Fury Movie Review (2 Viewers)

I enjoyed Fury. Realistic in all the right ways with just enough Hollywood "stuff" for a fun experience.

There is plenty of absolute realism in the world for me. I don't require it in movies or tv shows. Most people watch movies for escapism. They get plenty of reality and all its accompanying large and small tragedies in their daily lives. We know the actors are acting. It's called "willing suspension of disbelief". We are grateful that no one is actually dying. We understand there are lots of special effects and that it's mostly about ENTERTAINMENT, not education.

That said, I don't care for the super hero movies so prevalent today. They offer over-the-top make-believe in which almost anything is possible. I find that kind of boring.

With Fury I could imagine each character being representative of a myriad of actual people who served in WWII. We saw how war and the brotherhood it creates changed a young man from timid clerk into a death spewing warrior. War daddy's line thqt "ideals are peaceful, history is violent" was spot on. We also saw the frontier like justice meted out in war. If you kill my guys, I will show you no mercy. That was quite realistic, imo, although I have never been in war myself to verify. But it makes sense.

Certainly the grime, the grittiness, the unbelievable violence, all that was well done, and very realistic. There ws no Hollywood ending where the "good guys" walked off unharmed. The former clerk was spared by his counterpart on the other side. Nice bit of irony there and an interesting commentary that even among the SS there were some decent people.

I also liked the tank mans perspective. There really hasn't ever been a movie that I know of that paid fair tribute to their sacrifices. Usually it's the infantry we see and the tanks are just nameless vehicles. This showed how being inside a tracked vehicle was no safe haven, by far, and the brutalities they endured were no less than anyone else's. The bonding among people of disparate backgrounds fighting for their survival is immense no doubt, and overcomes just about everything else.

For those dismayed by the heroic nature in whcih an American tank crew was displayed, I can only say, well, the movie ws quite clear that these were not perfect unblemished people. They had many "issues" and outside of the tank these came quickly to the surface. But when engaged in battle they were a well oiled machine, working cohesively to stay alive and defeat their common foe. Which is what you need to win a war. Whcih they did.
 
Warrior said:
I went to watch it for the fun of it. No rivet counting from my end as again, I thought the uniforms, equipment and vehicles were all spectacular. The first few action sequences were very well done, specifically the attack along the treeline, that was brilliant.

The ending was idiotic on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

The problem is Hollywood is trying to appeal the to the lowest common denominator; "let's have a wild shoot em up ending so the video gamers out there will rave about how great it was, nevermind how moronic the whole premise is of five guys sitting inside a disabled tank like sitting ducks while 200 Germans swarm around them."

To me, SPR is the gold standard, the greatest war movie of all time, the Omaha Beach landings and the assault on the town were both spectacular, I could watch that movie 100 times and never get tired of doing so. I saw it five times at the theater.

To each his own, glad you liked it.
Click to expand...

The trouble with movies is that ultimately something has to happen. Thus, the silly ending. Most of war is sitting around doing nothing. Not great entertainment. This was a fairly decent effort providing a more realistic look at war than we typically get from a big budget Hollywood film. Because of the many war films from the 1940-60s that depicted Americans in only the most favorable light, it is somewhat unsettling for the older crowd to see Americans shooting unarmed prisoners etc. No doubt those things went on, but many want to belief the greatest generation was without any flaws. I do give them credit for one thing in this movie. NO ROMANTIC LOVE INTEREST. Good lord if I have to watch another war movie where the star has a love interest I may go Elvis and shoot the TV screen. I'm sure they do that to attract women to these movies (which always fails because women hate these movies), but it makes them unbearable. Pitt likely had enough clout to shut that down. To his credit Pitt did seem to want to make a realistic movie instead of the standard Hollywood message flick. A risky undertaking. It's not a movie I would watch twice, but it kept my interest. Like westerns, Hollywood seems to have lost the knack for simple war films. They now have to be message films about the horrors of war.
 
