‘Fury’: Brad Pitt tank drama carries out its mission, reviews say

Writer-director David Ayer takes his gritty explorations of masculinity and violence to the battlefields of World War II in “Fury,” starring Brad Pitt as the hardened leader of an American tank crew behind German lines.

Movie critics largely agree that “Fury,” like the crew it depicts, accomplishes what it set out to do with unflinching violence and skilled execution — though not without its share of casualties.

The Times’ Kenneth Turan writes, “If memorable war movies mean something to you, open that book to a new page and add ‘Fury’ to the list. It belongs there.” Even if you’re not keeping a list, he says, “it’s hard not to be impressed” by what Ayer, Pitt and “an exceptional below-the-line team” have accomplished.

Turan adds, “What makes this film distinctive is the adroit way it both subverts and enhances old-school expectations, grafting a completely modern sensibility onto thoroughly traditional material.”

The New York Times’ A.O. Scott says Ayer “has a way of filming violence that is both intense and matter-of-fact,” but adds that “within this gore-spattered, superficially nihilistic carapace is an old-fashioned platoon picture, a sensitive and superbly acted tale of male bonding under duress.”

The film, Scott adds, “is less an epic than a series of tense and focused episodes. … When the tank needs to cross an expanse of muddy ground, you feel every jolt and swerve. And there is a lot of muddy ground to cover.”

The San Francisco Chronicle’s Mick LaSalle says “Fury” is “the first World War II movie inflected by a post 9/11, post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan, 21st century point of view,” and at its best, it “examines the psychological experience of warfare.”

Toward the end, LaSalle says, “‘Fury’ takes on some of the contours of a conventional war film and becomes less about the damage that war inflicts on the soul. But the battle sequences are effective — not a flood of quick cuts, but always clear. And Ayer never forgets that the actual people are doing the fighting.”

The Chicago Tribune’s Michael Phillips is less impressed, calling “Fury” “a mixture of sharp realism and squishy cliches that combat movies don’t really need anymore.” Ayer has “a facility both for hard-driving melodrama and relentless, guts-spilling action bordering on the gamer’s sensibility without falling prey to it entirely. He can write. He can also overwrite.”

At its weakest, Phillips says, “‘Fury’ contributes a frustrating percentage of tin to go with the iron and steel.”

The Boston Globe’s Ty Burr finds “Fury” to have something of an identity crisis. He writes, “As a film it’s stuck somewhere between the present and the past — between the gung-ho platitudes of every WWII movie before 1996’s ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and the chaos and carnage of every WWII movie since.” Pitt, for his part, “gives a fine, believably bleak performance, despite the slowly tightening noose of heroism around his neck.”

In the end, Burr says, “‘Fury’ wants to lead us to a fresh consideration of ‘the good war’ while simultaneously celebrating the old bromides and cliches. No wonder it shoots itself in the tank.”

The Washington Post’s Michael O’Sullivan writes, “Although filmed with a visceral — and often shockingly grisly — beauty, as well as pulse-quickening drama, the movie is only passably interesting as a war movie, especially when measured against classics such as ‘Paths of Glory.’ Still, it’s engaging and watchable, even as it marches toward a seemingly suicidal climax.”

But, O’Sullivan adds, “The complex dynamic between Wardaddy [Pitt] and his men is far more fascinating. … Wardaddy’s successes and failures as a parent and leader are the most engrossing and novel things about ‘Fury.’”

Follow @ogettell for movie news