The goofs and historical inaccuracies are everywhere in this movie. War historian Youtubers pick this movie to pieces. As they should. The inaccuracies and goofs are overwhelming for anyone with an ounce of WW2 military history knowledge.
As a military historian myself, I spotted errors within the first 5 minutes, BUT, I enjoyed this movie. It is WW2 war movie entertainment only. Military historians go to ton on this movie/... the inaccuracies are overwhelming... but it is a damn fine movie. The acting is superb. Fantastic film work, and what id o personally like is the German Tiger tank in the movie, is an actual German Tiger tank being the only fully functional restored Tiger in the world.
1,159 Reviews
An energetic octane rush, but historically absurd.
Sleepin_Dragon14 January 2023
Where to even begin.... I don't make out to be a historian, but I take a keen interest in this time period, it's a fascinating, horrendous era, this .... doesn't give any historical fact or detail, it's basically a shoot 'em up movie which happens to be set during The Second World War.
It surprises me that they didn't have someone beating Hitler up, uppercutting Goebbels in a bunker action sequence.
The Second World War, Hollywood style, some white amazing looking action sequences throughout, it's incredibly atmospheric, you can almost smell the gunpowder and feel the tension.
I hate myself for saying it, but I love this film, it's Brad Pitt and Shia laBeouf both absolutely nailing it.
If you watch any reviews, or read many of the written reviews, you'd come away thinking this film wasn't worth your time, my advice would be to try it, but know what you're getting.
It's absurd, but it's so enjoyable.
8/10.
It surprises me that they didn't have someone beating Hitler up, uppercutting Goebbels in a bunker action sequence.
The Second World War, Hollywood style, some white amazing looking action sequences throughout, it's incredibly atmospheric, you can almost smell the gunpowder and feel the tension.
I hate myself for saying it, but I love this film, it's Brad Pitt and Shia laBeouf both absolutely nailing it.
If you watch any reviews, or read many of the written reviews, you'd come away thinking this film wasn't worth your time, my advice would be to try it, but know what you're getting.
It's absurd, but it's so enjoyable.
8/10.
Excellent but painful journey of male bonding
richard-543-68336512 July 2015
Reviewer after reviewer criticizes this movie for its phony depictions of the war, clichés and unrealistic battle scenes. There is only one significant fact that is crucial to know when it comes to the accuracy of the depiction; Shermans were going to be your coffin in a face-off with a Tiger. If you want serious historical detail then consider watching a WWII documentary. I think the overall depictions were secondary and only serve as the backdrop for the director's real message which was the painful slow process of the relationship that was built between these guys in a tragic situation. I think Ayers did a masterful job at this. You think Brad Pitt is a second rate actor? Watch his facial expressions during the scenes in the room with Logan Lerman and the 2 women; Watch his nervous breakdowns. Watch him in the "Why are you such an asshole?" scene. Watch him as he jokes with his guys about Hitler and chocolate bars. Even with Wardaddy's personal weaknesses, by the middle of the movie you understand why these guys liked, admired and respected him, and I'll bet you do also. His timing and delivery, in my opinion, are better than Tom Hanks on this best day. Watch LaBoeuf's nervous leg, and a list of other endearing nuanced details; He plays a very convincing religious proselytizer. During the tank battle if you didn't feel like your life was threatened then you were probably on xanex. I'm not sure that there is another film that conveys this kind of claustrophobic camaraderie from a tank crew's viewpoint. If there is, I've never seen it.
Gonna disagree with most people
bradykitchen-3364821 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Alright so my immediate reaction after this movie ended was holy crap that was good. I was in literal awe of the films ability to portray the brutality of war and how when it's all set and done it's not a bunch of medals and celebrations. When it's done it's grief and despair and trauma after everything that just happened. They show how this affects people, how it turns good people bad and forces them to become something they're not. Then I went online and read a few things that said that they didn't care about the characters cause they were "bad people". In my opinion those people completely missed the mark of the film.
This isn't a war film where you're supposed to like the characters. This is a war film that shows what war does to people, and what you have to become to survive it. Logan Lerman is the perfect example of that. His character Norman comes in as this scared shitless angel kid who's never done a wrong thing in his life. But over the course of the movie he sees what happens in war and how brutal it is and eventually becomes cold hearted and ruthless. That is what this film is. This isn't a "let's root for these lead characters because they're the heroes" film, this is a brutal telling of what actually happened during those wars and what it did to people.
The other big criticism I saw was how bad of a person Jon Bernthals character was. That was the point, everyone handles killing people over and over differently, they need to trick themselves into believing they are the kind of person who does. That's what Bernthals character is.
On a more technical note this film is almost flawless. Acting is across the board phenomenal, action sequences are stunning, music is perfect, story is top notch. I don't have anything negative to say her. Just incredible.
This isn't a war film where you're supposed to like the characters. This is a war film that shows what war does to people, and what you have to become to survive it. Logan Lerman is the perfect example of that. His character Norman comes in as this scared shitless angel kid who's never done a wrong thing in his life. But over the course of the movie he sees what happens in war and how brutal it is and eventually becomes cold hearted and ruthless. That is what this film is. This isn't a "let's root for these lead characters because they're the heroes" film, this is a brutal telling of what actually happened during those wars and what it did to people.
The other big criticism I saw was how bad of a person Jon Bernthals character was. That was the point, everyone handles killing people over and over differently, they need to trick themselves into believing they are the kind of person who does. That's what Bernthals character is.
On a more technical note this film is almost flawless. Acting is across the board phenomenal, action sequences are stunning, music is perfect, story is top notch. I don't have anything negative to say her. Just incredible.
Not your typical war movie
niteliterr1 December 2014
When one watches this movie you need to keep in mind that not all war movies are the same and the focus of the movie depends on who made the movie, how it was made and who is watching it? Make sense...of course not but in a nutshell keep an open mind. Is it about war? Yes some of it is. It is about bonding and camaraderie? Yes of course, it highlights strained relationships in very stressful and violent situations. I enjoyed the movie and being ex military in the 3rd Armour Division you do tend to pick things out BUT I could do that in just about any military movie I have seen especially from WWII to date. Without being too specific I spotted armor and infantry tactical strategies which confused me a bit but other than that I did enjoy this movie. War is ugly and this movie does not miss that point.
"Ideals are peaceful, History is violent"
bob-the-movie-man23 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I can't make my mind up about "Fury". As an escapist war film, it delivers well in a clichéd sort of way. But is it a true reflection on what the latter stages of WW2 were actually like? I doubt it. This film certainly doesn't paint American soldiers in a good light, although after slogging their way across Europe for months on end, facing sense-numbing death and destruction on a daily basis, perhaps it is a realistic portrayal? I just don't know, and would be interested to hear the views of any veterans who were there.
In many of the classic war films of the 50's and 60's, such as "The Longest Day" or "The Great Escape", when people were shot they just threw their arms in the air and fell down: sanitised death – – "war is hell", but let's not show it on screen. Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" rather changed all of that, with 15 minutes of the most visceral footage seen to date, which even D-Day veterans agreed was frighteningly realistic. Spielberg followed that with the remarkable "Band of Brothers", with some of the scenes – notably those in the Belgium forest – showing a realistic level of violence but more importantly bringing home the true mental anguish of war. Brad Pitt in (and on) Fury David Ayer's "Fury" differs from this masterpiece in two notable ways: firstly, the 'Tarentino effect' seems to have been brought into play with a level of violence and gore that seems to have gone over the top: heads fly off and faces come off with gay abandon; secondly, the US tank crew at the heart of the film seem to be so cold and brutal that you care very little about what happens to them – cracks in the hardened shell of Brad Pitt's character are not referenced again or followed through satisfactorily. Even the rookie crew member (a very good Logan Lerman) turns from pacifist shirker to hardened nut-job faster than you can say "Dead Nazi". As such, your emotional attachment to him gets severed pretty early on (in fact this is such an unbelievable transition that a "1 month later" subtitle could have been judiciously added at this point).
The tightly knit tank crew (Pitt, Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña, Jon Berthal) all spark off each other well, with LaBeouf as the bible-quoting Boyd Swan being particularly memorable.
The gorgeously vulnerable Alicia von Rittberg plays Emma as the one and only love interest in the film: and for once, Brad Pitt doesn't get the girl! This tense encounter is one of the best dramatic moments in the film. And Harry Potter's Jason Isaacs also delivers a great cameo as a scarred and embattled Captain Waggoner.
In terms of the film-making, it is an effectively put together film by David Ayer ("Training Day", "The Fast and the Furious") who also wrote the film. Real life tanks, from Dorset's Bovington Tank Museum, were used with South Oxfordshire standing in for rural Germany. The 'Zulu-style' climax is tense albeit very far fetched, with German's conveniently choosing to regroup and think about it for a few minutes while dramatic and more reflective moments go on inside the tank.
Music is by Steven Price (his first film score following his Oscar success with "Gravity") is effective – mixing electronica, orchestral and choral to good effect in the more dramatic scenes.
All in all, an enjoyable if rather gory romp with some memorable scenes that stick in the mind after the lights come on. If you watch blood and gore films with your hands over your eyes, this is one you might want to miss: your viewing time will be severely limited! Certainly not as bad as it could have been, but more and better character development could have perhaps turned this from a good war film into a great war film.
(If you enjoyed this review, please sign up to receive my future posts at bob-the-movie-man.com. Thanks.)
In many of the classic war films of the 50's and 60's, such as "The Longest Day" or "The Great Escape", when people were shot they just threw their arms in the air and fell down: sanitised death – – "war is hell", but let's not show it on screen. Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" rather changed all of that, with 15 minutes of the most visceral footage seen to date, which even D-Day veterans agreed was frighteningly realistic. Spielberg followed that with the remarkable "Band of Brothers", with some of the scenes – notably those in the Belgium forest – showing a realistic level of violence but more importantly bringing home the true mental anguish of war. Brad Pitt in (and on) Fury David Ayer's "Fury" differs from this masterpiece in two notable ways: firstly, the 'Tarentino effect' seems to have been brought into play with a level of violence and gore that seems to have gone over the top: heads fly off and faces come off with gay abandon; secondly, the US tank crew at the heart of the film seem to be so cold and brutal that you care very little about what happens to them – cracks in the hardened shell of Brad Pitt's character are not referenced again or followed through satisfactorily. Even the rookie crew member (a very good Logan Lerman) turns from pacifist shirker to hardened nut-job faster than you can say "Dead Nazi". As such, your emotional attachment to him gets severed pretty early on (in fact this is such an unbelievable transition that a "1 month later" subtitle could have been judiciously added at this point).
The tightly knit tank crew (Pitt, Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña, Jon Berthal) all spark off each other well, with LaBeouf as the bible-quoting Boyd Swan being particularly memorable.
The gorgeously vulnerable Alicia von Rittberg plays Emma as the one and only love interest in the film: and for once, Brad Pitt doesn't get the girl! This tense encounter is one of the best dramatic moments in the film. And Harry Potter's Jason Isaacs also delivers a great cameo as a scarred and embattled Captain Waggoner.
In terms of the film-making, it is an effectively put together film by David Ayer ("Training Day", "The Fast and the Furious") who also wrote the film. Real life tanks, from Dorset's Bovington Tank Museum, were used with South Oxfordshire standing in for rural Germany. The 'Zulu-style' climax is tense albeit very far fetched, with German's conveniently choosing to regroup and think about it for a few minutes while dramatic and more reflective moments go on inside the tank.
Music is by Steven Price (his first film score following his Oscar success with "Gravity") is effective – mixing electronica, orchestral and choral to good effect in the more dramatic scenes.
All in all, an enjoyable if rather gory romp with some memorable scenes that stick in the mind after the lights come on. If you watch blood and gore films with your hands over your eyes, this is one you might want to miss: your viewing time will be severely limited! Certainly not as bad as it could have been, but more and better character development could have perhaps turned this from a good war film into a great war film.
(If you enjoyed this review, please sign up to receive my future posts at bob-the-movie-man.com. Thanks.)
Inglouris Blastards
film316-125-42767730 November 2014
People seem to think that war films are pretty hot right now, but they aren't. Having my ear so close to cinema I know for sure that there is always one or two war films floating around in the projection booths, but people are making somewhat of a big deal out of Fury, so I suppose the reel question is will this be a Flag For Our Fathers or will it make us wish for Apocalypse Now?
So lets get this out of the way now. Fury isn't as good as Saving Private Ryan, but then I don't think it ever meant to be, comparing the two movies is like saying that Saun Of The Dead isn't as good as The Book Of Eli, just because both films has similarities (in as much as they are set at the end of the world) doesn't mean they are anything alike. These are two films that are near logger heads with each other.
You see Fury is contained, and given an almost claustrophobic feel to it, the entire film is either inside or at close proximity of the tank that Collier commands. This gives the movie a focus, and a focal point. We are never given a rest from the tank and it's enforcing nature, we are given no repreave from it, just like the men themselves, we are trapped in a steel giant that is only purpose is to kill people.
To say that Fury is bloodthirsty would be an understatement, actually that's not fair for me to say. Fury doesn't enjoy itself in gore, it only tries to give us an accurate portrayal of what it must have been like for those brave men and women who faced death on a daily basis.
That's what David Ayer does really well, he controls his audience. In the opening scene we are shown Collier (Brad Pitt) ambushing and attacking a German officer, it is crude and desperate and over quickly but we can tell even then that is a man who cannot cope with the horrors he has had to endure.
Looking back there are so many moments in Fury that stand out as impressive. There is a single second where Collier shows his true emotions and it is incredible to view. Collier is a man who is forced to be a hero, he never chooses it, he wants only to survive this war.
Any war film can be impressive in it's action sequences, anyone can make loud noises and explosions and fighting, but if a war film can still shock and grip and captivate you in the slower periods, in the silences, that's when you know for sure you have an outstanding movie, and that is what happens with Fury.
Like all war movies, Fury ultimately builds to a climatic finale and truly I think it's one of the best I've ever seen, not because of the action or it's quality of visuals but because we have invested too much into the characters we have seen on screen.
The film of course would be nothing without the men inside the tank, those being Brad Pitt (who helms the best), Shia LaBouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal. With these men there is no star, or main character, outside the tank the two leads are Logan Lerman (Who plays the new recruit) and Brad Pitt, however once we are inside the tank all men are equals, and dare I say it, but Shai LaBouf is actually quite good in his role. It's also always nice to see Jason Issacs on screen (hello to you).
Fury is a poignant and painful reminder of how much war can take from each of us, it is a film that never wants us to relax and we never do. Gory and gripping, Fury deserves a high spot in the history of war movies.
So lets get this out of the way now. Fury isn't as good as Saving Private Ryan, but then I don't think it ever meant to be, comparing the two movies is like saying that Saun Of The Dead isn't as good as The Book Of Eli, just because both films has similarities (in as much as they are set at the end of the world) doesn't mean they are anything alike. These are two films that are near logger heads with each other.
You see Fury is contained, and given an almost claustrophobic feel to it, the entire film is either inside or at close proximity of the tank that Collier commands. This gives the movie a focus, and a focal point. We are never given a rest from the tank and it's enforcing nature, we are given no repreave from it, just like the men themselves, we are trapped in a steel giant that is only purpose is to kill people.
To say that Fury is bloodthirsty would be an understatement, actually that's not fair for me to say. Fury doesn't enjoy itself in gore, it only tries to give us an accurate portrayal of what it must have been like for those brave men and women who faced death on a daily basis.
That's what David Ayer does really well, he controls his audience. In the opening scene we are shown Collier (Brad Pitt) ambushing and attacking a German officer, it is crude and desperate and over quickly but we can tell even then that is a man who cannot cope with the horrors he has had to endure.
Looking back there are so many moments in Fury that stand out as impressive. There is a single second where Collier shows his true emotions and it is incredible to view. Collier is a man who is forced to be a hero, he never chooses it, he wants only to survive this war.
Any war film can be impressive in it's action sequences, anyone can make loud noises and explosions and fighting, but if a war film can still shock and grip and captivate you in the slower periods, in the silences, that's when you know for sure you have an outstanding movie, and that is what happens with Fury.
Like all war movies, Fury ultimately builds to a climatic finale and truly I think it's one of the best I've ever seen, not because of the action or it's quality of visuals but because we have invested too much into the characters we have seen on screen.
The film of course would be nothing without the men inside the tank, those being Brad Pitt (who helms the best), Shia LaBouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal. With these men there is no star, or main character, outside the tank the two leads are Logan Lerman (Who plays the new recruit) and Brad Pitt, however once we are inside the tank all men are equals, and dare I say it, but Shai LaBouf is actually quite good in his role. It's also always nice to see Jason Issacs on screen (hello to you).
Fury is a poignant and painful reminder of how much war can take from each of us, it is a film that never wants us to relax and we never do. Gory and gripping, Fury deserves a high spot in the history of war movies.
Accurate in some respects but fantastic in others.
RatedVforVinny9 September 2020
This film let itself down in the end but was the first U.S war film Iv'e ever seen depicting the reality, that American soldiers were mostly mopping up Hitler Youth fanatics. Also showing that U.S troops were capable of atrocities, just like any other combatant (from other nations). The best part of the movie was seeing a real legendary Tiger Tank in Action. The one that is used in this movie (the only working one in the World), is Tiger 131 (housed at Bovington Tank Museum). Obviously in real warfare it would have smashed those American tanks to a zillion pieces. The ratio of Tiger to Sherman K.O's is 14 to 1. One Tiger knocked out 50 T-34's on the Eastern Front. The ending is the most fantastical war scene I ever seen. All of a sudden 'Fury' turns into Star Wars but way less believable. How do 100's of Waffen SS soldiers fail to beat a a severely crippled tank. It's highly unlikely that they would have been there at the end of the war (singing along a road). The SS committed beastly war crimes (true) but they were also crack combat troopers. My 10 year old boy stated the pure obvious.! "Why the hell did they not fire the boxes of 'Panzerfausts' they had at hand!" I'm sure everyone apart from the Director, was thinking the very same absurdity. Still there is more to like than dislike, so settling on a 7 rating.
Emotional, Visceral, Gritty
CalRhys4 November 2014
I can gladly say that David Ayer's World War II flick 'Fury' lived up to my expectations. The audience are confronted with the horrors of war, accompanied with some truly spectacular well-crafted battle scenes that proves Ayer's desire to create something new and profound. Ayer keeps the gritty realism he employed on his other acclaimed films only this time uses it to depict the journey of a tank crew in Germany in 1945. The performances are strong from Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman and even Shia LaBeouf has proved he has a hidden acting talent after his heyday on the set of 'Transformers'. An emotional war-drama that packs a punch with visceral action scenes and an atmospheric score, definitely worth a watch.
Two hours of nihilism
lilgrasshoppah31 October 2016
War is hell. It is a macabre sarcasm of Life. It perverts all normal socially-accepted truths. And, in such a hell, only demons can survive -- - only demons can know how to excel.
War Daddy (the inhuman, nearly immortal, soulless, progenitor of all destruction) says it best: "We're not here for 'Right or Wrong'... we are here to kill them."
Perhaps, one imagines that there will be peace and happiness, beyond the unrelenting violence... but, after such implacable destruction, not only of lives... but of Life... what consolation can there be?
Every chicken-hawk, war-mongering coward, should be required to witness this film. It is harrowing. It is cleansing. It teaches that violence begets violence. All that is pure and good, is destroyed by war... and it is only the purity of goodness, that restores goodness after the war is over. One wonders if it does any good to know the fact... for the demons in charge refuse to learn. And their deaths, after a time, proves nothing.
I am filled with unrelenting sadness over this film. Its perfection shall go on, unappreciated. Its unblinking honesty will go on, unheeded. For, there will be other wars (there are many, now). There will be other demons, who's lust for conquest will obliterate everything they know... even/especially the things they profess to love.
Because war is hell, and paradise does not exist in this realm... or, even after. The perversity of war... the final image... testifies to this fact. Life with war, is tainted. A poisoned well does not come clean.
War Daddy (the inhuman, nearly immortal, soulless, progenitor of all destruction) says it best: "We're not here for 'Right or Wrong'... we are here to kill them."
Perhaps, one imagines that there will be peace and happiness, beyond the unrelenting violence... but, after such implacable destruction, not only of lives... but of Life... what consolation can there be?
