Fury Review

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
This thing is infuriating garbage.

If somebody wants a watched-once blu ray cheap pm me.
 

soggycrow

Polish Submariner
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
991
Reaction score
26
Location
Northern Virginia
Country
llPoland
I do like tanks, and they say the tiger is for real. That's worth a look but only at Netflix prices.
 

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
llUnited States
Is it less realistic than Kelly's Heroes or is there something else about it that sucks?
 

Blind Sniper

Diversamente magro...
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
634
Reaction score
48
Location
Turin
Country
llItaly
I just watched it yesterday night, oh well Kelly's Heroes was fun at least!

I found it pointless, of course made by Hollywood therefore great special effects and good actors but very poor story, the locations were realistic but all battles no, the final one is a total nonsense.
Most of the dialogues can be sum up with: kill, drink, ****, this is the war.
Boring and tactical speaking irrealistic.
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
634
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
Is it less realistic than Kelly's Heroes or is there something else about it that sucks?
It was probably slightly more realistic than Kelly's Heroes - it looked very realistic and there was less of the "Arr - ya got me!" posing when people got shot.
But I think it was sold on the premise of being realistic, so it doesn't get the willing suspension of disbelief I give to Kelly's Heroes. And without that, the errors really stick in my craw.
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
181
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
Finally watched this last night. Hmmm.....not a very good movie. Put it in the category of Battle of the Bulge quality of war movie. Some scenes were good, but the ultimate scene at the end was pretty cheesy with the lighting and killing scores of Germans like an old fashion cowboys and indian movie. What was up with the PF shot at the end that went through the loader. Ok, maybe an AP round would do that, but that is a HEAT round.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,630
Reaction score
3,244
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
Seems like Pitt likes WWII movies. Maybe somebody should explain to him why shooting prisoners is a bad idea.
 
Last edited:

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The days of movies like A Bridge Too Far are probably over.
One recent film "Fortress of War", a Russian film about the Soviet defence of Brest, though subtitled, is well worth watching. While there is a nationalistic slant it's not particularly intrusive, for a war film anyway.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Finally watched this last night. Hmmm.....not a very good movie. Put it in the category of Battle of the Bulge quality of war movie. Some scenes were good, but the ultimate scene at the end was pretty cheesy with the lighting and killing scores of Germans like an old fashion cowboys and indian movie. What was up with the PF shot at the end that went through the loader. Ok, maybe an AP round would do that, but that is a HEAT round.
While I have not seen it yet, HEAT produces a semi-fluid slug that takes some distance to disperse/disrupt. Along with the armour spall there is a chance of a significant lump remaining to splatter someone. In general most of the anti personnel effect is from small particles and high temperature.
 

JOKippe

Also known as The Rat
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
398
Reaction score
47
Location
The Confederacy
Country
llUnited States
"Battle of the Bulge" is on my list of worst war movies ever.
Certainly a disappointing film, but I'd have to say that Breakthrough (1979) is worse, being a "sequel" to Cross of Iron and all.
Kubrick's Fear and Desire is even more worse, and the most worst I ever saw was a horrible film called Battle of Blood Island (1960).
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
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.
The Geneva Convention actually protects the right of soldiers to wear enemy uniforms as a legtimate ruse d'guerre. You are not, however, permitted to fight in them. The history of the Brandenburg Commandos discusses this question of legality in detail. Whether soldiers in the field are aware of these distinctions or not is of course another story. I presume the German soldiers captured in the Ardennes while wearing American uniforms were actually fighting when captured. Though perhaps there would be interesting definitions of "fighting" as well.

IIRC the situation was compared to the naval situation of flying a false flag to gain a tactical advantage, but not being permitted to openly fight while flying the false flag. I believe the British did this at St. Nazaire. HMS Campbeltown was modified to look like a German warship, and flew the Kriegsmarine battle flag on entry to the harbour area. When the fight began, she took down the German flag and the Royal Navy ensign was raised.
 

soggycrow

Polish Submariner
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
991
Reaction score
26
Location
Northern Virginia
Country
llPoland
Fury is out on cable now in my house so I just caught the last third or so. Tank disabled at a crossroads. SS company or battalion approaching. Tank crew decides to stay and fight it out. Crock of sh#t. They should have headed for the trees, leaving behind a few booby-trapped German bodies. These Nazis had crates of panzerfausts, which just didn't seem to work very well. And, as has been noted, Wardaddy does just fine with three torso hits from a sniper. In other words, this appears to be an unrealistic war film. But I'll look for the rest of it because I'd like to see that Tiger.
 

soggycrow

Polish Submariner
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
991
Reaction score
26
Location
Northern Virginia
Country
llPoland
Fury is out on cable now in my house so I just caught the last third or so. Tank disabled at a crossroads. SS company or battalion approaching. Tank crew decides to stay and fight it out. Crock of sh#t. They should have headed for the trees, leaving behind a few booby-trapped German bodies. These Nazis had crates of panzerfausts, which just didn't seem to work very well. And, as has been noted, Wardaddy does just fine with three torso hits from a sniper. In other words, this appears to be an unrealistic war film. But I'll look for the rest of it because I'd like to see that Tiger.
Ok. I saw the rest. Overall impression is pretty bad.
 

