Peter Suderman Reviews Fury

Reviews have been somewhat mixed so
far, but I thought there was a lot to appreciate in Fury.
From my
review in today’s Washington Times:

‘Fury” is one of the most violent, brutal, nightmarish movies
you’ll see all year. It is a movie about carnage and killing, chaos
and madness, blood and dirt, and the will to kill. It’s a war
movie, one of the most intense I’ve ever seen, and, for the most
part, it’s a rather good one, even though it’s not always easy to
watch.

“Fury” is set aboard a tank at the tail end of World War II. The
Allies are pushing through Germany, taking town after town,
frequently hitting fierce resistance, despite the seeming
inevitability of the outcome.

Despite its World War II setting and its fetish for visual
accuracy, the movie is not much of a history lesson. Instead, it’s
a violent, often nihilistic meditation on the nature of war and the
drive to continue fighting and killing to the bitter end.

This is probably not quite the Oscar-contender that the
filmmakers hoped, but it’s a strong, intense quasi-revisionist look
back at World War II. I say “quasi-revisionist” because, while it
certainly plays as an attempt to undercut the case for WWII as “the
good war,” it doesn’t go all the way. The movie rejects the idea
that there’s something honorable or noble about war, but it seems
uncertain about whether or not it’s sometimes necessary, and, in
the end, it suggests that war can ultimately provide…well, not
meaning, exactly, but a kind of release.