Every chicken-hawk, war-mongering coward, should be required to witness this film. It is harrowing. It is cleansing. It teaches that violence begets violence. All that is pure and good, is destroyed by war... and it is only the purity of goodness, that restores goodness after the war is over. One wonders if it does any good to know the fact... for the demons in charge refuse to learn. And their deaths, after a time, proves nothing.
I am filled with unrelenting sadness over this film. Its perfection shall go on, unappreciated. Its unblinking honesty will go on, unheeded. For, there will be other wars (there are many, now). There will be other demons, who's lust for conquest will obliterate everything they know... even/especially the things they profess to love.
Because war is hell, and paradise does not exist in this realm... or, even after. The perversity of war... the final image... testifies to this fact. Life with war, is tainted. A poisoned well does not come clean.
Mixed feelings ...
Reviewer994 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Exciting, well filmed, good acting, but the plot had holes. The major one being the ending. You do not stand and fight at your crippled tank. You take what you need from the tank, booby trap it, then retreat back to your lines while booby trapping the route of the advancing enemy.
In the movie Platoon the soldiers had to stand and fight because they had nowhere to retreat to. That ending worked.
And what's with the tank hitting a mine along a pristine country road with no signs of battle anywhere in the vicinity. Or the singing Nazi soldiers marching in unison in this countryside setting too.
Oh the shark jumps ...
In the movie Platoon the soldiers had to stand and fight because they had nowhere to retreat to. That ending worked.
And what's with the tank hitting a mine along a pristine country road with no signs of battle anywhere in the vicinity. Or the singing Nazi soldiers marching in unison in this countryside setting too.
Oh the shark jumps ...
Those last bitter days
bkoganbing28 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Fury has Brad Pitt starring as a battle hardened tank commander in those last days before VE Day. Russians to the east, Americans, British, Canadians and assorted other allies invading the Third Reich that was supposed to last for a thousand years. These were the last bitter days of the war when what was on the west were kids and die-hard S. S. troops.
While the Russians were facing a desperate resistance from the German Army because Germans in general knew what to expect from the avenging Russian bear, the western front had everyone surrendering or trying to cut deals for themselves. Not so the S. S. troops, Hitler's elite. And those we kill.
In those last days Pitt gets a new replacement, a clerk typist suddenly drafted into the tank corps. It was Logan Lerman's misfortune to miss the end of the war in Europe by only a few weeks. He has a really bad time of it with Pitt and his crew, but eventually gets into the savage spirit of impatience for these men who just want these people to surrender and get it over.
In the end Pitt gets what could be a last stand mission, hold a vital checkpoint crossroads to prevent a Nazi counterattack.
Pitt and his soldiers are not from Hollywood World War II era films. They are a savage crew. But heroism sometimes can just be a case of\ opportunity.
There might be an Oscar in the offing for Pitt and Lerman. Both are incredibly good and incredibly dynamic. The battle special effects are first rate. It's one unvarnished view of World War 2's final days.
While the Russians were facing a desperate resistance from the German Army because Germans in general knew what to expect from the avenging Russian bear, the western front had everyone surrendering or trying to cut deals for themselves. Not so the S. S. troops, Hitler's elite. And those we kill.
In those last days Pitt gets a new replacement, a clerk typist suddenly drafted into the tank corps. It was Logan Lerman's misfortune to miss the end of the war in Europe by only a few weeks. He has a really bad time of it with Pitt and his crew, but eventually gets into the savage spirit of impatience for these men who just want these people to surrender and get it over.
In the end Pitt gets what could be a last stand mission, hold a vital checkpoint crossroads to prevent a Nazi counterattack.
Pitt and his soldiers are not from Hollywood World War II era films. They are a savage crew. But heroism sometimes can just be a case of\ opportunity.
There might be an Oscar in the offing for Pitt and Lerman. Both are incredibly good and incredibly dynamic. The battle special effects are first rate. It's one unvarnished view of World War 2's final days.
War is ugly and disgusting
chinookchen15 December 2019
I would have given this movie a 10-star rating if not for the last 30 minutes. The first 90 minutes perfectly showed how every war is ugly and disgusting. The Americans, although on the side of the justice and righteousness, were equally ugly and disgusting on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes of the movie tried to turn it into a heroic story, which was not in accordance with the first 90 minutes and became a political propaganda of USA.
Gritty but unrealistic hocum and very silly final scene.
barjo-915-20322926 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
OK, lets face it. We are over movies where one American kills 20 Germans who seemingly can't hit the wall of a Barn. They were big in the 1950's, and 1970s, but not any longer.
Fury is a gritty film, with great productions values, really period vehicles, settings and costume. The acting is good, but it is let down by tow things.
Clichéd characters. There is the tough commander, the new kid, the slightly crazy guy. There are a lot of clichéd characters here.
Unrealistic battle scenes. Seriously I just switched off in the last scene. 20 or 30 SS guys with Panzerfasut would have destroyed an immobilied Sherman tank in 5 or 6 minutes. BUT 200 CRACK SS soldiers can't destroy a tank with its tracks off, sitting in the middle of a road????? The tank only has machine guns facing forward, so most of its sides are unprotected. Germans are carrying bazookas, but instead choose to shoot the tank with machine guns, which would not do anything? Seriously, one of the silliest, most unrealistic scenes in any war movie. Really spoilt what could have been a good movie.
Fury is a gritty film, with great productions values, really period vehicles, settings and costume. The acting is good, but it is let down by tow things.
Clichéd characters. There is the tough commander, the new kid, the slightly crazy guy. There are a lot of clichéd characters here.
Unrealistic battle scenes. Seriously I just switched off in the last scene. 20 or 30 SS guys with Panzerfasut would have destroyed an immobilied Sherman tank in 5 or 6 minutes. BUT 200 CRACK SS soldiers can't destroy a tank with its tracks off, sitting in the middle of a road????? The tank only has machine guns facing forward, so most of its sides are unprotected. Germans are carrying bazookas, but instead choose to shoot the tank with machine guns, which would not do anything? Seriously, one of the silliest, most unrealistic scenes in any war movie. Really spoilt what could have been a good movie.
Forget all reviews under 9 of 10
mkbrrn9 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe that people are reviewing this movie unfavorably. I have never reviewed anything on IMDb but I absolutely must make a stand here. This movie shattered me and made me reflect on my own mortality, the horrors of war and life itself. This movie takes what people are calling "cliches" and makes it as if it is the very first time that those aspects of the film have ever touched the screen. I never once noticed anything that was cliché at all, really. Only after I read the reviews on here did I find that people were not up to the task this movie demands. It runs deep and the acting is brilliant. These actors prepared for months and lived in a tank to achieve this level of acting for the film. The clash of personalities and the blend of tension among the crew at times is perfectly rendered. This gives us both the indulgent character of man as well as the regretful side that never leaves after one has taken something that is not theirs.