Was watching this again this AM and noticed a nice bit of detail (forgive me if this has already been noted) on the clothing that Capt. Waggoner (Jason Issacs) is wearing. He is wearing a German parka with the green sleeve insignia of an Waffen SS Sturmbannfuhrer (Major). Liberated warm coat and a promotion in one move.{sm3} I like this movie more after a couple of viewings but the ending battle still doesn't work. -- Al
 
One broken down tank and crew of 5 against hundreds of German soldiers and they did held that key cross-road - well that only happened in movies {sm4}
 
I thought that maybe the screen writer stepped on a land mine during shooting, hence the last stand shootout, LOL.

But seriously, the crew would have destroyed the tank and beat it back to warn the rear area echelons and secure another tank, I am sure “War daddy” Would have understood the value of an experienced veteran crew. The movie was taken from a book about a recovery battalion that dealt with renovating battle-damaged Sherman’s, and dealt with the mechanical and logistics of inferior U.S. tanks to the Germans Panthers and Tigers.

I would have cheered to see that aspect of the movie, even at an hour or two longer, showing them climbing into a reconditioned tank complete with wet interior paint that covered up the last crews body fluids. Of course, the producers would have to have tank recovery vehicles and mechanics, and all sorts of cool logistical shots.

Then we could see our heroes go back to do battle with a reconditioned tank and a patched together infantry support unit made up of cooks, aids, and mechanics. I would have been cheering through the ending because that to me was what it was about, American ingenuity, Heroism in the face of fanaticism, Intelligent Courage based on innovation and flexibility by a chain of command that inspires leadership through innovation of a free people defending the world from tyranny, which was what WW2 was about.

Excuse me guys, I have a tear rolling down my cheek.

Yeah I liked the movie because it reminds all of us that the Nazis were “A” holes and fighting them was tough because they were “A” holes, and sacrifices were made but not needlessly.

I just think everyone on the movie set just rushed the ending, remember Lawrence of Arabia took two years to film, perhaps a 6 week schedule is too short with eyes on profits rather than a story told well.

Maybe they can do a prequel with War Daddy in Tunisia in a M3 Grant fighting the DAK and base it of “An Army at Dawn” which depicted the Tunisia campaign as a lot harder than I learned in school.

Cheers Y’all
 
Hussar4Hussies said:
I thought that maybe the screen writer stepped on a land mine during shooting, hence the last stand shootout, LOL.

But seriously, the crew would have destroyed the tank and beat it back to warn the rear area echelons and secure another tank, I am sure “War daddy” Would have understood the value of an experienced veteran crew. The movie was taken from a book about a recovery battalion that dealt with renovating battle-damaged Sherman’s, and dealt with the mechanical and logistics of inferior U.S. tanks to the Germans Panthers and Tigers.

I would have cheered to see that aspect of the movie, even at an hour or two longer, showing them climbing into a reconditioned tank complete with wet interior paint that covered up the last crews body fluids. Of course, the producers would have to have tank recovery vehicles and mechanics, and all sorts of cool logistical shots.

Then we could see our heroes go back to do battle with a reconditioned tank and a patched together infantry support unit made up of cooks, aids, and mechanics. I would have been cheering through the ending because that to me was what it was about, American ingenuity, Heroism in the face of fanaticism, Intelligent Courage based on innovation and flexibility by a chain of command that inspires leadership through innovation of a free people defending the world from tyranny, which was what WW2 was about.

Excuse me guys, I have a tear rolling down my cheek.

Yeah I liked the movie because it reminds all of us that the Nazis were “A” holes and fighting them was tough because they were “A” holes, and sacrifices were made but not needlessly.

I just think everyone on the movie set just rushed the ending, remember Lawrence of Arabia took two years to film, perhaps a 6 week schedule is too short with eyes on profits rather than a story told well.

Maybe they can do a prequel with War Daddy in Tunisia in a M3 Grant fighting the DAK and base it of “An Army at Dawn” which depicted the Tunisia campaign as a lot harder than I learned in school.

Cheers Y’all
Click to expand...

I thought the smart thing to do was to shell the german column from a distance, decimating them as they tried to close with the tank. Fury had plenty of ammo and a clear field of fire. See Sahara with Humphrey Bogart for right way to maim infantry..with armor. Michael
 
Maybe we should all do a rewrite of the ending and then vote on the best one, I took the DC comic approach courtesy of my childhood favorite comic book, GI Combat, but I do like your Sahara ending too!

