Fuze (2025) Movie Review: A Ridicolous, Haphazard Slice of British Heist Movie Entertainment

Share it

“Fuze” (2025) is an almost astounding act of cinematic combination that draws together multiple types of distinctly British subgenres. It’s openly nostalgic for World War II ticking-time-clock thrillers, yet also incorporates the scuzziness of classical London crime flicks and all the shenanigans involved in gleefully absurd heist adventures.

The union of grittiness and absurdity might not seem like it would be coherent, but “Fuze” has the spontaneity to upend expectations and enough anchored specificity to not feel completely superficial. It’s admirable for a film to completely know what it is. There’s no mixed messaging in David Mackenzie’s latest attempt to make a stylish pulp thriller, which has no intentions other than to be as entertaining as possible.

“Fuze” opens with the compelling premise that a World War II-era bomb has been discovered in the middle of central London, prompting Major Will Tranter (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and his team to clear the area in order to diffuse the device. It is amidst this chaos that the criminals Karalis (Theo James), X (Sam Worthington), Hardeep (Naveed Kahn), and Z (Nabil Elouahabi) seize a bank that contains valuable property, including uncut jewels.

It’s amidst the chaotic, charged streets that the civilian Rahim (Elham Ehsas) and his family are drawn into the action when the authorities storm the area to apprehend the robbers. This is all without revealing the further twists involved; “Fuze” has enough misdirections to keep any number of options in the air at once.

To buy into “Fuze” requires a healthy suspension of belief, but it’s to the film’s credit that it doesn’t attempt to disguise its intentions. The world it presents isn’t necessarily an implausible one, but rather a window into reality where coincidences occur and there are conveniences for the sake of the drama. However, “Fuze” doesn’t have any rug pulls that feel completely unanticipated. There is an underlying logic to how the film unfolds, even if Mackenzie manipulates the viewer’s perspective in order to frame the natural unfolding of the story as a series of increasingly silly plot twists.

The basic foundation of “Fuze” is that of a race against time, which is befitting of its focus on a literal World War II relic. While “Fuze” doesn’t get deep into its militaristic storyline before it transforms into something else entirely, there’s a precise, exacting nature to seeing the heist carried out that offers a solid case for the “show, not tell” method of storytelling. The details of why these characters are in this situation are less important than what they’re doing and how they do it, and “Fuze” reduces anything bordering on exposition to a minimum.

The most substantial bit of development is saved for a third-act set piece that provides some unexpected answers, but mostly serves the purpose of escalating the scale to the next level. While it’s often a bit too slick for its own good, a generous comparison would associate “Fuze” with the gritty, atmospheric brutality of classic ‘70s neo-noirs like “Get Carter” and “Point Blank.” It’s a film about dedicated professionals whose ambitions amount to little more than their dangerous line of work.

These similarities to noir cinema are still fairly scant, as “Fuze” takes pleasure in its goofiness. Turning central London into an action-packed warzone is ripe with the potential to invert famous landmarks, and “Fuze” is able to hit the right notes with its dark comedy. There’s certainly a sense of danger, but the threat to civilian life is not so gripping that the film evokes concerning parallels to modern terrorism. It’s for this reason that turning some of the nastier villains into complete caricatures is actually an active decision, and not just a sign of bad writing. Worthington in particular seems to be having a blast with a classically evil performance that could be described as “mustache-twirling.”

Mackenzie is a filmmaker who has always found compelling ways to portray masculinity, and “Fuze” is not lacking in charisma. Taylor-Johnson has always been a somewhat unconventional star because he has an aptitude for genuine weirdness that has made him a bit uncomfortable in traditional leading roles. The discovery of how Tranter came to collect his peculiar set of skills makes him the ideal narrator for this bizarre story, and Taylor-Johnson is able to make the character just offbeat enough to be unusual, yet still worth investing in.

James is another classically charismatic leading man who has proven to be at his best when he’s playing a bit nastier than expectations would indicate, with television’s “The White Lotus” and “The Gentlemen” giving him far more opportunities than “Divergent” and “Underworld.” Casting him as a surprisingly tactful career criminal was a strong choice, with the only disappointment being that he and Taylor-Johnson don’t share enough scenes together.

Mackenzie is also a filmmaker who is capable of delving into the socio-political context of his genre endeavors when the scripts allow for it, which may be why his filmography feels so clumsy. While “Hell or High Water” is a bracingly authentic exploration of wealth’s incursion on the American family, last year’s “Relay” was an out-of-touch thriller about the surveillance state.

With “Fuze,” Mackenzie instills a half-hearted examination of how the literal infrastructures of the past have survived, even if the contemporary world has a less definitive sense of ethics. Directly homaging such classical genres seems to be a deliberate choice in order to justify why it’s worth investing in characters like Tranter and Karalis, who wouldn’t seem to be traditionally altruistic. Regardless of their flaws, they still feel like underdogs that are working to subvert the odds stacked against them.

Between the jarring needle drops, frantic gun battles, and occasional bursts of dark humor, “Fuze” seems to dare its audience to read anything too deeply into its subtext. This is the rare high-stakes thriller that seems to have no inhibitions about being fun, and it’s capable of achieving its goals within a tight 96 minutes. There’s too much solid craftsmanship and interesting narrative choices to dismiss “Fuze” as a guilty pleasure, especially when this type of stylized caper has become increasingly rare.