Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rogwar on September 26, 2014, 07:42:07 AM
-
Interesting previews but may be a disappointing movie for WWII history buffs. What do you think?
-
It's got a real working Tiger I in it... I'm so going to see this film.
-
Yeah I'm gonna see it as well.
-
No doubts - I'm seeing it.
-
I'll be seeing it.
-
I told my wife I wanted to see it. I understand it is a movie to entertain the masses, it is not intended to be a historical reenactment or documentary.
-
Definitely seeing it.
-
It's top of my list, currently.
-
Anybody go see?
-
Will Shane turn into a zombie if he dies? :noid
-
Huzzah!
-
Yup...seeing it this weekend.
I just hope I don't keep hearing "Lt. Aldo Raine" quotes in my head every time Pitt is in a scene. :D
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1363224124_tumblr_lvphb2KP5e1r2fzujo1_500.gif)
-
I'm dragging the wife to see it tomorrow. After I sat through every damn Harry Potter movie and both Hunger Games movies, she owes me one.
-
Just got back from seeing it. It was pretty good. Very intense at times, but a decent movie.
-
I give the movie a 10/10 as Hollywood war movies go. I could have gone maybe for a more original cast but having Brad Pitt was good too. I saw this review on the film saying on how everything isn't based on one sole story of WW2 tank crews in Europe but is based off multiple accounts. Most of the movie seems pretty authentic from real accounts of tank crews. Including a man named Ray Stewart who was a tank gunner and driver in WW2. He had 2 of his tanks taken out during the war and survived to tell the tale. Apparently as he said in an interview the last movie he saw in a movie theater was Saving Private Ryan in 1998 and the next one he's going to see is Fury. So if it's good by his eyes then it's good by mine. Anybody wanna talk about parts of the movie that possibly could have been just Hollywood. Besides the whole German girl thing Hollywood always like to add romance in an non romantic story.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/44570-is-fury-based-on-a-true-story-its-definitely-not-just-another-world-war-ii-movie (http://www.bustle.com/articles/44570-is-fury-based-on-a-true-story-its-definitely-not-just-another-world-war-ii-movie)
-
If it's that good I'll contribute $1 to Redbox, sorry Brad but you've been integral in things I centrally oppose; I can't support a person with whom I fundamentally disagree with just about every single thing they do these days; that is minus the philanthropy they do for children. But dinners with Anna Wintour, "don't be late", no ty.
I guess I could be convinced that there are enough decent ppl involved...I'll check the roster.
-
Saw it yesterday and enjoyed the movie. Was glad I saw it on the big screen.
I took these picks at the museum in Bastogne last weekend. Check out the damage on the Sherman. Also got another pic of a helmet. Probably sad stories in these pics.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a202/TurkeyHunter65/Europe/Ardennes/IMG_0596.jpg)
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a202/TurkeyHunter65/Europe/Ardennes/IMG_0599.jpg)
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a202/TurkeyHunter65/Europe/Ardennes/IMG_0600.jpg)
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a202/TurkeyHunter65/Europe/Ardennes/IMG_0612.jpg)
-
If it's that good I'll contribute $1 to Redbox, sorry Brad but you've been integral in things I centrally oppose; I can't support a person with whom I fundamentally disagree with just about every single thing they do these days; that is minus the philanthropy they do for children. But dinners with Anna Wintour, "don't be late", no ty.
I guess I could be convinced that there are enough decent ppl involved...I'll check the roster.
Director is a former Navy man.
-
Just came back from it. A 4 star movie in my book, as good as SPR.
War is a terrible thing to inflict upon peoples. Necessary sometimes, I know, but no less terrible.
-
Top knotch movie! Gruesome, as war is, but top knotch all the way!
-
Very good flick.
-
Having lived as part of a tank crew for many years ill say this movie has me interested.
-
I loved it. :banana:
It was a fantastic film.
There was a scene I could have lived without. Bad decision by the director. When that part happened a WWII vet in the crowd yelled, "That's bulls--t!" Later in the hall he said, "They lied about my unit. Only ten percent of it was true." I felt bad for him but that aside, I still enjoyed the film.
It was nowhere as gruesome as "Saving Private Ryan" so don't let the reviews scare you, and, though I am sure some will quibble with the accuracy of the fights, for modern day Hollywood it is the best thing I have seen since "The Dark Knight Rises" and the first 4/5ths of "Lone Survivor".
-
I thought it was the best war film I've seen since Saving Private Ryan. It doesn't beat SPR, but it is a very good movie. It just barely lacked the character development that we got with the characters in SPR.
-
I thought it was worth the ticket.
:salute
-
I thought it was the best war film I've seen since Saving Private Ryan. It doesn't beat SPR, but it is a very good movie. It just barely lacked the character development that we got with the characters in SPR.
Maybe not but it surely portrayed the effects of such violence on young men who probably would have preferred living peaceful lives and raising families. And not just Yank. And exhausted German populace was also included as well as a remarkable act of mercy and honor at the end by a so called "enemy".
To me a good war film is one that leave you feeling after that "war is just crap". Its just "crap" that humanity grinds these kids up in state sponsored violence.
-
I thought it was the best war film I've seen since Saving Private Ryan. It doesn't beat SPR, but it is a very good movie. It just barely lacked the character development that we got with the characters in SPR.
+ 1 Great movie and I will go back and see it again. Branch I think you are spot on with the character development comment about SPR. Its SPR by a nose!
-
Saw it. It was a good film. Lots of action, little character development and mediocre plot is what kept this film from being really great.
-
I'm sorry, but it was complete scheisse. The action was good'ish, but comparing this to SPR is an insult to good movie making. All the characters were one dimensional caricatures and the "war is hell" theme was way overplayed. The movie was basically one-third somewhat good (but militarily illiterate) action, one-third mindless over-the-top soldier-bonding/raping/war crimes, and one-third reciting bible verses and long wet stares at each other (think end of LOTR).
-
I'm sorry, but it was complete scheisse. The action was good'ish, but comparing this to SPR is an insult to good movie making. All the characters were one dimensional caricatures and the "war is hell" theme was way overplayed. The movie was basically one-third somewhat good (but militarily illiterate) action, one-third mindless over-the-top soldier-bonding/raping/war crimes, and one-third reciting bible verses and long wet stares at each other (think end of LOTR).
LoL, While I wouldn't call it completely poo poo :) I agree with your other comments, but I also wasn't expecting anything more than it was. It's easy to sell tickets to action and battle scenes and that's the route this film went.
-
... the "war is hell" theme was way overplayed.
How would you know? I hear there was a Tiger. :D
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20141017/OFFDUTY02/310170051/Troops-vets-get-star-treatment-premiere-Fury-
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/world-war-ii-veteran-says-fury-is.html
-
LoL, While I wouldn't call it completely poo poo :) I agree with your other comments, but I also wasn't expecting anything more than it was. It's easy to sell tickets to action and battle scenes and that's the route this film went.
The action was ok. It's what's between the action scenes that ruined it for me.
How would you know? I hear there was a Tiger. :D
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20141017/OFFDUTY02/310170051/Troops-vets-get-star-treatment-premiere-Fury-
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/world-war-ii-veteran-says-fury-is.html
“What did I think? It was a great movie. But movies are always more than what it really was. That’s Hollywood,”
Seeing Tiger 131 in action was great, but ultimately that scene also was completely amateurish. Maybe I'm demanding too much...
-
Ray Stewart said he was grateful and honored to have played a role in bringing the stories of the Hell on Wheels Division to light. He participated, he said, so his friends would not be forgotten.
“I’m glad they did it. I didn’t really know who Brad Pitt was before all this, but I think he and the other young men did an outstanding job,” Stewart said.
-
And yet we have witnesses to the contrary in this very thread...
... a WWII vet in the crowd yelled, "That's bulls--t!" Later in the hall he said, "They lied about my unit. Only ten percent of it was true."
-
And yet we have witnesses to the contrary in this very thread...
What did you base your opinion on? Weren't you the guy who exaggerated the Dresden fire-bombing (when it didn't need it)?
I'm surprised you think the hell of war could be over-portrayed.
-
:huh
-
:huh
Nevermind. Peace. :aok
-
Okey... :confused: :cheers:
-
I'm surprised you think the hell of war could be over-portrayed.
Not "over-portrayed"... Overplayed. I.e. "to present (a dramatic role, for example) in an exaggerated manner". It became almost comical, caricaturish. And the crew were all stereotypes and one dimensional. You have the new, naive, innocent young guy who didn't want to kill anyone, the religious guy spouting Bible verses every other sentence, the ruffian bully with bad teeth who brutalizes the new guy at every opportunity, the Mexican driver who is a bit daft and childish (comic relief), and the old-timer veteran cool guy who's the boss (guess who). Everything they did and said felt forced and unnatural. The brutality and violence was ok enough, but every time they had to do something brutal they used the new guy's inexperience as an excuse to explain to the audience why it was necessary. Sometimes it felt less subtle than the morality message at the end of a G.I. Joe episode. "We have to shoot these kids because they're running around with panzerfausts..." Like as if it wasn't obvious enough when these kids blew up their lead tank and burned the crew to death. When they were raping and pillaging a German village, that was actually the least forced and better part of the movie. Perhaps because they didn't try to explain the morality of it...
Tiger 131 was great though. Star of the movie.
