merelyaninnuendo Fury2 And A Half Out Of 5Fury is a character driven war drama about a troop that goes through various range of emotions whilst fighting against Germany. Pitt's urge to play safe by going under a war genre backfires vigorously as the medium chosen in here doesn't necessarily respects or honors the sincerity of it. Having said that, the feature has its moments undoubtedly but unfortunately that too, is extracted from typical textbook formula. Stuffing in all such material to keep it alive and breathing for more than two hours, isn't feasible at all. Such familiar structured script with such safe acts are far away from being furious let alone be morally competent. If anything it is blighted enough to even take the heat out of the plausible work pulled of by the actors in here. The background score is dull along with editing and cinematography, but what draws the attention is gut-wrenching visuals; kudos to the art designing department, and sharp sound effects. The writing is more blunt than strong with coherent loud symbols (the dinner table conversation is where the line should have been drawn) that audience gets sick off, listening to. Ayer; the writer-director, is no short on execution and seems to have matured in its own method, no matter how long he still has to go to, to offer its own script some gravitas. Pitt is putting all his chips in with equal arrogance and raw power foliated in his portrayal with Bernthal's sassiness and Pena's reserved act, the feature is quite good on the performance objective. The chemistry among the characters and few comic action sequences (like Pitt's tank against a huge tank) are the only high points of the feature. Fury is of safer breed that completely contradicts its genre but then is also immensely gripping.

raikkox From the starting point I felt something was not right about this movie. But I tried to give it a chance. However, lousy characters, dumb effects (laser beams? Come on!). But the worst part was to watch a sergeant making a PFC commit a war crime for reasons I yet do not understand. They took a great idea, which was to represent battle tanks during WW2 and turned into gargabe. I'm sorry for Brad Pitt, really.

stangya sorensa Terrible! He's got both eyes and there's no heli-carrier! Not the "Avengers" spin-off I was expecting!

robertmaybeth Probably earns itself a spot in one of the top 10 war movies ever, if only for the great effort made at historical accuracy. The genuine Sherman tanks used in the movie, along with one of the only running Tiger tanks left in the world, really give this movie a fantastic historical feel. That, and the fact that they do not try to portray American troops as real "good guys" as they murder surrendered prisoners and do other things not so nice. I don't doubt these incidents occurred in World War 2, as they do in every war - but there are some genuinely ugly moments in this movie that taint the movie slightly - no doubt as intended, since real war is a million times uglier. Nevertheless, the story has enough scenes to give you something close to a feeling on what being an American tanker in WW2 was like. The movie moves along briskly from the beginning, and never slows down for long, especially not with excess character development - but enough is revealed about the main characters to show that the tank crew believes they are all more or less a collection of doomed men. The crew know they are probably going to die before the war ends - it's 1945 and the Germans are fighting harder then ever, now that they are on home ground - and their every word and action reflects this idea. So it's no surprise that we will take on the viewpoint of the newby of the group. Norman (Logan Lerman) is a GI that's ordered into Fury (the Sherman tank and the real star) as a radio operator when their last one is KIA. .. and it's Norman's eyes we see the movie through, since he is just as unprepared for what is going to happen as we in the audience are. Sent to stop German forces in a last minute defensive action, Fury and her fellow Sherman tanks face German army and SS troops in a virtual whirl-wind of crashing violence and furious attacks from a desperate enemy. There's nothing to say about this in a review without ruining the movie, but there were several glaring errors in the portrayal of wartime events...nothing bad enough to spoil the movie, but just enough to be annoying to WW2 history/weapons buffs. For instance, we are several times shown columns of marching German troops, who are heavily armed and are equipped with several Panzerfausts (German one shot bazookas) yet not once is one of them even fired at Fury! Moreover, "War daddy" (Brad Pitt) is shown popping out of the commander's hatch of Fury and firing a captured Sturmgewehr MP 44 (German assault rifle) at enemy. There is nothing truly wrong or unauthentic with this - all sides often used captured weapons, but an MP44 would be a very clumsy weapon to be used from the hatch of a Sherman tank (or any tank). This particular rifle was over 3 feet long, and using it from a tank hatch would be very impractical and would seem to involve quite a lot of fumbling. It would also be ridiculously slow to bring into action (tank crews were usually armed with .45 1911 pistols or M3 Grease gun submachine gun for this reason, NOT a full size rifle - even a carbine would really be too long).Despite the few (very few) silly aspects and historical inaccuracies that happen in this movie, overall this is one of the very best tank movies ever made (the only better one is "The beast of war"). "Fury" is a very good war film, and definitely worth a watch by any war movie fan.