>Film critic Christopher Orr of The Atlantic magazine said that the film "is too technically refined to be a truly bad movie, but too narratively and thematically stunted to be a good one.
In regards to this quote, I'm not sure I see how Fury is too 'technically refined.' This led me to wonder, how much weight is there to this remark? I'm not sure I even agree with it at all. A Million Ways To Die In the West, for instance, has a lot of imaginative shots and visual polish, but is an overall shit movie. Can movies excel in a particular element of cinema to the extent of preventing them from truly being shit?
>>67451887
>technically refined
Imo I think he means that to say the movie is very competently made and there's really nothing wrong with the direction, set design, pacing, etc, but has a flawed script, struggles with its tone, and feels a little fairy tale and cheap.
I completely agree with his assessment of the movie. It's by no means bad or insulting to the senses (even at parts that should be) but there's a lot errors that drag it down.
And the only element that can single handedly save a movie from being utterly shit is strong character portrayals.
>>67451887
It's always about pros and cons and what outweighs what, anon. A movie could look good but if everything else is intolerable, the visuals would have be good enough to make it worth the watch. It goes for all aspects of film.
Army Dog is better.
>>67451887
You might also want to consider that its the specific nature of technical refinement that stops the film being a bad film, rather than the case being that a particular aspect, which just so happens in this case to be technical refinement, can be so good that a film is prevented from being bad.
>a movie can't be good without fully fleshed out narrative and themes
This bullshit meme needs to die. There's nothing wrong with a simple story and simple themes. Fury didn't have to be a Shakespearian tragedy, but it's competent enough to get its point across. It does the whole "war is hell" theme on a visceral level better than just about anything else I can think of, and that makes it a good movie in my book.
>>67451887
Fury was the best war movie since saving private Ryan inmhfom.
>>67453513
The problem with Fury is that nothing about it felt authentic. Whether it be the kitchen scene and what happens immediately after, or the last battle scene.
It bordered a line of what would really happen in war and a feeling of war the director wanted to instill in you at the cost of realism.
>>67453769
Eh, it works for me. I definitely don't view it as a realistic movie, and I don't think it intends to be one. It feels like it finds what it wants to do, a feeling it wants to portray, and pushes that as hard as it can. It's like the film equivalent of something like pic related.
>>67453951
Fucking Goya man.
>>67453951
I feel it tried to have its cake and eat it to with the poor blend of realism and emotional exploitation.
>>67452790
this
one minor complaint was how the spanish speaking tank crew member was a nearly irrelevant character. there was literally no point in having that many lines where he's just speaking spanish unless the director was trying to get some multi-culti in
