Role as The Chairman of The...

R.I.P. Martin Mull: 'Clue' & 'Roseanne' Star Dead at 80

Every Kevin Costner Movie Is A Western (Even When They're Not)

Nicole Kidman Tore Zac Efron’s Shirt Off in One Take, Says ‘A Family...

Is Kevin Costner Dooming Himself To Be The Captain Ahab of Westerns With...

Heidi Klum Strips Down On 'Hot Ones', Leaving Host Sean Evans Speechless

Vanna White Struggles Working With Ryan Seacrest And May Exit 'Wheel Of...

'Hit Man' True Story: What to Know About the Real Gary Johnson Who...

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to copy URL

Stream It Or Skip It: ‘Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga’ on VOD, a Visionary, Action-Rich ‘Fury Road’ Prequel

Where to stream:.

• Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
• anya taylor-joy

New Movies on Streaming: ‘Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga’ + More

‘furiosa: a mad max saga’ comes to digital, but when will ‘furiosa’ stream on max, anya taylor-joy screams with joy after ‘rhoslc’ star lisa barlow surprises her with a message on ‘today’: “i’m not okay”, ‘dune: part two’ ending explained: look to chani.

Sand: It’s coarse and rough just like life in the barren Wasteland, where Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga ( now streaming on VOD services like Amazon Prime Video ), the new vision from nutso director George Miller. Of course you know it’s the prequel to one of the greatest movies of the modern era, 2015’s Mad Max: Fury Road , a two-hour vehicular rumble through the desert that grabbed our skulls and yanked, ripping our spines out and devouring them whole, with little dribbles of gut juice running down its grinning chin. Like I said, GREAT movie. By many accounts an all-timer. It was a goodly hit, earning Oscar nods and wins, as well as a un-put-downable book chronicling its excessively tortured making ( Kyle Buchanan’s must-read Blood, Sweat and Chrome ). So how do you follow up a movie like that? Easy answer: You shouldn’t, but no one ever said Miller doesn’t have several screws loose. So here we are, nine years hence, basking in the origin story of Furiosa, the tough-as-hell protagonist from Fury Road originally played by Charlize Theron, and whose dusty boots are now filled by the profoundly capable Anya Taylor-Joy. How can it not be amazing? (Besides at the box office, I mean, where it grossed a curiously disappointing $168 million worldwide so far.) I will say it’s absolutely very, very good, and considering the context, that’s just about all we can ask for.

FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA : STREAM IT OR SKIP IT?

The Gist: The Green Place: Here it is. Finally! We heard so much about it in the last movie. Furiosa just went on and on and on and on about it, stopping just shy of making us sit politely (but impatiently) while she showed us all her favorite photos on her phone. Except now, Furiosa is maybe 10 years old, and played by Alyla Browne. She reaches for a plump, ripe peach and plucks it from a tree, something that surely happens regularly in this little Edenesque oasis in the otherwise godawful hellscape of an ugly arid itchy scorched hellscape of a post-apocalyptic Australian desert. But shhh! The Green Place is a secret, and its peaceful and benevolent denizens will do anything to keep it that way. Which means, of course, this being a violent movie and all, that that secret is about to be threatened – namely, by some leather-clad shitbirds on souped-up motocross bikes who snatch poor little Furiosa and zoom over and around the dunes to their chaotic encampment, she being the proof of the existence of an imminently plunderable, beautiful and resource-rich plot of real estate the likes of which their boss, un uber-bearded wackjob named Dementor (Chris Hemsworth), would like to know about. 

Not a spoiler: The secret remains a secret, but at a cost. Furiosa’s mother (Charlee Fraser), despite being a helluva shot with a sniper rifle, meets her end and fails to rescue her daughter. And so Furiosa becomes Dementor’s porcelain-doll possession, and maybe a substitute for the “little ones” he says he lost. He doesn’t get into the specifics of his personal horror, but it doesn’t take Freud to determine that it fuels his power-hungry bloviatory eye-bulging madness. He carries around the little teddy bear that belonged to them, and even entrusts Furiosa with it; Dementor keeps her in a little trailer-cage pulled by one of the goons in his legion of loony bikers. I pause here to note that Furiosa is furious, for sure, but only as furious as a child can be, which is not furious enough to escape the clutches of a lunatic. 

