[FILM] Fury

Louis said:
@Shorker @Richtig but should recognize that the duel between Sherman and Tiger is very good, or not?
Click to expand...

I saw it on YouTube too - maybe (or for sure) on a wide cinema screen it is more impressive and spectacular - for the tank duel itself: It is full of action, of course,
but as the Tiger didn't want the Sherman to come behind him, why did he only turn it's turret and didn't move it's tracks for to turn the entire hull and the strong frontplate against the Sherman? (OK, unexperienced and nervous German commander maybe... :()
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think apart from the combat scene I watched with the lined up Shermans - and lets remember this guy is an experienced tanker who has survived this far - it was the overall mood/pitch of the film - If I'm honest an accurate portrayal would probably jar with a modern audience, hence they 'sex' it up - which is fine but then lets not have people telling us it is a 'worthy' movie which I think was the line used re allowing the use of the Tiger...

Its a tricky one - and to be fair I bow to the more knowledgeable guys who have served - I have only read... (read a lot maybe - but still only read...)
 
I agree that the tactics by the "experienced" Sherman commanders v. Pz VI had me scratching my head as I was watching. However, that and some other questionable actions (the brain dead German attack at the end comes to mind) didn't cause me to want to walk out. It was what it was. A decent WWII movie and there just aren't enough of those IMHO.

"Greatest job I ever had."
 
I think the Tiger battle was hard to believe, in that I don't think they would have charged across an open field. I do think they might have tried to work their way behind the tree line to get flank shots in....

And where was TACAIR?

Also, I think the climatic battle looked more like the human wave attack in "Enemy at the Gates" than a coordinated attack by a veteran SS panzer grenadier battalion. Fanatics or not, after the initial rush, I don't see them putting themselves in the situation to keep getting mowed down.

I do believe the prisoner execution was probably close to what happened. Read Nate Frankel's book about the 4th Armored....also, there are books out there describing prisoner's being shot as the war came to the end...by other nationalities soldiers besides US troops....

I think the early combat depictions were probably pretty close to what it looked like. The Panzerfaust scene I questioned their spacing, but hey, minor details...
 
In fact the most combat scenes are bullshit and the author should have consulted theFEWGOODMEN before. No need to add further examples, just watch the final SS zombie army assault!
I confess that I liked the mood of the scenes when they did ride through this apocalyptic scenery of the last days of the Third Reich. That LOOKS good. I also liked the dinner scene with the frauleins...

The whole story is not very new: We see a young educated and civil man who becomes a wreck by the experience of war just as everybody around. Nothing new or surprising. So, at least its some kind of anti-war movie, right? But there are better ones.

P.S. Regarding the tiger: Why should a tiger decrease the distance and race towards the enemy? Oh, wait. The movie should last more then 60min...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mehlsack said:
In fact the most combat scenes are bullshit and the author should have consulted theFEWGOODMEN before.

P.S. Regarding the tiger: Why should a tiger decrease the distance and race towards the enemy? Oh, wait. The movie should last more then 60min...
Click to expand...

to 1.) "consulting The Few Good Men first" LOL!!! :D - and if I'd been the film director having such an excellent original equipment at hand, I would have extended the battle scenes.
But OK ... if if if

to 2.) I read the "FURY thread" (same thread) at the BFF and there someone gives a good explanation: The Shermans are shooting smoke and then try to outflank the Tiger. But the Tiger commander decides to break through the smoke screen and to attack the three Shermans. I think this is a satisfying answer.

(...but the Tiger commander is a fool).
 
@ Shorker: just what a said: a foolish action. Enacted in an effect-seeking way for entertaining the clueless audience...;)
 
As a German I expected the Tiger to win!!!

Just kidding. In fact I am tired of Tigers in movies as they are depicted always as a kind of SUPERPANZER. They are constructing a myth that is basing on Nazi propaganda anyhow. It comes always to some kind of Goliath vs David story. Its getting boring! At least they could use a PANTHER...:D
 
I have no argument with the winner writing the history, but hollywood doesn't do history, and now I worry we are getting generations coming up who use holywood as history and that can't be a good thing. Also as the winner you can rewrite history but you shouldn't believe your rewrite you should remember the truth.

They say in war the first victim is truth - and never was a truer word written.
 
Finally got to see this ... well made visually ... storyline especially at the ending idiotic.

WW2 tank tactics -- firing on the move?... really?

Tiger would've just stood off and picked off the Shermans at long range ... he had NO reason to advance an close distance to them... (but I guess realistic gunnery range tank duels don't make for riveting cinema.)

... and that Banzai attack at end was moronic.

The movie makers kind of mixed up experiences from late '44 -- Aachen/Huertgenwald etc into the '45 setting.

By April 1945 adavance through Germany -- standard tactics were: if recon showed a locality was defended or any sign of resistance ... no street by street clearance ala '44... they'd just obliterate the place with artillery and air support - then go in and clear it up. Minimise casualties at this late stage was a priority -- use max firepower.

Good scenes was the futile panzerfaust ambush along the road early on ... and the look of collapse and

Also the brutalising effect the long campaigning had on histank crew and Pitt's character's grappling with retaining some kind of humanity ... probably the only survivors of their company after all this time.

So once again ... well done on the gritty visual impact of the film ... but again having to resort to idiotic Hollywood storylines and cliches abound ... sigh.

PS: ... and why are the German officers always endlessly continuiously barking orders all the time? -- noticed this in BOB as well. Column gets order to march ... and they march. In these movies they just keep on with "Schnell!" and "Vorwaerts!" blah, blah...

and PS: ... even though I hate to say this... Shia Leboeuf was actually very good in this...lol
 
Last edited:
Hedgehog said:
@Rico I like your Summary of the Film mate.....I missed it when it was out and will buy the Video, My View I like to be entertained when I see a film and never look to deep into the History of the making, well 95% of the time
Click to expand...

My point is always -- you CAN make and tell a very entertaining story AND not f*** too much with history -- Band of Brothers is proof of that.
 
Watched it few days ago...It isn't bad, but it isn't great either...

Here are few things that bother me...

1. Turbolaser tracers. Looks like tracer graphics is way too exaggerated. Fighting scenes are like Star Wars, with Rebels firing red and Imperials firing green lasers. Looks like literally every MG crew used tracers...
2. Lame SS troops. In last fighting scene, when SS is coming to the crossroad we can clearly see that they have lots of Panzerfausts, and that they keep them on their shoulders. Later, they bring 2 boxes with total of 8 PF's saying "It's all we have"...Germans are running straight to the machine guns not trying to use surrounding hedges and terrain...300 men can't disable one tank...
3. Characters...I didn't get to know characters...Only thing i know is that Norman can play piano and that crew is together since Africa...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom