Hovned31
Senior Member
The BEAST is an underrated gem. It seems to be virtually unknown outside of military history buff circles.
Fury Review
- Thread starter Blackcloud6
- Start date
kawaiku
Member
Thanks for the heads up. I'll be keeping an eye for that one.
anzac74
Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Chelmsford,Essex,UK
- First name
- Paco
- Country
-
Couldn't agree more. Fury was a disappointment... at the end of it I couldn't help thinking of The Beast
kawaiku
Member
I would say the ending was a disappointment. I didn't mind most of the movie but that last battle was just...errr... quite pitiful.
kynken
Senior Member
You know what, I saw that movie years and years ago. It does warrent a second look. Thanks for reminding me.
Reckall
Member
Let's see the opinion of this armchair general about the battle against the Tiger.
- The Tiger fires at the LAST tank of the column, thus avoiding that flames and smoke from a more advanced tank could obscure the rest of the targets. The surviving American tanks do exactly this: they retreat trying to get concealment from the smoke coming from the wreck.
- The Americans fire smoke ammo, blinding the Tiger. At this point the battle becomes a stone-paper-scissor one. The Tiger commander is in a conundrum: what are the Americans doing? Retreating or charging trying to close the distance? At the end the Tiger attacks and aces another Sherman (my girlfriend said that the scene reminded her of a charge of armoured knights).
- The two remaining Shermans attack left and right, trying to bracket the Tiger. Bad dice rolls are made by both sides (IIRC, the third Sherman dies because either the Fury misses a crucial shot or they were still reloading).
- The Tiger actually tries to avoid a rear shot, counting more on the rotation speed of its gun (which was low in Tigers). Still it glances the Fury, damaging the electric turret rotation. Again, bad dice rolls are made by both parts. I believe it is realistic: just think to be there.
- Someone said that the Tiger could increase the relative rotation speed of his turret by rotating the hull, too. But remember how Bible says that they are going *too fast* for him to place a precise shot. Wardaddy changes the way the Sherman maneuvers, so to slow the relative rotation. The German commander, instead, makes a mistake, counting more on the sheer speed of rotation of his gun.
- Bible fires and MISSES. At this point Wardaddy decides to call the shot. Inside the tank Gordo sees that the Tiger gun is almost lined with them and screams to fire. Wardaddy orders to stay steady, then, all of sudden, calls for Gordo to rotate the hull for a last time and to Bible to fire. They hit the Tiger twice, kill the crew and win.
So, where is the videogame? Sure, there is the big mistake of the penetrating distance (700 meters was enough for the Fury gun) but I accepted it for a cinematic reason: by "cutting the distances" the spatial geography of the battle becomes more clear to the uninitiated. Realistic distances would have seen little silhouettes of tanks in the distance and vehicles exploding just because.
Small note: nothing implies that Norman "becomes a man" after bedding the German girl. If anything, his behaviour before having sex and the body language of both after their meeting suggest that he is already quite good with women. Some boys "become men" quite early. I remember a lot of examples in my high-school.
- The Tiger fires at the LAST tank of the column, thus avoiding that flames and smoke from a more advanced tank could obscure the rest of the targets. The surviving American tanks do exactly this: they retreat trying to get concealment from the smoke coming from the wreck.
- The Americans fire smoke ammo, blinding the Tiger. At this point the battle becomes a stone-paper-scissor one. The Tiger commander is in a conundrum: what are the Americans doing? Retreating or charging trying to close the distance? At the end the Tiger attacks and aces another Sherman (my girlfriend said that the scene reminded her of a charge of armoured knights).
- The two remaining Shermans attack left and right, trying to bracket the Tiger. Bad dice rolls are made by both sides (IIRC, the third Sherman dies because either the Fury misses a crucial shot or they were still reloading).
- The Tiger actually tries to avoid a rear shot, counting more on the rotation speed of its gun (which was low in Tigers). Still it glances the Fury, damaging the electric turret rotation. Again, bad dice rolls are made by both parts. I believe it is realistic: just think to be there.
