Fury (2014) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
731 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
I have watched it several times... Entertainment yes, accuracy no.
OzMovieWatcher18 July 2020
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.
145 out of 184 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Repetative Hokum That Gave Me A Headache
dougdoepke11 April 2021
If you like lightning tracers, mass killing, no plot, and two repetitive hours of runtime, then this is your piece of meat. Of course it helps if you're a teenage boy with no knowledge of real warfare or death. Frankly the general outlines made me think of the cowboy flicks of my youth, where cavalry killed massed indians, no one cried out in agony or even bled, and the good, Bible-carrying guys always won. The battlefield logic here must have been hatched in somebody's cowboy movie dream, where the enemy simply crowds together waiting to be mowed down. On the other hand, at least this 2014 version doesn't prettify the guys or their battle-field surroundings, so maybe there's some progress in teen entertainment after all. But for those who take the two-hours as mere entertainment, remember that at a subliminal level you're being prepared for future wars, where good guys always win, death is quiet, heroes are made, and mass killing really isn't so bad after all. Regrettably that's apparent here, even if the visuals are colofully spectacular. Anyway, for this now 81-year old, it looks like few things change after all, especially in Hollywood.
21 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
83 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
292 out of 554 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
83 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
200 out of 283 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gruelling tank action in this war epic
Leofwine_draca21 May 2016
David Ayer is an up-and-down director for me. For every film of his I love (STREET KINGS, SABOTAGE) there seems to be one I equally hate (END OF WATCH). Thankfully, FURY is at the top end of his scale, a straightforward war epic centred around the crew of a single tank as they trundle through the German countryside and encounter Nazis at every turn.

This is a war film as it should be: gruelling, violent, and dehumanising. The attention to detail is remarkable and the action scenes are expertly staged, as you'd expect from the experienced Ayer; you really feel like you're on the ground with these soldiers and taking part in the combat. The first tank assault is my favourite scene, as it's an example of blistering, never-seen-before action, although the extended powerhouse climax is almost as good.

Yes, the story is predictable and the clear-cut characters a little too simplistic. But Ayer counters this by incorporating interesting actors into the tale. A weary Brad Pitt plays virtually the same character as he did in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS and is fine for it, while Shia LaBeouf gets to play a character support role for a change. Jon Bernthal (THE WALKING DEAD) remains a scene-stealer, and Logan Lerman shows a little more experience in his acting than in previous years. FURY is a dark and depressing film, but the vibrancy of the cinematography and all-out action makes it one to watch.
22 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
198 out of 314 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stupid and Unrealistic Conclusion
claudio_carvalho19 October 2015
In 1945, in the World War II in Germany, the tough Sergeant Don 'Wardaddy' Collier (Brad Pitt) commands a tank and survives to a German attack with his veteran crew composed by Boyd 'Bible' Swan (Shia LaBeouf), Trini 'Gordo' Garcia (Michael Peña) and Grady 'Coon-Ass' Travis (Jon Bernthal). He receives the rookie soldier Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman) as the substitute for his deceased gunner and he tries to harden the youth along the battles.

"Fury" is a war film with despicable characters and ridiculous situation in a stupid and unrealistic conclusion. The boastful nationalism of the writer and director David Ayer is laughable and the final scene with the five American soldiers fighting against hundreds German soldiers with a damaged tank is hilarious. However the production is careful in details. The execution of the German soldier and the behavior of Don's soldiers in the house of the German ladies is something that unfortunately happened during the occupation of Germany. However they are not shown in most of the American films that usually blame Russian soldiers only for rape and violence against civilian population and German soldiers for war crimes. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Corações de Ferro" ("Iron Hearts")
34 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
192 out of 343 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
love this movie highly recommend.
MR-ODIN23 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.
71 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
185 out of 355 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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
85 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
smartU26 April 2022
Is the Movie a 10/10? Probably not. But, it's certainly not anything below an 8. All these low scorers and their reviews are obnoxious. "Oh, it's not accurate." Everyone of them tries to come off as some WWII history expert mixed with a director prodigy and cinematography genius. It's a fine movie. Is it "accurate?" IT'S A MOVIE. NOT a bloody documentary. Get over it and enjoy the show. The acting is very, very good.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Violent Tendencies
billygoat107127 October 2014
Fury strives to depict the true nature of war. There isn't much of a plot to discuss, neither any historical events worthy to mention within its World War II setting. It simply just pictures the job works: violence is scary, war changes people, and their journey could be a lot dreary than exciting. Director David Ayer is perfect when it comes to this strategy; this bleak, unfeeling atmosphere alone makes it quite compelling for its themes. But it also moves a little backwards when it starts featuring the main action. Though the precision stays faithful, the loudness and spectacle rob the focus of its more ugly view at war. In the end, Fury still deserves credit for both elements, even if they don't seem to fit appropriately for the central message.

As said, it is not about the plot. We're basically just watching what soldiers experience in the field or inside the tank. There is no historical background needed to explore other than the fact that this is WWII. Another story here is about a recruit, whose only skill in the job is typewriting, forced to kill no matter how old or desperate the enemy is. His point of view is meant to portray a soldier's growth into the battlefield; we first encounter him known for his incompetence towards violence, and then slowly subsides his sensitivity and starting to gain the same attitude of his crew. Not only towards humanity it tries to examine, even the war itself may not be easy nor adventurous after all. Traveling through places, although getting attacked in unexpected minute and discovering bodies around the road, can be boring, which suddenly makes the crew bond every once in a while. Not everyone at the enemy side are bad, neither everyone in their side are nice. The film succeeds at breaking the misinterpretation of the context of war, giving awareness to what people actually struggle in this conflict.

Once we get to the action, the tank battles are impressively constructed with consistency at showing each of the soldier's duty beneath their tank. There is suspense, violence driven in every set piece. The only setback in these sequences is how it tries to build some bombast at the explosions. No matter what, it's always going to be loud and there will always be lights flashing (especially when they have tracers,) but during the fighting, it suddenly becomes one sided, no longer feels for their enemy, unlike the complexity at the smaller scenes. The characters also don't get the development they deserve, they do have some intriguing backstory, but still remains being in one note. Thankfully, the cast helps adding some depth in them.

Fury is solid enough, but the anti-war element can be a little unsatisfying. It portrays the horrors of war by heart and soul, and yet finds glory at the actual battles. The action could have suited better if the movie's only intention is to be accurate in a military work, but it come into question when it also have this strong sober perspective to human violence. The climax as well feels it like it belongs to a movie built for blockbuster filmmaking. But the thing is, none of them are actually bad; it effectively pictures what kind of hell war is and the action is terrifically directed. It's just that both aspects tell a different opinion. In spite of that, it's still one of the most absorbing films you'll see in a while, with excellent production and filmmaking. These are the qualities that endures the value of Fury overall, also witnessing real military routine, firearm, dirt and battles already makes it quite interesting.
38 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Definitely worth a watch...
K3nzit4 January 2020
Definitely worth a watch, since there is not many good war films coming out these days.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
337 out of 619 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just another well made war movie
sukanya-samy1 April 2016
Ideals are peaceful, but history is always violent. And the history of humanity has been violent as hell. What is it in us that we fight over land, women and wealth? It is survival? Or is it the sense of power? These are some things I wonder about usually in a war movie. Fury was no different.

Fury, released in 2014 is about an US Army Sergeant, Wardaddy (Brad Pitt) and his crew of 5 men. One of them is a rookie who was trained as a typewriter but was enlisted in the war. The story is about the last leg of the allies marching into Germany with Wardaddy and his Sherman tank called Fury. It shows the soft side of Wardaddy and his seasoned group of men and traverses how the kid, a typist, turns from his ideals to violence for survival.

Story - There are parts in the movie that give you the chills. Like the story Gordo narrates at the table of the German house and makes you wonder just how violent and disturbed men and women become during war.Wars wound you psychologically and those wounds probably never heal.It also shows little instance of normality like Norman thinks he can stay in touch with the young woman he met in Germany after the war. Something I am sure many men would have liked to hold on to. Shows a multitude of emotions - fear, wrath, cruelty, warmth, generosity and rage. Some of it is unbelievable like the climax where they show one tank battling an entire regiment. That is where Fury lost out for me.

Acting - I think the performances are stellar. Each of the main characters stands out in his own way. Brad Pitt as Wardaddy is a pleasant to watch. Pitt has been doing good movies and I think it is high time he wins an Oscar. Shia LeBeouf as Bible is serious and plays his part well too. Logan Lerman as Norman is the hero in the movie for me - as a rookie he portrays the disbelief and the innocence that young boys go into war with but come out as hardened men. The story shows how Wardaddy trains Norman to be someone who he is not.

Direction - David Ayer, known for Training Day and the first Fast & Furious has provided specifics that a lot of American movies do not show. Rape, cruelty and homicides were part of American troops as well - they are no different from other countries. Its how humans react in extreme situations - some adapt to survive and some cave in. But some of the scenes (especially the last sequence) were not really believable. But having said that the camaraderie that Ayer wanted to portray comes through really nicely.

Cinematography - I really liked the camera work. It looked real (maybe not as much as Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line). It wasn't shaky and the sound effects were great with almost real sets.

Special Mention - I really liked the dinner scene with Wardaddy, Norman and the two German women. It was at a completely different pace compared to the rest of the movie and I think it was supposed to build character. That's where you see the soft side of Pitt and how his crew has become what it has.

All in all, it is a good one time watch but I wouldn't go back to it. One reason could be that though the performances were great, I didn't really connect with the characters as much. I would give it a B+.

Let me know what you thought of it.
36 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Ugly Subject Done Well
view_and_review10 March 2016
I'm not a war movie fan, but every once in a while I will step outside of my bubble and sneak a peek at a war movie. I did this a few days ago and I liked what I saw. Yes, it was bloody, foreboding, gruesome and depressing, but amidst all that was a story of a small group that operated a tank called, "Fury".

This group of soldiers was a real motley crew. For the most part you wouldn't bring any of them home to marry your daughter but they were a good bunch for the task at hand: war. War is ugly, so were they. War is uncouth, so were they. War is something you like to keep far away from home, as were they.

It wasn't a superhero story though there was some heroism. It wasn't a love story though you can say they loved each other. At the base of it all was a story about how war can transform anyone, for better or for worse, by its very nature. It's an ugly topic but it was done well.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not the film I was expecting
fung025 October 2015
Having scanned the reviews of Fury, I was expecting a typical 'how we won the war' kind of B movie, with all the clichés in place. But that's not what I discovered upon watching the film. This is one of the more powerful anti-war statements I've ever seen on the screen, cleverly put together, tightly directed and remarkably well-acted.

The title tells you what the film is about: *fury*. The fury that overcomes soldiers in war. This film, better than any other I've seen, demolishes the myth of the heroic warrior. Instead, what we see are the degraded, brutalized monsters that war creates. Brad Pitt, in particular, is brilliant as an utterly horrific character. He perfectly represents what a person must become in order to be an effective soldier.

The focus of the story is on Pitt training a new member of the tank crew, a young guy who's previously only been a clerk. Pitt tries to tear apart this man's humanity as quickly as possible, for his own good and the good of the whole crew. At first, we can only see Pitt as an evil madman. But events in the film gradually prove that his attitude is the only valid response to the insane circumstances.

The focus is on the US troops, but there's no favoritism. The action takes place at the very tail end of the European war, with the US marching through Germany. But the Germans (quite accurately) are shown as still highly disciplined, still dangerous, willing to fight to the last man. This movie isn't even remotely about which side was 'right' and which was 'wrong.' It's about the experience of the troops who are forced to make up in blood for what the politicians have failed to achieve with diplomacy.

Previous war films have always held back a bit, stopped short of showing us the full horror of war. This one goes several steps further, and is therefore far more successful at showing us why soldiers return to society as crazed wrecks. This is the only film I can think of that really gives us a gut-feel for what PTSD is all about. We see what happens to men when they're forced to abandon their humanity in order to simply 'get the job done.' Ultimately, even survival becomes a secondary consideration. By the end, we begin to understand - with massive irony - what a 'good soldier' truly is. What he *has* to be.

I wouldn't recommend Fury to everyone. The level of violence is gut-wrenching, partly in terms of visual gore, but even more strongly in terms of emotions. Things happen in this film that are truly beyond all reason, logic or morality. But that's exactly the point. Fury is a brutal, nasty movie, but it does give us at least a dim sense of war is *really* like. And therefore, what a heinous, unforgivable crime we commit when we allow wars to happen.
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
War porn
russmillerwy-957-68243919 October 2014
Fury has one of those "the only good morality in wartime is no morality" themes. I admired the sound effects in the battle scenes. They'll probably win an award for those. But I hated the script and the dialog and gave up on it altogether after about 40 minutes. It lacks class. It is in many ways the opposite of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, which were about redemption through suffering and sacrifice under extreme duress. Fury was about degeneracy becoming the new righteousness. Ugly, and maybe even downright revisionist and historically inaccurate. Almost like a pornographic comic book version of history designed to appeal to adolescent boys raised on Game of Thrones episodes and Grand Theft Auto video games. As somome who actually spent a couple of years as a cavalry scout in the army, I can also say that the battle scenes lacked authenticity. Particularly in the amateurish way the troops talked to each other and moved during combat. Again, much more like a dumbed down and superficial comic book or a video game than something trying to simulate historical reality.
65 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Entertaining and masculine, just has nothing new to add to WWII films
ArchonCinemaReviews3 December 2014
We're going to be doing one thing, and one thing only: killin' Nazis.

Whoops, wrong movie! Brad Pitt stars and leads the expertly cast David Ayer feature film Fury. Told toward the end of the war, Fury is a sufficiently good war movie but unfortunately is underwhelming, at no fault of its own.

Don 'Wardaddy' Collier, played by Brad Pitt, is the battle-hardened army sergeant leading a Sherman tank and his crew through German warfare in 1945. His platoon has been together for over three years and fighting Germans across three countries, and he made a promise to keep them alive. A rookie soldier, played by Logan Lerman, is enlisted to join their group and promptly disrupts the accord. American forces are outnumbered and outgunned but they soldier on against overwhelming odds to strike at the heart of Nazi Germany.

Writer/Director David Ayer's script and film Fury of 2014 is typical of an Ayer production. It features subtly nuanced archetypes of the hyper-masculine male in a high intensity environment that does not romanticize the violence experienced when in said circumstances.

Fury itself is especially well researched and transports the viewer to the horrors of American warfare of the second World War against Nazi Germany. The plot of Fury is a journey across the German landscape through the end of the war. It is also a journey of the characters as they are transformed by the combat battles of war. Ayer also utilizes his direction of the cinematography for beautiful but brutal shots to differentiate Fury from the more sentimental WWII films. Besides these key aspects and the notable first thirty minutes of Fury, the film is about as cliché as possible when it comes to a period-piece war film.

Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal all do a commendable job as the weary soldiers. However, the characters are nothing new and are even roles they themselves have previously portrayed. This just exacerbates the stale sense of the film. With almost 70 years passing since the end of WWII, Fury is not distinctive enough to elevate the film above its predecessors.

Fury (2014) is a good and entertaining film that will please viewers, especially the untapped male audience who will especially be engaged with the film.

For more reviews of RECENT RELEASES, check out our WEBSITE.
11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
34 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Only Frank the Tank has more action antics than this!!!
meeza9 July 2015
I feel that Writer-Director David Ayer's World War II film "Fury" got massacred with many unfair negative reviews. Sure, it might have been 20 minutes too long (so it wasn't too fast but it was furious), sure it mimicked "Saving Private Ryan" mucho with its many narrative missiles (whatever that means?), but I sure did enjoy it anyway. "Fury" stars Brad Pitt as Sgt. Don "Wardaddy" Collier who commands a Sherman tank Fury and its five-man crew on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. Ayer based the film on real life war incidents told by former War veterans who manned Army tanks in World War II. It just seemed like yesterday or better said "ayer" when Ayer wrote the "Training Day" screenplay, and after a few solid directorial action-movie efforts including "End of Watch", one could say Ayer is a director for today's action movies, not yesterday's; you got all that. The cast of "Fury" was the bomb! That basterd Brad Pitt was on target as a Nazi Killer again as Wardaddy. Shia LaBeouf can still act, besides his real life garbage-head shenanigans, he was sound here as the preaching tank Private Boyd "Bible" Swan. Lorgan Lerman was a perk in the movie as the scared rookie Private Norman Ellison. Jon Bernthal was no "walking dead" tank Private as the aggressive Grady "Coon-Ass" Travis. And to round out the Tankers, Michael Pena was not as good as the rest but still did not misfire as tank sharpshooter Private Trini "Gordo" Garcia. Maybe the jury is still out on "Fury" and still has to pass the test of time, but I still think that this movie did not tank in my round of cinematic machinery. *****Excellent
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good, but not great - quite clumsy at times
grantss23 October 2014
Good, but not great, WW2 movie.

Written and directed by David Ayer, who gave us the brilliant End of Watch, plus the reasonably good Harsh Times, and wrote Training Day, you expect good plot, good action and, most of all, character depth. The action scenes are great - pretty much straight out of the Steven Spielberg/Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers school of realistic war action. Suitably gory, yet not gratuitously so.

Plot is OK, but not brilliant. Some sub-plots feel contrived and the final scenes seem overly gung ho, sentimental...and very predictable and unoriginal. Furthermore, some scenes are very clumsily done, and/or plain unnecessary. (The tank's Commander and Assistant Driver in the women's apartment was the best example of this - has me squirming the whole time and it seemed to last forever).

Moreover, the character depth Ayer built up in End of Watch is lacking here. Yes, there is some character depth, but it seems superficial. In End of Watch you ended up caring so much for both cops and couldn't imagine anything happening to them. In Fury you hardly get to know them - only the tank commander and assistant driver and then only to a limited extent. Makes you feel less engaged with regard to what happens to them.

In keeping with the lack of dimension to the characters, the performances feel a bit wooden. Brad Pitt is OK in the lead role, but his performance lacked something. Similarly, Shia LaBeouf is OK, but his character is overly stereotyped. Logan Lerman probably gives the most convincing performance of the movie, as the rookie Assistant Driver.

Overall, an exciting and entertaining movie. If more time was spent getting us to care about the characters, and less time on unnecessary, clumsy scenes, this would have been a brilliant movie.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed