Fury Review

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
675
Location
New Baltimore, MI
Country
llUnited States
I went to see Fury last night. (spoilers)

It is a good movie but it really isn't about a WWII tank crew, it is some sort of comic book tactical fantasy. It is well filmed and acted but the script is on the weak side with a typical shave tail Lieutenant (who make a brief appearance) the life-wise tough grizzled Sergeant (Pitt), a hillbilly loader, a baptist gunner and a Mexican-American driver (this one was not typical as the writers didn't research enough to realize that he likely would not have been in a white crew in the 1940s racist army but likely back in the maintenance battalion turning a wrench). And of course the nice boy clerk typist who is about to lose his innocence (both sexually and morally) seeing the horrors of war.

The crew talks like modern day American idiots with "****" said every other word. The story is odd with a long drawn out breakfast/dinner with two German girls that is ruined by the bawdy members of the crew who then break down and cry because they had to shoot wounded horses in the Falaise Pocket. I think that was to endear me to the crew, it didn't.

The fighting scenes are cool, well done but tactically wrong in all respects such as the Germans digging in the infantry just forward of the tree line (and you can't see the sneaky bastards until you are right on top of them), the well placed AT guns always seemed to shoot high while the rolling Shermans (yes I know they had Gyros) shoot back and blast the Nazis to Valhalla.

The Tiger v Sherman platoon action was nicely done but so tactically wrong. A lone tiger is hidden in a woods off tot he flank and blasts a Sherman (sending its turret in the air which is usually not how Shermans died, especially the Wet stowage ones). So the Shermans fire smoke on the Tiger (not a bad idea) and maneuver on him. So the Tiger charges out of the Smoke and we get a battle og 3 v 1 in and open field as the Shermans try to gain a rear shot. But no one consulted my briefing to realize that the the range of this engagement the 76mm AP round would not have bounced but gone right into the Tiger. The awesome Tiger crew frontally kill two Shermans (one on the move no less) but Fury gets behind the Tiger and puts two rounds into the engine and sets the Supertank on fire. I felt they took this right out of one of the poor History Channel shows of Tank vs, Tank. A side turret shot would have worked but I guess Pitt and crew never read the TechInt bulletin on the Tiger. In reality the awesome Tiger crew would have moved after killing the first Sherman, not forward but backwards using the copse of trees to cover their move to the ridge behind them to engage the Shermans from distance. Range was the true advantage of the Tiger.

Now Pitt's Sherman is alone and he decides to continue on and carry out his mission to secure a crossroads and the damned radio decided to stop working at this crucial juncture. They get tot he crossroads, hit a mine, lose a track and are stuck and a battalion of Nazi SS supermen (not bright ones though)are heading them. So we end up with a night long battle of the Fury crew holding of a battalion of infantry (two have two cases of Panzerfausts but didn't read the tactical manual either) and they just can't seem to realize to attack the tank on all flanks at once. But, the Panzerfaust hit to the turret scene is realistic though. The crew ended up getting killed one by one but the new guy survives apparently to tell the story.

As I said, the movie is well filmed (except for the notion of everyone bunching up in road marches and the happy Nazis signing as they approach a battle). Dump any notion of this being historically accurate and enjoy the ride, this is more a film of a depressing issue of The Haunted Tank (complete with swearing) than it is about US Armor in WWII or a heart wrenching story of a crew in arduous combat. But be careful, the producers try to be authoritative with some crappy historical statement at the start of the movie that Americans crews suffered from inferior tanks throughout the war. I loudly coughed "********" in the theater. I give it 3.5 stars because it is filmed well and has tanks in it.
 
Last edited:

ParaMarine

#1 fan of Hungary
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
859
Reaction score
233
Location
Board 77
First name
Big Rick
Country
llUnited States
That sounds about as typical a story as you can possibly have.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,027
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
The days of movies like A Bridge Too Far are probably over.
Good? The movie wasn't very.

I won't go into the inaccuracies of the movie (there were many), and a lot of stereotypes, but I think the overall theme was the un-remitting brutality of war (hence the April 1945 date), and it hammers that home pretty well. I would almost call it an anti-war film.

It is amazing how many tanks the US lost, even as late as 1945. I was reading up on an action in Alsace in January of 1945 where the 12th Armored lost a tank battalion (30+ tanks) in a day. Lost, with only the destroyed tanks around to tell the story. Only after the war when allied prisoners were released did captured survivors tell what happened.
 
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
llCanada
Great review.

