[Closed] Fury (The movie) ***MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT***

Don't watch U-571.

It got a bit ridiculous towards the end, but I liked it.

I enjoyed it. Lots of tanks and big bangs and grotesque injuries (face off anybody?) and that. Proper "war" film.

A female friend did comment that there was too much piano in the piano scene and not enough of Brad with half his kit off.

As for authenticity (as if that matters):

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/oct/24/fury-movie-tank-veteran-sherman-verdict-realistic

I always thought that the "only way for a Sherman to punch a hole in a Tiger tank was up the arse" from "Kelly's Heroes" was some sort of Hollywood plot device. Seems not.

It was a little ridiculous at points, and some of it was unnecessary. Was like they wanted to be gory for the sake of it.

It did get better though, and I thought was just a good sit and watch no thinking war film.

gobuchul

Watching this last night, gave up half way through.

Upper tripe.

I had the misfortune of watching the director's previous film Sabotage with Arnie. I was disappointed when I found out that he directed Fury because the trailer looked ok. Sabotage was so bad, such a car crash of incompetence I decided I never wanted to see another film made by him.

I'll watch it when its cheap. For one moment I don't think it'll be authentic. One ot two of the action sequences maybe but as a whole no.

Its hollywood and artistic licence.

Aye it was a bit crap.

I agree it was twaddle

I really enjoyed it. It showed the horrors of war and the fact that the German tanks were far superior than anything the allies had. Ending was a bit OTT but it is a movie not a documentary.

If you want silly tank films, try Kelly's Heroes...

I was pissed and fell asleep before the end but I think I got the gist and wasn't interested in trying to catch up with it later.

If you want silly tank films, try Kelly's Heroes...

What I said...

the fact that the German tanks were far superior than anything the allies had

Sherman were under armoured/gunned compared to the germans (& russians, but luckily were weren't fighting them) but they didn't break down. Also the majority of the early panzer weren't that great, and IIRC more Sturmgeschütz (non-turreted version) were produced and used than tanks, cause they were cheaper

So yes and no, considering there were tank battles that the germans destroyed more of their own extremely capable but bloody unreliable tanks than the enemy, (so they weren't captured by said enemy)..

Hitler was a 'big is good' nut... I'd always wondered by the allies didn't just take a captured 88 and develop their own version/copy.. the tiger was 'so big' as it was designed around the turret that could house the 88.

Shermans were nicknamed "Ronsons" by the allied troops as just like the lighter they lit first time, every time.

But hey man lets stop all these negative waves.....

[img] [/img]

You forgot to mention that the Tigers were massively thirsty too. One of the biggest issues the German's had was actually getting enough fuel to them to keep them running...

Also, the Tigers (and other weaponry) were so big and complex that they were massively resource hungry to manufacture which lead to issues in itself and shortages of materials and labour to build things that would have actually been far more effective.

.. yeah, but I didn't want to bore you (too much), as we've all seen the battle of the bulge haven't we? (fuel being there weakness, before the planes blew them all up)

what always get me, is the fact that they used prisoners/concentration camp victims to assemble the tanks with complicated/intricate parts... cause that a great idea isn't it

Loved it, end was a bit silly, but a great fun war film.

Sherman were under armoured/gunned compared to the germans

The Sherman was built to fight Panzer III's and IV's.

It could do that quite well.

The Germans developed the Panther and Tiger and put them into production, the US had the M26 Pershing which was armed with a 90mm gun but they decided not to switch production as they feared there would be a loss of output. There was only a small number that saw action in WW2.

Tough decision for the tank crews and it still is debated why that decision was taken.

[Spolier]It was shit, apart for the bit where they all die*.[/Spoiler]

* and then only because it means the film will end soon.

Thanks for that. Prat.

Harry_the_Spider - Member

Thanks for that. Prat.

Lol. Reminds me of going to see the first screening of Matrix Reloaded (which was the most hyped film OF ALL TIME). We went to a pub quiz afterwards and named our team "Matrix Reloaded is Shit and Neo Dies". When the host read out our name about 200 people went apeshit at us.

Thanks for that. Prat.

Trust me, I've not spoiled it.

I thought it was quite good. Ending was a bit much but I thought the fight between the Shermans and the single Tiger was briliant.

Worth the watch but not a classic

The Sherman was built to fight Panzer III's and IV's.

in normandy it was noted that most shermans were lost to mark iv's 75 mm and or the 7.5cm Pak 40 anti tank gun. Allied tankers tended exaggerate/liked to think it was a tiger. Also the allies by the end of the war had Armour-piercing discarding sabot round

In mid-1944 the APDS projectile was first introduced into service for the UK's QF 6 pdr anti-tank gun and later in September 1944 for the 17 pdr anti-tank gun.

A man trained as a typist sent to be a tank gunner? Nonsense.

No its not. Perfectly feasible. My grandad was a shopkeeper who ended up in a tank in WW2

Pants. It couldn't decide if it wanted to be 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Inglorious Basterds.'

Pants. It couldn't decide if it wanted to be 'Saving Private Ryan' or 'Inglorious Basterds.'

This. Its isn't to the standard of the former but Pitt's character reminds you of the latter, despite Fury not supposed to be a dark comedy.

Utterly unrealistic in several places as mentioned above, but even more so at the end when Brad stands outside the tank on the '50 amidst a hail of 42's an other multiu directional gunfire for about 15 minutes without being hit. And the last scene with the Tank surrounded by bodies - the turrent doesn't move fast enough nor the co-ax gun have enough coverage to be able to withstand a multi directonal foot assault of a magnitude much smaller than that.

Its a five-pints-of-beer shoot'em up movie at best.

Kryton57

Utterly unrealistic in several places as mentioned above, but even more so at the end when Brad stands outside the tank on the '50 amidst a hail of 42's an other multiu directional gunfire for about 15 minutes without being hit. And the last scene with the Tank surrounded by bodies - the turrent doesn't move fast enough nor the co-ax gun have enough coverage to be able to withstand a multi directonal foot assault of a magnitude much smaller than that.

Its a five-pints-of-beer shoot'em up movie at best.

You're actually making it sound quite good 🙂

My grandad was a shopkeeper who ended up in a tank in WW2

But the army needed typists to be typists, shopkeepers were generally given other roles, as selling fruit and veg was less required than typing up reports/orders etc.

My grandad was a shopkeeper who ended up in a tank in WW2

Missing the point I think.

Your grandad would of received training in the equipment he was to operate before he was sent to the Front.

The character in the movie does not know how to operate the gun he is responsible for and states that the Army has only trained him how to type.

in normandy it was noted that most shermans were lost to mark iv's 75 mm and or the 7.5cm Pak 40 anti tank gun.

That comes down to the much larger numbers of IV's than VI's. At least the Sherman had a decent chance of taking a IV out at a sensible range. Also, the IV's were very good tanks as well.

Pretty rubbish but better than Sabotage. It's a shame really as I've liked his earlier films. End of Watch in particular was really good I thought, but maybe that wasn't down to the direction so much as his script and the acting.

Be interested to hear if those who weren't fans of Fury liked Interstellar or not?

I liked both, Interstellar particularly, we watched it in a decent cinema and the "Xtreme" aka extra loud, biggest screen version. The sound track was something pretty different.

Reason for asking is I wonder if some people find it a lot harder to suspend disbelief/stop looking for plot holes etc and get into the film? That said I did spot the big red fire extinguisher in one scene of Fury. Pretty major gaff.

Reason for asking is I wonder if some people find it a lot harder to suspend disbelief/stop looking for plot holes etc and get into the film?

I can suspend disbelief etc. for a lot of films.

Fury pissed me off because I had heard Brad Pitt interviewed on Front Row and he was really pushing how much effort they had made to make things realistic and historically accurate. However, it just isn't.

FWIW I like Brad Pitt and actually rate him as an actor.

footflaps - Member
I really enjoyed it. It showed the horrors of war and the fact that the German tanks were far superior than anything the allies had.

Well the Russians were one of the Aliies and had the T-34. It may not have been as technically advanced (possibly by a long shot) as the German tanks but that was part of the problem for Germany. They kept on designing tanks that were too complicated and this reduced their effectiveness. The Russians built tanks that were crude and weren't particularly built to last, but then they didn't need to last that long and they could be built in far greater numbers.

Strength in numbers was also the Sherman's main strength. A Sherman was no match for a Panther or a Tiger but there were dozens of Shermans for each Panther or Tiger.

British tanks spent the whole war trying to catch up to those of other nations. It took a long time to get past the cruiser/infantry tank division and then more time to work out how to get the 17 pounder gun into a tank. When the Centurion finally came along it was probably the best tank in the world, but it arrived too late for the war.

I really liked it, but then I wanted to watch a war film with lots of explosions in it and not a documentary on tanks.

I should add I was home alone (well, kids in bed) with a bottle of gin so anything would have been good past about 9 o'clock!

tonyd - Member

I really liked it, but then I wanted to watch a war film with lots of explosions in it and not a documentary on tanks.

Yeah, this was my take on it.
I did think the end scene was too overblown and silly, but there were loads of great bits in the film too; the Tiger encounter, the shooting on the edge of the woods and the whole scene in the house are the ones that instantly spring to mind.

[i]the whole scene in the house[/i]

Yeah, the tension during that scene was incredible. I think I liked the film more than I originally remembered now you've mentioned that 🙂

Thought Brad made an excellent looking corpse especially after 2 grenades went off in an enclosed space 2 ft away from him!
The Tiger tank used in the film was an actual Tiger rather than a balsa wood covered land rover 😀
It was entertaining, you want an unrealistic film try Robin Hood (2010) where they row some of the landing craft from Saving Private Ryan to shore, I ranted for 20 mins for that!

biglee1 - Member

Thought Brad made an excellent looking corpse especially after 2 grenades went off in an enclosed space 2 ft away from him!

I wasn't going to mention it (spoilers for others and all that), but this was the point when I finally thought, 'yep, there's quite a lot of silliness in amongst all the good bits'.

The grenades bit was a bit odd given that earlier they'd been wiping some guy's face off the innerds using a bucket and rag, which was much more realistic.....

Watched it a few months back & didn't think much of it,kept falling asleep through a lot of it TBH. Watched it the other week to watch the bits I'd missed, not expecting much.I thoroughly enjoyed it this time around...

Saw this the other day, much better than I thought. Did seem unlikely they wouldn't find anyone better than a typist to put in the tank but can't say it was a major snag for me. The last stand at the end did stretch credibility a bit but, as above, it ain't a documentary and the rest of the tank stuff seemed pretty authentic looking to me!
It did bug me though that the grenades didn't seem to make much difference to the state of the tank or anything in it.