Long live macho-martyrdom and let’s kill as many bad, bad Nazi’s while we can. Yikes. Fury is the kind of movie that gives the war movie genre a bad name. Bizarre is the word that came to my mind more than once while watching it. It was clear from the beginning that this isn’t an anti-war movie, but it took me until the end of the film to come to the conclusion that it’s not even a war movie. Just because someone pretends to tell us a WWII story doesn’t mean he really does. In my opinion, Fury is an action movie disguised as a war film.
Plus, it’s full of clichés, not very realistic and the plot is dragging in the middle section.
What’s it all about? I’m going to do something I never do I’ll give you the IMDb blurb here
April, 1945. As the Allies make their final push in the European Theatre, a battle-hardened Army sergeant named Wardaddy commands a Sherman tank and his five-man crew on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. Outnumbered, out-gunned, and with a rookie soldier thrust into their platoon, Wardaddy and his men face overwhelming odds in their heroic attempts to strike at the heart of Nazi Germany.
Did anyone else think of Platoon while watching this? We have a young, inexperienced soldier and an old, larger-than life hero who dies a rather spectacular death in the end.
What’s with the Nazi killing? Maybe the Allies shot a few German prisoners but I doubt they forced their young soldiers to shoot them to harden them.
They fall in love/lust awfully quickly in this film. While we’re not allowed to watch – we get to see a half-naked Brad Pitt aka Wardaddy.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a movie in which the Germans were depicted as entirely evil and stupid.
Shortly before the end, the young American soldier is hiding under a tank. A German soldier searches under that tank. He very obviously sees him but doesn’t shoot him. Or does he not see him? Both explanations are highly unrealistic.
I’m really allergic to movies that try to glorify war or fetishize warfare. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t watch Fury. Just keep in mind – it’s not an anti-war, possibly not even a war movie and far from realistic. Those who love tanks and Brad Pitt might enjoy it a lot.
I can’t answer your question as to whether or not this is a war film as I haven’t watched it and never film. Nonetheless, I get your point. I loathe films like this. What’s with Brad Pitt in these macho roles? He was much better in Thelma and Louise and Burn After Reading.
I’m not sure why he accepted this role. Even if you look at it from a purely action movie angle it’s not that good. I found it was more for fans of military hardware.
I see where you are coming from, but it is definitely a war movie by any definition. I can see why you are upset, but why not just call it a bad war movie. I was a bit kinder in my review mainly because it was one of my “Now Showing” reviews which means I aimed it at potentiall viewers. I could have ripped it to shreds because it does have several laughable plot developments, some of which you point out. Keep in mind that the German army they were dealing with at the end of the war was not high quality. Even with that said, you are correct to mention that the Germans in the movie are depicted as idiots, which is too unrealistic. In fact, little in the movie is realistic.
I remmeber your review. I wanted to be provocative because I think the intentins of a film maker also play a role whether a film belongs to a certain genre or not. And somehow the intentions seem very blurred.
But I certainly agree – it’s not a good movie.
Brad Pitt defeats the Colonel Klink division. I liked the first 1 1/2 of the movie, but hated the last 30 minutes. One lone disabled Sherman tank fights off 300 Germans. It’s one of those old fashioned movies were one American bullets kills 10 Germans and the Germans can’t hit anything at point blank range, I thought they stopped making movies like this after SPR. After the SS loses about 100 soldiers they finally decide to take out the tank with a Panzerfaust, but they can’t even knock it out at point blank range. While earlier in the movie a Hitler youth takes out a Sherman with one at approx 50 yards! But when Brad Pitt got out of the tank and started mowing down soldiers with the 50 cal. I got so pissed off I stopped watching it. I wouldn’t have been so disappointed in the movie if the entire thing was a piece of crap like Red Tails or Pearl Harbor. But, the first part of the movie was really good.
I must admit, I agree with you. The beginning isn’t bad but since the end is so awful – and very Platoon at that – I couldn’t write a favorable review anymore. Plus, it even made me chnage my mind about the genre of the film.
And it did feel like such dated filmmaking, didn’t it?
Fury is absolutely terrible. It’s been called war porn by many. I agree. I lost track of the exploding heads. It’s shame as they put so much into making it look right but an idiotic story is an idiotic story.
Why is SS singing?! Are they the flying monkies from the Wizard of Oz or maybe Oompa Loompas? Why are they having a pep rally to blow up one disabled tank? An episode of ‘Allo ‘Allo! would have been a more acurate portrayal. At least it was funny on purpose.
The awful John Wayne style lines are infinitely quotable. My buddy and I have made a second language out of it “It will end soon, but before it does, a lot more people gotta die” “Well golly gee thanks a lot My girl just got killed I hadn’t though of that! ”
I could go off for hours on that movie. The worst part was everyone told me how good it was. Yes us Murikans are getting dumber. WWII is the bloodiest event in human history. There is no need embellish it.
Your comment really made me laugh. I couldn’t agree more. I hadn’t haerd the eypression “war porn” but it does make sense.
And – indeed – you’re right it’s very John Wanish. I didn’t even get to that comparison. The SS were jolly crowd, weren’t they?
I really don’t get movies like this. And I too was told it was good.
Fury is appalling. Having just watched the superb German TV mini series “Generation War” I can honestly say that the gulf between these two depictions of events from the Second World War is interstellar. Fury is all about the USA kicking butt. So don’t mess with us. And no-one kicks Butt like Uncle Sam’s Hollywood legions of bad actors. These silver screen killing machines are impossible to empathise with as they appear to be devoid of any humanity whatsoever in film after film.
Fury reminded me of my Grandson playing Call of Duty on his Xbox, except that the sprites in this worthy gaming franchise have more charisma and acting ability, and are more lifelike than Brad Pitt.
War films are supposed to make you think, not whoop and cheer and punch the air every time Brad takes out another SS unit with all the effort of raising an eyebrow.
Comparing Fury with Generation War is like comparing badly doodled street graffiti with a painting by Goya. You feel the horror of a Goya painting within the depths of your very soul and there is no heroism, only a numbness at the depravity of man towards his fellow man.
I will be thinking long and hard about Generation War long after Fury has faded from my mind as a distasteful afterthought.
Sorry for this late reply. Your comment somehow slipped past my attention.
Yes, yes, and yes. I so agree with you and I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it that way. Apparently it has garnered a lot of praise form the gaming community. That tells us a lot, I’d say.
Not much of a Goya-moment in this awful production. I don’t know why Brad Pitt accepted this role.
Generation War manages to show humans – not robots.
One of the best movies I’ve seen. Please try my http://picuploaders.com as your image hosting website. With an unlimited Space! =)
An oddly old-fashioned war movie, which reminded me of the Hollywood late thirties flicks (either about exotic wars, or the Wild West). Or Starship Troopers without the tongue-in-cheek & talent.
That said, the tank combat parts looked good, as far as I can remember my training. 🙂
Maybe they did – apparently loads of gamers really loved the film . . . I found it superfluous and dubious.
Finally managed to gather strength and watch this thing (won’t even call it a movie) and boy,was it a struggle to keep from laughing! I’ve read quite a few reviews saying it’s a strong war movie,good old violent fun etc,but could only shake my head in disbelief.Hard to believe people liked this piece of mindless paper-thin cartoonish violence and at the same time turning a thumb down on Mallick’s ‘Thin Red Line’ or Nolan’s ‘Dunkirk’ (say what you will,at least these were beautifully shot and filmed). Must be living on a different planet.
On your question,yes,it is a war movie,but a very poor one,obviously and blatantly aimed at 15-year old gamers and philistines.It should be called ‘Sergeant Fury’ as it feels like a poor comic book adaptation – at most.Unrealistic,un-historical,un-everything.
BTW,when will someone make a decent WW2 Tank Movie????
Long,long,long overdue.I can rememeber a ”Battle Picture Library’ comic from ages long gone,called ‘Trail of the Avenger’ (if memory still works) which from a point of gritty realism,grim fatalism and palpable character-building,beats this Hollywood monstrosity and most (if not all) Tank movies hands down.
So,directors and script-writers,get your act together,there are good tank movies to be made,why can’t you bloody make them?
My feelings exactly. I didn’t get around to reviewing Dunkirk yet but I liked it a great deal – it’s flawed but still well done – and The Thin Red Line is one of my all time favourites but this, this is rubbish.
I’m always baffled when someone tells me he likes this. I think you need to be a gamer to appreciate it. I’m not and I just found it dreadful. A decent tank movie would be a great thing, I agree. Not sure why we’re still waiting.