Review: Brad Pitt Screams From the Belly of a Tank in Bloody WWII Drama ‘Fury’

Review: Brad Pitt Screams From the Belly of a Tank in Bloody WWII Drama 'Fury'

“Fury” is set April 1945, as the Allies finish off Nazi Germany, but the movie’s period matters less than its mood, which it thrusts forward with the mechanical intensity of the tanks at the story’s center. Writer-director David Ayer’s brash, assaultive Brad Pitt drama manages some evocative imagery and achieves visceral impact by enacting a hellacious atmosphere that never lets up — but Ayer takes the mission too literally, and winds up literally lost in the fog of war. 

The failings of “Fury” come early on, when an opening shot that finds a Nazi soldier riding a white horse through the smoldering wreckage of American tanks. Out of the shadows jumps knife-wielding sergeant Don “Wardaddy” Collier (Pitt). The scene, like many others following it, contains a grotesque, hellacious quality, yet still feels empty. It’s a stark, beautifully lit illustration that war is hell. But what else is new?

READ MORE: ‘Fury’ Starring Brad Pitt Closes London Film Festival in Bid for Oscar Contention


Despite its 134-minute running time, “Fury” never addresses that question. Returning to his tank — which bears the movie’s title on its cannon — Wardaddy’s take-no-prisoners approach quickly comes to light: The war may be nearing completion, but he remains in the thick of it. As the tank barrels forward, he hovers with his soldiers, who include Boyd “Bible” Swan (a mustachioed Shia LaBeouf), Trini “Gordo” Garcia (Michael Peña), Grady “Coon-Ass” Travis (Jon Bernthal), and Sergeant Miles (Scott Eastwood). At a nearby base, Wardaddy is tasked with toughening up his new driver, the scrawny Norman “Cobb” Ellison (Logan Lerman). At first cruelly forcing the young recruit to inflict violence on Nazi prisoners, Wardaddy later takes pity on the lightweight.

The movie’s expressionistic qualities extend to its bluntly drawn characters: Wardaddy’s ambiguous stature, as both imperialistic monster of combat and principled warrior, sets the stage for newbie Ellison to learn a heavy-handed lesson in moral equivalency as he experiences death firsthand. The movie’s trajectory is mapped out as Ellison is swept up in a dust-caked world of cruel masculinity and rampant bloodshed. “Fury” scores points for attempting to depict WWII in strikingly minimalist terms, but Ayer struggles to deepen those intentions. 


Despite Pitt’s loud and domineering performance, the real star of “Fury” is cinematographer Roman Vasyonov. His grey-tinted visuals create a hyperreal quality to the narrative, which largely unfolds on expansive landscapes strewn with wreckage. The impressionistic style is particularly effective during the spectacular finale, a showdown that pits the tank against hundreds of Nazi assailants as the gold-tinted shadows take the plot into the realm of abstraction. 

But the extraordinary visuals never develop a substantial takeaway, and neither do the characters: During a prolonged dinner-table sequence that finds Pitt and Lerman spending a few gentler moments with surviving German women in a bombed-out town, Ayer goes great lengths to demonstrate the challenge of finding solace in the midst of a terribly ugly situation. The sequence holds potential, but goes on far too long, as if begging to be taken seriously. And that’s the problem with “Fury” as a whole: Every thematic possibility is addressed in the broadest strokes.

Of course, “Fury” doesn’t aim for realism, and Ayer has never been a filmmaker particularly interested in naturalism. His movies use the extremes of action and conversation to convey big ideas with fast, pugnacious energy. As with his found-footage police drama “End of Watch” and the DEA thriller “Sabotage,” the director makes a considerable attempt to barrel inside the ecosystem of a dirty, reckless profession. But his plodding, dim-witted script never rises to the level of his intentions. Instead, it returns to obvious dialogue meant to underscore the warmongering sensibilities in play. “This is an American tank,” Wardaddy barks when one of his compatriots uses Spanish. “We talk American!” So does the movie, which uses its crass, thundering exterior as an excuse for the absence of pretty much anything else. 


Though ostensibly an ensemble piece, “Fury” offers little in the way of memorable performances. LaBeouf’s bland performance is overshadowed by his recent public spectacles, while Peña and Bernthal play thin stereotypes. Lerman is serviceable as the sole sympathetic figure, though his whiny presence offers nothing new. These are archetypal characters may serve its stripped-down aesthetic, but their connotations are symbolically weak. 


In principle, the movie has a kinship with Quentin Tarantino’s similarly embellished WWII crowdpleaser “Inglourious Basterds,” which also features Pitt as a combative sergeant. Once again, the main soldiers reporting to the character are Jewish. But while “Fury” shows its men fueled by rage, it trades the irony of Tarantino’s movie for triviality. “Done much killin’?” Wardaddy asks his latest disciple. “You will!” Later, he inexplicably becomes a guru-like instructor in a lesson of moral equivalency, declaring that “ideas are peaceful. History is violent.” It’s like Ayer is begging us to care. 

He achieves greater impact in the pure claustrophobia of scenes set inside the tank, which becomes a moving metaphor for the sense of existential confinement. But anyone familiar with the 2009 Israeli film “Lebanon,’ which exclusively takes place inside an Israeli tank, will know that this moving metaphor only works when its inhabits infuse it with life. “Fury” never evolves beyond its conceptual ambition. 

The sights of burning bodies and tanks crunching soldiers in foxholes can’t help but manage some horrific specificity. But with time, the repeated flashes of ugliness grow redundant. Intended to shock us, “Fury” has a deadening effect, until it becomes a victim of the same brutality it was designed to indict. 

Grade: C

“Fury” opens nationwide on October 17.

READ MORE: Why Brad Pitt-Starrer ‘Fury’ Is Moving from November to October (VIDEO)

This Article is related to: Reviews and tagged , ,


Comments

Jean

What KIND of an idiot review is this? The movie is INCREDIBLY ACCURATE, VERY WELL ACTED, historically correct. This reviewer is blind, stupid and has no heart. See the movie, it’s practically perfect.

Jacob

This is possibly one of the worst reviews I’ve ever seen…Sergeant Miles was not even a part of the tank squad. Did you just look through the wikipedia article and write this? Also, Norman was not the driver, but just an assistant driver, and a gunner.

Amy

This is NOT my type of film and only went as my daughter twisted my arm. I loved it.

Donald Smith

As a retired Army Tanker and military historian Fury was Right On ! I found myself giving tank commands in my head during the movie. I give the movie a AAA+++. Tankerdon. Out

IT 2 IT

CFR war whore PITT ‘fighting NAZIs’?

Polish Joke? —or Polish NO JOKE?

LOOK at what’s unfolding across America 2014.

YOU DECIDE.

joe schmoe

"…winds up literally lost in the fog of war." hmm, maybe ‘figuratively’ would work better. i hope ayers is not lost in fog in a region at war.

IT 2 IT

Didn’t PITT make this SAME flick LAST year??????

Carole

Enough war movies from Brad Pitt. And enough WWII war movies. What more can we say,"War is hell," a simple phrase is all we need to remember. I saw IB, and it was OK, but then I’m a "chick" and peace is my thing.

Louis

I am also a veteran with menthal and physical scars from my service in The Us army in Iraq this cartoonish images of the battlefield do not not reflect reality

tom

Great review Eric.

rolland

I am a veteran officer with battle experience in Iraq and Afganistan. I agrre totally with the reviewer This film does not reflect the reality of Battle violence. Not even a glimpse Doc.

derma

Great review. You do not seem intimidated by the super stars in the movie. It is quite frankly a movie with no message.

helga

Great review. this movie has big name actors, a lot of violence and very little else.

Doc

A number of people don’t know or understand how real war is and don’t understand those people that try to bring a glimpse of that to the screen. Just remember that the critic hasn’t been there and never will be

Duddi

@NO – Actually Aldo Raine’s rank was "Lieutenant".
– And also I wanted to state that probably WWII movies or Pitt aren’t something Eric Kohn likes. He usually writes credible and coherent reviews but when he misses the mark, he misses it for a big time. Anyway, can’t say much about Fury cuz I haven’t seen it yet, but I was remind of I.B.’s review from Kohn… and here’s a piece for the rest of you who have not read the original review… "Despite the injection of content from a variety of directions, Basterds lacks the crackly excitement of Tarantino’s other efforts, mainly because he can’t seem to tie the whole package together."

Ricardo

Eric Kohn, your reviews are the worst

No

I know it may be minor, but Pitt played an officer, not a sergeant in Inglourious Basterds.

Smee

Interesting that this film has a much more impressive cast of Jewish actors (Logan Lerman, Jon Bernthal, Shia LaBeouf, Jason Isaacs) playing WWII soldiers than Pitt’s Inglourious Basterds did.

okay

another terrible review from indiewire

Tom

"the movie has a kinship with Quentin Tarantino’s similarly embellished WWII crowdpleaser "Inglourious Basterds," which also features Pitt as a combative sergeant"

A film that was also given a negative review by this reviewer. So if you enjoyed Inglourious Basterds, you’ll likely enjoy this, too.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *