Semi OT: "Fury" (2014) movie...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Semi OT: "Fury" (2014) movie...


After 2+ weeks of nasty cold / flu (just right in the middle of Christmas / New Year holidays ) for both my spouse and me - we finally went to movies - we watched:

"Fury" (2014
"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" (2014)


The "Hobbit" was fine movie (just like previous two "Hobbits" and three "The Lord of The Rings") if you love Tolkien books and fantasy / SF - and we both do.

We knew what to expect from it and we got just what we wanted!

Some of our "purist" Tolkien fans hate the Jackson way for "The Lord of The Rings" and "Hobbits" but I have no problem with his deviation from original Tolkien books - all 6 movies were great fun to watch and nice addition to fantasy genre IMHO.


But "Fury"... I don't know where to start... my wife was simply stunned to see how furious I was after watching "Fury"... [&:] [:(] [:@]

I simply think it was overdone in the most poor Hollywood style just like "Red Tails" (2012)... the combat scenes I don't even want to mention (all of them: small town assault, dash over the field vs. dug in infantry / ATs, Tiger battle and final battle)...


What did you guys think about "Fury" (2014)?


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
I know of Audie Murphy and his CMoH achievement but that was completely different situation not comparable to "Fury" (2014) movie at all.

P.P.S
I apologize if this was discussed earlier - I was not that much on the forums in past weeks.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
I apologize if this was discussed earlier - I was not that much on the forums in past weeks.

Hi Leo,

Yes-there was considerable discussion about "Fury" closer to the time it came out. In fairness, I would say that most thought it had its flaws, but was overall a good film. I don't think the majority thought it was rubbish like Red Tails or TMTSNBN.

Personally, I thought it good. Whilest some aspects of the combat scenes were far fetched, if taken as a summary of similar encounters (kind of a rolling average) in the war, it was kind of plausible. For example, an upgunned Sherman tank surprising a battalion of SS troops in echelon march formation (were that possible) whilest they were singing songs would likely shred them. No, not all of them, but it would do very considerable damage. Particularly to any light vehicles that they had. Well, that's what happened in the movie, just "not exactly" in the most realistic manner. [8D]

Haven't seen "Five Armies" yet, hopefully this week.

[m10bob]

If you are like me at all, you feel a need for a continuous "fix" of military/history films, and appreciate Hollyweird making the recent attempts, (but really HATE all the drama queen moments replete with soul-searching,etc.)

For a good armor flick, I suggest an older film called "The Tanks Are Coming" starring Stephen Cochran...made in the fifties I believe. It portrays a single M4e8 crew in Europe but also shows accurateness in deployment, dealing with dragons teeth, etc, and how the tank crewmen felt about the need for larger guns on their equipment.

[crsutton]

Kind of nice to see a tank working. Technically a good enough film but otherwise Hollywood pap. Veteran German soldiers with panzerfausts would make quick work of an immobilized tank without support and probably not suffer a casualty in return. Reminded me of my old Sergeant Rock Comic books. The thing is, the film might entertain but not one single soul is going to leave the theater with any greater understanding of WWII and tank combat. That is the shame.

There is another thread here about Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories. That is about as plausible as anything I saw in "Fury." [;)]

[castor troy]

Horribly unrealistic, just as it would be expected coming out of blockbuster land. I got no clue why I was spending the 10 EUR for the ticket but I am sure it would have been better invested into three beers at the bar next door to the cinema.

It's really a shame that ppl responsible to spend hundreds of million USD to produce a movie of 120 min aren't able to do it better, can't be that hard to stay on a realistic path. John Rambo in WWII [8|]

[mind_messing]

I liked it.

Then again, I can suspend my disbelief for the sake of enjoying a movie. I can overlook some implausibility in tatics or get over the fact that tank X had the wrong suspension for that time.

Horribly unrealistic, just as it would be expected coming out of blockbuster land. I got no clue why I was spending the 10 EUR for the ticket but I am sure it would have been better invested into three beers at the bar next door to the cinema.

It's really a shame that ppl responsible to spend hundreds of million USD to produce a movie of 120 min aren't able to do it better, can't be that hard to stay on a realistic path. John Rambo in WWII

"Realistic" war movies are very hard to sell.

About the only recent one that comes to mind as doing well in the box office was "Assembly". Even then, that was only because it peddled to the Chinese domestic market.

[Numdydar]

If you really want some appalling combat scenes (along with wrong dates and Tigers and Panthers in '41) the Imitation Game is hard to beat. Fortunately these were very brief (less than 3-4 minutes spread out in the entire film)so it did not distract too muich from the rest of a very good movie.

