Jump to content


So I just saw the "Fury" movie and...


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

IH8MEDS #41 Posted 29 October 2014 - 03:06 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

*sigh* Lesson in opinions vs facts 101...

 

One thing is saying "I don't like him". OK, that is your personal TASTE, regardless of his ability or lack thereof (note that I'm talking generally here, not about Brad Pitt in particular).

However, denying credit so someone who obviously deserves is just stupidity.

 

It's a whole other can of worms saying something "in my opinion he's a bad actor", because odds are in that case your opinion is worth, well, shite.

Example: Me and my woman could never stand Leo DiCaprio. There is just something about him, especially in the last 5 years, that screams in our faces "TRYING TOO HARD". Not to mention his smug face that annoys us to death.

HOWEVER, we did not deny for 1 second that he is a very talented actor. He is GOOD at what he does, our not liking him not having anything to do with it.



philjd #42 Posted 29 October 2014 - 03:16 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8325 battles
  • 797
  • Member since:
    12-14-2011

View PostIH8MEDS, on 25 October 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

Quote

1. Classically you'd go front/rear if you were hitting a column, haven't seen the film so I couldn't tell you where they were or where the Tiger starts.

 

They were indeed in a column, crossing open field too (I for one just smelled an ambush, though I believe they were aware of that possibility too, but orders are orders...)

 

 

  A couple of thoughts on the 'take out the rear tank first':-

Important part - 'crossing an open field in column'

During Market Garden the ground forces were delayed by a single German Tank - because the British (CW) tanks were driving along a raised highway, the defending German shot the first tank. This halted the column in place, with no where safe to go, then proceeded to shoot its way down the column.

 

If the target tanks are advancing across open ground in column and you are the ambusher, then, if you are confident of your vehicles/crews capabilities, take out the last tank and then work forward, because, up to a point, you still want the enemy to get closer or have more distance to cover if they start to withdraw before they are out of harms way.

The Open field is important because there is no restriction on lateral manoeuvres.

 

My thought, hopefully logical from a practical point of view :)

 


Edited by philjd, 29 October 2014 - 03:22 PM.


UNARMOURED #43 Posted 29 October 2014 - 03:53 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36972 battles
  • 1,645
  • Member since:
    11-20-2012

View PostIH8MEDS, on 29 October 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

*sigh* Lesson in opinions vs facts 101...

 

One thing is saying "I don't like him". OK, that is your personal TASTE, regardless of his ability or lack thereof (note that I'm talking generally here, not about Brad Pitt in particular).

However, denying credit so someone who obviously deserves is just stupidity.

 

It's a whole other can of worms saying something "in my opinion he's a bad actor", because odds are in that case your opinion is worth, well, shite.

Example: Me and my woman could never stand Leo DiCaprio. There is just something about him, especially in the last 5 years, that screams in our faces "TRYING TOO HARD". Not to mention his smug face that annoys us to death.

HOWEVER, we did not deny for 1 second that he is a very talented actor. He is GOOD at what he does, our not liking him not having anything to do with it.

 

*rolls eyes* (see we can both do that)

 

You are putting words in my mouth. I said he was a very limited actor, who lacked range. The does not mean bad, rather it limits the type of roles I think he is good at.

 

I have never said that I do not like him. In Fight Club/Inglorious Basterds I thought he was good, because those are the type roles he suits, but I don't envisage him playing a serious role and doing a good job. In the Fury trailer I didn't believe a word he was saying. How is that denying him credit?

 

Di Caprio can and has, I believe, successfully played a number of different roles, and I personally think he is one of the best male actors around at the minute AND I enjoy watching him act. However, put him in the Fury trailer and I may have decided that I didn't think he suited that role either.

 

Different people can have contrary opinions and they can be equally valid.



VeryRisky #44 Posted 29 October 2014 - 04:29 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18467 battles
  • 8,882
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-11-2012

View PostIH8MEDS, on 28 October 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

Quote

What is even more strange is how Germans themselves make war movies. They almost always end with the whole German cast dead (Das Boot, Stalingrad, Die Brücke). For some reason the Germans cannot make movies "Hollywood style" with a happy ending for the Germans themselves :) ...I´m sure events reagarding historical accuracy during the WW2 would be plentiful.

