Fury

Fury is an action-packed blockbuster about an American tank crew slaying SS men in Germany in the Second World War. Brad Pitt is the only one of the crew who washes himself in a private moment, shows off the muscles acquired at LA Fitness and, even after a year of masturbating in an iron cockpit, does not f*ck the German girl (who wouldn’t be against it) because that would be unethical. The point of the film: Not all SS men were bad. The third Expendables should have taken place here, with a less straight face. (06/11/2014)

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. (24/04/2015)

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)

It's not entirely bad in any way, but it could have been so much better if it had decided whether it wants to be an uncompromising dirty (anti) war display of the horrors and nonsense of war and fighting, tank addiction aimed at tens of millions of World of Tanks players or a stylized action movie in a style "we are outnumbered, ikh mnogo", which is something between 300 and Soviet propaganda war movies of the fifties. And to make matters worse, Tarantino's fifteen-minute scene divides it right in the middle, which looks like a removed scene from the Inglourious Basterds. And in each of those styles, it works more or less well here, but together it doesn't do the job as a whole. Not at all. (16/11/2014)

Attempting to make a Tank Patrol into a living monument to the soldiers of World War II is a lot to promise, but it falls apart when David Ayer's genres start clashing with each other. I would believe both in the invincible crew of the Fury and in tears during drunken confessions, but once these moods meet and regularly alternate, it's over. And it's a shame because Brad Pitt and Logan Lerman can effortlessly develop any smallest supporting storyline to the edge. (13/11/2014)

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). (11/11/2014)

A really view on war through the perspective of an armored box on tracks. Ayer filmed a unique war movie where any hopes are trodden into the mud and victory just means the chance to fight another battle. No outlook for survival, no promise of a home. All tankers have long deserved such a raw, real and pure picture. Most often it’s the air force and infantry who receive praise, tanks are all too easily forgotten. Not anymore. Pitt’s Wardaddy isn’t a variation on a Tarantino-like Alda, quite the opposite. A crushed man, missing civilization, but gave it up for the good of his crew, an able commander who has been fighting too long. The whole crew is a good crew. Bernthal’s hick animal, the hated Grady, eventually turns out to be a good man in the closing moments. The grubby Shia is surprisingly adult, quotes from the Bible with such verve that he began to believe it himself. And now the main thing - hero, greenhorn Logan Lerman, one time funny kid is becoming a man and a regular killing machine in Ayer and Wardaddy’s care. As his gains respect with his crew, he gains it with the viewer, too. The entire father-son storyline works excellently and in that sewer of a war it’s the only thing to hold on to. I supported them to the last moment, I was in the tank with them and every hit, every jolt cuts you to the quick. If you read any war books when you were young and your eyes were drawn to those green monsters like Fury, this is a movie for you. Here am I, send me! (23/11/2014)

Ayer is equally suggestive and raw in WWII as in his modern police escapades, only this time he doesn’t rely on CGI but goes nicely the old-fashioned way. This is a clearly outlined film, striking, and not pretending to be anything more than it is. It’s a solid psychological barrage with performances. There are plenty of emotions and the atmosphere and visuals are superb. Some of the dialogue passages marginally resemble Tarantino's standards, and the rest is nothing more than honest filmmaking with plenty of dirt, rotten teeth, and blown-off limbs. It's a shame about the overly grand finale, which is mandatory, but doesn't fit at all considering the film's concept. (09/02/2015)

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? (30/01/2016)

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% (26/02/2015)

Just to be clear, if anyone were to criticize the ending for being unrealistic, that would be acknowledging the historical and technical fidelity of the rest of the film up to that point, am I right? In other words, once again, Ayer does what he knows how to do. Yet again he portrays the guardians of freedom in a way we don't want to see and which has no comparison. Of course, most modern WWII films have already worked with the theme of corrupted soldier ethics in the face of the ugliness of war, but so far nobody has really had the balls to make that the basis for a film about liberators. I was intrigued, for example, by a foreign review that criticized Fury, saying that it asked us to root for Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. For this mental mess to find some kind of favor, they don’t scrimp on the physical here, where there is no shortage of children being hanged and shot, bodies strewn across muddy roads, faces torn off, and prisoners being executed. After seventy years of more or less the opposite approach, I'm impressed by how war no longer makes boys into men and polishes a man’s character, but does the exact opposite. The most refreshing thing about the film, however, is the individualism that gives even the most obscure extras an identity. The old man on the street pointing the way to the soldiers, the refugee woman in a wedding dress, the prisoner of war trying to survive by waving pictures of his family, the SS soldier silencing a hidden defenseless American, the burning tank soldier shooting himself in the head, or the highlighted passage with the two German women. Ayer is a director we need. And the montage accompanying the closing credits convinced me that he should get his hands on a generously financed miniseries about European war as a counterpoint to the formally and technically bravura but ideologically cumbersome Band of Brothers. Thank goodness the film grossed over two hundred mega (surprisingly enough in my opinion, but I guess World of Tanks is also a bit to blame). Otherwise, talk of American patriotism and promoting the military is absurdly out of place in this case, and can only be released into the ether by morons who had an opinion on the film before it even existed. (03/03/2015)

As so many times before, the Americans have managed to turn a promising theme into utter historical nonsense. After Band of Brothers, I thought they had already learned to stick to the historical facts, but I was dead wrong. When I saw Commander Pitt, confronted with a German camouflaged anti-tank semi-battery, order a halt in the open without it being his last order, I realized that this was just another one of those action films only loosely inspired by WW2. My assumption was supported by the duel between the three Shermans and the Tiger. The German tank commander must have been Pitt's brother, otherwise I can't see why he would have gone to meet the Americans instead of blasting them at long range. The final battle of the unmounted tank against the SS infantry battalion was downright ridiculous unless it was a special Kamikaze battalion. Mr. Ayer robbed me of more than 2 hours of my life. (08/07/2016)

The first reviews surprised me because they were quite negative, but I personally really liked this one-tank battle. Great characters superbly played by selected actors, Brad Pitt, who consistently sets the bar incredibly high, and moreover, the incredibly realistically filmed dirt and pain of World War II. Who is actually the monster? (15/12/2014)