Fury - 4K + Blu-ray + Digital

Fury is a retelling of the story of the Alamo. Saving Private Ryan has met its match by this WWII film. The story of this WWII film was wonderfully imagined. To bad Ayer was not nominated for an Oscar for his cinematic efforts. So much about this movie deserves written attention. Difficult it is to pear down the many thoughts and emotions this movie elicits. As of this movie as of other period movies I am always amazed at how an art director, I think it is the art director who, finds equipment, automobiles, clothes, and other things used in scenes that convey real authenticity of a particular period. Too often reviews are written focusing on what appears on screen without mention of production that goes on behind the camera. That production-work makes what appears on screen work well. Production value of this film is deserving of high praise. Yet writing about this movie is hard to do without mention of what occurs in front of the camera. Of course Brad Pitt does another excellent job at acting. He was/is that top Sargent. One dimensional his character is not. Layers of the character were dramatized well when each one individually needed to surface. As well, those layers work in combination towards shaping the character of the conveyed character. One particular scene stands out.Inside the German woman's apartment. Having had cleaned himself of war grime, looking fresh, top Sargent and Noman sit at a dinning room table, waiting to be served food, very domesticated. Calmly reading a newspaper, top Sargent sits at the head of the table presiding over an unlikely formation of an instantly formed family only made possible by conditions of war. All of a sudden in comes a barbaric presence tarnishing any semblance of domestic tranquility. Other crew members drunkenly loud enter the apartment. Top Sargent quietly accepts his rowdy crew members who behave inappropriately. Norman tortuously contains his resentment at their rowdy and crude presence. Top Sargent wisely allows these crew members to misbehave but keeps a vigilant eye on them. After all these are his men with whom he has fought many battles, and together they have witnessed devastating horror characteristic of war. Having shared such horrific conditions has allowed strong bonds to be formed among them. In this scene Pitt's character conveys silent authority, both domestic and militarily. Yet when he has to he can switch on barbaric authority, which authority his men understand, for it matches their own barbaric presence. Top Sargent demonstrates he is the alpha male of the bunch. Another screen presence deserving mention is the actor who plays the character, Norman. To illustrate his acting ability, take the scene when tank and crew roll out of camp heading towards another military objective. Norman had just moments before arrived in camp. Having been trained to be a military clerk, he now sits inside a tank for his first time saddled with responsibility as assistant driver. Not long before this moment his muses the military had made a mistake. His newly found comrades assure him no mistake has been made. Its just throwing cannon fodder at the enemy, and it's the roll of the dice whether the newbie survives or not. It's part of military logic in such circumstances. Here it is Norman's first experience of battle with a battle harden tank crew, and he is hardly prepared to go into battle let alone going into battle as a tank crew member. As the tank rolls out of camp, Norman sits in the lower portion of the tank, his head sticking out, from a distance looking quite comical, I think. Camera at mid-range close-up focuses on this face. His is a face given to the expression of foreboding terror, portrayed convincingly well. Another time the actor playing the character Norman does well at acting. The time after the tank crew had undergone shelling in the town. It was in this town he had met the German young woman, and with whom he might have had sex. As to whether that happened is not quite clear to me. As to whether sex did happen or not happen makes no difference. A scene of them together in the apartment sitting at the table does show a bound had formed between them, a bond formed but still very innocent. After the shelling on the town, now on the road again, leaving the town, his thoughts are unspoken but obviously of her. By his meeting her and by his being with her it gave him a sense of quiet, pleasant normalcy, a respite from the deafening loudness and insanity of war. But now he sits on top of the moving tank, lost in quiet contemplation. Moments before he witnessed a brief but lethal incident of devastatingly eruptive force. Now Norma's face conveys a deeply felt sadness, a sadness having him at the border of numbness, a numbness felt with the thought of the irreparable damage he witnessed. This emotion is convincingly portrayed by the actor. The two scenes about which I have written are very important moments, scenes, at which time qualities of character are conveyed. This has me wondering how a casting director, producer, and director -- whoever -- would audition actors for a part such as this requiring silent conveyance of emotion. An accurately made observation of all the primary actors in this movie would state each did an excellent job. Each portrays a character, a common men, who when placed in abnormally dangerous circumstances, who when faced by overwhelming forces greatly and lethally at odds by his presence, who then steps up to the occasion to face the challenge, and who must introspectively reach within himself to derive uncommon strength of character towards achievement of something astoundingly remarkable although it may mean his losing his life. This not a movie about heroics. It's about duty and integrity. It's belief in fulfilling the purpose of something greater than oneself. It's about the futility of protracted war when fighting on is absurdly irrational and is evidence of maddening stupidity. Enough said. Besides who really will read this review?

I really really enjoyed this film, I actually watched it twice through in two days and enjoyed it just as much as the first time. What I like so much about this movie is that it does not glamorize war, nor does it paint the characters as overt heroes. What it does do as present war as what it really is, horrific. Without in the same time not going over the top. Its motif and approach is very subtle. I have read several reviews where this movie has been labeled similar to a Horror genre War story. And I am inclined to agree. This movie is absolutely intense from start to finish, and the acting by all the actors is top notch. Especially the 5 main characters, where all the actors in my opinion should get an Oscar nod for because they all did a wonderful job. As a synopsis of the story without giving away too much, we are given a small snap shot of 4 tankers we find at the tail end of the war pushing through Germany. There assistant driver and front gunner has just been killed and the replacement they get is a fresh recruit 8 weeks into the army that wasn't even trained as a tanker. We then follow the characters through a number of battles, where the focus of the story is very much on the Newbie, Norman. Near the end of the film after we have watched Norman be presented with the unnaturalness of the horrors of war, and be dubbed "Machine" as his war name. I very much feel that this an allusion to that man, by his nature, must force himself to not feel, to turn off his emotions and be a cold machine to kill and commit the atrocities which war requires of them. I feel this is summed up in one line said by Pitt’s characters to Norman. After pointing out an entire city on fire in the distance. He says "Many have died in this war and many more will have to die before it is over." The movie is very much a study of men doing what they can to hold on to their humanity by having to do something which by its extremity, killing scores of other men, who are trying to do the same in a matter of moments over and over again. The battle scenes are intense, and the ending battle fits the title of the movie so well, as we see through these men’s actions the absolute "fury" which they must embrace to force themselves to face their fears and continue to fight. As the Webster’s dictionary definition states of the meaning of the word fury, "unrestrained or violent anger, rage, passion, or the like." Overall, there is so much that could be said, and read into about this film, and I honestly feel that that was the point. This movie in my opinion is showing us for once a non cynical side of humanity, that rather than showing us that all men are monsters by nature, that we are violent, uncaring killing machines, which we certainly can be, but points out that by our natures, we have to force ourselves in many ways to be that way. That really brotherhood of man can and does happen, but points out that for us to kill one another, so brutally, forces us to have to in a way forsake our humanity, and then in some way still be able to keep it. I think this notion of war is certainly what humanity needs to keep in mind as we move into the future. That even though what these men did in the end of the film was "heroic" per say, what was still done was also horrific, as we watch Norman pulling away from the scene in the end of the film, he is told he is a hero as he is placed in a medic truck. And we can see on his face such a shock of mixed emotions... It really leaves the viewer speechless, at the depth of what can be taken from his situation and what he has done... This is certainly a movie I will watch again, and ponder over for years to come I am sure. If you are a person that is a thinker and can watch a movie for more than just screaming" MERica!!" then you will really like this film!