 

Well, this may be a huge shock to you, but... NAZI GERMANY LOST THE FREAKING SECOND WORLD WAR!

 

You are literally implying that WW2 movies should depict Germans as the victors, just so that they would be different from the rest of the WW2 movies!

 

+1

 



Volatile_Squirrel #45 Posted 31 October 2014 - 08:41 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 30297 battles
  • 180
  • Member since:
    10-25-2011

Just watched the movie. So I'll just carry on this thread.

 

I liked it. I think it is good. Arduous to watch from time to time but that was the point I guess. It shows quite well people turned to something else by all the killing around them. Must add that I really like Brad Pitt's performance there.

 

Now a few notes about what was mentioned here.

1. It is about American tank so I don't really mind seeing only Americans. At least it mentions that western offensive was executed by brits too and, what no other movie that I know mentioned - CANADIANS!

 

2. Tiger scene was alright. What people forget is that full speed of actual Shermans across the field wasn't very fast and neither was turn rate of a Tiger. So, nothing really unrealistic or silly there.

 

3. Final scene was, well, stretched. But not nearly impossible. Why? Well, this was end of the war. Germans probably more than any other nation were sick of war. And when they encounter an abandoned tank that suddenly comes to life and starts killing them I can see many of them saying "[edited]this!" and think only on how to stay alive rather then how to defeat enemy.

 

4. Panzershreck... it did hit the tank alright and killed one crew member. Maybe it was just spall and not penetration that killed him. Anyway, I don't think many of us know what might happen when thing like that penetrates armor and enters crew compartment. So, plausible for me. One thing that I know is that I can not find any evidence on net that Panzershreck had a copper penetrator. Because it probably hadn't, but instead had a simple shaped charge that simply focuses most of explosion at one spot.

 

All in all. Movie worth watching.



markysam #46 Posted 01 November 2014 - 10:39 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 14514 battles
  • 28
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

Will just give my opinion of the movie and not enter the arguments :)

 

 

 

Saw it the other evening, and went into it knowing it's about a US tank crew in a US division so wasn't surprised about the lack of anyone else. Why would there be ?

 

I found it a hard film to absolutely rave about, like Saving Private Ryan for example. That film leaves you open mouth speechless for much of it. With Fury, I found that in the whole, it was the non-fight scenes that I found shocking and jaw dropping. The whole scene where they go into the house occupied by the two women was tense and completely brilliant in the way it builds tension and then throws a totally unexpected ending.

 

 

I enjoyed the way they show the human cost. Not a single member of the crew wasn't deeply scarred by the war, and I think all the actors did a good job of showing that.

 

The battles scenes prior to the finale were a mixed bag for me. On one level they created tension and portrayed how utterly terrifying it must have been to have been in a mediocre tank facing what you knew were very effective AT guns and tanks, and on the other, I felt a little disconnected and not fully immersed... Can't explain why.

 

The finale... For me, that should be cut. It's improbably at best, and at worst is an impossible scenario which is dragged out for much longer than it would have been in real life. Any partially trained infantrymen would have finished the tank within minutes.  Sadly, the trailer gives the impression that this was a one tank versus the world situation. As has already been said, it was simply that Fury was all that was left after trying to reach their objective with what should have been a platoon. Fact is, a disabled tank on it's own isn't much more than a roadblock, especially at night. It kind of spoilt the film for me.

 

Overall, good movie with some truly great moments, none of which for me were the action scenes. I'll probably buy it on blue ray, but it's not up there with SPR for me...

 

MS



IH8MEDS #47 Posted 01 November 2014 - 11:30 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

Quote

Saw it the other evening, and went into it knowing it's about a US tank crew in a US division so wasn't surprised about the lack of anyone else. Why would there be ?

 

I found it a hard film to absolutely rave about, like Saving Private Ryan for example. That film leaves you open mouth speechless for much of it. With Fury, I found that in the whole, it was the non-fight scenes that I found shocking and jaw dropping. The whole scene where they go into the house occupied by the two women was tense and completely brilliant in the way it builds tension and then throws a totally unexpected ending.

 

 

I enjoyed the way they show the human cost. Not a single member of the crew wasn't deeply scarred by the war, and I think all the actors did a good job of showing that.

 

Yes. YES! Someone who understands it!



Ulfhedinn_ #48 Posted 01 November 2014 - 12:47 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 48246 battles
  • 7,041
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013

View PostThe_Foolio, on 25 October 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

A single Sherman holding off 300 SS Panzer Grenadiers = [edited].

 

Actually that's entirely reasonable. By late 1944 the German forces on the Western Front were a complete shambles, most units were full of raw recruits, most didn't have a clue what they were doing, even Panzer Grenadiers.

 

Like at Bastonge, the Germans surrounded that with what was supposedly elite Panzer Grenadiers, but they were useless. There were only a relatively small numbers of Yanks holding Bastogne with very limited equipment, had the Germans assaulted it on all sides at once the Yanks couldn't have defended the whole perimeter, they'd have been over-run immediately & very easily. But for the entire 3 or 4 days or however long Bastogne was surrounded, all the Germans did was to continue alternating the points of the perimeter they were attacking, probing for a weak spot, which allowed the Yanks to have a flying defense where they moved troops & equipment to whichever point of the perimeter was under attack. The German's never once tried assaulting the whole perimeter, and you don't get much more amateur than that. This was one of Hitler's main failings, he kept seeing the German army late in the War as the same entity & therefore as capable as it had been early in the War. But the hardcore veteran elite German army was smashed by 1942 / 43, it was a shadow of it's former self and that got ever more the case as the War went on.

 

In a way, what people sound like they are describing in Fury with ineffective dithering Panzer Grenadiers is very similar to how many German units, even elite ones, behaved on the Western front in the last year of the War.



Boo_Bee #49 Posted 01 November 2014 - 01:19 PM

    Clan Commander

  • Clan Commander
  • 46832 battles
  • 670
  • [BL33T] BL33T
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View PostMaxmk6, on 01 November 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:

 

Actually that's entirely reasonable. By late 1944 the German forces on the Western Front were a complete shambles, most units were full of raw recruits, most didn't have a clue what they were doing, even Panzer Grenadiers.

 

Like at Bastonge, the Germans surrounded that with what was supposedly elite Panzer Grenadiers, but they were useless. There were only a relatively small numbers of Yanks holding Bastogne with very limited equipment, had the Germans assaulted it on all sides at once the Yanks couldn't have defended the whole perimeter, they'd have been over-run immediately & very easily. But for the entire 3 or 4 days or however long Bastogne was surrounded, all the Germans did was to continue alternating the points of the perimeter they were attacking, probing for a weak spot, which allowed the Yanks to have a flying defense where they moved troops & equipment to whichever point of the perimeter was under attack. The German's never once tried assaulting the whole perimeter, and you don't get much more amateur than that. This was one of Hitler's main failings, he kept seeing the German army late in the War as the same entity & therefore as capable as it had been early in the War. But the hardcore veteran elite German army was smashed by 1942 / 43, it was a shadow of it's former self and that got ever more the case as the War went on.

 

In a way, what people sound like they are describing in Fury with ineffective dithering Panzer Grenadiers is very similar to how many German units, even elite ones, behaved on the Western front in the last year of the War.

 

Finally someone who gets it.

 

I thought the movie was good btw.



Naurulokki94 #50 Posted 06 November 2014 - 05:32 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 13781 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    07-21-2010

View PostThe_Foolio, on 25 October 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Saw the trailer and it looks like typical Hollywood garbage. Pitt, who can't act for toffee, trying be all deep and meaningful.

A single Sherman holding off 300 SS Panzer Grenadiers = [edited].

The bit when they seem to be circle strafing the Tiger at the end...sigh.

I suspect that there will only be yanks in it, and if there are any Brits/Commonwealth/Russian characters in it they will be incompetent - e.g. the SAS in Hurt Locker or the tanks in Saving Private Ryan

My only hope is that Bovington got well paid and will profit from the publicity.

 

Huge +1.