As lunatics inevitably are, Dementor is power-hungry. He ventures to a little joint you may recognize, the Citadel, and confronts a couple of ugly bastards you also may recognize, Immortan Joe (Lachy Hulme) and his right-hand bloated bag of pus, the People Eater (John Howard). It doesn’t go well at first for Dementor, but he eventually conquers Joe’s allies at Gastown, prompting a truce and a business deal that leaves Furiosa under Joe’s “care.” She grows up at the Citadel, pretending to be male amongst Joe’s panda-faced War Boys, avoiding Joe’s mutant sons Rictus (Nathan Jones) and Scrotus (Josh Helman). She’s played by Anya Taylor-Joy now – finally, after like 40 percent of the movie – and partnering with Praetorian Jack (Tom Burke) as he pilots the War Rig on treacherous cross-desert runs to Gastown and the Bullet Farm for supplies. How treacherous are those runs? Treacherous enough for Miller to stage his signature brain-exploding action sequences, that’s how. And all this time, Furiosa has kept an ember burning deep inside her, the scorching-hot coal of vengeance. Just imagine what she’s imagining she’ll do to Dementor for killing her mother and taking her away from her lovely home. IMAGINE IT.

What Movies Will It Remind You Of?: Beyond the obvious comparison to 2024’s other sand-in-your-crevices sci-fi megaflick Dune: Part Two ? Only the other Mad Max es, because Miller stands alone in nurturing tone and style, and anyone even gesturing in the general direction of his throne should just give up now to make local used-car commercials. And so, thee definitive ranking of the Max movies so far:

5. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome – It’s better than you remember! Trust me! But it’s still the least of the bunch.

4. Mad Max – The OG is an action-movie landmark, and the beginning of a beeyootiful friendship among us, Miller and the art of film – but it inevitably pales a bit in the wake of the greatness that followed.

3. Furiosa – It has what it takes, in the words of Dementor, to “make it epic.” No question.

2. The Road Warrior (or Mad Max 2 for you Aussies) – This ripper is an all-timer of a smash-’em car-chase goosebump-raiser, and set the tone for no. 1 on this list.

1. Fury Road – There’s nothing like it. Before or since. Or likely ever.

Performance Worth Watching: Some don’t like Hemsworth’s gregarious performance as Dementor, who tends to be one of those indulgently speechifying egomaniac characters – but some also can be very wrong about that, because Hemsworth is colorful and entertaining as a foil to the movie’s many strong, silent types. What those somes are missing here: Dementor is a crazed philospher, and what he says is crucial to the worldbuilding and Furiosa’s character development, and therefore the film’s core themes; his spiel about the futility of revenge-seeking is strangely eloquent, and quite potent. As for Taylor-Joy, she’s magnetic and charismatic and absolutely, and curically, stirs our empathy, despite the nagging feeling that she’s ever-so-slightly underused. And special mention goes to Burke, who makes the most of his limited screen time as the only character in this hell-setting to offer Furiosa anything resembling kindness.

Memorable Dialogue: Dementus and his lickspittle Smeg (David Collins) are on the run from a rather persistent Furiosa:

Smeg: Who is that?  Dementus: I don’t know – someone competent and excessively resentful!

Sex and Skin: None.

Our Take: Again: Fury Road is a masterpiece. You just don’t follow it. Too fast. Too powerful. Too much under the hood. All those 40-barrel-carb thingamajigs and fuel-juicer whatsitses. You’ll just chase and chase and chase it. And that relentless, epic, brain-exploding two-hour desert chase is now a meta-metaphor for itself in the cinematic pantheon. Wisely, the chase isn’t the primary dramtic crux of Furiosa , at least in the literal sense – but its there in the subtext, as Furiosa loses things and wants them back and pursues it even though she’ll never get them. Her mother. Her childhood. Her innocence. She’ll have to settle for revenge, except her revengee, Dementor, wisely points out the futility of it. He knows it all too well. He loved and lost and clings to that teddy bear, and it made him insane. Will it drive Furiosa insane, too?

Couched in Furiosa and Dementor’s lives is a lesson about power, and how weilding it can inflict wounds that never heal. You wonder how a human soul can act in such a manner. You pull on that thread and you think about patterns of behavior and how the dominos fall and where the first one fell. You think about that original sin and if humanity can ever be redeemed. Maybe not. Very much most likely not. People like Dementor give up and let the darkness take them. People like Furiosa cling to that purpose and keep fighting – there’s nobility in that, and I’d argue that nobility forever fends off futility. Life, as the all-too-true cliche goes, isn’t about the destination but the journey, about who you are and what you do during it. It’s like something. Something familiar. A chase through the desert, perhaps, and if you’re doing it right, on machines that emit thunder. Life is a furious road. Life – life is the Fury Road.

