Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: Birdman is a fascinating drama that toys with what is real and what isn't (on many different levels) in the form of the production of a play in New York. Foremost in the intricate web of fantasy and reality is the casting of Michael Keaton as a one-time superhero star who looks for a renewal after becoming forgotten (sound familiar?) But that's just the icing - the real substance of Birdman is the virtuosic long-take style in which it is filmed, along with the great performances and even soundtrack that goes with it. One of the best movies of the year - both in quality and entertainment value.
I was not expecting to be able to see the movie I am reviewing today, so the month is turning out to be even more packed than expected! Starting next weekend, the first in December, the focus will likely shift back to blockbusters as the holiday movie season gets underway. When I read about the premise of this awhile back (same as ever), I was immediately amused by the interaction of the premise and the leading man (more on this later). Later I found that the film was not just a straight-up comedy, as I had assumed it would be - it was also getting glowing reviews as an Oscar contender. Like last week's film, I assumed it would be just a limited release and therefore get nowhere near my theater - but I got lucky again! Birdman was directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Babel) and stars Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, et. al.
Riggan (Keaton) is a Hollywood actor trying to re-establish his fame through the production of (he's writing, directing and starring in) a play in New York. Years ago, Riggan played a very popular superhero character - Birdman - which won him fame and fortune for three films, before he decided to quit the franchise. The story begins perhaps just a week or so before the play's premiere, and trouble abounds. A key cast member has to be replaced suddenly, and a talented yet hard-to-handle theater star, Mike Shiner (Norton) takes his place. As Riggan tries to rein in Mike, he also deals with his secret girlfriend - and co-star - Laura (Riseborough), and his miserable daughter, Sam (Stone), who is his assistant.
Riggan gets the production through several previews, all of which suffer disasters of varying degrees. While he is starved for the attention and the fame of his earlier career, he's unsure if he can - or even wants to - reclaim it through the theater. With the ghost of Birdman ever present in his mind, Riggan tries to juggle both his personal and professional relationships as they push and pull him in all different directions.
Birdman has a great cast, and it produces some tremendous performances. Michael Keaton is the lead as Riggan, the former Birdman. Although he strangely denies it, Keaton is the obvious choice for this role with his parallel history as the first film actor to play Batman. Fortunately, Keaton goes beyond this meta-appropriateness to deliver a great performance. Most strikingly, he is convincing as a star who knows the ropes (of fame and dealing with other big personalities, at least) and has become utterly and unconsciously driven entirely by his ego - yet he's also wearied and scarred from years in the business, insecure from his lack of recent success and lack of experience on the stage. He inhabits both of these sides quite naturally. And while the film is primarily a drama, he leads the way in shifting smoothly into some quirkier and/or humorous moments as well (one scene even recalls a Will Ferrell stunt that had everyone laughing out loud).
Birdman has great supporting roles aplenty. Most notable is Edward Norton as Broadway hotshot Mike. He has such effortless confidence - both his character, and his playing the character - that he steals the show several times. Sometimes it borders on caricature, but he's so good and entertaining that it doesn't matter. Emma Stone is also excellent, showing a broad range from juvenile indifference to, occasionally, explosive fury. She is the emotional center of the film, and not just because she's Riggan's daughter. Zach Galifianakis is the revelation in the cast, as Riggan's friend and lawyer/manager: yes, he's funny of course, but he shows some real acting chops here, too. And there are several other good, though small roles: Andrea Riseborough as Riggan's girlfriend, Amy Ryan as his ex-wife, and Naomi Watts as a co-star in the play.
