Review of the reviews

I saw this movie in theaters back in November and I remember enjoying it for its grittiness, setting and somewhat realistic sound effects which were a huge throwback to Saving Private Ryan. The fact that I am a total history nerd with particular interest in World War 2, especially the European theater probably had a lot to do with that, but I digress. In any case the film was largely praised recieving a 77% and a "certified fresh" rating on the website Rotten Tomatoes, indicating an above average movie. Despite the acclaim there were also many reviewers who called the film mediocre and cliched both sides of the argument can be seen in the following reviews:

The first review by Chris Nashawaty is from Entertainment Weekly: http://www.ew.com/article/2014/10/31/fury
The second, by Peter Rainer is from the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2014/1017/Fury-is-a-solid-World-War-II-movie-throwback

The review from entertainment weekly was structured from broad to specific by talking about the setting first and finishing up by talking about the theme and how the movie progresses. The reviewer's biggest problem with the film is lack of character development and how director David Awyer "isn't concerned about giving his characters more than one note to play", he proves this by pointing out that most of the characters are cliches(the innocent new guy, the bible-thumper etc.) and the don't give enough backstory as to why they're fighting like they did in Saving Private Ryan. This review generally maintains the same tone all throughout, cynical and reasonable. This shows through as he is focusing on the character, which is the most important aspect of this film given it takes place inside a tank

Throughout his critique of the film he references the older movies in the world war 2 genre and the Sgt. Rock comics as he feels Awyer draws his characters and their stereotypical personalities from there. He also references the theme of "war is hell" which has been widely used since World 2 and the Cold War and how it is something we already are aware of and in that regard the film fails to offer a fresh message about war or comradery.

The second review is from  the Christian Science Monitor and it takes a more positive, if more sentimental view. Interestingly the reivew is again adresses issues in the film form broad to narrow as Its starts with the reviewer mentioning how the film in his opinion is a welcome throwback to the kind of WW2 films of the 40s and 50s in terms of the drama and overall style. He then goes on to talk about the characters, similar to the first except he instead praises the performance of Brad Pitt and the selection of characters and finishes up by talking about his favorite scene in the movie. The writer generally tries to create nostalgia for older style war movies about impossible odds and the futility of war and by giving a somewhat idealized description of all the characters that were scathed in the Entertainment weekly review.

 He uses language like "Raw Recruit" and "thoughtful" in an attempt to give them more depth. This reviewer basically veers all the focus towards the style and themes of the Movie as those, as opposed to the characters are really the strongest traits of the movie. He uses references to older World War 2 as he knows that audiences generally approve of more patriotic, older style war movies and that they hold a place in the heart of many baby boomers and many younger people as well with the release of Saving Private Ryan

In the entertainment weekly review I agree wth the reviewer when he says when speaking of the characters "We’ve all seen these olive-hued types before" because in war films you usually see the same or a similar set of characters like a tough as nails leader and philosophical gunner etc. so in the movie were not really getting anything new in terms of the kind of soldiers who are the main focus. In the Christian Science Monitor review I agree with the critic when he says that Fury serves as "a throwback to the war movies of the 1940s and '50s" as that is an accurate description of all the plot elements at work and its attitude towards war.

In my opinion, i would say that the Entertainment Weekly review was more convincing as it tended to focus on more important parts of the film like characters and themes. The CSM review just felt too sentimental about older war movies rather than addressing the obvious issues of the film head-on which is no way to approach a film. Also the entertainment weekly review also has a cynical approach to the extreme violence in the film as he feels they don't connect well and are often excessive. His generally cynical attitude towards the whole makes it a much more honest review and shows the film's true worth .

In the event that i had to write a review for thi smovie i would talk more about the way the big battle scene was done both visually and dramatically and still talk a lot about the characters. This movie has many twist and turns and its unfair to leave out much of the violence and some of the stunning and horrific imagery present in the film. I would leave out the theme as most War films like this have the same theme/message (resilience or War is Hell) and its really more about how they, in my opinion, present the said themes within the film since they are both incredibly broad.