You’ll note that most sci-fi or action films aren’t so densely woven and reinforced with ideas. That’s Mad Max , that’s Miller for you. His response to the narratively condensed Fury Road is to sprawl, across the timeline, across locations: a decade or so in scope, multiple key set pieces. We see the Bullet Farm and Gastown, which were blips in the distance in Fury Road . We get a reprise from the previous film in a War Rig chase, which ups the ante via assailaints on gliders and a secondary plot where Furiosa and Praetorian Jack forge a friendship with few words, almost purely through action. We get a riveting shootout that becomes a chase that becomes a vital forging of Furiosa’s image and persona. We get a righteous finale that cements the film thematically as myth and epic, and tightly links itself to Fury Road .

What more could we ask for? Some of us have griped about Miller’s expanded CGI use in Furiosa , following the what-the-hell how’d-he-do-that practical effects of its predecessor – but some of us are shortsighted. Real cars still crash and real stuntmen still bite it, and Miller uses CGI as a tool to expand his vision. (Read Blood, Sweat and Chrome to understand the nigh-impossible good fortune and sacrifice necessary to overcome its dangling-from-a-cliff-by-a-toenail challenges, and you’ll better comprehend how CGI is a likely compromise to make Furiosa possible in the first place.) The world he creates still feels real. It’s imaginative. It’s immersive. A portion of the movie lumbers by without much action, but it’s nevertheless fascinating in its art direction and its complex character dynamics. It’s as close to alive as fantastical movies ever get. 

Our Call: Gauge your expectations realistically, and you’ll love Furiosa for what it is: Singular visual storytelling. STREAM IT. 

John Serba is a freelance writer and film critic based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

• Prime Video
• Stream It Or Skip It

Martin Short Jokes That Melania Trump Only Had One Expectation In Her Marriage To Donald Trump — And He Didn't Meet It

Vanna White Struggles Working With Ryan Seacrest And May Exit 'Wheel Of Fortune' Early: Report

What Time Will 'Down In The Valley' Be on Starz? Release Date, Streaming Info, How To Watch

'House Of The Dragon's Olivia Cooke Wants to Know Why Her Orgasm Was Cut from Season 2 Episode 2 Sex Scene: “Well, Why Did You Make Me Do That?"

R.I.P. Martin Mull: 'Clue' & 'Roseanne' Star Dead at 80

'The View' Stumbles Into A Commercial Break As Whoopi Goldberg Pretends Her Mic Was Cut By Producers: "Is This What We're Doing?"

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, black writers week, furiosa doesn't feel like any other mad max film, and that's what's wonderful about it.

Much has been written about  the presumed box-office "failure" of "Furiosa."  The quote marks are intentional: its immediate predecessor in the series, "Mad Max Fury Road," is widely considered one of the best action movies ever made. It's the only film in the series to be nominated for multiple Oscars, and it was so expensive to make that  when all was said and done, it could only be considered a modest financial success . (Movies of that scale are generally thought of as needing to make back three times what they cost to produce and market.) 

What's more important in the long haul, I think, is that "Furiosa" is a triumph from George Miller . It's a film in the tradition of other late-career masterpieces by great directors, clearly less interested in recycling the same established templates yet again, and revisiting familiar themes and situations that were once presented more straightforwardly with a more ambivalent or complicated attitude. Films like "Furiosa" take apart the kind of movie that a filmmaker perfected or even invented, examining all the different components and producing something that feels new enough to be alienating. That extends to the technology used in "Furiosa," which is a decade more sophisticated than what was used on "Fury Road" and carries certain inherent ethical problems that we'll discuss in a moment.

"Furiosa" is, of course, a prequel about the origin of the title character, who was played by Charlize Theron in "Fury Road" and was (somewhat stealthily) that movie's protagonist. (Ex-cop turned wasteland wanderer Max Rockatansky, played by Tom Hardy , was also in there, but mainly to offer Furiosa support, though he did get his own arc.) Here, Furiosa is played by the silent film-eyed actress  Anya Taylor-Joy as a teenager and adult, and Alyla Browne as a child. In place of the linear narratives that powered the previous four "Mad Max" films, with stories unfolding within more compacted time frames, this one takes place over the span of about fifteen years. And the tale is broken into sections that each feel like self-contained short movies about different aspects of Furiosa's life and development. 

The fragmented feeling is intensified by the chapter titles that precede each new entry. Taken together, these give the film the feeling of a holy text that audiences can study (chapter and verse) to learn the legend of this character. By the end, "Furiosa" seems even more of a desert messiah-liberator figure than Max—who, it should be said, also became a bit more of a mythic figure with each new entry in the series. (Furiosa's mom tries to rescue Furiosa from her captors and is tortured and murdered while her daughter watches, in a pose that suggests a crucifixion.) 

There's also a Max-like figure played by Tom Burke who becomes important for a couple of chapters and whose bond with Furiosa is fascinatingly portrayed as something more akin to a couple of pack animals bonding than as a couple of human lovers. Of course, he dies a gruesome death. There are a lot of gruesome deaths in this film, and they seem even uglier than in previous films. I'm far from the first writer ruminating on the "Mad Max" films to invoke Thomas Hobbes's description in " Leviathan " of human life in a state of nature as being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." But did ever I feel it in my bones this time, even more so than in any other movie in the series. 

Miller and cowriter Nico Lathouris have complicated the "Mad Max" world in much the same way that George Lucas complicated the universe of " Star Wars " in the first prequel trilogy. Both replaced a streamlined, simplistic " These  are the good guys, and  these people over here  are the bad guys" diorama with an elaborately embroidered tapestry of government and economics. After all, the main villain was a career politician who understood the intricacies of the system better than anyone else. 

The main antagonist in "Furiosa," Chris Hemsworth's Dementus, is not a grand monstrosity like Immortan Joe in "Fury Road" or even Humungus in "The Road Warrior (aka "Mad Max 2"). Instead, he's a demonic clown with a philosophical streak and, it appears at times, a lot of self-loathing (which doesn't announce itself except when he's committing the most exceptionally brutal acts). He's an instigator, hustler, and double-crosser, practically the post-apocalyptic version of a figure out of a Sergio Leone Western. He pushes other characters' buttons and promises riches and power mainly so that he can get the things he wants. He's a monologist/pontificator. He dreams of being a grand monster, a philosopher-king of the wasteland. But he's not there yet. And as the years stretch out and he continues to be a bit of an also-ran—grumbled about and even openly mocked by others when he's not looming in their faces—you start to feel the weight of his thwarted ambitions. Dementus hates that he hasn't gotten to where he thinks he deserves to be. 

Perhaps more so than any other "Max" movie, "Furiosa" gives you a strong sense of how much work it must be to succeed as a despot when society has crumbled. There are multiple bad guy-coded characters in "Furiosa"—Dementus plus the heads of the Citadel, the Bullet Farm, and Gas Town and also Octoboss, who gets tired of Dementus' erratic leadership and goes rogue in one of the chapters—but none of them feel like a video game Big Bad this time. The scale of the production is as immense as in "Fury Road," but everything feels shabbier. You also get a keener sense of how cult behavior is manufactured to provide an army of uncompensated laborers who are there because they believe in a cause, however self-contradictory and dumb it might seem. The War Boys, in particular, are lemmings who will leap to their deaths when commanded. 

What will stick with me more than any of the extraordinary images and stunts is the film's final section, in which Furiosa, who has suffered and suffered and suffered and suffered as a result of actions set in motion by Dementus, finally gets him where she wants him. A lot of movies want you to think they're about the futility of vengeance as a cathartic pursuit. Still, they often fail because it feels so good to watch a character coded as a good guy finally kill a character coded as a bad guy in some horrible and/or ironically fitting way. 

There's no feeling of triumph in the final chapter of "Furiosa," even when Miller flashes through multiple possible fates for Dementus before settling on one that shows his body being used as glorified mulch for a fruit-bearing tree. Furiosa gets to tower over him as he kneels, the position of a supplicant or slave, but at that point in the story he doesn't know who she is despite having kidnapped/adopted her and falsely presented himself as her father. He's obviously a person who's done so many horrible things to so many people that they're all a blur to him, as they would be if he were just a garden-variety sociopathic narcissist rather than that plus a militia leader and dictator wannabe. Denied the satisfaction of vengeance that's been part of the emotional fuel admixture driving her forward and keeping her alive all these years, Furiosa must decide to be satisfied with something else. Or in some other way.

How curious and eerie that this film, which is very deliberately assembled to suggest the cinematic equivalent of holy scripture, should settle on something not-definitive at the end, almost as if the narrator were confessing an inability to figure out what the message or takeaway of this story might be, or wishing they could make us feel good about a story that it's impossible to feel good about. But this rings true. When you've been repeatedly wronged throughout your life, no recourse will fill the hole that's been cut out of you. You just keep going and trying to do good, which is how Furiosa handles it.

Is the movie perfect? No, definitely not. It's probably closer to "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" than "Fury Road" because it creates a world and fills it out. What's more, it lets the filling-out of the world be the main show, even when the movie reaches for profundity and doesn't always grasp it. I don't like the use of AI (or is it simply CGI?) to make the two actresses who played Furiosa look more similar to each other. This sort of thing has never been necessary for audiences' enjoyment of a movie before this period in history. I dread filmmakers starting to feel that it ought to be necessary now. (I am not, however, interested in entertaining arguments about whether these movies became too digital starting with "Fury Road"; Miller is an artist who is using tech in the last two films to accomplish things that it might not have been possible to accomplish any other way without killing people or spending a billion dollars.) 

There's a thin line between using the latest tech to stitch together shots in ways that make a film look more like a graphic novel/comic book (which "Furiosa" repeatedly does in action scenes built around characters on bikes or in truck cabs turning to look at things to the sides or behind them, every moving shot landing perfectly to create a frame-within-a-frame) and half-recreating a dead person or morphing two living people together to save audiences the trouble of using their imaginations and taking a leap. I honestly don't know where the line is. So much is changing so fast. But I know it's there, and I hope somebody points it out so we don't have to keep having these kinds of discussions. I think maybe (a) don't digitally resurrect the dead and (b) respect the integrity of an actor's physical appearance when they were on the set might be two good starting places for developing a code of ethics moving forward. 

Related: I think it was a mistake to bring back so many of the key actors from "Fury Road" rather than just recasting everyone, especially since they got a different actress to play the adult Furiosa anyway (there are even ghostly glimpses in the film of  Richard Carter , who played the Bullet Farmer in "Fury Road" and died four years after its release; his features have been digitally blended with Lee Perry, who plays the part in "Furiosa"). Why not just rip everything up and start all over? I like the idea that the "Mad Max" movies aren't supposed to be viewed as carefully interconnected stories with consistently laid-out histories and casting decisions, but as something more like parables or campfire stories that happen to return to key characters, places and locales. It not only thwarts the mind-numbingly boring arguments about whether a given event in a franchise is "canon"; it lets many different actors take a stab at playing iconic characters over several years. 

I also think it was mistake to show footage of "Fury Road" at the end. I suspect doing so was probably a way for Miller to say to audiences who might've been shaken or disturbed by the final section, "Yes, this was a dark film, and one that denied you the brute satisfactions you wanted, but hey, look, there's a compensation: she liberates the breeder women group that she was briefly a part of, so it's kind of a happy ending." Weirdly, perhaps, I feel the same way when a dramatization of real events ends with footage of the actual people, to show you what a good job the casting and makeup people did. It almost feels like the movie is accidentally sending the message that "Fury Road" was the real thing and this movie is an "inspired by" project.

That said, this is an extraordinary movie that reminded me of being a young moviegoer and entering into the worlds of Sergio Leone and Akira Kurosawa (two huge influences on Miller). Think of their late-career films like "Once Upon a Time in America," "Kagemusha," and "Ran." They were so visually dynamic yet contemplative-internal, at times mysterious,  you came out of the theater feeling that you'd had a powerful transportive experience, like someone who'd been put into a trance. And yet, at the same time, you didn't quite know how to process what just happened to you, because the artist had denied you the obvious pointers and guide signs, and a lot the material was presented in a manner that made it impossible just to feel one way.

Like the Kurosawa and Leone films, I'm glad I saw "Furiosa" in a theater. Miller makes films for theaters. The intensely focused immersive approach to picture and sound is unlike anyone else making movies today. It's not just bigger than the norm; somehow, it's deeper. You feel it in your gut, and it lives there long after the credits have faded.

I don't think words like "success" or "failure" should apply to box office reporting anymore, now that we're five decades into the home video revolution when movies eventually break even through ancillary markets. Their profits are always hidden anyway by the dark magic of "Hollywood accounting"; Ed Solomon has written about how a movie he wrote, the original 1998 "Men in Black," is supposedly still showing a loss despite having made almost $600 million. 