How would you end the movie, or if you were War Daddy what would you do, maybe even the SS commander, that would make an interesting tactical war game too, I wonder if a scenario has been published yet.

I am thinking how the win factors would contribute to realistic play, hmm the SS would have to move off the board in enough numbers to continue the attack on the rear echelon troops, and the Sherman crew would need to stop them without getting killed to the last action hero.

I do like the ideal of a tank bone yard rushing to make repairs on a damaged tank to continue the fight, maybe for each turn a dice roll would constitute repairs completed and infantry solders collected, Sgt Rock style of course, or even maybe Nick Fury and his Hollowing Commandoes.

I like the war-game approach to the tactical problems, I wonder if a alternate ending could still be salvaged from an academic perspective and “War-Daddy” can survive to VE day and then of course off to Korea in a M-26 Pershing shell slapping Commie T-76’s around, Yee Ha, Lets All Rewrite!
 
Fury has been on STARZ the past couple of weeks, so I've watched it several times.

Despite the goofy ending, the commanding officer gave War Daddy an order to hold that crossroad as there was a defenseless field hospital or something to that effect that would have been overrun by the Germans.

So he was obeying a direct order.

Much like SPR, each time I've watched it, I pick up on something new.

All in all, it was a very good movie IMO.
 
Hussar4Hussies said:
Maybe we should all do a rewrite of the ending and then vote on the best one, I took the DC comic approach courtesy of my childhood favorite comic book, GI Combat, but I do like your Sahara ending too!

How would you end the movie, or if you were War Daddy what would you do, maybe even the SS commander, that would make an interesting tactical war game too, I wonder if a scenario has been published yet.

I am thinking how the win factors would contribute to realistic play, hmm the SS would have to move off the board in enough numbers to continue the attack on the rear echelon troops, and the Sherman crew would need to stop them without getting killed to the last action hero.

I do like the ideal of a tank bone yard rushing to make repairs on a damaged tank to continue the fight, maybe for each turn a dice roll would constitute repairs completed and infantry solders collected, Sgt Rock style of course, or even maybe Nick Fury and his Hollowing Commandoes.

I like the war-game approach to the tactical problems, I wonder if a alternate ending could still be salvaged from an academic perspective and “War-Daddy” can survive to VE day and then of course off to Korea in a M-26 Pershing shell slapping Commie T-76’s around, Yee Ha, Lets All Rewrite!
Click to expand...

G.I. Combat ( Haunted Tank ), Army at War ( Sgt. Rock ), The Losers ( Gunner and Sarge, etc. ) were all classics for me, growing up. Unfortunately, most of the comics' solution to the ending plot holes in Fury, would not have been much better. Sarge ,Bulldozer, Wildman and Ice Cream soldier would have held the crossroads by their lonesome, or the Stuart would have blown up the Tiger with one shot, allowing the U.S. column to arrive intact, etc. etc. etc.:tongue: Michael
 
We are talking abut MOVIES here and not historical documentaries, a college thesis; or a lecture. The ONLY function of a movie must provide is entertainment.

Contrary to almost every thread in this folder I liked "Gods and Generals"; "The Patriot"; "Fury"; "Texas Rising","Pearl Harbor"; John Wayne at the "ALAMO" and many others that were as historical accurate as a Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd cartoon. Still they were fun to watch and I was able to crash for a few hours. I've watch Charleston Hesston in Midway a dozen or more times. Wrong Planes, Wrong ships, Wrong ......

The goal of Hollywood is to make movies that make money .... BIG money. Making an historically accurate movie (most likely) will not result in an exciting and top grossing movie.

Hummmm .. I'll think I'll get my ZULU movie out and watch the 24th Foot sing .... "Men of Harlech".

DON'T anyone tell me that's not accurate ...^&grin :mad: :mad:

--- LaRRy
 
Warrior said:
Fury has been on STARZ the past couple of weeks, so I've watched it several times.

Despite the goofy ending, the commanding officer gave War Daddy an order to hold that crossroad as there was a defenseless field hospital or something to that effect that would have been overrun by the Germans.

So he was obeying a direct order.

Much like SPR, each time I've watched it, I pick up on something new.

All in all, it was a very good movie IMO.
Click to expand...