 

So much AMUUUUURICA [edited]YEAH SAVING THE peoples of EUROPE type of crapthat can be seen so, so many Hollywood movies. This was even worse than Saving Pvt. Ryan which had IMO good plot but yet so much this Amuuuurica [edited]yeah propaganda. About only decent WW2 era movie or series that has ever come out from the Hollywood is the Band of Brothers.



IH8MEDS #51 Posted 07 November 2014 - 07:23 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

- Saving Private Ryan

- Plot

 

....k

 

Quote

So much AMUUUUURICA [edited]YEAH SAVING THE peoples of EUROPE type of crap

 

I'm afraid you actually watched "Team America" instead of "Fury". Because in "Fury" there is literally zero American propaganda, other than the "heroic sacrifice" at the end.

 

P.S.: Like it or not, US of A DID save Europe's [edited](unlike the USS of R, who just enslaved half of it). If it weren't for the " 'muricans ", Germany would have easily conquered all of Western Europe.

 

l.e.: Seriously, I have the feeling that some people watched the movie blind-folded or something...


Edited by IH8MEDS, 07 November 2014 - 07:25 AM.


IH8MEDS #52 Posted 07 November 2014 - 03:56 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 87 battles
  • 2,944
  • Member since:
    10-14-2013

Here you go, you guys

 

 

They're pretty much on the spot with what "Fury" tries to convey. I felt the need to share this because apparently so many people didn't understand what a movie like "Fury" is about (even though it's pretty much plain obvious)



MeiserLeiser #53 Posted 11 November 2014 - 08:19 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 8629 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    11-13-2010

I'm quite disappointed in few things in this movie.

1. Tiger battle, why on earth would the Tiger crew drive closer to the Shermans and try to shoot while moving? Distance to target should be one of it's greatest allies. Why didn't they rotate it's hull when Sherman was flanking it? 

2. German AT crews could not hit anything even they had plenty of time to aim

3. Waffen SS troops run directly to mg fire even when the tank has already started firing minutes ago.

4. Would Sherman tank commanders really be out of the hatch when attacking enemy positions?

 

Sound and tracer effects where really nice, maybe a bit Hollywood but not annoying.


Edited by MeiserLeiser, 11 November 2014 - 08:20 AM.


Gruminmor #54 Posted 14 November 2014 - 09:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14749 battles
  • 1,389
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    12-25-2012
I saw this yesterday and I thought it was lame. The action scenes were good, but the fillers inbetween were lacking. Pitt can't do war time serious, and it really showed in the movie. Give him crazy(se7en, twelve monkeys, etc.) And he excels. But serious isn't his forte. And as much as I dislike "transformers guy", he was the redeeming feature in the flick. He was actually believable. Overall I'd give it a 6/10. Better off waiting for it to come out on DvD.

Cobra6 #55 Posted 16 November 2014 - 10:21 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16467 battles
  • 16,830
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

I actually really liked it and would definitely see it again, of course there are some hollywood scenes in it but there is also more than enough room for thoughts and the less pretty aspects of war. Hidden left and right they did a great job of portraying the absurdity of war:

 

-That corpse drowned in the mud the tanks drive over, barely visible until your spot the boots.

-The guy getting splattered under the threads in the trench.

-Both executions.

-The little kid soldiers.

-Tanker shooting himself.

 

I as well liked the fact that he said to Eva that she'll have one great love in her life, because it's true but also looking back at it predicts what is going to happen.

 

And like all good war films it doesn't have a happy ending.

 

Cobra 6


Edited by Cobra6, 16 November 2014 - 10:21 AM.


ajappat #56 Posted 16 November 2014 - 11:54 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 26708 battles
  • 787
  • [ARPE] ARPE
  • Member since:
    02-19-2010

Went to movies expecting mediocre quality hollywood action movie, but I was positively surprised. It was actually pretty good, apart from over the top last scene it would be 5/5.

 

Intresting thing was, that I haven't seen one single Fury ad here in Finland (apart from wot), but yet it was played on biggest screen of my local cinema. It was the second day after it's release and the show had about 70-80% empty seats.


Edited by ajappat, 16 November 2014 - 11:55 AM.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users