I tend to focus on story and characters to determine the quality of a film, and view other components as secondary or less. However, the strength of Birdman is driven by the way that it was made and by the performances (I make the distinction here to characters). Think you've seen long takes - in other words, the film is seen through one camera for an extended period without editing - in other movies? You ain't seen nothing yet. The camera twists and turns and snakes through the theater in Birdman for ten, twenty, thirty minutes at a time and more. I can only think of a handful of times that there is a somewhat clear break in the filming. Sometimes there are seamless time jumps, using the same location, but it creates the effect of a living, breathing production. Simply marvelous work by Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men, Gravity). The film also has a cool, naturalistic soundtrack driven by drums, with occasional breaks into orchestral/theatrical excerpts. And you've already read about the great performances.
While it's secondary this time, in my mind, it's worth talking at least a little about the story. Part of it is personal, with Riggan and both his girlfriend and ex-wife - both of these are minor and not all that original. Most prominent is the fondness that develops between Mike and Sam - but all these relationships feel almost intentionally cliched (not that they're bad; and they're also brief). The Riggan-Sam, father-daughter relationship is the most serious, and plays into the other main aspect. That is what gets back to why Keaton was the obvious leading man: his career trajectory. The film critiques blockbusters, but more so the people who aggrandize themselves through those works. It also pokes at the other side, the art-y, theater culture - and both of these cultural models get dressed down in one withering exchange between a NYTimes reviewer and Riggan.
***
Birdman is not and likely will not become a favorite for me - but it is undeniably an excellent and enjoyable film. It combines a little from each of the "film types" I've talked about earlier this fall - creative, ambitious, risky ones and conventional, solid ones - into one great package. I can't emphasize enough how great the filmmaking itself is (the creative, risky parts), with those long takes; it's utterly dazzling, and also fits perfectly with the tone and setting of the film. The performances themselves are great and slightly theatrical (beyond the literal setting) themselves, and the soundtrack goes right along with both the camerawork and performances to create the very enjoyable experience. This all overshadows both the personal elements (the conventional, solid parts) and even Riggan's story (and the film's cultural critique of) of the resurrection/transformation of an acting career. There's even - I haven't had time to mention it yet - some magical elements, which are small and relatively subtle until the final act of the film, where it allows for individual interpretation of the ending. Simply put, if you are able to see this film, I highly recommend that you do so.
"Birdman poster" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Birdman_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Birdman_poster.jpg
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: Headlined by major stars Bill Murray and Melissa McCarthy, this new dramedy sprung surprisingly quietly into theaters. The quiet is not at all due to poor quality: Murray is tremendous in the lead, and he is supported by fine co-stars (several of whom are in surprising roles). The drama leads the way here, with a standard odd couple set up leading to thoughtful, moving, original results. And don't worry, Murray and co. bring the funny, too. Recommended for all.
The movie train keeps chugging along this November, with a change of pace in the form of a comedy (a rare critically-acclaimed one at that). My review of the penultimate Hunger Games film will also be coming soon, after which I'm not sure what will come other than The Hobbit part 3 in December. I read a blurb for this (as it starts with many other movies) in a fall movie preview article, and seeing Bill Murray and Melissa McCarthy attached to the same movie immediately grabbed my attention. It seemed to be a smaller project, though, so I was thrilled when my local theater picked it up. St. Vincent was directed by Theodore Melfi (debut) and stars Murray, McCarthy and Naomi Watts.
Vincent is an aging, grumpy drunk in New York City (I think; Wikipedia has let me down with this film). His only source of income is taking out money against his own home and horse race betting, which typically nets a negative outcome. Vincent is about to be evicted when new neighbors move in: Maggie (McCarthy) and her young son, Oliver. At first simply a nuisance, Vincent soon sees financial gain in the situation by offering his services as a "baby sitter" for Oliver after school while Maggie works long hours as a single mother.
It turns out that Vincent and Oliver offer unexpected benefits for each of their very different life stages and situations. Unfortunately, while their friendship helps them cope with life, it does not solve their problems - and these intervene to threaten the bond that has formed.
