Six reporters, photographers and media chiefs are to be tried for invasion of privacy over topless photos of Kate Middleton

In a beautiful written piece for the New York Times, Trevor Noah paints a picture of his childhood with his mother


2015-01-30 07:59

What it's about:

In the final days of World War II, Hitler has called on all German men, women and children to fight the allied invaders and within that setting Fury tells the story of a ragtag tank crew led by the tough-as-nails but war-worn Sgt. Don 'Wardaddy' Collier who are the first and often last line of defence against German forces that both out-man and out-gun them.

What we thought:

Fury is a major step-up for director David Ayer after his last film, the dreadful Schwartzanegger-led Sabotage, went some way towards erasing the good will that he engendered with his top-notch “blokey” cop film, End of Watch. Unfortunately, though it's a handsomely made and well-acted piece of work, it is dragged down by a muddled tone, unfortunate comparisons to better work and a sense that, despite the worthiness of the story, it doesn't really add up to very much.

The film is effectively broken into three parts and though they work decently enough on their own, they do add up to a seriously incoherent, disjointed (but not unenjoyable) end product.

The first of them, which picks up with our heroes in the middle of a bloody battle and with one of their own having just been shot to death, is your typical war-is-hell war film that isn't up to the best examples of this genre, with neither Saving Private Ryan's cacophonous brutality, nor Apocalypse Now's poetry. It's fine but we've seen this a thousand times before, a number of times done better, and though there is some interest in seeing how new recruit, Norman Ellison (a very good Logan Lerman) meshes with this group of veterans while trying to come to terms with the horrors of war, it's inarguably the most boring part of the film.

Interestingly, the second act, which is the film's 'quiet between storms' section, is much more engrossing, despite the fact that it feels like a completely different movie to what came before and that it consists almost entirely of people talking, with nary an explosion for miles around. Drawing far more from the talky set pieces of Inglorious Bastards than any other war film, the second part of Fury suffers badly by comparison but at least tries to do something interesting with its characters. Effectively an examination of the moral grey areas that still managed to in a conflict as black-and-white as World War II and whether fighting for a good cause necessarily makes you a 'good guy', it's not wholly satisfying but it is still quietly engrossing. That it uses its only two female characters as little more than props doesn't exactly help it's case, though.

The final section, then, is by far the most enjoyable as it loses all pretences of seriousness and becomes a fine, muscular action film. It's completely tonally inconsistent with what came before and it's more than a bit ridiculous, of course, but it is the section where all the film's good points really shine. By this point you've already gotten to know the main characters so this extended battle scene of our heroes verses seemingly a thousand SS troops, packs some emotional punch along with its visceral action. Admittedly, any complexities tat may have once been part of these characters is quickly ironed out as they are all represented as pretty much perfect heroes but, hey, you can't have everything.

If it seems like I'm being overly harsh to a film that still quite easily earns its three stars, it's only because for a war film with stunning cinematography, exciting action-scene choreography and all round excellent performances (even Shia Lebouf is tolerable here!), it's disappointing how half-assed it is in its writing. Sure, it's entirely watchable in even it's most boring moments but it's also very much a missed opportunity, as it is ultimately vapid, inconsistent and incoherent and it constantly raises interesting themes only to discard them minutes later.   

Not-too-discerning war movie fans may well really enjoy it, but everyone else should really check their expectations at the door, if they're to have any hope of not being disappointed by Fury.

Read more on:    shia labeouf  |  brad pitt  |  movies

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

2016-10-14 07:38

shit breath 2015-02-02 09:47 AM
i need a shit.
shitophile 2015-02-02 03:48 PM
do it on my chest
Irene 2015-02-03 12:02 PM
I think this movie deserves at least 4 stars. I thought it was very good, with great performances by all the main actors, especially Brad Pitt, Shia Labeouf (he was brilliant, actually) and Logan Lerman. This isn't only a war movie (which is perhaps what you were looking for), but it also takes a look at the psycological side of war. The scene in the two women's flat was particularly well done. Nope, this deserves at least four stars and shouldn't be compared to other movies.
The real deal 2015-02-03 02:39 PM
This was a really good movie, from acting to story line its kept you entertained. Ilan is probably an old gay man that loves hart warming chick flicks ... go figure

Recent Reviews

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

2016-10-14 07:38

Just another typical Tom Cruise action film, with nothing to get too excited about. The film is loaded with action-film stereotypes and cheesy one-liners. Read More »
Add your review

Hands of Stone

2016-10-14 07:38

Hands of Stone is a bland, unlikable portrayal of a real-life boxer that struggles to hit the highs of Rocky IV let alone Raging Bull or the original Rocky. Mark this one down as “for boxing fanatics only”. Read More »
Add your review

There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.