Change Your Image
damien0215
Reviews
Fury (2014)
Disturbingly Realistic
The problem with this movie for most is its strength to others: it's realistic. Too realistic for Hollywood. In a great war movie, the viewer should NOT want to be in the protagonist's shoes, and Brad Pitt's character was certainly not in an enviable position when the credits rolled. As a veteran, I usually hate war movies and find myself yelling "That would NEVER happen" at the screen - that didn't occur (much) when watching "Fury."
Negatives: The growth of the kid (Norman) was too rapid and the bond formed too quickly. He went from a soft, sobbing fool to an experienced, steely-eyed operator in like a day and a half. It just doesn't happen like that. However, I understand for the purpose of the movie it needed to. The only other detracting point was the final battle. Germans racked up a high kill to death ratio in WW2, and say what you want of the evils of the Nazi, but they were good warfighters and WOULDN'T have mounted a direct infantry charge on a tank. Snipers (plural) would have been set up long before the end, but again, it was a necessary part of the story for it to not have gone that way immediately.
Positives: gruesome in an un-fun way. Getting shot isn't just a puff of red mist and someone falling peacefully to the ground – It's chunks of torn meat, broken bones, sobbing and agony. "Fury" was able to capture that in a realistic way. It set the pace immediately – a gory, knife-through-the-eye killing with visceral sounds and an abrupt realization of how quickly the end can come. The majority of the "new" characters introduced throughout the film were killed, oftentimes in a brutal way, very quickly and without warning, as is true with war. I don't think anyone rational walked away from "Fury" wishing they had been part of an American tank crew during World War 2, and that's the point.
Actors: Brad Pitt and Shia LeBeouf were both phenomenal. For point of personal bias, I normally despise Shia and I even have to admit that he acted this role brilliantly. Pitt's character is a complex man who objectively acknowledges the necessity of killing and brutality, but is haunted by it, and flashes of his feelings are seen enough and in such a way as to show believable depth.
Overall, a fantastic movie as long as one isn't picking it as a date-night flick to set the mood, and if it does, you have real problems.
Blunt Force Trauma (2015)
Good, when adding "Suspension of Disbelief"
Overall a decent and entertaining movie, as long as you employ "Suspension of Disbelief," but I'll leave the technical critique for the end. It was good to see Kwaten again (the main character's brother, "Jason," from "True Blood") and for the limited number of lines he was given, he was convincing. The concept of the film itself is interesting, and although the plot wasn't fully developed, it does have inertia. Other stars: Freida Pinto was great, and particularly gorgeous in this, but if you're seeing this movie because of Mickey Rourke's on the billing, don't - he's in about 4 minutes of it.
Technically flawed: The movie's central plot of a dueling circuit essentially relies on all the fresh-off-the-street competitors to be perfect shots, whilst quick drawing and firing rapidly, which would be a difficult task for even a top tier competition marksman under that kind of pressure (but not as absurd as "The Walking Dead" in that regard). On a similar note, many of the "fighters'" gun choices would go through the vests the others use, especially when they lack trauma plates (and why would they NOT use trauma plates???), but again, this can all be filed under "overly critical" and put aside in the viewer's mind. (That's not a spoiler, one example is seen at minute 3 when someone has a Desert Eagle, and it was also glimpsed in the trailer).
The American (2010)
Frought with inaccuracies.
Any potential this movie could have had was lost in a sea of glaring technical errors and as little talking as an awkward first date. For a movie that centers a lot (of its little) dialogue on guns, it never got any of it right. It was like reading a history paper on France where the writer confused Napoleon for Stalin and got all of the dates wrong - don't try to seem versed in technical jargon if you can't speak the language.
If you read "nysalesman100-1" review, some of this will be redundant. He got a lot of things right and a few quite wrong. He said it's a modified M14 - It isn't, it's a stock Ruger Mini-14 and fires a 5.56mm bullet (also, an assassin would not use a MP5, as it fires pistol bullets so it's worthless at the range described). Clooney's "gunsmithing" was literally him doing a basic reassembly that one would do for a routine cleaning following a day at the shooting range. Not impressive.
Clooney's pistol is a Walther PPK- a gun known for its low magazine capacity, inaccuracy and that the feeding lip doesn't cycle hollow-points - a must for a gun with that little stopping-power. I get the homage to James Bond, but it is a ridiculous choice for a sidearm. I don't think anyone ever accused a Bond film for being realistic so it was a blunder to follow in those footsteps.
The woman says "silencer" and George Clooney says that isn't possible, only a suppressor. "Silencers" don't exist (only suppressors do) and it is an easy gauge to tell that the writer didn't do his research and that the person talking has only superficial knowledge of the subject. What they said may be over the layman's head, but if you know anything about firearms it, like all of the gun-centric elements, was a sophomoric attempt at sounding cool and edgy whilst butchering the facts and fumbling the details.
What the female assassin requested was a gun for: 150-175m range, a time of 5-7 seconds, 1 target, rapid fire with large mag capacity. Okay, let's dissect this. There is no reason that one would need a large magazine capacity for ONE TARGET, not to mention that a woman with a petite build couldn't rapidly group several shots at 175 meters in 5-7 seconds anyway. It was a conversation that would not and could not ever happen. A sniper is trained to fire one shot for one kill - a bolt action rifle would be the standard choice, never a light-barreled Mini-14.
Another middle school level dialogue exchange was once the female assassin assembled the Mini14 and asked about the ammunition and Clooney said, "ten jacketed and ten expanding," and she wants 20 of each and 20 explosive. A 5.56 is essentially an ogive shaped .22 and is far too small to load an "explosive" in, and using mercury is ridiculous for a bullet with that type of velocity (mercury is used almost exclusively with bullets 165 grains and higher, versus this at 55 grains), and ALL kinds of gun calibers come in "jacketed" and "expanding" types, so it was an unnecessary piece of dialogue which just proved further that this was written out of the comfort zone of the creator.
About five minutes later the woman asks, "muzzle velocity?" To which Clooney replies, "360 miles an hour, including 20 miles an hour off for sound suppressor." Oh dear god, how does their technical adviser let a detail like that slide? The muzzle velocity with this gun and round is about six times that (over 2,000 miles an hour). If the crew just read the side of the box the ammunition came in they would know that. Lastly, muzzle velocity is always presented in either feet per second or meters per second (more likely, being that this is Italy) so it is just another mark against them and proof that this movie lacks exactness and polish.
Between the gun and the suppressor he is paid ~$20,000 - this is ludicrous. The gun can be bought for under $700 at Dick's Sporting goods and the suppressor could be made by following simple instructions online out of a Maglite flashlight tube and Brillo pads for sound dampening.
When the woman finally does use the sniper rifle, she fires it standing (albeit pressing against a wall) which is not something that would occur (one would use a bipod or fire it prone).
Moral of the story: Don't write a movie centered around a concept you neither know nor understand.