I almost walked out of this comic book movie when Brad Pitt decided to "make a man" of the new co-driver by physically co-ercing him into shooting a prisoner. Did Americans kill prisoners during the war? Of course they did. They even had full blown massacres, such as an Siciy and at Dachau. Do I think that what Pitt did could never have happened? I wouldn't say never, but this is at least the second time that a high-profile, big-budget movie has glorified the idea of American troops executing prisoners as a rite of passage. (The other was Upham in Saving Private Ryan.) No doubt prisoners were sometimes killed, perhaps even deliberately, but suggesting that it was done in a Red Dawn kind of "make a man of you" way seems not just dangerous but unfair to the memory of all the GIs who served honorably throughout the war. I am willing to bet it was far more common for a front line infantryman to go through their combat career without shooting a German at all, than to shoot an unarmed one after the battle was over.

It's a shame the movie wasn't better, as the unprecedented access to actual wartime equipment provided them the very real opportunity to tell a mostly ignored story - that of the frontline tank crew in 1944-45.

I agree that the swearing was very anachronistic, tactics silly - and the special effects had me thinking I was watching Star Wars. The long-drawn out dinner scene may have had a point, but it needed some serious editing. Pitt getting hit three times by an 8mm sniper bullet and shaking it all off was stretching the bounds of believability just a tad as well.

Worth seeing once, but I won't be buying the DVD.
 
Last edited:

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
I haven't yet seen it, but Michael makes an interesting point. I don't know it that's an indication there's some type of agenda at work in these films or what.
 

aiabx

Same as it ever was
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
634
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
Two hours is not enough time to make a good war movie. You don't have enough time to get an emotional connection to the characters and some realistic battles in, so you end up with sloppy Hollywood tropes and shortcuts.
The only ways around it I can think is to either make an extended BoB-style miniseries where you have the time to tell the story properly, or make a movie about something else set during wartime (Apocalypse Now, Thin Red Line kinda thing).

I thought Fury was enjoyable crap, and served the purpose of putting visuals in my head for my next late-war ETO ASL game.
 

Blackcloud6

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
675
Location
New Baltimore, MI
Country
llUnited States
Two hours is not enough time to make a good war movie. You don't have enough time to get an emotional connection to the characters and some realistic battles in, so you end up with sloppy Hollywood tropes and shortcuts.
I watched Elysium last night. it could have been a great movie but it wasn't as it was burdened by a poor script. Hollywood wrtining is at an all time low. It is a shame becasue the actors are great and the ability to film and use special effects have never been better.
 

kawaiku

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
2,536
Reaction score
73
Location
Mars... the planet
Country
llUnited States
I watched Elysium last night. it could have been a great movie but it wasn't as it was burdened by a poor script. Hollywood wrtining is at an all time low. It is a shame becasue the actors are great and the ability to film and use special effects have never been better.
So much this! There has been a lot of wasted potential lately. A lot of the time I think movies are just trying to do too much instead of just focusing on keeping things tight and to the point.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,027
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
The obsession with more=better is an interesting phenomena. It is really evident in the US's obsession with portion sizes at restaurants. And in the movies. Yes, some movies need 150min run times, but five times that number of movies are flawed because of the extra 30-50 minutes of run time. Maybe war movies are an exception--most of my favorites are over 120min and don't need to be edited down. But there are some good ones that are under or at 120min, too. And some good ones that could lose the extra 10-20min.
 

kynken

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
140
Location
Elk Grove, Ca
Country
llUnited States
I liked it. But it was very predictable and I guessed the ending half way through. The elongated scene with the two women was way, way too long. But it was Hollywood, so I expected nothing great. I am always down to watch a war movie when they come out, foreign or domestic.
 

kawaiku

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
2,536
Reaction score
73
Location
Mars... the planet
Country
llUnited States
I liked it. But it was very predictable and I guessed the ending half way through. The elongated scene with the two women was way, way too long. But it was Hollywood, so I expected nothing great. I am always down to watch a war movie when they come out, foreign or domestic.
Agreed on all accounts. On the scene with the two women I began wondering how it would end and when the artillery began dropping I knew why it ever happened in the first place *sigh*. But the two main battle scenes with the tiger and dug-in German infantry were the highlights of the films to me. We rarely, I think, if ever get to see any depiction of armor combat in Hollywood so I found them to be a treat.
 

kynken

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
140
Location
Elk Grove, Ca
Country
llUnited States
Agreed on all accounts. On the scene with the two women I began wondering how it would end and when the artillery began dropping I knew why it ever happened in the first place *sigh*. But the two main battle scenes with the tiger and dug-in German infantry were the highlights of the films to me. We rarely, I think, if ever get to see any depiction of armor combat in Hollywood so I found them to be a treat.
There are no real good "tank" movies and, as always, here comes a Tiger. Always a Tiger.
 

Markdv5208

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
2,988
Reaction score
280
Country
llUnited States
There are no real good "tank" movies and, as always, here comes a Tiger. Always a Tiger.
Actually there is 1 good tank movie, THE BEAST about a Soviet tank crew in Afghanistan in 1981....

I thought at the time it was highly underrated....

Mark DV
Ada, MI
 
Top