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). (2014-11-11)

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. (2015-04-24)

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. (2015-02-09)

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. (2014-11-16)

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% (2015-02-26)