Re the notes:
Oddly enough, I had never gone to see THE FURY when it was released. I have no idea why it wouldn't have been a "must see" for me then. And I never crossed paths with it in all these intervening years. So, when I watched the Blu-ray last week, it was a new, undiscovered film for me (love when that happens) and I was fascinated from beginning to end. No, it can't equal CARRIE -- it suffers (if it must suffer at all) from being a sequel of sorts. But what a sequel of sorts! And what a cast! And yes, what a score from John Williams, Bernard Herrmann quotes and all. And though having never seen it, I had absolutely no problem with the look of it. It looked like film -- especially, the way so many films looked in the '70s -- from first frame to last. Why those aspects of it are distracting or even catastrophic for some of these people watching it now, is totally beyond me. Little imperfections and all, it's beautiful, and I can't get enough of the beautiful look of film so beautifully transferred. We are so fortunate to have all of this now.
Haven't yet watched CHRISTINE. Will do so soon. (I got what must have been one of the last copies the evening it went on sale.) And I'll agree with BK's short list of Stephen King stories and films. These are the ones with substance, and I'm glad they attracted the attention of those very filmmakers. I had a similar, though not as severe, reaction to THE SHINING. I liked it okay for the most part, but was put off by the Nicholson antics and humor. (And I love Nicholson antics and humor.) But I'd wanted it to be more "serious". So I remained 'eh' about it, and it was years later that I returned to it and could see it as a Kubrick film. Book and film, two different things, and I do love 'em both now.
(I traveled that same path with Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE, a more extreme example of book/film love/hate. I still don't "love" it, but now I'm able to like it. A lot.)