St. Vincent is led by several strong performances, none better than its leading man's. Bill Murray plays the anti-hero Vincent, giving the film its emotional and humorous core. This role is not exactly out of Murray's comfort zone as an actor, but he takes nothing for granted. He builds a very believable character, and a very fascinating, watchable one at that even if his behavior is often loathsome. His grumpy bits are predictably hilarious, yet we also feel for this guy and when the non-gruff side shows it is quite moving. Everything in this film depended on him, and Murray delivered. Also good is Jaeden Liberher, who plays sidekick young Oliver. He plays a quiet, friendly boy with a bit of the overly mature style marked by many young actors (but not badly). Perhaps most impressive is simply how he plays against Murray's sheer presence and personality: he doesn't overcompensate by being loud and overacting, but he's also (nearly) an equal partner in the story.
There are some strong supporting performances as well. First is Naomi Watts as Vincent's Russian stripper girlfriend, Daka. Daka is certainly the most "colorful" of the film's characters, but Watts is both funny as well as restrained enough to not become a caricature. A role that is surprising in many ways, from her importance to the story overall to her fit in the cast. McCarthy as "Maggie the mom" is much, much more subdued than typical - and she does a great job with it. Certainly, she still has sharp, effective humor, but she accepts both a much smaller and much different role and manages to excel. Finally, Chris O'Dowd (Bridesmaids) plays Oliver's teacher in a very small but subtly humorous role.
Overall, St. Vincent falls into the mold of an odd couple dramedy. Both main characters (Vincent and Oliver) start off with significant (and very different) problems, become friends, and help each other out. However, while the start may be familiar in many ways, the results are intriguingly different than expected. Vincent does not, as one would think, essentially become Oliver's new father. There is one scene that veers in this direction - and also ties many of the film's themes together in a blunt but very touching way - but it's the exception, and really doesn't fundamentally change things. Also, while Vincent and Oliver's problems are not original (although a few are surprises), the film does not resolve any of them with a neat little bow. The friendship does not cure all ills - it "merely" helps heal, and gives the characters new perspective. Finally, I've already mentioned how Murray, McCarthy, et. al. are funny - duh - but it is also worth mentioning that the drama really is the primary feature and the humor is deftly, naturally incorporated into the story.
***
St. Vincent is quite simply a strong, well-made film and the more I think about it, the more I like it. There were many ways this could have been done wrong - or at least been completely forgettable or annoying. The acting and writing, though, are both exceptional. Bill Murray's phenomenal performance is the centerpiece, as I mentioned earlier, leading all the crucial elements of the film. However, the acting and the fit of the other characters, especially young Oliver, is an important success, too. The pacing of the film is a little odd, but this is due to expectations: I figured that I could predict the results of certain major events but, as explained previously, the film subverts those. Again, the more I think and write about St. Vincent, the more I find its strengths and struggle to identify weak points, so this could rise in my rankings further by the end of the year. At any rate, I recommend this for all.
"St. Vincent poster" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Vincent_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:St_Vincent_poster.jpg
Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: One of today's hottest directors has turned from exploring the depths of our dreams to the realm of space (and some other things). Nolan's ambitions are higher than ever, even as he "grounds" most of this huge space adventure in sound science. With Interstellar, Nolan also brings the personal to the foreground more than ever, centered on a father and daughter. While not everything clicks perfectly, the film's final act brings it all together beautifully to make all the ups and downs of the (almost 3 hour) journey worth it.
As we reach the middle of November, the bigger and/or more awards-friendly films are coming in more steadily - and snow is starting to fall. The upcoming calendar of films looks to be full of a variety of interesting films, including several comedies, of which I haven't seen very many yet this year. Interstellar was probably my most anticipated film of 2014. Director Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is the best series of superhero films ever made, and both Inception and (especially) The Prestige are creative, superbly made films. I didn't know (and didn't want to know) much about the plot of his newest film, other than it being about space exploration beyond anything we've seen before. No matter the reviews, I was going to see it. Interstellar was directed by Nolan, and stars Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain.
In the near future, Earth is a grim place, resigned to further decline. The reason is quite basic: some form of blight has eradicated wheat and other essential crops, and so the production of food is society's priority. This has forced Cooper (McConaughey) into farm life following a promising career as an astronaut. He is a widower, living with his father-in-law and two children, teen Tom and younger daughter Murphy. His children reflect opposing views of Earth's condition: Tom is a willing farmer, ready to serve alongside his father, but Murphy is a very bright, curious girl who refuses to accept her limitations. This urge to explore leads Cooper and Murphy to a top secret location.
Cooper learns the full truth of Earth's situation: human life is no longer sustainable on the planet. He is given the choice - both a challenge and an opportunity - to take up his old life and help find a new home for humanity. Even if he succeeds, though, will he ever see his children again?
Interstellar has a very impressive cast. Matthew McConaughey takes the lead as astronaut-turned-farmer-turned-astronaut Cooper. He certainly puts his star presence to use here, and is believable as a very competent man, as farmer, pilot and leader. In the first part of the film, he also shows himself to be a loving father. Yet, there is a disconnect between the two parts of this character. Individual elements of Cooper - and McConaughey's acting - are strong, but they don't mesh into a particularly memorable lead character. Anne Hathaway plays scientist Brand, a member of Cooper's team who goes toe-to-toe with him as the crew faces its challenging decisions. She does pretty well, but the character is not well-developed despite significant screen time. Chastain stands out as the adult Murphy, taking the challenging job of shifting Murphy's unrestrained childhood tendencies into a more mature, subtle form. She is essential in anchoring the last few acts of the film. Michael Caine appears briefly as an Earth-bound scientist in his usual advisory role, and two robots (although I had thought there was only one when watching it) on the mission to provide a little bit of comic relief.
Interstellar is unmistakably a Nolan film: ambitious, creative, flawed, divisive, thought-provoking, and 95% fulfilling. The closest cousin to this film is Inception. Nolan apparently did do his space homework here, accurately utilizing fascinating phenomena like wormholes and black holes. With so much to potentially explain, he makes overall good choices of what to include; Cooper goes from life as a farmer to blasting off into space in a matter of moments, but he is careful to explain how time moves differently near black holes, etc. Despite these fancy new space ideas, the tension in the film - sometimes eating away slowly, sometimes abrupt - is more about the relationships and the fate of mankind. Less direct, in other words. In fact, apart from a handful of set pieces (such as a harrowing attempt to dock a shuttle on a rapidly spinning and debris-spewing station), I was not blown away by the visual effects. The ideas of how space and time itself are challenges to be overcome are powerful enough in themselves.
Interstellar does bring something new to the table for Nolan in the form of family relationships. This is the other main element of the film - and perhaps the primary one. Precocious young Murphy is played by a talented actress, and in some ways she steals the show early on - her weathered father just tries to keep up with her. But then the stakes come into play, and of course it gets more serious. When watching this at first, I didn't feel too affected by it. Then as the focus shifts to the mission, we get just glimpses of this (although some powerful ones at that). It's in the final act that the film brings it full circle and the early moments assume their full power. Some will, I'm sure, roll their eyes at a particular scene (no spoilers here), but I went with it and was quite moved. Even if the father-daughter relationship doesn't ever quite fully click, the ideas behind it are poignant.
***
Nolan's films are some of the hardest for me to evaluate, and Interstellar might be the hardest yet. His films go where literally no one else can or will go in Hollywood. The ideas, placed within interesting if not fully-realized characters, are some of the most thought-provoking you'll encounter in the theater. But, especially for Nolan's last three films, there's also a feeling of ...and yet... At times, key plot explanations are left perilously, loosely addressed; or an interesting character never quite connects with us as much as we wanted; or behind the main whirring motor of thought is a strange emptiness to some of the "real" content. This is not at all to say that Nolan's films (IMO) are bad - but with my OCD, it can be a little maddening when the films are almost there... but just short.