- Someone said that the Tiger could increase the relative rotation speed of his turret by rotating the hull, too. But remember how Bible says that they are going *too fast* for him to place a precise shot. Wardaddy changes the way the Sherman maneuvers, so to slow the relative rotation. The German commander, instead, makes a mistake, counting more on the sheer speed of rotation of his gun.
- Bible fires and MISSES. At this point Wardaddy decides to call the shot. Inside the tank Gordo sees that the Tiger gun is almost lined with them and screams to fire. Wardaddy orders to stay steady, then, all of sudden, calls for Gordo to rotate the hull for a last time and to Bible to fire. They hit the Tiger twice, kill the crew and win.
So, where is the videogame? Sure, there is the big mistake of the penetrating distance (700 meters was enough for the Fury gun) but I accepted it for a cinematic reason: by "cutting the distances" the spatial geography of the battle becomes more clear to the uninitiated. Realistic distances would have seen little silhouettes of tanks in the distance and vehicles exploding just because.
Small note: nothing implies that Norman "becomes a man" after bedding the German girl. If anything, his behaviour before having sex and the body language of both after their meeting suggest that he is already quite good with women. Some boys "become men" quite early. I remember a lot of examples in my high-school.
Last edited:
Michael Dorosh
der Spieß des Forums
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 15,733
- Reaction score
- 2,765
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- First name
- Michael
- Country
-
That's great, if you went to high school in 1944. William Manchester wrote about his experiences in "Goodbye Darkness" which were - unique - and seemed more in tune with the repression of the time.
The more disturbing implication in the movie, which is an insult to veterans of that era, was that he "became a man" on murdering an unarmed prisoner. Even more ridiculous, he wasn't only goaded into it by a veteran NCO, but *physically assisted* into doing so. There is no doubt that American soldiers killed prisoners on occasion - the massacres on Sicily and at Dachau are well known matters of public record. But when movie after movie present it as a "rite of passage" (there was a similar scene in Saving Private Ryan where Upham "becomes a man" by shooting Steamboat Willie), the historical record becomes distorted with regards to how it happened, and why.
Last edited:
Reckall
Member
I fully agree and, when I watched that scene, I was amazed by the open war crime. More than that, the German (*) was selected because he wore an American coat - while all around him the Americans where harvesting German medals and other decorations.
Yet, you are right the same scene happens in "Saving Private Ryan": the German soldier kills the doctor, another soldier and Tom Hanks (I don't think that by now it is a spoiler :0) ) in regular combat (BTW the first time it was his squad who was attacked by Tom Hanks' one) only to be killed in cold blood after he surrenders at the end of the movie. And no one called for a war crime. I wonder if we should dig deeper in the American war literature: my guess is that not many people like to write about these episodes - if they were more common than usually believed.
However, I usually see these scenes as the behaviour of one character, not as the portrayal of a whole army. Many hints show how Brad Pitt was both a veteran of WWI (thus the 50 years of age and his WWI handgun) and had a nervous breakdown bordering on psychotic towards SS soldiers. I took that scene as a symbol of both the above and his obsession to keep his crew alive.
(*) Marginal Note: IMHO the actor who played the German soldier was very good in the two minutes he had on screen. This made the scene even more disgusting.
aiabx
Same as it ever was
Interesting discussion. I have two observations:
There was also the summary execution of the SS officer who had been forcing children into battle with death threats (which he carried out). No one seems to have cared much about his death, although it was technically just as illegal as the other prisoner murder. I was happy to see him killed, and that kind of thing usually bugs me. A good filmmaker can mess with your head.
My second thought comes from a lot of reading; nothing angers soldiers more than capturing an enemy soldier with looted gear, whether coats, boots or medals, because they know it came from a dead comrade. It's usually worse when it's a piece of clothing which might disguise the side they're on. I don't recall it being explicitly mentioned, but I thought it was obvious that the prisoner was executed for being caught in American uniform.
There was also the summary execution of the SS officer who had been forcing children into battle with death threats (which he carried out). No one seems to have cared much about his death, although it was technically just as illegal as the other prisoner murder. I was happy to see him killed, and that kind of thing usually bugs me. A good filmmaker can mess with your head.
My second thought comes from a lot of reading; nothing angers soldiers more than capturing an enemy soldier with looted gear, whether coats, boots or medals, because they know it came from a dead comrade. It's usually worse when it's a piece of clothing which might disguise the side they're on. I don't recall it being explicitly mentioned, but I thought it was obvious that the prisoner was executed for being caught in American uniform.
Dr Zaius
Chief Defender of the Faith
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 8,902
- Reaction score
- 408
- Location
- The Forbidden Zone
- First name
- Don
- Country
-
I haven't seen this movie, but wearing the uniform of the enemy as a ruse is explicitly forbidden by the law of land warfare. Regardless what the "modern" interpretation of the Geneva Convention protections may be, if you are captured on the battlefield wearing the uniform of the enemy, expect to be summarily executed as a spy or an illegal combatant because that's most likely what is going to happen. Your "rights" mean exactly bupkis at that point.
aiabx
Same as it ever was
Given the context of the film, I don't think it was meant as a ruse; he was fighting with an organized German unit in the line in miserable weather. I think he was wearing an American coat because he was cold and wet. Either way, he was in big trouble, and he gave his killers a legal reason to kill him.
Reckall
Member
I think that the German soldier behaviour would merit a deeper check of the laws of war of the time. For example, from the moment I saw the scene I had two objections:
- The German wore an American coat, but also a lot of German equipment (helmet, trousers, boots...) - hardly a "disguise". Was the coat enough to condemn him to death? Where was the line? What about an helmet? In the movie we see German helmets wore as a trophy by many American soldiers.
- Shouldn't the German soldier be tried by a war tribunal or at least a MP unit? Were normal line soldiers allowed to kill disguised enemies? (after they surrended, of course). I honestly don't know the laws of the American Army regarding this in the 1940s.
- The German wore an American coat, but also a lot of German equipment (helmet, trousers, boots...) - hardly a "disguise". Was the coat enough to condemn him to death? Where was the line? What about an helmet? In the movie we see German helmets wore as a trophy by many American soldiers.
- Shouldn't the German soldier be tried by a war tribunal or at least a MP unit? Were normal line soldiers allowed to kill disguised enemies? (after they surrended, of course). I honestly don't know the laws of the American Army regarding this in the 1940s.
Dave68124
Elder Member
I keep on reading the reviews and sway back and forth between needing to rent the movie to watch it or wait until it comes out on Netflix. I guess a simple question - Is it worth renting or save my $5 and wait until it is free?
Blackcloud6
Elder Member
Fury is an enjoyable movie while you watch it if your purposely shut your brain off. It is well filmed and acted (in spite of the terrible script). The dinner scene is downright stupid as the story of the boy becoming a man in war (which is one of the story lines) fails miserably. But the action is cool (albeit the tactics are the most laughable I've seen in awhile). You can enjoy the ride. But later, when you start thinking about it, you think, man, that was dumb film. It is so easy to pick apart. But the best actor in the movie is the Sherman with a good supporting actor: the Tiger. The other actors were, well, over the top mainly due to the direction. Fun to watch, terrible to think about and it had so much potential.
One of the problems with the movie, was that it took modern day personalities and their dialog and put them in WWII and you could feel there was a mismatch.
Reckall
Member
I liked it a lot and I think it is one of the best war movies ever made. The level of detail is unreal. A whole American field hospital (from the wounded to the nurses) is recreated so that it can be shown for all of FIVE SECONDS while the Fury enters a CP. There is a lot of bawl over the internet about this or that being "unrealistic", but if you pay attention you see how most of the objection actually have a very simple and realistic explanation - see my analysis of the battle against the Tiger (of course bawling and paying attention are mutually exclusive :0) ).
True, some scenes are "Hollywood" (the Germans still can't shoot, but the Americans are only a bit better - anyway at the end of the movie German player threw his dice in a nearby river...), but I had problems with only a small bunch. I don't think I'll spoil anything when I say that a particular girl had the red laser target of a tactical nuke fixed between her eyes from the very second she appears. However, the movie is basically "Das Boot" on a tank, but the complete version of "Das Boot" had six hours to tell its story (it originally was a TV Miniseries) while "Fury" has to compress everything in little more than two hours.