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
llUnited States
The Geneva Convention actually protects the right of soldiers to wear enemy uniforms as a legtimate ruse d'guerre. You are not, however, permitted to fight in them. The history of the Brandenburg Commandos discusses this question of legality in detail. Whether soldiers in the field are aware of these distinctions or not is of course another story. I presume the German soldiers captured in the Ardennes while wearing American uniforms were actually fighting when captured. Though perhaps there would be interesting definitions of "fighting" as well.
It's a meaningless distinction since military forces, regardless of whatever activities they are carrying out at the time, are considered combat forces as defined by the law of land warfare. If you wear the uniform of the enemy, then it is legitimate for the to assume you are trying to conceal your status as an enemy combatant.

I used to teach the law of land warfare as senior instructor at the Army's largest NCO academy. According to the law of land warfare and US Army field manual FM 27-10, soldiers wearing the uniform of the enemy as a ruse during combat are subject to losing their status as prisoners of war. Basically, if you get captured wearing the uniform of the enemy on a battlefield, expect to be executed as a spy. Which you probably will be. And that's exactly what the class materials provided to me said, that's what we taught, and that's what the soldiers were tested on.

In practice, it has been authorized to make use of national flags, insignia, and uniforms as a ruse. The foregoing rule (HR, art. 23, par. (f)) does not prohibit such employment, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to employ them during combat, but their use at other times is not forbidden.

Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces.
Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of Article 23(f) of the 1907 Hague Regulations are war crimes.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule62
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
It's a meaningless distinction since military forces, regardless of whatever activities they are carrying out at the time, are considered combat forces as defined by the law of land warfare. If you wear the uniform of the enemy, then it is legitimate for the to assume you are trying to conceal your status as an enemy combatant.

I used to teach the law of land warfare as senior instructor at the Army's largest NCO academy. According to the law of land warfare and US Army field manual FM 27-10, soldiers wearing the uniform of the enemy as a ruse during combat are subject to losing their status as prisoners of war. Basically, if you get captured wearing the uniform of the enemy on a battlefield, expect to be executed as a spy. Which you probably will be. And that's exactly what the class materials provided to me said, that's what we taught, and that's what the soldiers were tested on.





https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule62
Here is Article 24 from the convention:

Art. 24.

Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art23


Article 23:

Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
29 & 30

Art. 29.

A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavours to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

Thus, soldiers not wearing a disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of the hostile army, for the purpose of obtaining information, are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: Soldiers and civilians, carrying out their mission openly, entrusted with the delivery of despatches intended either for their own army or for the enemy's army. To this class belong likewise persons sent in balloons for the purpose of carrying despatches and, generally, of maintaining communications between the different parts of an army or a territory.
Art. 30.

A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial.
I don't doubt the United States has chosen to interpret these articles differently than others.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
It is certainly forbidden to employ them during combat, but their use at other times is not forbidden.
This is what I was saying. If you're saying the U.S. Army dismisses the Hague Convention when dealing with legitimate ruse d'guerre - there are probably many chapters of the Hague Convention that are (or have been) interpreted with a wide latitude.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
While I have not seen it yet, HEAT produces a semi-fluid slug that takes some distance to disperse/disrupt. Along with the armour spall there is a chance of a significant lump remaining to splatter someone. In general most of the anti personnel effect is from small particles and high temperature.
Well, no, the panzerfaust had a very large explosive shaped charge. The concussion was terrific. So, if it penetrated armor, like the turret side armor in the movie, it would then have exposed the interior to the focused shaped metal, heat, metal splatter AND concussion (pressure). The sound alone would have debilitated the turret crew. Instead, the slob loader fell into their waiting arms...so touching. The pressure wave in an enclosed space would have taken them out of the fight as far as a 'team'.

The whole movie seemed stupid. Discussions about it just spread the stupidity. Let's talk about the real issue. Pitt doesn't wash himself. I have been inside AFV in the south. They reek. I can't imagine being inside one with a person that doesn't practice hygiene.

I have spoken with many WWII vets. If they surrounded Germans, and they gave them a chance to surrender, and they didn't, well...it just wasn't ending well for them. Sorry ladies, it wasn't pretty.
 
Top