[JocMeister]

Havn´t seen it yet. But since my expectations will be to watch an action movie set in WW2 I´ll probably end up enjoying it.

Its all about the expectations you place on a movie. If you want realism Hollywood is usually not the place to look... [:D]

[KenchiSulla]

+1 to what JocMeister said...

Usually the war series are more plausible (Band of Brothers, the Pacific)...

[geofflambert]

There are two types of films relevant to this I would discuss. The first is realistic movies that are also great, as “All Quiet on the Western Front” in this genre. I think that is the most realistic war movie ever made. For instance, I don’t remember any portraying the sound of incoming artillery shells correctly. The first thing you hear is the explosion. Next you hear the aerial scream from the end to the beginning; a sound beginning with a lower note rising to a higher note because the incoming shell is multi supersonic, the whole sequence is reversed. Obviously “Fury” does not fall into this category.

The second type is to film what Homer, Dante and Shakespeare are to literature. A friend of mine who is a fan of such movies calls them “dream flicks”. Generally something or things occur which are clearly impossible or highly improbable and symbolize something hopefully profound and allegorical and should be considered one of the character’s dream (or nightmare). Sometimes there are more than one dreamer when you see things from their separate perspectives. Kurosawa’s “Rashomon” is an example. Hitchcock, Bergman and Spielberg made many such movies. Great ones include “Cape Fear” (both versions) “Vertigo”, “The Birds”, “Jaws”, “Back to the Future” (the first one only), and “The Wizard of Oz”. I believe “Empire of the Sun” and “Bridge on the River Kwai” fall into this category. A not so great example would be “The Matrix”. Usually I have to see a film three or more times to figure it out. Was “Fury” an attempt at making such a film? Possibly, but for now I wouldn’t put it in the ‘great’ category.

As for “The Hobbit”, I think it’s preposterous that Jackson got three films out of that little fast-read. One should have been plenty. On the other hand, I was surprised at how well done that monster trilogy “Lord of the Rings” came out. Money, money, money.

[BattleMoose]

I enjoyed Fury up until the tank drove over the anti-tank mine. For me, that was the moment the movie went from good to utterly ridiculous and Hollywoody. (I was able to sufficiently suspend belief for the assault across the open field)

The idea of Brad Pitt, driving his tank into Germany, and having the audacity to claim to be defending his home and how he wouldn't abandon his tank was just, it made me throw up in my mouth. And having German soldiers charge uselessly at a tank and after 20 minutes of this did they choose to use panzerfauts... Just pure nonsense.

I am curious what people think about the Tiger battle scene. From my perspective it seemed to be not too bad. Perhaps over exaggerating how close the Shermans needed to be to penetrate from the side or rear, but penetrate they did. The most unrealistic part of the whole scene I felt was the scenario, that there would be a Tiger, all alone, by itself just sitting.

[tigercub]

2 stars from me.

why did the tiger even move at 1k the 88mm can hit a 12inch target with 99% acc, tanks of this time did not fire on the move much... the movie sucked for me but there plenty of people who will love it.

Tiger

[crsutton]

Watch this one. Plenty of authentic weaponry and a much more plausible story. Made in East Germany so a bit whitewashed but an excellent film none the less.

http://www.setscene.org/movie-n-199-nin ... -1968-ger/

[geofflambert]

Is there a full movie? I can only find short clips.

[wdolson]

You can buy it on Amazon, but the price is a bit on the high side.

Bill

[crsutton]

I got it from Netflixs, (DVD not streaming) so it is out there.

[tigercub]

crsutton thx ill grab a copy!

Tiger

[JocMeister]

Just saw it. Given my expectations were ridiculously low I thought I might enjoy it. I was wrong.

Probably one of the silliest movies I have seen. The plot (if you can even call it that) is so old and worn out its just sad.

[Ddog]

Movies are nothing but entertainment. If it was supposed to be realistic it would have been a Documentary or Reenactment. The director John Ford once said "Never let the facts get in the way of a good movie." With all that being said, I still have issues with the movies and realism that are based on historical battles etc., but I chalk it up to entertainment value.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Ddog

Movies are nothing but entertainment. If it was supposed to be realistic it would have been a Documentary or Reenactment. The director John Ford once said "Never let the facts get in the way of a good movie." With all that being said, I still have issues with the movies and realism that are based on historical battles etc., but I chalk it up to entertainment value.

Sadly there was nothing good about the movie. So he failed in both aspects. It was truly a horrible movie from both a movie and realism perspective.