Diagonaldi Very well executed

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

sol- Retitled 'Try and Get Me' for re-release, this crime drama flows better under its original title, with 'Fury' referring to swelling mob anger as an unemployed father confesses to aiding in the murder of a man he was holding for ransom. And yet, while angry mobs and the sort of sensationalistic newspaper reporting that encourages mob hysteria are important factors, they are left to the final third of the movie with the bulk of time spent on the budding friendship between the father and psychopath who lures him into a life of crime. This is a positive in that the film exposes the vulnerability of men without steady jobs and bills and personal pride to contend with. The first hour of the movie also gives Lloyd Bridges a chance to a shine in a tricky turn that requires him to talk and act sanely with a wild streak bubbling just beneath the surface. The final half-hour of the film is less effective than it could have been though. The film's messages are hammered home with the newspaper reporter character bluntly told "as a journalist you have a great responsibility" and "men don't live in a vacuum". Lead actor Frank Lovejoy also has a hard time playing mentally unhinged in a credible manner. With such a solid first hour though, this is a difficult movie to overlook and it remains well filmed towards the end, with lots of creative camera angles, even when the material turns didactic.

beresfordjd Lloyd Bridges always gives good value whether as a complete villain, as here, or as a hero- remember Sea Hunt? Sea Hunt was my favourite TV series when I was an impressionable kid. I also loved him in the Airplane movies, showing a real talent for comedy. He is the best thing in this B movie. Most of the other actors I am sure were not professionals and Frank Lovejoy was not up to par either and usually I have quite liked his performances. I am watching it as I type this and am far from impressed by it - brave treatment of a dark subject or no. The actress who plays the manicurist is close to appallingly bad. Where were the razzies when we needed them? I am interested enough to see it through ,however, so it cannot be quite as bad as I am painting it. There are lots of film noir movies from this era that were so much better. This could have been superb with a better, more able cast (Lloyd Bridges aside). I think a lot of this was dubbed later so it affects the acting and atmosphere.

bob the moo When Howard Tyler moved his family out west to California, he did not plan for unemployment to push them as close to breaking point as it has. Down on his luck, Howard is hanging out in a bowling lane when he meets the charismatic and generous Jerry Slocum. Slocum offers him a job that will pay really well and Howard gratefully accepts. When he learns that he is the driver in the robbery of a grocery store, he has misgivings but none that cannot be drowned out by the relief of having plenty of money in his pocket for the first time in years. However one thing leads to another and it is not long before Howard finds himself exceeding what he is willing to accept being part of but yet unable to get out.A late night "noir" double bill on channel 4 caused me to stumble across this film despite never having heard of it before. Although not strictly a noir, the film is an effective drama that does rely on the "normal" guy drawn into a destructive world of crime. The plot offers lots of potential in the dark content and is still good even if it doesn't really deliver on it. The narrative focuses on Howard's descent and I was surprised by morally quite how simplistic it all was. Howard's inability to deal with what he does is straightforward and the clear fate served him by the script is also quite easy. The media plays a part in the shape of journalist Gil Stanton and I hoped this would produce something of real insight but mostly he and other characters seem to exist to vocalise the moralising part of the script. They do make more of it towards the end but I wanted more in the way of consistency.The moralising and simplicity across the film does rather make for a weaker second half but the "descent" is by far the best part of the film. In terms of delivery it offers more dramatic scenes but this also means more meat for the actors to work with. Lovejoy's desperation but yet conflict is written across his performance and at its best is pretty good. Unfortunately for him, he is totally in the shadow of a really enjoyable turn from Lloyd Bridges. Bridges is cool, arrogant, angry, slick, vain, violent and unpredictable and he is easily the most memorable part of the film. Inexplicable then that the script lets him disappear for the vast majority of the second half of the film – his absence is felt. Carlson tries to be the heart of the later debate but he cannot do it and comes over quite insincere and simplistic. Ryan, Locke, Jergens and others are so-so.Overall then this is an interesting moral drama that has plenty of good moments in the first half and plenty of potential in the second half's moralising. Bridges and Lovejoy deliver well in the first half. While it is a real shame that the second half feels weak, simplistic and no where near as intelligent and challenging as I wanted it to be, it is still pretty dark and interesting for the period and should be recognised for that.

bux I saw this movie as a child, and had a chance to see it recently after more years than I want to admit. I know why it has stuck with me for so many years. This is powerful stuff, even by today's standards. Crime, punishment, yellow journalism, it is all addressed in this finely acted, fast paced drama. Bridges(like you've never seen him before!)turns in an acting 'tour de force' as the ego-maniac, demented hoodlum that kills without reason. Lovejoy is the husband and father caught up in a bad period of economics, Carlson the reporter that must learn that the power of the word is often as swift and deadly as that of the sword. This is high drama, done in the classic 50s film-noir tradition, it is must viewing for anyone that enjoyed "In Cold Blood"(1967)and movies of that genre.