George:

I have watched it a few times now as well. And like you I pick up something new each time I watch it.

The scene in the small hamlet is full of tidbits. Last time I watched it I noticed that when the MG42 fires from the basement it literally tears the leg off of one of the US infantrymen. I also noticed that during the fight with the Tiger, one of the shots from a Sherman bounces off the ground and goes flying into the air before it even gets to the Tiger. I had previously that that it ricocheted off of the front plate.

-Jason
 
Fury is certainly a movie that repays multiple viewings. Like others on here, I see new details with each viewing as once you have seen what the director wants you to watch, you can study the secondary details off to the sides and background. I am very impressed with the acting and all the military detail even though the story has a few problems. I like the Sherman vs Tiger fight more and more each time I see it. I am impressed by the filthy grittiness of all the US troops involved and the very used condition of their equipment. Patton would have had a stroke if he had inspected these troops and tanks. And still, after all I find to like in this movie (and that is about everything), I can't swallow the final stand. Nothing about it rings true but I have learned to overlook it in order to enjoy the movie. -- Al
 
lancer said:
Fury is certainly a movie that repays multiple viewings. Like others on here, I see new details with each viewing as once you have seen what the director wants you to watch, you can study the secondary details off to the sides and background. I am very impressed with the acting and all the military detail even though the story has a few problems. I like the Sherman vs Tiger fight more and more each time I see it. I am impressed by the filthy grittiness of all the US troops involved and the very used condition of their equipment. Patton would have had a stroke if he had inspected these troops and tanks. And still, after all I find to like in this movie (and that is about everything), I can't swallow the final stand. Nothing about it rings true but I have learned to overlook it in order to enjoy the movie. -- Al
Click to expand...

Al:

[SPOILER ALERT]

Not that I was rooting for the villain but the one part of the end that I did enjoy was the German sniper slowly making his way towards Fury. You knew War Daddy was probably going to die at that point but it still had some anticipation to it.

-Jason
 
Panzer ace said:
Al:

[SPOILER ALERT]

Not that I was rooting for the villain but the one part of the end that I did enjoy was the German sniper slowly making his way towards Fury. You knew War Daddy was probably going to die at that point but it still had some anticipation to it.

-Jason
Click to expand...
It was a suspenseful part but it was obvious that the German sniper didn't adhere to the "one shot, one kill" mantra of the military sniper.:wink2: -- Al
 
lancer said:
It was a suspenseful part but it was obvious that the German sniper didn't adhere to the "one shot, one kill" mantra of the military sniper.:wink2: -- Al
Click to expand...

So true, Hollywood license got in the way. 2 shots is way more dramatic than 1.
 
Panzer ace said:
So true, Hollywood license got in the way. 2 shots is way more dramatic than 1.
Click to expand...

and it still did not take him out. Real Hollywood. I know taking out 100 of my buddies, looking under the tank I would have given the other culprit the thumbs up too, not.{eek3}^&confuse, Robin.
 
What is with the horses too? The movies first scene involves a German cavalry officer, later they show a picture of a refugee hacking away pieces of a dead horse (presumably for food), Gordo tells a story about horses at the breakfast with the German women and a German cavalry rider is the focus of the Germans who march past the knocked out fury near the end.
 
lancer said:
Fury is certainly a movie that repays multiple viewings. Like others on here, I see new details with each viewing as once you have seen what the director wants you to watch, you can study the secondary details off to the sides and background. I am very impressed with the acting and all the military detail even though the story has a few problems. I like the Sherman vs Tiger fight more and more each time I see it. I am impressed by the filthy grittiness of all the US troops involved and the very used condition of their equipment. Patton would have had a stroke if he had inspected these troops and tanks. And still, after all I find to like in this movie (and that is about everything), I can't swallow the final stand. Nothing about it rings true but I have learned to overlook it in order to enjoy the movie. -- Al
Click to expand...
Watched this again this AM, and don't have much to add to the above but I really like the Sherman-Tiger shootout more and more every time I see it. It is just so well done, even with the question as to why the Tiger would leave cover to engage in the open. The action brings to the fore just how formidable the Tigers were as fighting machines and just how formidable the Allied tank crews were when faced with such opposition. It is one of the great duels in movie history. -- Al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top