Fury" is one of the best movies made by Hollywood in a long long time. And notice that I'm not saying "best war movies..." but Best movies. The horror of the final months of World War II in Germany has never been depicted this well, and I only wish some more of the men who had been there were still around to discuss it, now that this movie was with us. One of those men was my father. But first, a bit about the authenticity. One of the worst things about many of the later World War II movies (most silly among them, "Patton") is that they got little or nothing right. American tank soldiers fought inside Sherman tanks, not those later American tanks (like the "Pattons" utilized in the movie "Patton"). And the Shermans were decent tanks -- except against the best of the Nazi armor. In order to do a decent job with the movie, "Fury" had to locate real Shermans (and a real German Tiger tank) that could be used. Otherwise, everything else would have been lost to the lack of authenticity, which is what the movie had to have. But more than that, the movie had to be authentic to the reality of the men who ended their war in Germany (and Austria and Czechslovakia, the last three countries to be taken -- and that's the correct word, not the Cold War "liberated" -- from the hands of the Nazi leadership) in May 1945. For the soldiers on the job with the U.S. forces during those months, the job was killing "Krauts", "Heinies..." etc. And the job of the "Krauts" was killing Americans (and British, Canadian, and French invaders coming from the West; or Russians from the East). Both sides got very good at their jobs. "Fury" takes that job seriously, depicting the job by portraying the five-man crew of one Sherman tank during that last month before Adolf Hitler's suicide and the final surrender of the remnants of the Nazi empire. It the simplest way, "Fury" is another "War Movie" (caps necessary), a buddy movies, and more. A tank crew is led by Brad Pitt (as US Army S/Sgt. Don "Wardaddy" Collier. As the movie begins, the crew consists of Shia LaBeouf as Boyd "Bible" Swan, Michael Peña as Cpl. Trini "Gordo" Garcia, and Jon Bernthal as Pfc. Grady "Coon-Ass" Travis. In the first nasty battle portrayed in the film, they have lost one of their crew, "Red." They receive a young replacement, Logan Lerman playing Pvt. Norman "Ellison (who doesn't get his non de guerre -- Machine" -- until nearly the end of the story). The tank platoon starts the movie with ten tanks, and by the end there is one. The film depicts how that comes about. The portrayal of the men doing the tank work should earn any of them at least an Oscar nomination, and their lives together inside that bucket of steel is portrayed in the claustrophobic horror that was actually experienced by U.S. tankers during those years -- and especially those final months. All that said, "Fury" might just have been another one of those war movies where the "kid"learns to be a good soldier thanks to the work of the "old man." But this isn't "Sand of Iwo Jima" or any of a dozen of the sanitized bedtime stories we were told as children in the 1950s and 1960s using Hollywood propaganda that began in the 1940s. In order to do his job, the "kid" has to be taught to be a killer, and he resists. Trained for a mere eight weeks to be a clerk typist, "Logan" is snatched from a replacement truck and ordered to be the machine gunner on "Fury." When he protests that his only military skill is typing "60 words a minute," Wardaddy begins the replacement's new training, with the help of the rest of the family who work inside "Fury." Norman has to become a killer to be a good worker and a fellow soldier, so that by the time the other men bestow on him his war name -- "Machine" -- he has learned his trade and is doing it well. "Idealism is peaceful," Brad Pitt's character tells Norman at one point. "History is violence." And that violence is depicted as almost never before in an American film (and rarely in others, one of which comes to mind -- the Russian "Stalingrad"... but that's another discussion for another time). By the time of that final battle scene, all the stages have been set, and all the cliches and pieties of previous American war movies have been obliterated or at least severely damaged. Wardaddy's life and fate are not out of "Sand of Iwo Jima" or any of a dozen other war myths that come to mind with alittle thought. This is important. One of the most pernicious bits of the historiography from the final months of World War II was the claim that the Americans were fighting "old men and kids" after the German Army "lost" its remaining major reserves in the Battle of the Bulge and Nordwind. Left out of that story is the fact that those "kids", some as young as 14 and 15, were fanatical Nazis who had been trained from the day they entered school under Hitler's versions of reality. As a result, they were as deadly as the men who had raped their way across Poland, France, and Russia a few years earlier. I have a hunch that "Fury" will get good reviews from the remaining men (and few women) who are still around who actually lived the combat of those months at the "end" of World War II in both Europe and "The Pacific." Sadly, I won't get to have those conversations with my parents, because both -- both combat veterans -- are long dead. My father ended his war after fighting through Germany into Austria with the 44th Infantry Division, one of the 80 or so U.S. divisions that never made it to Hollywood. He came home with one desire -- to begin that family he and my mother had promised each other when they got married a few months before Pearl Harbor. By April 1945, he was in the Army in Germany and she was in the Army (Army Nurse Corps) on Okinawa. The