Related to this: which kind of movie ultimately proves to be more valuable to the rights-holder, something like " The Conversation ," which won the top prize at Cannes in 1974 and is still talked about and influential, or the disaster film "Earthquake," the top grosser from that same year, which almost nobody talks about or rewatches now because it's mediocre? "Furiosa" will be rewatched and talked about as long as movies are discussed. Talking about it might be more fun than watching it—which I suspect is by design. That's why they call a film like this one a conversation piece.

Matt Zoller Seitz

Matt Zoller Seitz is the Editor at Large of RogerEbert.com, TV critic for New York Magazine and Vulture.com, and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism.

Latest blog posts

Kevin Costner: The Last of the Cornball American Directors

Leaving A Mark Behind: Kevin Costner on Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1

The Hard Way, Or My Way? RIP Bill Cobbs (1934-2024)

Catherine Breillat Wants You to Think About (Movie) Sex Differently

Latest reviews.

A Quiet Place: Day One

Brian tallerico.

Green Border

Godfrey cheshire.

Last Summer

Christy lemire.

Sheila O'Malley

Kalki 2898 - AD

Simon abrams.

Filed under:

Kalki 2898 AD has the ultimate recipe for a sci-fi epic: Star Wars + Hindu myth + RRR

With a dash of Blade Runner, a pinch of Mad Max: Fury Road, and all the Amitabh Bachchan you can eat

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Kalki 2898 AD has the ultimate recipe for a sci-fi epic: Star Wars + Hindu myth + RRR

Actor Amitabh Bachchan is a metaphorical giant of Indian cinema , a superstar of proportions that dwarf even A-list American celebrities. In the Indian sci-fi epic Kalki 2898 AD , his stature becomes literal: In his role as the 7-foot-tall immortal warrior Ashwatthama, the 81-year-old towers over his younger co-stars, all of whom are draws in their own right. (A handy way for the uninitiated to measure the relative fame of an Indian actor is to note the length of their introduction in a movie — the bigger the name, the more elaborate the entrance.) The sheer amount of star power in this film is overwhelming, but that isn’t even the most ambitious thing about it.

Writer-director Nag Ashwin means for Kalki 2898 AD to be nothing less than the ultimate sci-fi epic. Its scope is huge, covering 6,000 years of mythological history. Its run time is long, telling the first part of a two-part story over three jam-packed hours. (To be fair, Denis Villeneuve ’s Dune movies aren’t much shorter.) And its production was expensive — reportedly around $72 million , one of the biggest budgets ever for an Indian movie. The filmmakers hope it will be a crossover event akin to S.S. Rajamouli ’s record-breaking hit RRR , not only within India’s disparate film industries (Bachchan is known as a Bollywood actor, while co-stars Prabhas and Kamal Haasan work in Telugu and Tamil films, respectively) but internationally as well.

The film’s look, rendered almost entirely through CGI, will certainly feel familiar to Western audiences, with elements that recall the beloved sci-fi franchises Blade Runner , Star Wars , The Matrix , Dune , and especially Mad Max: Fury Road . The story is more specifically Indian, taking the Hindu myth of Kalki — the 10th and final incarnation of the god Vishnu, who will come to lead humanity into a new era of peace and justice — and transporting it to a dystopian sci-fi setting. But while references to magical weapons and folkloric heroes may go over the heads of all but the best-informed foreign viewers, the story’s arc follows the familiar beats of a Chosen One narrative.

This first chapter of the Kalki 2898 AD saga spends much of its run time setting up its characters and world, beginning with a caravan of refugees arriving in the futuristic city of Kasi, the last outpost of civilization after droughts and pollution have rendered most of the planet uninhabitable. Life is cheap in Kasi, where a single chicken egg fetches the same price as a human being on the black market. The one exception is fertile women, who have become extremely valuable in this dystopian future world: Whenever one is discovered, she’s sold and shipped off to the Complex, a floating pyramid above the city, where a wealthy minority hoard the few natural resources that are left.

SUM-80 (Deepika Padukone) is one of these women, and one of hundreds who live as lab rats at the pleasure of Supreme Yaskin (Haasan), a 200-year-old tyrant who extends his life by extracting a serum from the wombs of impregnated female captives. The women die in the process, but no matter; their corpses are thrown into an incinerator, and new girls take their place. SUM-80, understandably, wants to live, so she’s hiding her pregnancy from everyone around her. But it’s been five months, and the sadistic doctors who run this so-called Project K will notice soon.

Things are grim in a different way outside of the Complex, though affable bounty hunter Bhairava (Prabhas) does his best to keep the mood light. Indian films typically blend genres, and although Kalki 2898 AD is more serious-minded than most Bollywood fare — there are no true musical numbers, sadly, though characters do lip-sync to Santhosh Narayanan’s original songs — Bhairava and his wisecracking AI companion Bujji (Keerthy Suresh) bring much-needed, Star Wars-esque comedic banter to the film. Bhairava is a Han Solo type, motivated by self-interest and the pursuit of cash, or “units.” Like Han, he’s also a ladykiller, as we learn when the similarly roguish Roxie (Disha Patani) enters the narrative.

At first, it isn’t clear how SUM-80, Bhairava, and 6,000-year-old badass Ashwatthama, who spends much of the movie hiding out in a cave, are connected. It’s never in doubt that they’ll meet up eventually, though, or that each of them will play their role in fulfilling the prophecy preached by a rebel group living in a hidden utopia known as Shambhala. Eventually, the action moves to the rebels’ sacred retreat. But first, SUM-80 must race across the wastelands, pursued by both Supreme Yaskin’s flunkies and Bhairava, who plans to exchange this precious hostage for admission to the Complex.

Some of the digital backgrounds VFX supervisor Praveen Kilaru and his team created for Kalki 2898 AD are absolutely stunning, and sci-fi fans who like nerding out on cool ships and badass vehicles will find a lot to get into here. (The design for Bujji, who can transform from a cool car to a cooler battle robot, is especially compelling.)

But the fact that this is just the first part of a two-part story creates some serious structural issues. The first two hours of the film pass at a lively but unhurried clip, but the final hour tries to cram too much into an already overstimulating epic battle scene. It feels panicky and confused as it rushes through crucial plot developments and exposition.

Comparisons between Kalki and RRR are inevitable, if only because the former is nakedly trying to replicate the success of the latter. But Nag Ashwin’s film is missing a few of the elements that made RRR so charming: There’s no central bromance, no exhilarating dance sequences, and no sense of surprise. There is comedy, but it’s isolated in certain sections of the film, and there’s much less romance and music than audiences might expect. It’s still an entertaining ride, with some cool imagery and exciting chase scenes. But by channeling the gravitas of Western sci-fi movies, Kalki 2898 AD loses some of the range that makes Indian movies special. Its ambition is to be applauded. Its self-seriousness, not so much.

Kalki 2898 AD is in theaters worldwide now.

Loading comments...

New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account

Already have an account? Login Now

•  Subscribe

•  Latest Pets
•  Forum: Posts today 593

E4 Remake: Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves devs on restoring the glory of SNK's fighting franchise

We spoke to the developers at SNK about their passion and ambition in rekindling hype for the Fatal Fury series.

SNK has been doing well in putting up solid fighting games like Samurai Shodown and The King of Fighters 15 in recent years, but one classic franchise has rested dormant while its characters were used elsewhere. Fatal Fury has a long history and following and it’s about to come to a new generation with City of the Wolves. Restoring this franchise to its former glory is also quite the job for the devs at SNK, but they’re more than up to the task. We spoke to them about Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves, its mechanics, and that ambitious effort in the interview below.

Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves is set to launch sometime in early 2025. You can follow the game for more updates and the latest info on its official website , through SNK on social media , and wishlist Fatal Fury: City of Wolves on Steam . Be sure to follow our E4 Remake topic as well to keep up with all of the awesome content from our latest showcase.

TJ Denzer is a player and writer with a passion for games that has dominated a lifetime. He found his way to the Shacknews roster in late 2019 and has worked his way to Senior News Editor since. Between news coverage, he also aides notably in livestream projects like the indie game-focused Indie-licious, the Shacknews Stimulus Games, and the Shacknews Dump. You can reach him at [email protected] and also find him on Twitter @JohnnyChugs .

• SNK Playmore
• Fighting Games
• Video Interview
• SNK Corporation
• summer of doing our jobs
• Fatal Fury series
• Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves
• Shacknews E4 Remake

TJ Denzer posted a new article, E4 Remake: Fatal Fury: City of the Wolves devs on restoring the glory of SNK's fighting franchise