TV, Movies, and Games
Talk about TV, Movies, Gaming or anything entertainment related.
Talk about TV, Movies, Gaming or anything entertainment related.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Opinions please: Fury movie pros and cons
Wolf-Leader
Member Since: June 06, 2002
entire network: 1,225 Posts
KitMaker Network: 463 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 05:44 AM UTC
I saw the movie "Fury" on Saturday night and thought it was pretty damn good. The battle scenes were great and seeing the ONLY functioning Tiger I ever,not a mock up,was just awesome! As for the reality of it in terms of what really happen or could happen back then I thought it was pretty intense.The hell tank crews went thru just to survive is amazing anyway. For myself I would give it 4.5 out of 5.0 stars. When the intensity of a movie I saw stays with me as long as this one does I was wired after I got home that I couldn't sleep for awhile. I can't wait for it to come out on DVD!
TAFFY3
Member Since: January 21, 2008
entire network: 2,531 Posts
KitMaker Network: 290 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 08:21 AM UTC
I liked it very much myself. My only complaint was with the final battle. I think they went a little too Hollywood as far as the odds stacked against them, and the Germans inability to take them out with Panzerfausts. The last stand in the old Bogart film, "Sahara" (1943), was much more believable to me. All in all though it was better than a lot of other movie attempts at putting war on film. I'd recommend it. 
Al
Al
SdAufKla
Member Since: May 07, 2010
entire network: 2,238 Posts
KitMaker Network: 59 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 03:13 AM UTC
I enjoyed it.
It is certainly no candidate for "the best war movie ever made" category, but it was definitely one of the most visually realistic war movies ever.
I think the writers and director relied too heavily on all of the clichés and stereotypes of the genre. Given the short 24-hour period covered and the need to advance the changes in the character, "Machine," to their predictable conclusion, the tried and familiar war-movie clichés were used like a formula. In this respect, I thought the movie was like reading a "Sgt. Rock" or "Haunted Tank" comic book. I found very little that happened in the movie was a surprise.
Sure, there are a lot of tactically and technically incorrect things, and there's only so much plot that you can develop involving a single tank crew in a one-day period, so there's not much to say about the missions and tasks. At that level, the military is pretty much "go there and do that." If you don't already have a sense and appreciation of the Big Picture in NWE at the end of the war, you're not going to get it from "Fury."
In the end, the movie is what it is... a Hollywood production that tells a story and not a TRADOC doctrinal training film about how to conduct combined armored operations. If you go to watch it for the entertainment value, you'll be OK, but if you go expecting some sort of historically and technically correct documentary on the war as a tanker, you'll be disappointed.
It is certainly no candidate for "the best war movie ever made" category, but it was definitely one of the most visually realistic war movies ever.
I think the writers and director relied too heavily on all of the clichés and stereotypes of the genre. Given the short 24-hour period covered and the need to advance the changes in the character, "Machine," to their predictable conclusion, the tried and familiar war-movie clichés were used like a formula. In this respect, I thought the movie was like reading a "Sgt. Rock" or "Haunted Tank" comic book. I found very little that happened in the movie was a surprise.
Sure, there are a lot of tactically and technically incorrect things, and there's only so much plot that you can develop involving a single tank crew in a one-day period, so there's not much to say about the missions and tasks. At that level, the military is pretty much "go there and do that." If you don't already have a sense and appreciation of the Big Picture in NWE at the end of the war, you're not going to get it from "Fury."
In the end, the movie is what it is... a Hollywood production that tells a story and not a TRADOC doctrinal training film about how to conduct combined armored operations. If you go to watch it for the entertainment value, you'll be OK, but if you go expecting some sort of historically and technically correct documentary on the war as a tanker, you'll be disappointed.
retiredyank
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 04:01 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I enjoyed it.
It is certainly no candidate for "the best war movie ever made" category, but it was definitely one of the most visually realistic war movies ever.
I think the writers and director relied too heavily on all of the clichés and stereotypes of the genre. Given the short 24-hour period covered and the need to advance the changes in the character, "Machine," to their predictable conclusion, the tried and familiar war-movie clichés were used like a formula. In this respect, I thought the movie was like reading a "Sgt. Rock" or "Haunted Tank" comic book. I found very little that happened in the movie was a surprise.
Sure, there are a lot of tactically and technically incorrect things, and there's only so much plot that you can develop involving a single tank crew in a one-day period, so there's not much to say about the missions and tasks. At that level, the military is pretty much "go there and do that." If you don't already have a sense and appreciation of the Big Picture in NWE at the end of the war, you're not going to get it from "Fury."
In the end, the movie is what it is... a Hollywood production that tells a story and not a TRADOC doctrinal training film about how to conduct combined armored operations. If you go to watch it for the entertainment value, you'll be OK, but if you go expecting some sort of historically and technically correct documentary on the war as a tanker, you'll be disappointed.
Name a more accurate tank movie. I don't mean one with one scene that is more accurate, but overall.
SdAufKla
Member Since: May 07, 2010
entire network: 2,238 Posts
KitMaker Network: 59 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 02:31 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Name a more accurate tank movie. I don't mean one with one scene that is more accurate, but overall.
I don't think there are any other "tank" movies, unless you count "Tank Girl" or "The Beast," so in that regard, yours is a Hobson's Choice.
There are any number of technical, tactical and historical inaccuracies in "Fury," but that wasn't my point.
It's not the best war movie ever made, but then again, it's also not the worst by far. It may be the most accurate "tank" movie ever made, but then I think it's really the only "tank" movie ever made, so that's not saying much.
My point was simply that "Fury" is what it is - a fairly entertaining Hollywood war movie despite its inaccuracies and over reliance on clichés and stereotypes.