year 1945 was different for each of millions of men and women across the planet, but one of the jokes in our family was that they really understood the meaning of SNAFU. My mother enlisted in the Army Nurse Corps because the enlistment office promised her that she'd be there -- in Europe -- to patch up my Dad if he was hurt. Naturally, as soon as the paperwork was in, she was sent to the other side of the planet. But they did get together by December 1945, after the G.I. protests in "The Pacific" demanding that "Bring the Boys Home." (They didn't mention the girls; there weren't many of them). And so they got their dreams, and in September 1946 I was the first of the four children they had, keeping that promise from early 1941. But there were mysteries we never could solve. My father came home with a Bronze Star, a Combat Infantry Badge, and a "yearbook" from his regiment. My mother came home with a little mimeographed booklet of home addresses for all the men and women who had served on the island with her field hospital. Every Christmas, our home was filled with Christmas cards from all over, most of them the men and women Mom and Dad had "served" with. How does that relate to "Fury"? Like most boys growing up during the John Wayne 1950s, I wanted the stories. We read "Sergeant Rock" comics and say all those movies about World War II (which got less and less real as the Cold War decade went onward). No matter how many times I asked my Dad how he got his Bronze Star, the only answer he ever gave was "I got lost one night and I got lucky..." My mother, remembering her war, had nightmares until they took her over the edge. But since "PTSD" wasn't well known then -- and the American Dream said that women hadn't been in combat anyway -- her healing was more difficult than Dad's. He worked, his post "service" service being the U.S. Post Office. But the questions remained, and over the years they only grew. What were those wars in 1945 like? Well, little by little Hollywood is catching up with the facts that were reported early after the war, then suppressed in the lies of the Cold War. And one of the best things about the movie "Fury" is that it gets those who are paying attention back to that real war that American (and British, Canadian, and French) soldiers actually had to fight after they entered Der Vaterland in early 1945, following the termination of "The Bulge". The one thing that was certain, the Germans were not being "liberated" as the French and Belgians had been. The Germans were fighting -- virtually all of them -- and dying fanatically for the Reich. And as "Fury" depicts, those who had second thoughts were lynched by their own fellow citizens. That's why, as our fathers did explain, in very few words, every major city in Germany had to be reduced to rubble. By air and artillery, and finally house to house. Not all the Germans in 1945 were Nazis supporting Hitler's last festungs. Just the majority -- male and female, adults and "children." Fury does as good a job showing what those final weeks of the war in Europe were. As good as "were like" can offer. Because if we were paying attention, our parents taught us that war IS -- and not "like" anything else. Hollywood can only do so much, once Hollywood decides to try and tell a story honestly. I wish my Dad were still around so we could watch this movie and talk about it together, but he was buried 19 years ago alongside the brewery in Newark, New Jersey. My Mom had died ten years before that, never fully recovering from the nightmares she brought home with her from Okinawa. Medicated, she wrote hundreds of notes on slips of paper about he lives, by the end believing the Jesus was speaking to her -- between bouts of writing about the broken men, women and children she used her nursing skills for between April and September 1945. So now, Hollywood has brought us "Fury." It's about tankers, specifically the 2nd U.S, Armored Division fighting through Germany in April 1945. By then, Europe was a killing field from "East" (where the Russians were heading into Berlin) to the "West," where my father and a million young men like him were heading through Germany. One of the best things about "Fury" is that the men who play the tankers in it trained for their acting roles in two ways. They listened to the men who were still alive (not many) from the Second Armored Division. And then they got some "basic training" from Navy SEALS to give them a bit of a sense of what some of it was "like." I think they did a decent job in telling a brutal story that doesn't hedge on the realities those men faced in those days. As the movie notes at the beginning, most of the U.S. tankers in Europe were doomed men. The German armor was better than the U.S. tanks, and so, as "Fury" shows, Sherman tanks fighting German Tiger tanks were as a serious -- and suicidal -- disadvantage. There are dozens of scenes so authentic in the movie as to make you cringe, and the dialogue is as close to "reality" as possible. Men at war use the "F" word a lot, and in all its variations. None of the dialogue is cleaned up in "Fury" for some politically correct later day. There are a dozen scenes that make the movie memorable, and at least eight actors who deserve to be recognized for their work. But perhaps the final scene does as much as could be imagined. The lone survivor (I know, spoiler alert) is the kid' Norman, who at first refused to be a killer, as the war demanded. "You're a hero buddy. You know that?" the soldiers who put him in the ambulance say as the scene ends the movie. And I have a hunch that most of the men who came home from those brutal months knew that a "Hero" was just a young many who had gotten lost one night and "got lucky."

Excellent movie. The ending was, “over the top/Hollywood”, but overall, a believable recreation that included the kinds of events that have been well documented from the European Theater WWII. As to whether or not the movie was realistic, right now I’m reading, “Death Traps; the survival of an armored division in WWII”. This book was written by, Belton Cooper. He was one of the men whose job it was to recover and repair damaged tanks from the battlefields during WWII (Europe). His unit also provided what passed for the very brief training that was offered to tank replacements toward the end of the war. He describes exactly the things that were depicted in the movie. “Fury” was fortunate to even have had a five man crew by the last month of the war. Belton describes what really happened; such a shortage of trained crews that some tanks were being operated with three man crews; commander/”loader”, gunner, and driver (NO assistant gunner/loader or hull machine gunner). Untrained replacements, the likes of the film’s “Norman” character, were very common to encounter. It was not at all unheard of for green tankers and their tanks to be destroyed on their way from the forward maintenance depot to their unit assembly areas. The Germans were operating under even worse handicaps regarding the shortage of trained tank crews (not to mention the extreme shortage of tanks). Similar to a scene in the movie, Belton even describes an occasion when an officer called for volunteers to recover the bodies (the pieces), and to clean up, the interior of a tank whose dead crew had been traumatically dismembered by enemy fire. Indeed, the film makers were pretty meticulous about realism, holding a lengthy closed door meeting between the cast and actual 80+ year old veterans of tank warfare; Europe WWII. People who claim that this movie is not realistic are simply not correct in that assessment. There are still plenty of living eyewitnesses who will testify to the contrary. The cast themselves are a pleasure to watch. Jon Bernthal is perfectly cast as “Coon Ass”. Bernthal (The Walking Dead) is almost unparalleled when it comes to portraying the morally ambivalent character type; the deeply flawed, not likeable, but not totally irredeemable character. Pitt does his usual excellent job. Lerman, Lebeouf and Pena are terrific as well. My only “complaint” with the movie is with the ending. The climactic battle is “Hollywood”; over the top, filled with flaws regarding the actual tactics an infantry unit would use in order to destroy an enemy tank, filled with flaws regarding the actual capabilities a lone tank would have in meeting such a threat and…..not very believable. But the worst part is that this movie would have been excellent with a more believable and accurate ending; nothing would have been sacrificed. In other words, it was unnecessary to go where this story went and a better movie would have resulted if they hadn’t. And the final result would still have been the same! But hey, it’s a movie. There have been many, many war movies; many of them NOT very good. Where does “Fury” rank? That is endlessly debatable, for sure, but I would place it up there with the best ones; “Das Boot”, the serial, “Band of Brothers”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “The Dirty Dozen”. “Fury is an interesting look at WWII from a specific point of view, that of an American Sherman tank crew. Enjoy it for what it is and don’t let its flaws ruin a movie experience that has much to recommend it. I give "Fury" five stars.

Good action WW II movie. Although at the final end not sure if a young German soldier wouldn't signal enemy still alive. In doing that he betrays his own country.

Love this movie. Sound and video quality is great. Great home theater demo disk.

This is probably the best WWII movie since Saving Private Ryan. It's not better than Saving Private Ryan. But it's the best WWII movie since then. The extreme attention to detail make this an immersive experience. Every visual is realistic and time period appropriate. The sets, the buildings, the uniforms, the tanks, the guns, etc...it's all done perfectly. Even tiny details like Brad Pitt's rank insignia on his sleeves. His character has been fighting for 3 years. He's obviously been promoted through the ranks while in Europe. So his rank chevrons aren't professionally sewn on like they would have been in the United States. They are hand sewn on somewhat sloppily, like they would have been if someone got promoted in the middle of a field and was sewing them on himself in the turret of a tank between battles. That kind of attention to detail is incredible in this film. Another example you see like that are women wearing stockings with a seem of the back. It's not like they did close ups of the back of women's legs. But when you see a woman from behind briefly she's wearing seemed stockings. The costume designer took the time and energy to do details like that for things that are seem for a second at a time in the background. That kind of detail just makes the whole thing suck you into the film and make you feel like you're there. Then there is the acting. They made the characters so real. The seasoned and experienced tank crew has that thousand yard stare and fears nothing. The 18 year old kid who just showed up with a new clean uniform looks terrified. (None of this is a spoiler. This is the first 3 minutes of the film) That's the way it would have been. Slowly you watch the kid with high morals learn that morality takes a back seat to staying alive in battle really quick. The tank battles are nothing short of epic. They are so well done. They are well filmed. They are well choreographed. It's just amazing how stunning they looked and how realistic it all seemed. Even details like where the weak points of the German tanks were and such were accurate and well portrayed. Ultimately the visuals and tanks and costumes are just what the film looks like. They are what make it visually appealing. But the story is what really sells it. The story isn't about tanks or battles. The story is about people and how people fighting in WWII committed everything to the war. Their lives, their souls, everything. It's about what men become in battle. It's an amazing film. My only complaint is the scene in the German apartment. It just takes too long to make the point they are trying to make. It's about a 15 minute scene that could have been 5. The scene has it's place in the story. It's all part of the theme of Brad Pitt seeing himself in this young rookie tanker. I get the purpose of it. It just dragged on for too long.

This movie is extremely well done, and it features several real Shermans fighting a real running Tiger tank all of which were borrowed from the Bovington Tank Museum. Part of the fighting shows the Tiger getting shot from behind, but the actual shooting and resulting fire look real but were done to a wooden mockup. That mockup was bought by the Australian Tank museum and because the wooden mockup was only partial, the museum finished it and according to some, made it into a running mock up. Every thing that was a prop was made to look real. Clothing was aged, real guns were made to shoot blanks and some were metal reproductions while others were made of rubber. The traumatic amputations looked real thanks to the use of real amputees and my hat goes off to them because I would think that making the amputation look real, in one scene a standing solder gets his leg below the knee shot off in full view of the audience and I have wondered if the amputees had real traumatic amputations and were reminded of the stress, anxiety and trauma or not. I did have a dentist who was a medic in Viet Nam and he told me that the amputees said losing the limb was less painful than an abscessed tooth. Makes sense since the nerve in an abscessed tooth is confined in a narrow, immovable space. Also, there are many horrifying scenes such as a bulldozer pushing dead Germans into a mass grave, and a medical tent with casualties being brought in as well as a dead body smashed flat being run over so many times. In one scene there is a young SS soldier who has been beaten up and is being escorted by a number of Americans. The SS Hitler Youth soldier looks exactly like a photograph of an SS soldier who was allegedly beaten up by Canadian troops for the Hitler Youth massacre of Canadian POWs. When War Daddy comes up he asks "Why isn't he sleeping?" That is the word American troops used for shooting a POW who might be too dangerous to be taken back to a POW cage far behind the lines. The producer did his research well. The most tense scene is not on the battlefield but in a dining room. There is one thing wrong with the movie, and it is seen when a Tiger Tank, a real one borrowed from the Tank Museum, restored to running order, suddenly appears and starts shooting at the Shermans. I won't tell you what it is but anyone familiar with how any American or British tank or tank destroyer tactics against more heavily armored German tanks will notice. But Im not saying any more than that so as to not ruin the movie for anyone. I wish Sony would come out with a Director's cut with all deleted scenes. I will make the movie longer but this movie is so exciting its regular 2 hours 15 minutes goes by fast.

tres bon film

Väldigt bra bild och suveränt ljud!

