Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes
It's an "unflinching" account of war -- "unflinching," in quotes, because every moment of the film is composed to grind your face into the muck and be proud of itself for doing so.
Pitt is at the top of his game, playing a man who has forgotten whatever he used to be and has wholly embraced his role in this war.
A fatalism unites all of Ayer's movies, even his best film, End of Watch... This is the first of his movies in which that fatalism culminates in a state of grace I've never experienced in a war film before.
New York Post:
I couldn't help suspecting that there's a pornographic leer to it all, a savage glee.
New York Observer:
It never scales the cinematic heights or reaches the same groundbreaking level as Saving Private Ryan, but it's intensely ferocious and relentlessly rough on the senses. You'll know you've been to war, and not on the Hollywood front.
Wall Street Journal:
Does charisma trump psychosis? That will be one of the questions raised by director David Ayer's volatile, defiantly iconoclastic Fury.
Depictions of war, as portrayed in Hollywood movies, can stray into the realm of the trite. Case in point: "Fury."
Pitt, who at 50 still looks great with his shirt off, has the gruff charisma to play a dauntless soldier with killer courage and a vestigial streak of humanity.
Brad Pitt plays a watered-down version of his 'Inglourious Basterds' character in this disappointingly bland look at a World War II tank crew.
It's all very Peckinpah-or at least it could be, if Ayer had any sense of poetry.
In terms of story, structure and look (with the exception of the gore), this movie could have been made at any time in the past 70 years.
"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.
At its weakest, "Fury" contributes a frustrating percentage of tin to go with the iron and steel.
Dallas Morning News:
War is hell. It's also relentless, unsparing, unsentimental and violent to the mind, body and soul. Fury conveys these truths with brute force and lean, precise drama.
Fury is irrefutably crafted. Over two hours long it is tense going, a sturdily acted affair. And yet.... As the author of this drama, Ayer has penned a work that takes us no place new or illuminating.
"Fury" is a brutal film that too easily celebrates rage and bloodshed to no clear end beyond ugly spectacle.
While these orgies of violence are staged with tense, gruesome precision, they don't convey much beyond what we already know. Namely, that war is hell. Message received.
Los Angeles Times:
If memorable war movies mean something to you, open that book to a new page and add "Fury" to the list. It belongs there.
San Jose Mercury News:
While Ayer's "Fury" does mine a well-worn genre, it is texturally different in how vigorously and viscerally it laces us into tired, brave soldiers' muck-stained boots.
For all the extra blood and brutality, this is still a macho and romanticized war movie. Pitt serves honorably in the John Wayne role.
"Fury" is literally visceral-a kind of war horror film, which is, of course, what good combat films should be.
"Fury" is about the fog of war. Also the mud. The grime. The blood. The darkness, and the light. And the noise. Always the noise.
Fury is a big step up in sophistication. Where it elevates itself from being merely a believably grimy, well-acted war drama is in its long and surprising middle act.
New York Daily News:
The movie's inner space - inside the heads of its tank battalion, and inside the tank itself - is what grabs you, as gripping battle scenes shake you.
New York Times:
Within this gore-spattered, superficially nihilistic carapace is an old-fashioned platoon picture, a sensitive and superbly acted tale of male bonding under duress.
This is an intense movie, with taut, expertly depicted tank battles and a believable sense of camaraderie among the characters.
Written and directed with exacting skill and aching heart by David Ayer, Fury captures the buried feelings of men in combat with piercing immediacy.
"Fury" is a gripping ride all the way through, if somewhat restricted in its emotional and visual range.
In a sense, it succeeds too well in conjuring its own subject matter: heavy, mechanical, claustrophobic, and unrelenting.
Attention to details give Fury heft and value, as does solid acting, but Ayer seems to lose his resolve in two scenes that are straight out of a Sgt. Fury Marvel Comics episode, or maybe a Hollywood script rewrite.
Unflinching, unsentimental and never unconsidered, "Fury"'s rumbling, metal-clad exterior has real humanity, fragile and frightened, captured and caged deep within it.
Fury strains to be a Great Film but never quite gets there.
Flesh-and-blood soldiers play second fiddle to the authentic-looking artillery in Fury, rendering the film tough and harrowing, but less emotionally compelling than it could have been.
It's easy to see the movie as a story of how war makes monsters out of men. But it's a good deal more complicated than that.
Led by Pitt, who sublimates his persona so deeply into Wardaddy that you can forget about his movie star baggage, the cast is exceptional.