Really, that's more than enough negativity. I had no idea what to expect when walking into that theater, other than knowing that Nolan would impress and dazzle me. And that he did - the film is one big crescendo, starting slowly but ending with not so much a brief Big Bang as an echoing Big Boom. Nolan is so good with ideas, and the finale wraps up not just the technical details this time (at least as well as usual) but also the personal in a very beautiful way. Maybe we don't care about the actual characters as much as we should, but I'll remember the overall feeling. Recommended for all.
"Interstellar film poster." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_(film)#mediaviewer/File:Interstellar_film_poster.jpg
Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Long Story Short: Keanu Reeves is back in the spotlight as an action star, leaving behind the sci-fi of The Matrix for the bloody body count of a revenge story. The role fits Keanu well, and the veteran action crew behind the scenes make the violence more compelling than most. However, it's some of the little things, and new twists (a "hit man hotel"?!), that make John Wick stand out and a possible new franchise.
Back to action and popcorn this week, with the surprising return of a faded star. It's not the time of year that I expect these types of films to come out - usually, it's more of the dramas that I've seen the past few weeks (OK, other than Fury). The long-awaited Interstellar will be up next week, with a likely mix of other blockbusters and awards contenders after that. I had not even heard of John Wick until a week or two before its release. Reeves has fallen so far since The Matrix that he just doesn't command A-list attention (and rightly so). But this film was getting good buzz, and had a surprisingly good score on RT. A change-of-pace film in October with a chance to see Reeves back in form? I'll take it. John Wick was directed by Chad Stahelski (Reeves' stunt double in The Matrix!) and stars Reeves, Michael Nyqvist and Willem Dafoe.
John (Reeves) is a Sad Keanu at the beginning of the film, mourning the recent death of his wife from cancer. However, he soon receives a special present that his wife had secretly arranged for him before her death: a puppy companion. Gradually, John begins to come around, but trouble is just around the corner. He happens to run into a rich Russian brat one day, who takes a liking to John's '69 Mustang. That night, the Russian and his buddies break into John's home, steal his car, and kill the puppy (I felt I needed to be specific about this to warn dog lovers like myself who would be quite disturbed by this. Never mind the rather large human body count later in the film...).
Now John's had it: out comes Mad Keanu, and we learn about his profession previous to his marriage - one he was exceedingly good at. The bad guys have pulled John back in, even if unwittingly, and now there's going to be hell to pay!
The cast is pretty good, certainly by the standards of the genre. Most importantly (and happily, for fans of The Matrix), Keanu is a good fit as the main character. Reeves is not exactly a stellar actor, but the part is built to his strengths: a cool dude who can kick everyone's butt in style. Keanu is also decent at presenting basic vulnerability - both emotionally and in the action scenes. Where this part diverges the most, though, is the fact that Wick is not really a hero - it's to Reeves' and the script's credit that we are rooting for him. Michael Nyqvist has the next biggest part as the dad of the Russian brat and head of the Russian mob. He is fine, though unremarkable. The brat, played by Alfie Allen (Theon from Game of Thrones) is certainly a dislikable guy, a bad guy whose boasting far exceeds his courage (and the film fittingly doesn't give him the honor of a memorable demise).
Three members of the supporting cast give the film a bit more personality than the average action flick. Willem Dafoe plays a veteran hit man whose allegiance you can't be sure of until pretty late in the film - not that that's new for a Dafoe character, but his motivations are genuine. Adrianne Palicki plays a spunky assassin, fellow acquaintance of Wick's. Also now cast in Agents of SHIELD on TV, Palicki seems to be positioned as a new female action star, and she has the athleticism and demeanor to thrive. Finally, in a very small role, Lance Reddick (Fringe) plays the manager of a "hit man hotel" and adds a much needed dose of fun and silliness in the form of a serious man.
John Wick is a pretty traditional action movie in many ways, but its execution and a few new twists make it stand out. We've seen it before: the once-great hit man/cop/dispatcher-of-bad-guys has set aside his violent ways, only to be pulled back into the fray, often reluctantly at first. Reeves does a good job showing that he really doesn't want to be a hit man anymore, and goes about his business without joy. He's not quite grim about it, but perhaps "professionally detached" (at least most of the time). Oh, right, and there's lots of action, too. In reading about the film, Wick employs something called "gun fu", which is close quarters gun play. There's blessedly little to no steadi-cam or lightning edits - the filmmakers, former stuntmen themselves, showcase not only the skill and intensity, but also the frequent elegance, of the action. Wick takes down a lot of bad guys, but the action generally avoids becoming stale by A) providing variety of takedowns/settings and B) keeping Wick a very talented yet flawed fighter.
And then there's the new twist to the old genre. John Wick is sort of the James Bond of hit men (who is becoming more and more of a hit man himself, I suppose). As I mentioned earlier, there is a "hit man hotel" featured in the film, and it plays a crucial role not only as an interesting idea but also as a backbone for the plot itself, beyond just the revenge element. Sprinkle in a little MIB, even - individuals who definitely do not fit into regular society, yet exist right in the midst of it (a downtown hotel) - and you have a unique backdrop that is introduced in this film yet could be further explored in sequels. The hotel already has some interesting figures - led by the desk manager - and there's lots of potential for more.
***
This is one of my longer reviews, which I was not anticipating even just before sitting down to write it. Perhaps this is because while the film itself is not groundbreaking (albeit very good), it diverges from my expectations the more I think about it, and lays the groundwork for a potential franchise. There are plenty of signatures available to be used in future installments, similar to 007 (although to a lesser extent) and his martinis, cars, and so on. Those signatures, little things in and of themselves, have either been done poorly or ignored entirely in film for quite some time. Yet they tend to be the things that stick with you. I'll let you identify John Wick's signatures for yourself. Meanwhile, the film overall is, again, rock solid. Keanu is back, the action is exciting, and it clocks in compactly at a little over 1.5 hours. Add in some neat twists - particularly the "hit man hotel" - and we could be looking at the first in a franchise, if it does well at the box office. John Wick, like last week's Fury, obviously isn't for all tastes (and stomachs) - but if it is for yours, I recommend that you give it a try.
"John Wick TeaserPoster" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Wick_TeaserPoster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:John_Wick_TeaserPoster.jpg
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Long Story Short: Brad Pitt goes back to WWII again (Inglorious Basterds) for a more serious - but almost as bloody - tour of duty. Leading a tank crew of familiar faces, such as LeBeouf and Lerman, Pitt is in an even grimmer, darker vision of the "Good War" than usual. Action sequences from the perspective of a tank are both new and thrilling, but a strand of Hollywood cliche in the form of Lerman's rookie subverts the realistic portrayal. Good film, could have been better.
After a week off, here's a third review from a busy October movie calendar. Looking ahead in September I had identified Gone Girl, The Judge, and this week's film Fury as an impressive trio. Be prepared for a change of pace next week, and the week after (should) bring my review of the much-anticipated Interstellar. When I read a preview for Fury earlier this year, I was immediately interested. I enjoy many war movies, and this one had an impressive cast, too. With solid RT reviews, the choice was clear. Fury was directed by David Ayer (End of Watch) and stars Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman and Shia LeBeouf.
Fury takes place in the final month of the European theater of WWII, in the heart of Germany. From the midst of a devastated field of battle, one solitary American tank, driven by Collier (Pitt), Swan (LeBeouf), Travis (Bernthal), and Garcia (Pena) makes its way back to Allied lines. Collier and crew just witnessed first-hand the fierceness and desperation with which the Germans are making their last stand, and not long after they're sent back to the line again. However, during the earlier battle they had lost a crew member who is replaced by a complete rookie, Ellison (Lerman).
