Critical response Fury (2014 film)

rex reed — new york observer

film critic christopher orr of atlantic magazine said film technically refined bad movie, narratively , thematically stunted one. in sense, succeeds in conjuring own subject matter: heavy, mechanical, claustrophobic, , unrelenting. philadelphia inquirer s steven rea gave film 3 out of 4 stars , praised, fury presents unrelentingly violent, visceral depiction of war, perhaps should be. bayonets in eye, bullets in back, limbs blown apart, corpses of humans , horses splayed across muddy, incinerated terrain. ayer brought similar you-are-there intensity 2012 cops-on-patrol drama, end of watch (also peña). on opposite side of rea s admiration, thinks, wouldn t right call fury entertaining, , in narrow focus (as narrow view tank s periscope), film doesn t offer broader take on horrors of war - other put horrors right in front of us, in plain view. chris vognar wrote review dallas morning news giving film b+ grade, in writes war thinks is, hell, , relentless, unsparing, unsentimental , violent mind, body , soul. fury conveys these truths brute force , lean, precise drama. kenneth turan los angeles times praised film highly, writing: best job ever had sentence 1 of catchphrases men in killing machine use each other, , ghastly thing half believe s true.

todd mccarthy of hollywood reporter said, fury good, solid world war ii movie, nothing more , nothing less. rugged, macho, violent , story sufficiently unusual grab , hold interest, s modern version of sort of movie hollywood turned out practically every week in 1940s , 1950s. peter debruge wrote magazine variety in praised pitt, brad pitt plays watered-down version of inglourious basterds character in disappointingly bland @ world war ii tank crew. wrap s james rocchi gave 4 out 5 ratings , expressed warm approval of film unflinching, unsentimental , never unconsidered, fury s rumbling, metal-clad exterior has real humanity, fragile , frightened, captured , caged deep within it. randy myers of san jose mercury news rated film 3 out of 4 , talked labeouf s impressive, inhabiting soul of scripture-quoting soldier seeks guidance word in hopes of remaining on moral path. while has been made reportedly extreme lengths took prep role, fact remains 1 of best performances. mick lasalle of san francisco chronicle gave 4 out of 4 rating , wrote in favor of film: great movie lets know re in safe hands beginning. james berardinelli gave film positive review saying: memorable motion picture, accurately depicting horrors of war without reveling in depravity of man (like platoon). equally, shows instances of humanity without resorting rah-rah, sanitized perspective infiltrated many war films of 1950s , 1960s. s world war ii film ve seen in recent years, , contains perhaps draining battlefield sequences since saving private ryan.

the new york times critic a. o. scott praised film , pitt s character, within gore-spattered, superficially nihilistic carapace old-fashioned platoon picture, sensitive , superbly acted tale of male bonding under duress. rex reed of new york observer said, actors good, mr. pitt moves closer iconic stardom, , young mr. lerman steals picture camera lens through eyes , veins share every dehumanizing experience. purists may squabble, if re history buff or pushover sight of man engulfed in flames shoots himself through head before burns death, ll go away fury sated. arizona republic s critic bill goodykoontz said, in terms of story, structure , (with exception of gore), movie have been made @ time in past 70 years. goodykoontz review, claudia puig of usa today gave reply, given how many world war ii films have emerged in last 70 years, requires thoroughly fresh angle make 1 seem distinctive. puig said, flesh-and-blood soldiers play second fiddle authentic-looking artillery in fury, rendering film tough , harrowing, less emotionally compelling have been. a.v. club s ignatiy vishnevetsky gave film c+ grade , said, s peckinpah-or @ least be, if ayer had sense of poetry. chicago tribune s michael phillips wrote negative review, saying @ weakest, fury contributes frustrating percentage of tin go iron , steel.

rene rodriguez of miami herald gave film 2 out of 4 stars said, war hell. s entertainment, folks. amy nicholson of la weekly said, ugly part of ugly war, , ayer wallows in it. instead of flags , patriotism, fury filth: basins of blood, smears on soldiers exhausted faces, bodies pushed around bulldozers, decomposing corpse s melted mud. peter travers of rolling stone gave 3 out of 4 stars , said, written , directed exacting skill , aching heart david ayer, fury captures buried feelings of men in combat piercing immediacy. new york post s kyle smith said couldn t suspecting there s pornographic leer all, savage glee. tom long wrote detroit news , gave film negative reviews, fury brutal film celebrates rage , bloodshed no clear end beyond ugly spectacle. globe , mail wrote: fury...is war movie balls of steel , marbles brains. chris klimek of npr praised film , actors, fury big step in sophistication. elevates being merely believably grimy, well-acted war drama in long , surprising middle act. new york magazine s david edelstein admired film in own words, though of fury crumbles in mind, power of best moments lingers: writhing of ellison s forced kill; frightening vibe of scene german women; meanness on soldiers faces , soul-sickness on others .