Top demais qualidade da imagem e som espetacular tem legenda e dublagem em português

100 % OK Goede verzending en besteld item beantwoorde volledig aan de beschrijving van de verkoper ( uiterst tevreden ) :-):-):-)

Après l'excellent End of Watch, David Ayer s'attaque à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Fury retrace le périple des membres de l'équipe "Fury", cinq hommes différents qui se rassemblent autour de l'horreur de la guerre à l'intérieur d'un char. Le film est un film de guerre, d'action et un drame. Pourquoi ce film est génial ? Parce qu'on a jamais vu ce genre d'histoires porté sur grand écran. Voir la vie quotidienne de ces hommes c'est surprenant et tout simplement prenant. Le concept est original, et j'adhère complètement. D'ailleurs, on assistera à des scènes spectaculaires, certains seront outrés de voir un char détruire un Tigre, mais je me dois de rappeler qu'un film est une fiction !!!! Sans aucune scène d'action, on s’ennuierait déjà d'une, et de deux, le char fait partie intégrante de l'équipe et c'est important de le voir "s'exprimer" et de voir ce qu'il a de le ventre (on voit ses composantes humaines et techniques); confrontation avec d'autres tanks. Deuxièmement, la force de Fury réside également dans son approche narrative. Norman (Logan Lerman) jeune et terrifié par la guerre se retrouve dans ce char. On s’identifiera tout de suite à ce personnage et on comprendra grâce de nombreuses péripéties son évolution. Le film dénonce la guerre, son horreur et ses sacrifices. Ce n'est pas un film juste bourrin comme certains le laisse penser. A mon avis, David Ayer a utilisé plusieurs ingrédients qui fonctionnent très bien ensemble. Drame et Action se complètent parfaitement. J'ajoute d'ailleurs que les autres personnages principaux sont bien écrits, on n'échappera pas à des personnages types, du genre le religieux ou la grosse brute, néanmoins l'écriture se veut plus fine et on comprend tout à fait leurs façons de penser. Soit dit en passant, le film dénonce la barbarie nazie mais aussi celle des alliés... Enfin, techniquement parlant, Fury est incroyable. Filmer dans un environnement aussi complexe qu'un char doit être très difficile et David Ayer relève le défi haut la main. Le montage est cohérent et l'action est parfaitement lisible. De plus, il y a de nombreux effets de style comme les balles traçantes qui sont un régal à l'oeil. Du côté du casting, Brad Pitt tient le rôle principal épaulé par un excellent Logan Lerman. Shia LaBeouf, Michael Pena et Jon Bernthal (et Jason Isaacs en guest) sont excellents eux aussi. Certains reprocheront au film plusieurs changements de tons notamment avec le passage dans la ville des deux allemandes ou encore le final héroïque. J'ai trouvé ces deux passages très bien fait malgré le personnage un peu creux de Emma et l'apologie de la guerre en contradiction avec d'autres éléments du film. Enfin, ce n'est pas un film patriotique comme l'était Ryan, Fury est nuancé, tout le monde est responsable de l'horreur et il n'y avait pas que des crapules chez les allemands. Comme le dit si bien LaBeouf: "Attends de voir ce qu'un homme est capable de faire à un autre homme". En résumé, Fury est un must du genre. Comme Il faut sauver le soldat Ryan, Croix de fer ou Un pont trop loin, Fury est un film incontournable de cette page de l'Histoire. 9/10.