A Bit More Intense Than I Had Imagined

Rating: 5/10 (12 November 2014)

I saw "Fury" on Veterans Day this year, and while it was a well made movie, it certainly left me with a different experience than I had imagined.
Most of that is my own fault. When I first saw the previews, I had taken the film to be a rip off of the Marvel Comics series, "Sgt. Fury & His Howling Commandoes". The classic comic series features a tough-as-nails army sergeant, Nick Fury, who leads a company of colorful characters in thrilling adventures during World War II. The trailer for "Fury" gave me the impression that Brad Pitt was going to be a Nick Fury type of character, and that Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman and the rest were to be the equivalent of the "Howling Commandoes".
This only made sense, given that comic book movies are so popular these days, and given that it seems Marvel won't be diving into the WWII origins of Samuel L. Jackson's portrayal of Marvel's Fury anytime soon.
That said, I went into the film imagining it to be a lighthearted army movie, something more along the lines of "Top Gun" than "Saving Private Ryan". Or, perhaps something akin to the first Marvel Studios "Captain America" movie, which was set in WWII. I'm sure that Pitt's more lighthearted portrayal of an American WWII soldier in "Inglorious Basterds" also influenced my expectation.
"Fury" is nothing like any of that. Instead, what we have here is a modern day John Wayne movie, one in which any perceived comedy only serves to add flavor to the grisly character of the film. The movie is not quite as intense as some in its genre ("Saving Private Ryan"; "We Were Soldiers"), but it certainly leaves one with more of a "war is hell" type of feeling than any lighthearted, patriotic type of vibe.
In fact, there is a sense in which I might compare it with the classic "All Quiet on the Western Front", the 1930 protest film (based on the book of the same name) which underscores the horrors of war while balancing them against the romanticized version of war that we too often associate with.
The big question is whether the movie was good or bad. It's hard to explain how I feel about this film. Does the John Wayne hero thing mix well with the "war is hell" type of vibe? I'm still asking that question. Parts of the movie were very unsettling for me, including its climax. The last twenty minutes of the film certainly made for good cinema, and yet they also focused on a prolonged battle that was an odd mix of the war-is-hell vibe and a feel good movie, which didn't quite fit the rest of the film.
Nevertheless, Logan Lerman's performance was stellar, and I might even say that Lerman saved the film.
All in all, I'd say the movie is worth viewing, but do prepare yourself for a more intense experience than the previews suggest.