Go see it and enjoy the eye-candy and popcorn, but don't fool yourself that "Fury" is anything more than what it is.
Bravo1102
Member Since: December 08, 2003
entire network: 2,864 Posts
KitMaker Network: 171 Posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 10:10 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextName a more accurate tank movie. I don't mean one with one scene that is more accurate, but overall.
I don't think there are any other "tank" movies, unless you count "Tank Girl" or "The Beast," so in that regard, yours is a Hobson's Choice.
.
Hardly a Hobson's Choice (no choice at all) you just have to be a real movie hound to find them. And not mind subtitles.
SdAufKla
Member Since: May 07, 2010
entire network: 2,238 Posts
KitMaker Network: 59 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 31, 2014 - 02:12 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hardly a Hobson's Choice (no choice at all) you just have to be a real movie hound to find them. And not mind subtitles.
Well, I suppose with English language films you could also throw in Bogie's "Sahara" and "The Tanks are Coming," but I don't think either of those would be a fair comparison to the crew ensemble story that "Fury" presents. They each involve many more important characters and plot diversions than the members of the tank crews depicted.
I really have no idea what else might be available in non-English language films that could be comparable to "Fury."
From the perspective that it focuses tightly on a single tank's crew and their actions, I do give "Fury" credit for being more than just a little unique and fresh. Still, my criticism for its reliance on worn war movie clichés and stereotypes stands.
I thought "Fury" was entertaining, though, and that's all that it really needed to be.
retiredyank
Member Since: June 29, 2009
entire network: 11,610 Posts
KitMaker Network: 3,657 Posts
Posted: Friday, October 31, 2014 - 07:01 PM UTC
One of the few surviving Allied tankers was asked just that question. His comment was that it was much worse, in real life, especially the battle with the Tiger. Of course, the end was completely Hollywood. But, the movie was the most accurate he's seen.
barron
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 666 Posts
KitMaker Network: 66 Posts
Posted: Saturday, November 01, 2014 - 01:58 PM UTC
I went to see it today. I enjoyed it very much, and it did give you somewhat a peak of what my fathers generation went through fighting in tanks in WWII. As a former US Army tanker I salute these brave men who went through what they did. I think that is what the main subject of this picture is to show how men can group together and get through the terible sights and actions they encounter. 
spacewolfdad
Member Since: May 23, 2010
entire network: 642 Posts
KitMaker Network: 43 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 - 11:18 PM UTC
Seen the film and an historical document it isn't really that good. However as a cracking good war film it gets my vote, I was riveted to the edge of my seat through most of it. Even the scene with the German women was edgy and tense - extremely well acted. I think Brad Pitt did a fine job and the interior of the tank was suitably claustrophobic (apparently the mock up was 20% bigger to allow filming, so bear that in mind when thinking how cramped it was in there). The duel with the Tiger was worth the price of admission alone, but in reality it would have picked each tank off from about 1,500 metres without much threat to itself. 'Best war movie ever?' - no I don't think so, but certainly up there with the best of them.
milvehfan
Member Since: June 26, 2007
entire network: 2,116 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,015 Posts
Posted: Saturday, December 06, 2014 - 07:32 PM UTC
Very Cool Movie, Really Enjoyed seeing it.
milvehfan
milvehfan
trakpin
Member Since: November 03, 2012
entire network: 667 Posts
KitMaker Network: 12 Posts
Posted: Friday, January 02, 2015 - 05:21 PM UTC
there's only one thing I found about Fury that seemed a bit off. anyone notice there were no dead soldiers on the road? they were all scattered off to the sides when viewed from overhead
AFVFan
Member Since: May 17, 2012
entire network: 1,980 Posts
KitMaker Network: 409 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 03:42 PM UTC
Good movie, up until the time the final battle started. From there out, it sailed right to the middle of Lake Silly!
Spoilers ahead....
...They hit what seems to be the only mine on the road.
...They find the one German commander in Europe who's willing to completely stop his unit's advance to attack an immobile tank in force, instead of just bypassing it, or sending out a few men with Panzerfausts to encircle it and attack from different directions.
...Panzerfausts aren't used until later in the fight, when suddenly 2 cases appear (as "their only ones") when earlier footage of the column marching clearly showed at least 5 or 6 guys carrying them on their shoulders. Then, when they are used, no one seems to be able to hit a tank 20 yards away.
...There's the sniper(?), who can't kill a man standing in the open at 50 to 75 yards with 3 shots.
...Two grenades are dropped in the hatch (why this wasn't done in the first place we'll never know) and the only damage to the bodies inside are some shrapnel wounds.
I know it was a Hollywoodtized fight, but there's a line between stretching the "truth", and being outright ridiculous. Even John Wayne would have been embarrassed to be part of that scene.
Spoilers ahead....
...They hit what seems to be the only mine on the road.
...They find the one German commander in Europe who's willing to completely stop his unit's advance to attack an immobile tank in force, instead of just bypassing it, or sending out a few men with Panzerfausts to encircle it and attack from different directions.
...Panzerfausts aren't used until later in the fight, when suddenly 2 cases appear (as "their only ones") when earlier footage of the column marching clearly showed at least 5 or 6 guys carrying them on their shoulders. Then, when they are used, no one seems to be able to hit a tank 20 yards away.
...There's the sniper(?), who can't kill a man standing in the open at 50 to 75 yards with 3 shots.
...Two grenades are dropped in the hatch (why this wasn't done in the first place we'll never know) and the only damage to the bodies inside are some shrapnel wounds.
I know it was a Hollywoodtized fight, but there's a line between stretching the "truth", and being outright ridiculous. Even John Wayne would have been embarrassed to be part of that scene.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.