The only thing I really didn't like is that a crucial battle is against the SS. Had it been against the Wehrmacht I feel it would have made for a better scene: people called to fight by their country against people not different from them (we already saw the kids in the Volksturm and I appreciated how the movie doesn't closes his eyes on the fact that they can be dangerous as any other recruit - and maybe more, because you can fatally exitate when you see a kid). The SS leader even says (to motivate his men) something like "We are fighting on our land!" or such. A Nazi would have said "We are fighting for the Fuehrer!" or some other propaganda of this kind. That line of dialogue made me think that the director deleted with a pen stroke "Wehrmacht" and wrote "SS" nearby.
For once I would like not to blame the German soldiers for doing their duty, instead of hating them.
Pity that you missed it on the big screen. I saw it in Paris (in English) on one of the biggest screens in Europe, but what made it was the sound. The rumble of the tanks is nothing; many a time you see the enemy fire (both German and American) coming towards you, and if the theater is well equipped you hear the whistle and the roar of the shots pass around your head. I hope that the blue-ray and my 7.1 headphones will be able to return at least part of the experience.
Last edited:
Dave68124
Elder Member
Thanks. Looks like I will have to rent it and watch it on the big screen in the basement with surround sound.
kynken
Senior Member
How come when the SS troops were marching and singing, many of them had panzerfausts slinging on their shoulder, yet not used first?
Reckall
Member
It is an FAQ, but to me the answer is quite simple:
Lets imagine that we saw the "truth" -i.e. lots of panzerfausts at the beginning but only a crate (notice the point: a crate) at the end. What I thought was that the panzerfausts were needed for a nearby battle (remember when Jason Isaacs pointed on the map how near the crossroad the tank division was moving towards Berlin? IMHO, the panzerfausts were moved towards this battle, while the rest of the battalion moved toward the crossroads. I considered it an example of "fog of war": the SS did't expect four tanks (then reduced to one) guarding the crossroad, and tried an end run towards the division rear - defended only by truck drivers and cooks.
Lets imagine that we saw the "truth" -i.e. lots of panzerfausts at the beginning but only a crate (notice the point: a crate) at the end. What I thought was that the panzerfausts were needed for a nearby battle (remember when Jason Isaacs pointed on the map how near the crossroad the tank division was moving towards Berlin? IMHO, the panzerfausts were moved towards this battle, while the rest of the battalion moved toward the crossroads. I considered it an example of "fog of war": the SS did't expect four tanks (then reduced to one) guarding the crossroad, and tried an end run towards the division rear - defended only by truck drivers and cooks.
kynken
Senior Member
I see your point, but I don't think it is one of the best ever made. That is a loaded statement. It was good, for what it was. But I was able to guess the ending about the time they took out the tiger tank. I would love to see a war film that doesn't use a tiger tank. But I respect your comments. Hey, my family is from Milan
macrobo
King of Boxcars
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,266
- Reaction score
- 623
- Location
- Geelong Melbourne
- First name
- Rob
- Country
-
Hi all
It just came out for only 10 Aussie dollars here as an UV DVD kit?(thank goodness the pacifists! dropped the price and would not but it) - I bought it and the details on the armor are very much worth the watch! - the movie plot and the non battle scenes are trash.
I would watch it again and skip the rubbish "brad-pit" scenes - he does humor much better - for 3 very detailed scenes with camera shots of tanks of that vintage shooting and moving :smoke: - it is worth the money - no other visual display exists for those concepts that I am aware of.
So my vote is buy it - its cheap now anyway
Rob :clown:
It just came out for only 10 Aussie dollars here as an UV DVD kit?(thank goodness the pacifists! dropped the price and would not but it) - I bought it and the details on the armor are very much worth the watch! - the movie plot and the non battle scenes are trash.
I would watch it again and skip the rubbish "brad-pit" scenes - he does humor much better - for 3 very detailed scenes with camera shots of tanks of that vintage shooting and moving :smoke: - it is worth the money - no other visual display exists for those concepts that I am aware of.
So my vote is buy it - its cheap now anyway
Rob :clown: