Movie Review Repost - Fury (2014)

Continuing this week's theme of remembrance (my Hacksaw Ridge review was posted earlier this week), I thought it might be cool to repost my original review of Fury. That movie was pretty cool. I watched it again last year and I still liked it. My thoughts of it now are basically the same as before. Here's hoping that next years's big WWII movie, Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, will match the caliber of its recent brethren.

   This week the heavy barrage of homework let up enough for me to liberate my movie theatre seat and watch Fury, a Second World War movie about American tankers. Does it succeed at becoming an instant classic or does this behemoth end up running out of gas? Let's find out!

   Fury follows the crew of the titular M4 tank who are a part of the 66^th Armoured Regiment, advancing deep into Nazi Germany in April 1945. Their assistant driver is killed and replaced by Norman, a typist who isn't prepared to take part in combat at all. Fury benefits from a strong first half which raises a lot of ethical issues. There's also a few calm scenes for character development, one of which (the apartment scene) felt a little too long. But I have to mention, this has got to be one of the grimmest movies I've ever seen. The imagery you'll see, especially in the first half-hour, is extremely rough, even for a war film.

   Unfortunately the film does sort of fall apart in the last action scene, which is so over-dramatized that it more closely resembles a cheesy video game than a badass war film. It's also riddled with questionable tactical decisions by both sides. Like why are the Germans attacking in waves? Why did they wait so long to use the rocket launchers? Is the middle of a firefight really the best time to have your troops stand in formation while you give a rousing speech? Why didn't the tankers stock up their machine gun ammo inside the tank? And most of all, why are the tankers so committed to this mission? It's importance isn't built up or explained very well like it was in Saving Private Ryan. The film also has kind of an abrupt ending without much resolution.

   At least the acting is pretty good. Brad Pitt is pretty much always good, just as he is here as Sergeant Wardaddy. Wardaddy is an interesting character; he's definitely battle-hardened but he still privately feels sadness and regret. It's a pity we don't get to learn that much about him. Shia LeBoeuf is decent as gunner “Bible” Swan, even though his character is kind of one-note. Logan Lerman does a fine job at portraying Norman. The anxiety this main character feels really comes through as it's through his view that we see the war.

   As far as I can tell, this movie's events are portrayed pretty accurately (except for the opening text crawl that says that Germany turned to total war only in April 1945. Sigh...). But one of Fury's main strengths comes from its production value. Everything looks amazing: the sets, the uniforms, and, of course, the tanks. Plus, you can actually see it! There's no stupid shaky cam or at least a very limitedly-shaky one. (Isn't it sad that I have to praise a movie for not having that issue?)

   Also I gotta say, Fury is pretty daring in that it shows US troops committing atrocities. That's pretty rare for an American WWII movie. In addition, this film refreshingly contains absolutely zero US flags.

   In short, Fury is a violent, testosterone-filled experience definitely not for all ages. Though it isn't as good as Saving Private Ryan (its story, characters, and realism aren't quite as strong), it has intense action scenes and it more than delivers on the “horrors of war”.

Rating: three and a half stars out of five.