It quickly becomes clear that Ellison's inexperience and hesitance are almost as great a threat to the survival of the tank's (Fury) crew as the Nazis themselves. Still, Collier and his mates, veterans from all the way back to North Africa, manage to rescue pinned down Allies and help capture towns. When Fury finds itself alone in hostile Germany, though, Ellison must become a warrior like the rest if any of them are to survive.
The cast of Fury does a good job, although it is often let down by the script. Brad Pitt is the lead as Staff Sergeant "Wardaddy" Collier. Pitt does well throughout, quite natural as a hardened war leader and he gets most of the Important Lines ("Ideals are peaceful. History is violent."). However, the script can't really decide if it wants Collier to be a realistically-scarred son-of-a-bitch or an ultimately accepting father figure. Logan Lerman plays new recruit Ellison, the one character the audience can directly sympathize with. He does an OK job, with both high- and lowlights, but his character is the biggest problem in the film (more on this later). The other three crew members are played well by recognizable faces. Shia LeBeouf plays a much less frenetic person than usual, a quietly stern man of faith; Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead) is a redneck asshole who I wanted to punch in the face every second he was on screen (so, he played his part well); and Michael Pena brings just a few touches of humor with his character.
The main objective of Fury, as a war film, is the "war is hell" theme. While it accomplishes this task exceedingly well at times, it is also significantly undermined by a competing impulse to show Hollywood heroics, particularly in regard to young Ellison. Despite the imminence of the Allies' victory, nearly everything about the atmosphere - from the weather to the landscape to the soundtrack - indicates a grim feeling devoid of "good". It's an impressive - and important - tone to convey that, even as the Allies closed in on victory in perhaps the most "righteous" of war efforts, the reality of death and violence and brutality was inhuman. People, soldiers and civilians, are matter-of-factly thrown into the grinder in various ways (hanging, burning, blown up, etc.). There are also thrilling, tense (and more "enjoyable") battle scenes with Collier and co. spitting out realistic-sounding jargon as they maneuver Fury in battling Nazi defenses - and the terrifying Tiger tank. And in the middle, an incredibly tense scene in a town as Collier, Lerman and the crew interact with two German women, constantly on a knife's edge of their urges and restraint.
Unfortunately, there is a strain of "Hollywoodism" to dilute the grim but effective proceedings. This centers on Ellison/Lerman. Never mind the far-fetchedness of his role (would the Army really put a scrawny, brand-new (to fighting itself, let alone tanks) recruit on the front lines like that?). Collier is forced to brutally turn him into a warrior (including a chilling scene of murder), and the next moment serve as a (not quite tender) father figure. Ellison himself vacillates from annoying squeamishness/morality to unconvincing courage. And the final battle disappointingly ditches most of the prior war realism for an obviously Hollywood "last stand".
***
Fury is a good war film, one that could have been great if it just resisted its Hollywood impulses (Pitt takes his shirt off, for crying out loud!). Saving Private Ryan is still, to me, by far the gold standard of war films, and even this year's Lone Survivor is a superior film. Survivor may have had some Hollywood heroism elements within its brutal-realism frame as well, but A) it was fit well into the script, and B) the whole movie was so damn tense it was nice to have a little relief. Fury's Hollywood elements, on the other hand, do not fit well in the script (clumsy writing, despite having some realistic banter elsewhere) and divert the viewer from the film's main theme. If they had simply not been determined to make Ellison a "zero to hero" character (and reworked the climactic battle sequence), this could all have been avoided. Still, there are some significant drawing points for the film. The tank action sequences are really well done, and a large part of the film conveys the horrors of war effectively and appropriately. Is that enough? You'll have to decide that for yourself.
"Fury 2014 poster" by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fury_2014_poster.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Fury_2014_poster.jpg
