Fury

When I watched the very underrated End Of Watch last year, I thought that David Ayer would have been a great choice to make a war film, because the relationship he created between two police officers would have worked just as well with a group of soldiers. When I heard he was directing Fury I thought he was a perfect choice. I did however worry a little bit when his earlier film Sabotage came out and was pretty awful. Maybe I should have worried more because I saw Fury last night and I was not a fan.

I went into this film thinking that it would be a realistic portrayal of war centred on the friendships created from a five man tank crew. I was wrong. This film is is heightened macho war film made for a Call of Duty audience that focuses on Norman, a young soldier who has to endure a tank trip with a bunch of American bullies. Yes the actors were good in their roles, played by Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Jon Berthnal and Michael Pena but they are horrible people and completely unlikeable, apart from Logan Lerman's character, Norman, who you feel sorry for, but even his character by the end of the film is rushed into becoming a bit of douchebag like the rest of them.

I'm not saying that this isn't a realistic portrayal of war because the characters weren't nice, but the writing would always contradict itself. The crew like to say how Brad Pitt's 'War Daddy' character is the only reason they are still alive, but continue to try and anger him throughout. War Daddy himself proclaims that the controversial decisions he makes are to keep his crew alive but he continues to make reckless decisions that put them in harms way.

Norman is forced to live with these people who pick on him and hit him and force him to do things, but only because 'they're keeping him and themselves alive'. I didn't buy it, they just came across as macho American bullies who I had no affection for. The script attempted to justify their behaviour, but the odd half hearted apology to poor Norman didn't work for me. These guys never came across as friends, more just like guys who had to put up with each other. There was no bonding and the brother's in arms attitude that comes in by the end of the film just feels forced.

There are some good scenes in the film, I particularly liked one that is set in house with two women, but again by the end it is flawed because Ayer writes every female character in this film as easy, and would happily sleep with his characters if they gave them food or showed any kind of affection towards them. This was Ayer's problem in Sabotage as well, the women were so badly written that they just all sounded the same.

The film itself looks great, the cinematography is very good and there are hardly any special effects, unfortunately this is let down by the writing and the storyline. The action looks good and is really well done but once you've seen one set piece then you've seen them all, it all got a bit boring by the end. And be warned, because of the use of tracers in the guns the action will sometimes look like the crew are fighting Hydra rather than The SS.

As you can tell, I was pretty disappointed by this film, I wanted so much more from it. I enjoyed watching Logan Lerman and I think he was definitely the best thing about the film but I wish some thought had been put into the other characters so I could have cared for them, no matter whether they were good or bad people. If you want a dumb Call of Duty like action film then go see Fury. If you want a unrealistic pulpy but fun portrayal of Nazi killing then go watch Inglorious Basterds instead. If you want a seriously good World War Two film then go watch Saving Private Ryan. I am rating Fury a 2/5.

I know a lot of people liked this film, so feel free to let me know what you think in the comments below.

Thanks for reading!

World War Z

I can't say I was too excited to see World War Z, even though I had read the book sharing the same name and

a part of the feature was filmed where I study in Falmouth. I am also a massive sucker for zombie films and Brad Pitt, so why did this not appeal to me? Maybe it was because of the troubled production, lack of resemblance to the novel or just because the trailers sucked, I did not care for this film. However I offered to take my brother to go and see it and my reaction to it even surprised myself!

I am just going to start this review by saying World War Z is awesome! Now, after it's marketing campaign I did not enter the cinema expecting a film that resembled anything from the book so I was not disappointed when all it had in common was the title and few interesting details about other countries during the zombie epidemic. The film follows Brad Pitt, an ex United Nations employee named Gerry Lane who is called back into work to help find a cure to a dangerous zombie virus that has swept its way across the world taking out most of the population.

This film is not like most zombie films. Most zombie films are small and contained due to a budget and production constraints. This one is massive and doesn't really fall into the 'zombie' genre, it's more of a disaster flick that could easily have been directed by Roland Emmerich, however this film is directed by Marc Forster. Again unlike most zombie films this one doesn't have as much gore and guts, instead it has much more spectacle and huge set pieces that make for a more watered down zombie film, this way it got a PG-13 rating America, though it was still rated 15 over here in the UK. It was

good to see a zombie film that was much bigger in scale than anything you have ever seen before! The lack of gore may leave some fans of the genre disappointed but I had no quarrel with it.

World War Z gives you one hell of a ride. The outbreak starts within the first 5 minutes and the film doesn't slow down from there on in. You are constantly on the edge of your seat and the whole experience is very thrilling and enjoyable. That's what surprised me about the film, I had so much fun watching it! The hordes of CGI zombies may not be the best thing you've ever seen but it sure does look cool! And one thing this film does that many other zombie films and TV shows fail to do (I'm pointing at you The Walking Dead) is make the zombies scary. None of these zombies were just cannon fodder, they were terrifying! If you got near one you are pretty much dead because they were just savage animals full of rage and would stop at nothing to get bite of you.

Brad Pitt holds this film together, he is brilliant as Gerry Lane and the best thing about the film. However it is the other characters that you don't really care about because none them have enough screen time to really shine or make you feel for them, this is something that lets the film down because a show like The Walking Dead you care for most of the characters and get upset or annoyed if they die.

But this film wasn't about emotional depth, it was about spectacle, it was about showing as many zombies as you could on screen, taking down planes and helicopters and even whole countries! The rewritten ending by Damon Lindelof may feel small in scale compared to the rest of the film but it still kicks ass! World War Z is the surprise hit of the summer and although it may lack in emotional depth it makes up for it with huge spectacular fun and that's what summer blockbusters are all about really, so therefore I am giving it a rating of 4/5.

Thanks for reading!