The humanity of the characters is utterly obliterated but every so often, you will see it peak out a tiny bit from under the heavy burden of war that they carry. The contrast with the new face among the crew brings this out perfectly as this character attracts all of the humanity this film has but seems to fumble and drop it giving us more complexity and more to reflect on. These are complex characters given full room to breathe in this film.
On the last scene- The last scene in this movie is absolutely brilliant. Is it realistic that this could actually happen in the war? Probably not, but the movie and scene gripped me in the inferno of combat that I never cared. The last scene is meant to illustrate the futility of war and the complete waste of human life it costs us. It is a metaphor. The enormous tenacity of Pitt's character and his futile clinging to his few ideals are what drive this scene. The brutality of his character is fully owned by Pitt. There is no more Pitt left in him. There is only the objective, the end that is inevitable but so far out of reach. I just can't believe that people are reviewing this movie unfavorably. IT is a fantastic movie that gives us what art about WW2 should do: remind us about the past and never let us forget the lessons learned.
The humanity of the characters is utterly obliterated but every so often, you will see it peak out a tiny bit from under the heavy burden of war that they carry. The contrast with the new face among the crew brings this out perfectly as this character attracts all of the humanity this film has but seems to fumble and drop it giving us more complexity and more to reflect on. These are complex characters given full room to breathe in this film.
On the last scene- The last scene in this movie is absolutely brilliant. Is it realistic that this could actually happen in the war? Probably not, but the movie and scene gripped me in the inferno of combat that I never cared. The last scene is meant to illustrate the futility of war and the complete waste of human life it costs us. It is a metaphor. The enormous tenacity of Pitt's character and his futile clinging to his few ideals are what drive this scene. The brutality of his character is fully owned by Pitt. There is no more Pitt left in him. There is only the objective, the end that is inevitable but so far out of reach. I just can't believe that people are reviewing this movie unfavorably. IT is a fantastic movie that gives us what art about WW2 should do: remind us about the past and never let us forget the lessons learned.
Fury captures the horrors of war perfectly
trublu21515 October 2014
Fury pits a tank filled with five American soldiers at the tail end of World War II as they struggle to fight off a small army of Nazi soldiers that are closing in on them. David Ayer directs this brutal and grim war film with no romance to it. Ayer's film is grim, bloody and unrelenting and fully captures the absolutely horrific nature of war. Brad Pitt's Wardaddy is far from Lt. Aldo Raine in Inglorious Basterds, he is a man who is truly run ragged by this war. So much so that it is all the character knows. Followed by his brigade of miserable men played by the likes of Michael Peña, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman and Jon Bernthal, Fury depicts not only the atrocities of war but the ideology of brotherhood with this film. Each of these actors, especially LaBeouf, give their all in roles that are merely supporting on paper. Ayer has an extremely keen eye for chemistry on screen and he directs each of these actors to deliver performances that are well beyond anything that could be scripted. These men truly feel as if they are brothers in arms and you buy into every second of it. The film on a technical level is terrific. Ayer ditches his hand held method for still shots and dolly rigs and it pays off ten fold. The film is visually stunning, a pure grit to the desaturated frame is present from start to finish. As I touched on before, Fury is a violent war film much so in the vein of Saving Private Ryan and Lone Survivor. You are subjected to every bullet wound, every explosion of sharp shrapnel, every wound with the utmost visceral imagery. It is disturbing yet necessary for a film like this. Deapite these dark tones and brutality, Fury does feature lighter moments especially with Logan Lerman who gives a seemingly bare-bones performance as Norman Ellison that is subtle but extremely effective as he slowly becomes desensitized to all the violence around him. His performance is constantly evolving along with his character, letting us see layer after layer until he comes full circle in a bloody final act. The best way to describe Fury is by comparing it to Wolfgang Peterson's Das Boot just with a tank instead of a submarine. Its claustrophobic, up close and personal, making the scenes of harrowing violence even more effective. Overall, Fury is a brutal war film that shows war exactly how it should be shown. Its disturbing, its violent, its scary. Fury really hits a home run between the sweeping cinematography, the phenomenal performances and the near perfect direction, it is one hell of a film that shouldn't be missed.
love this movie highly recommend.
0U23 February 2020
One of my favorite movies. Amazing cast and a lot of hard feeling moments that bring this movie together. There are moments that have you flashing between emotions and you can feel the emotions from the characters.
Cliché isn't quite a harsh enough word
ssra19967 October 2020
Every director has their trademark. Michael Bay with explosions, JJ Abrams with lens flares, Tarantino with feet, you get the idea. David Ayer seems to have his niche with employing great casts, a promising concept, and high production value, and squandering it on stale, formulaic direction.
This isn't actually a terrible war movie, I can do a pretty good job of suspending disbelief of the inaccuracies, but what it DOES do right, other war movies have done before, and done better. It was one cliche after another. Even the relatively obscure Saints and Soldiers (a war movie that actually incorporated faith in a seamless way, unlike this one) was more emotional and enticing than Fury, and that was made by a low budget Mormon company.
If you're like me and you're looking for a few hours to kill while you're getting caught up on your laundry, Fury is a good, decently entertaining way to occupy some time. Entirely forgettable, though.
An instant favourite!
obiwankenobean2 December 2014
I was blown away by this film, I thought the acting was on point (even from Shia, who I don't really like anymore since his "I am not famous anymore" stunt), Brad put in a brilliant performance & looked awesome. I didn't really rate Pena until seeing End of Watch & this, I was dubious at first.
Fury seems to have annoyed several historians, I don't know much about all that so my 9/10 rating takes none of that into account.
I loved how gritty it was, reminded me of Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers & depicted how brutal war can be & is.
Yes, okay, the final scenes might be a bit ridiculous & over- exaggerated but that takes nothing away from this film for me, I would recommend to anyone & everyone
Fury seems to have annoyed several historians, I don't know much about all that so my 9/10 rating takes none of that into account.
I loved how gritty it was, reminded me of Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers & depicted how brutal war can be & is.
Yes, okay, the final scenes might be a bit ridiculous & over- exaggerated but that takes nothing away from this film for me, I would recommend to anyone & everyone
Pathos and elation at the expense of logic and realism
BeneCumb15 December 2014
Panoramic war movies with the participation of famous actors have always caught great success and ticket income. No exception is Fury, where Brad Pitt for "older" generation and Logan Lerman and Shia LaBeouf for "younger" generation are definitely the names to attract audience. And yes, they do great in this movie, pity that LaBeouf's character was not so elaborated and spent limited time on screen. All three have successfully diverged from plain "nice-guys-with-cute-faces" roles and have (Pitt, LaBeouf) or attempting to (Lerman) participate in something more versatile and dramatic.
Fury has firm expectations for this, but unfortunately the script has focused on action and battling rather than smooth logic of events. Clichéd characters and unrealistic events and solutions prevail too much, and feeling of time and space is impaired on several occasions (the time-frame between Lerman's character detecting German soldiers and first shots from their tank is especially odd). Moreover, the ending is trivial as well.
