Fury

Sure, it's awfully heroic, but in terms of the dirt, mud, and music used, the guys do a good job. Plus, I was surprised at how much Shia has matured as an actor. It's not a bad movie, but if you've seen more than ten war movies, you won't be impressed. Still, an enjoyable watch, with funny and powerful scenes (we're at war, there pretty much have to be those kinds of scenes). It all has one big but, which is not without a [SPOILER]. They actually had to put a smiling Nazi in there who just got half his unit slaughtered and he's really just: "Hey, bro, you all were so cool I’ll probably let you live. Okay? So, see ya." Seriously? A weaker 4 stars (like it was said, out of mercy). (12/11/2014)

Half an hour before the end, I was still convinced of a five-star rating, because such a realistically dirty, unkempt war film had been missing for a long time. Add to that the production values of fantastic sets, Pitt being the walking embodiment of charisma, and the lunch at the German woman and her daughter's house scene, which I consider one of the best movie scenes of last year. But then came a hardly acceptable scene, which even the Soviets at the time of masterpieces like Liberation would not have liked in terms of exaggeration and heroism. Ayer just got carried away and the whole great impression went down the drain, or into the mud of a tank belt trail, of which the film is full. (25/04/2015)

I’d been looking forward to Fury for a long time. I’d been looking forward to this new movie by David Ayer, whose movies have convinced me what a good director he is and that we will be remembering him in the future. No movies have been made on WW2 in a long time, so I didn’t hesitate and headed out to the cinema. For an hour and a half, I got to enjoy one of the rawest WW2 movies in the past twenty years. I especially liked the ideas with the individual shots, which surprised me in Band of Brothers or in the ancient Russian movie Come and See. One shot was enough to make you feel sick. And it didn’t even involve anything too bloody. From this perspective, the movie aced it. However, a problem occurs at the end, which Brad Pitt decides to handle in his own way – in a stupid and illogical way that makes the movie end exactly the way I thought it would. The ending is heroic and very American, which pissed me off and the movie fell from five stars to four. And if it weren’t for the really good first half, it would have dropped even lower. It would’ve been best if the director had cut the movie 35 minutes shorter. (17/11/2014)

If the purpose of the film was to put the slick Pitt in an even more iconic light than Wolfgang Petersen did in his conquest of Troy, then the task is accomplished. But if Fury was supposed to have any intellectual or historical value beyond the insultingly unoriginal "War is an abomination" and "Let's not lump the Germans together", Ayer failed miserably. While the ageless star and everything around him looks very cool and the viewer won't get bored, I can't think of a better example of a war movie that so perfectly presents the utterly ridiculous American view of the nature of direct combat and the all-encompassing wartime contributions of their intrepid ancestors. It’s OK in the cinema with popcorn, but in 10 years nobody will rewatch the best scenes on blu-ray. 65% (27/02/2015)

It's not a bad film, but only two scenes really caught my attention, one of which was at the dining table (the other was the disposal of the tiger). It seemed to me as if David Ayer wanted to combine The Big Red One and The Thin Red Line, but he just couldn't reach that bar with the help of clichés and uninteresting characters. Yet Brad Pitt was 100% suited to the role and it was obvious that he played the tank commander with gusto, and the dirty, muddy atmosphere had a lot going for it as well. But why was it all so long, even though so little happened in it? (31/01/2016)