Fury

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. (11/16/2014)

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. (04/24/2015)

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. (02/09/2015)

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? (01/30/2016)

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. (11/17/2014)