Thus, 8 points for acting and 4 for the plot from me, but if this movie has made the younger people pondering on and over the essence of war, then it has gained its end. Anyhow, there are too many movies focusing on visual effects and reasoning out there.
Fury has firm expectations for this, but unfortunately the script has focused on action and battling rather than smooth logic of events. Clichéd characters and unrealistic events and solutions prevail too much, and feeling of time and space is impaired on several occasions (the time-frame between Lerman's character detecting German soldiers and first shots from their tank is especially odd). Moreover, the ending is trivial as well.
Thus, 8 points for acting and 4 for the plot from me, but if this movie has made the younger people pondering on and over the essence of war, then it has gained its end. Anyhow, there are too many movies focusing on visual effects and reasoning out there.
Fury is a straightforward ride into the center of war. It's a less flamboyant, certainly not romanticized, but a damn fine one.
quincytheodore29 October 2014
Strikingly far from mainstream war movie, Fury is unapologetically messy and brutal. The crude nature affects more than the visual, with the cast uttering unrefined profanity along with some military jargon. While the cinematography is splendid, it's nothing near the glossy or cinematic flair of other war movies, such as Saving Private Ryan, this is am unfiltered portrayal of war. It goes out of its way to display the gritty, sometimes intentionally overlooked aspect of war, the entire dirty ugliness of it.
Brad Pitt as Wardaddy provides a solid leader persona. He's as consistent as he could be, and with the experience of war movie under his other belt, albeit a rather different one, it comes as no surprise that he performs amazingly. It's not a macho leader character as Wardaddy occasionally has doubt, mostly heavily suppressed. Shia LaBeouf as Bible is good, displaying better on-screen flair than most of his recent ones. Michael Peña as Gordo and Jon Bernthal as Coon-Ass (classy name) round up the crew.
Peña works well, delivering a couple of good scene when least expected. Bernthal from Walking Dead has a certain niche, as an ally who sometimes looks like about to snap. Perhaps the highlight of Fury is Logan Lerman as Norman, the newly recruited crew. He's suddenly thrust into battle at its bloodiest. He gradually trades his innocence with experience of the horrid war out of necessity. Screenplay and dialogues are great, using direct, occasionally rude approach. The characters sound and act like soldiers, and it's not the usual presentable ones for cinema screen.
What gives it more depth is how it's rooted on military. From inside of the tank or down time between skirmishes, every bit seems realistic. The strategy is sound, thus giving more weight to action sequences. This one is not for the fainthearted however, as limbs will fly or get chopped off clean. The movies doesn't dwell on particular gore for shock purpose, it simply brushes fatal graphic and burning bodies as if they are normal occurrences. Soundtracks are effective as well. While most tunes are subtle or orchestra for tense scenes, a few hymns, as if chanted by the soldiers themselves, are eerily moving.
If there' are some minor complains of the movie, it's that the plot progresses in predictable way and the action in darker scenes are murky. Fury is a straightforward ride into the center of war. It's a less flamboyant, certainly not romanticized, but a damn fine one.
Brad Pitt as Wardaddy provides a solid leader persona. He's as consistent as he could be, and with the experience of war movie under his other belt, albeit a rather different one, it comes as no surprise that he performs amazingly. It's not a macho leader character as Wardaddy occasionally has doubt, mostly heavily suppressed. Shia LaBeouf as Bible is good, displaying better on-screen flair than most of his recent ones. Michael Peña as Gordo and Jon Bernthal as Coon-Ass (classy name) round up the crew.
Peña works well, delivering a couple of good scene when least expected. Bernthal from Walking Dead has a certain niche, as an ally who sometimes looks like about to snap. Perhaps the highlight of Fury is Logan Lerman as Norman, the newly recruited crew. He's suddenly thrust into battle at its bloodiest. He gradually trades his innocence with experience of the horrid war out of necessity. Screenplay and dialogues are great, using direct, occasionally rude approach. The characters sound and act like soldiers, and it's not the usual presentable ones for cinema screen.
What gives it more depth is how it's rooted on military. From inside of the tank or down time between skirmishes, every bit seems realistic. The strategy is sound, thus giving more weight to action sequences. This one is not for the fainthearted however, as limbs will fly or get chopped off clean. The movies doesn't dwell on particular gore for shock purpose, it simply brushes fatal graphic and burning bodies as if they are normal occurrences. Soundtracks are effective as well. While most tunes are subtle or orchestra for tense scenes, a few hymns, as if chanted by the soldiers themselves, are eerily moving.
If there' are some minor complains of the movie, it's that the plot progresses in predictable way and the action in darker scenes are murky. Fury is a straightforward ride into the center of war. It's a less flamboyant, certainly not romanticized, but a damn fine one.
Well made but silly and unrealistic
info-591826 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The production values, costumes and sets in Fury are great, and the acting is good. The characterisations and crew dynamics are great, and the story generally is good..... but some of the scenes are over the top ridiculous.
The last scene where a disabled Sherman tank, with 4 wounded crew, holds out for hours (including the night time) against the waffen SS regiment, all armed with Panzerfausts is just pure fantasy, and basically destroys the movie.
In this era people want realism in war movies. Why go to the trouble of having realist weapons and armour depicted in your film, if such ridiculous things happen? This m
Could of been a good film, with just a more realistic storyline grounded by some proper research.
The last scene where a disabled Sherman tank, with 4 wounded crew, holds out for hours (including the night time) against the waffen SS regiment, all armed with Panzerfausts is just pure fantasy, and basically destroys the movie.
In this era people want realism in war movies. Why go to the trouble of having realist weapons and armour depicted in your film, if such ridiculous things happen? This m
Could of been a good film, with just a more realistic storyline grounded by some proper research.
A relentless, unflinching account of the horror and carnage of war.
BrentHankins16 October 2014
"Ideals are peaceful. History is violent."
These words, delivered by Brad Pitt's scarred and battle-weary Sgt. Don Collier, are meant to bring some level of comfort to Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman), the young man who found himself snatched unceremoniously out of the clerk's office and placed under Collier's command in the final days of WWII. Despite having no combat training to speak of, Ellison has been assigned as the new assistant driver of Fury, the Sherman tank that Collier and his men call home. Ellison has spent most of the war behind a desk, hammering out correspondence at 60 words per minute, but over the last few hours he's been gunning down Nazis in spectacularly gory fashion, and he's struggling to make sense of the carnage.
Collier offers no other thoughts on the subject, having already forgotten about the previous battle and instead thinking about the skirmishes yet to come. He's a fierce figure who inspires confidence and loyalty among his men, who affectionately refer to him as "Wardaddy." But he's also terrifying to someone like Ellison, who finds himself woefully unprepared for the demands of his new vocation. During one of the film's early battle sequences, Ellison hesitates just long enough for tragedy to occur, and his subsequent brow-beating by Collier is followed by one of the most frightening and gut-wrenching scenes ever depicted in a war film. Ellison is quite literally forced to shun his own moral code and forsake any shred of humanity he still clings to, because Collier knows that if he doesn't, everyone in the unit will be dead.
And what a unit it is, a motley crew of the highest order, comprised of a deeply religious gunner (Shia LeBeouf), a pugnacious redneck with a severe mean streak (Jon Bernthal), and a driver (Michael Pena) who drowns the filth and death in bottle after bottle of whatever booze he can find. But these soldiers are bound together by the sort of brotherhood that can only exist between men who have seen combat together: each is more than willing to die for the other, and the introduction of Ellison into their group is met with a hefty amount of resistance. The kid is an unknown, a variable they hadn't anticipated, and viewed as little more than a liability.
But after proving his mettle during a nail-biting engagement with a superior German tank, Ellison gets the seal of approval from the rest of the boys. Collier even takes Ellison with him to explore an American-occupied village, and the two stumble upon a small apartment and its two female tenants. The film takes an interesting turn at this point, allowing the audience a glimpse into the exhaustion and sadness behind Collier's rugged exterior. A bath, a shave, and a nice dinner are a welcome respite from the day's butchery, but it's the second half of this sequence that truly shows how even the best of men can be transformed by the horror of war.
Every member of the cast is at the top of their game here, even LeBeouf, whose well-documented public meltdowns feel like a distant memory. Despite being hampered by a script that regulates everyone but Collier and Ellison to skin-deep characterizations, the actors make the absolute most of it, bringing depth to characters that could very easily have been one-note portrayals. Pitt and Lerman, on the other hand, are given plenty to work with, and their dialogue exchange during the final moments of the film is one of the most emotionally gripping cinematic moments of the year.
Director David Ayer does a superb job with some of the more human moments in Fury, but his skills are best showcased in the thrilling battle sequences, the majority of which were filmed using actual working tanks from the era. Interior shots are skin-crawlingly claustrophobic, especially when surrounded by the shouts, explosions and machine-gun fire that signify the chaos of battle. Exteriors are also handled well, although the film's frequent use of tracer ammunition makes some of the combat resemble the major clashes in the Star Wars films. Yes, it's historically accurate, but sometimes it's more distracting than engrossing.
While Fury never quite ascends to the level of excellence offered by other WWII epics such as Saving Private Ryan or Cross of Iron, it remains a relentless, unflinching account of the unspeakable nature of war. To quote LeBeouf's character, "Wait til you see what a man can do to another man." When we see it, it's certainly not pleasant, and yet we can't look away.
These words, delivered by Brad Pitt's scarred and battle-weary Sgt. Don Collier, are meant to bring some level of comfort to Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman), the young man who found himself snatched unceremoniously out of the clerk's office and placed under Collier's command in the final days of WWII. Despite having no combat training to speak of, Ellison has been assigned as the new assistant driver of Fury, the Sherman tank that Collier and his men call home. Ellison has spent most of the war behind a desk, hammering out correspondence at 60 words per minute, but over the last few hours he's been gunning down Nazis in spectacularly gory fashion, and he's struggling to make sense of the carnage.
Collier offers no other thoughts on the subject, having already forgotten about the previous battle and instead thinking about the skirmishes yet to come. He's a fierce figure who inspires confidence and loyalty among his men, who affectionately refer to him as "Wardaddy." But he's also terrifying to someone like Ellison, who finds himself woefully unprepared for the demands of his new vocation. During one of the film's early battle sequences, Ellison hesitates just long enough for tragedy to occur, and his subsequent brow-beating by Collier is followed by one of the most frightening and gut-wrenching scenes ever depicted in a war film. Ellison is quite literally forced to shun his own moral code and forsake any shred of humanity he still clings to, because Collier knows that if he doesn't, everyone in the unit will be dead.
And what a unit it is, a motley crew of the highest order, comprised of a deeply religious gunner (Shia LeBeouf), a pugnacious redneck with a severe mean streak (Jon Bernthal), and a driver (Michael Pena) who drowns the filth and death in bottle after bottle of whatever booze he can find. But these soldiers are bound together by the sort of brotherhood that can only exist between men who have seen combat together: each is more than willing to die for the other, and the introduction of Ellison into their group is met with a hefty amount of resistance. The kid is an unknown, a variable they hadn't anticipated, and viewed as little more than a liability.
But after proving his mettle during a nail-biting engagement with a superior German tank, Ellison gets the seal of approval from the rest of the boys. Collier even takes Ellison with him to explore an American-occupied village, and the two stumble upon a small apartment and its two female tenants. The film takes an interesting turn at this point, allowing the audience a glimpse into the exhaustion and sadness behind Collier's rugged exterior. A bath, a shave, and a nice dinner are a welcome respite from the day's butchery, but it's the second half of this sequence that truly shows how even the best of men can be transformed by the horror of war.
Every member of the cast is at the top of their game here, even LeBeouf, whose well-documented public meltdowns feel like a distant memory. Despite being hampered by a script that regulates everyone but Collier and Ellison to skin-deep characterizations, the actors make the absolute most of it, bringing depth to characters that could very easily have been one-note portrayals. Pitt and Lerman, on the other hand, are given plenty to work with, and their dialogue exchange during the final moments of the film is one of the most emotionally gripping cinematic moments of the year.
Director David Ayer does a superb job with some of the more human moments in Fury, but his skills are best showcased in the thrilling battle sequences, the majority of which were filmed using actual working tanks from the era. Interior shots are skin-crawlingly claustrophobic, especially when surrounded by the shouts, explosions and machine-gun fire that signify the chaos of battle. Exteriors are also handled well, although the film's frequent use of tracer ammunition makes some of the combat resemble the major clashes in the Star Wars films. Yes, it's historically accurate, but sometimes it's more distracting than engrossing.
While Fury never quite ascends to the level of excellence offered by other WWII epics such as Saving Private Ryan or Cross of Iron, it remains a relentless, unflinching account of the unspeakable nature of war. To quote LeBeouf's character, "Wait til you see what a man can do to another man." When we see it, it's certainly not pleasant, and yet we can't look away.
Brutal (Anti) War Drama Let Down By Weak Ending
Theo Robertson29 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
After complaining that the recent Neill Blomkamp film CHAPPIE suffered from a painfully ill thought out marketing campaign I must confess that David Aye's ferocious war actioner was an even bigger victim of poor marketing . Seeing the promos for this film last Autumn it was one movie I was going out of my way to avoid . You know the clips I'm talking about with handsome Brad Pitt bragging he'd been killing Germans all the way from North Africa to Germany . Okay I'll be the first to admit that some American units had this dubious privilege but compare this to many British units such as the 51st Highland division who'd spent 1940-45 fighting against the Germans non stop . That said I'm knowledgeable enough to realise that this pales in to almost insignificance when you realise the Chinese and Japanese had been fighting each other since the early 1930s . Europeans do have a very Eurocentric view of history but like so many people in Europe I wasn't keen on seeing yet another Hollywood revisionism of history especially when all the marketing material revolves around FOUR Americans in ONE American tank holding back hundreds of Waffen SS soldiers
It's not often a film surprises me . No on second thoughts let me rephrase that and state it's not often a film shocks me but this is exactly what FURY did . For the most part it tries to avoid the Hollywood clichés and when it doesn't such as newbie and reluctant recruit Norman being introduced to the tight knit and battle hardened unit it does disguise the clichés quite well . Where the film works best is showing the relentless inhumanity of war . It's not a case of clean cut Americans with high moral values beating the ghastly Germans and nasty Nazis without suffering a scratch but a grim unrelenting battle to the death where there's no real winners until democracy triumphs over tyranny . Absolutely nothing is held back and as someone who has seen a lot of war films I was actually quite shocked as to some of the on screen incidents especially the scene where Norman is bloodied in to shooting a prisoner . This is a brutal and depressing film of the type I thought I'd never see Hollywood attempt especially since recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in the memory
It's hardly two hours of feel good entertainment but the bleak and nihilistic tone makes it an absolutely outstanding piece of American film making for the most part but then for the last half hour the film then proceeds to shoot itself in the foot , the head and every other piece of anatomy you can think of as Brad tells his men - all four of them - that they'll be defending a crossroads with their broken down tank against several hundred Waffen SS troops because
"I ain't ever run away from anything and I ain't about to start"
Bare in mind their tank has broken down , the war has only a few weeks to go and they could have easily made it back to safe lines without being charged with desertion or dereliction of duty so there's two options left to them . The sensible one that'll see them live and pick up their war pension or the stupid one that'll see them give the audience 20 minutes of ridiculous over the top mock heroics that the film company can stick in the trailers . I suppose being film characters they'd quite happily sacrifice their lives to do the film company a favour but at the same time I'd like to see a film where characters do something understandably human and sensible , especially if they've got American accents . The final climatic battle scene is as every bit as ridiculous and overblown as you'd expect to see in the worst Hollywood Rambo type flag waver as literally hundreds of Germans are mown down left , right , centre , background and foreground which goes totally against the bleak nihilistic scenes that preceded it . The fact that it ends with most of the Americans dead doesn't make it any less ridiculous
This is a great shame because up until the final act I was very impressed with what I was watching . Again let me repeat this is in no way a feel good movie and if you don't like war films you'd quickly be turning this off due to the graphic violence on display and this refusal to sugar coat the grim and horrific face of conflict is what made FURY so refreshing to me . Such a pity the film had to end on a seen it all before cliché ridden denounment
It's not often a film surprises me . No on second thoughts let me rephrase that and state it's not often a film shocks me but this is exactly what FURY did . For the most part it tries to avoid the Hollywood clichés and when it doesn't such as newbie and reluctant recruit Norman being introduced to the tight knit and battle hardened unit it does disguise the clichés quite well . Where the film works best is showing the relentless inhumanity of war . It's not a case of clean cut Americans with high moral values beating the ghastly Germans and nasty Nazis without suffering a scratch but a grim unrelenting battle to the death where there's no real winners until democracy triumphs over tyranny . Absolutely nothing is held back and as someone who has seen a lot of war films I was actually quite shocked as to some of the on screen incidents especially the scene where Norman is bloodied in to shooting a prisoner . This is a brutal and depressing film of the type I thought I'd never see Hollywood attempt especially since recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in the memory
It's hardly two hours of feel good entertainment but the bleak and nihilistic tone makes it an absolutely outstanding piece of American film making for the most part but then for the last half hour the film then proceeds to shoot itself in the foot , the head and every other piece of anatomy you can think of as Brad tells his men - all four of them - that they'll be defending a crossroads with their broken down tank against several hundred Waffen SS troops because
"I ain't ever run away from anything and I ain't about to start"
Bare in mind their tank has broken down , the war has only a few weeks to go and they could have easily made it back to safe lines without being charged with desertion or dereliction of duty so there's two options left to them . The sensible one that'll see them live and pick up their war pension or the stupid one that'll see them give the audience 20 minutes of ridiculous over the top mock heroics that the film company can stick in the trailers . I suppose being film characters they'd quite happily sacrifice their lives to do the film company a favour but at the same time I'd like to see a film where characters do something understandably human and sensible , especially if they've got American accents . The final climatic battle scene is as every bit as ridiculous and overblown as you'd expect to see in the worst Hollywood Rambo type flag waver as literally hundreds of Germans are mown down left , right , centre , background and foreground which goes totally against the bleak nihilistic scenes that preceded it . The fact that it ends with most of the Americans dead doesn't make it any less ridiculous
This is a great shame because up until the final act I was very impressed with what I was watching . Again let me repeat this is in no way a feel good movie and if you don't like war films you'd quickly be turning this off due to the graphic violence on display and this refusal to sugar coat the grim and horrific face of conflict is what made FURY so refreshing to me . Such a pity the film had to end on a seen it all before cliché ridden denounment
What was the Point !!
foulds7227 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to know about the war, then watch the amazing 'World At War' documentary series.
If the point of this film was, as so many other reviews have said, to demonstrate the carnage, pain and suffering or war, then why is there no real context to any of the action.
Why is Brad Pitt's body in one piece when the Germans explode 2 grenades at his feet, inside his tank.
Why does a crack SS battalion continually commit suicide by walking in front of the machine guns of the crippled tank (instead of walking round the back)
Why did the Yanks leave the spare machine gun ammunition on the outside of the tank when preparing the ambush? I know, it was so Brad could look heroic and get shot trying to retrieve it.
The SS troops fired 2 or 3 RPG type rockets at the tank, caused damage and killed one of the men, then stopped firing them.
The premise of keeping the crossroads was ridiculous. Anyone could just have walked through the adjacent fields if they wanted to get past.
This film has pretensions of being a serious movie and the cinematography/soundtrack etc. are very well done, but the whole thing just lacks any reality or validity.
If the point of this film was, as so many other reviews have said, to demonstrate the carnage, pain and suffering or war, then why is there no real context to any of the action.
Why is Brad Pitt's body in one piece when the Germans explode 2 grenades at his feet, inside his tank.
Why does a crack SS battalion continually commit suicide by walking in front of the machine guns of the crippled tank (instead of walking round the back)
Why did the Yanks leave the spare machine gun ammunition on the outside of the tank when preparing the ambush? I know, it was so Brad could look heroic and get shot trying to retrieve it.
The SS troops fired 2 or 3 RPG type rockets at the tank, caused damage and killed one of the men, then stopped firing them.
The premise of keeping the crossroads was ridiculous. Anyone could just have walked through the adjacent fields if they wanted to get past.
This film has pretensions of being a serious movie and the cinematography/soundtrack etc. are very well done, but the whole thing just lacks any reality or validity.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