-
Not "over-portrayed"... Overplayed. I.e. "to present (a dramatic role, for example) in an exaggerated manner". It became almost comical, caricaturish. And the crew were all stereotypes and one dimensional. You have the new, naive, innocent young guy who didn't want to kill anyone, the religious guy spouting Bible verses every other sentence, the ruffian bully with bad teeth who brutalizes the new guy at every opportunity, the Mexican driver who is a bit daft and childish (comic relief), and the old-timer veteran cool guy who's the boss (guess who). Everything they did and said felt forced and unnatural. The brutality and violence was ok enough, but every time they had to do something brutal they used the new guy's inexperience as an excuse to explain to the audience why it was necessary. Sometimes it felt less subtle than the morality message at the end of a G.I. Joe episode. "We have to shoot these kids because they're running around with panzerfausts..." Like as if it wasn't obvious enough when these kids blew up their lead tank and burned the crew to death. When they were raping and pillaging a German village, that was actually the least forced and better part of the movie. Perhaps because they didn't try to explain the morality of it...
Tiger 131 was great though. Star of the movie.
Out of curiosity, what 'non-traditional/non-stereotype' charactures would you have preferred? There's only so far you can go outside the box before you get to a farce.
-
SPR did it right. Band of Brothers did it right. The Pacific did it right. Believable characters with depth and personality.
-
SPR did it right. Band of Brothers did it right. The Pacific did it right. Believable characters with depth and personality.
So you would replace Fury's tank crew with which characters from any of the three examples you mentioned?
-
Fury was fine. It wasn't intended to be GONE WITH THE WIND but it was compelling enough.
-
Fury was fine. It wasn't intended to be GONE WITH THE WIND but it was compelling enough.
Agreed, It wasn't intended to like Band of Brothers or the Pacific. While it was more along the lines of Saving Private Ryan, it did not hold a candle to it.
-
Well as far as the character development goes, Band of Brothers and The Pacific had a whole freakin series to show depth and quality of their characters. Saving Private Ryan is my favorite movie ever, but it is longer than a nightmare. Fury did good with what they wanted to show in the length of the movie. That being said, I'm probably gonna buy it when it comes out on DVD.
-
They had two hours to tell a story. Not 10 or 20 like a mini-series could. SPR could be called just as one dimensional. Again, how much story can you tell in two hours? How much did you really learn about the SPR characters?
The point of both movies is the impact of state sponsored violence on young men and civilians. And it is destructive. Even to the survivors it is destructive, you are never the same after seeing and being involved in such things. In both movies the ones who started off as cowards ended up surviving and end up being the ones who have to carry the weight and keep the memorys. And the guilt maybe, over surviving.
Maybe it could have been added in "Fury" that the German people werent all that keen on continuing the fight that late into the war. Some maybe but the truth is after the July '44 attempt on Hitlers life the Nazi party was given more and more power over ANY decisions of defense of the Reich. It was the Gaulieters that held real power in those last desperate months and anyone who wanted to give up without a fight were pretty much dead. The final stand of Germany was pretty much ran by party hacks and functionary's, almost all of whom seemed to find a way to stay out of the fighting themselves.
It was asked in the movie, "why dont they just give up"? The answer was they were citizens of a totalitarian state that wouldnt allow them to. It was a choice between a bullet from the allies or a bullet from your own. The east was a little different cause there was no doubt what revenge the Reds had planned but in the west I think most Germans simply wanted to give up. Many did. Many small town leaders gave up in organized surrenders.
-
SPR could be called just as one dimensional. Again, how much story can you tell in two hours? How much did you really learn about the SPR characters?
No. SPR is miles ahead in character development. We got to know a lot of their personalities and emotions, their pre-war lives; that they were from all walks of life. Ryan was a farm boy who lost his brothers... We even got to see his mother receiving the bad news. Captain Miller was a school teacher and I suppose that's were he got his leadership abilities. His sergeant was his buddy through the whole war and saved a piece of dirt from every country he'd been to. A real stand-up guy he could trust and confide in. The medic who got shot through the liver was a city boy raised by a single mom and felt bad about how he'd pretend he was asleep when his mother got home from work. And that's just from the top of my head from a film I haven't seen in years. We don't know anything about the characters in Fury. Not one damn thing.
-
No. SPR is miles ahead in character development. We got to know a lot of their personalities and emotions, their pre-war lives; that they were from all walks of life. Ryan was a farm boy who lost his brothers... We even got to see his mother receiving the bad news. Captain Miller was a school teacher and I suppose that's were he got his leadership abilities. His sergeant was his buddy through the whole war and saved a piece of dirt from every country he'd been to. A real stand-up guy he could trust and confide in. The medic who got shot through the liver was a city boy raised by a single mom and felt bad about how he'd pretend he was asleep when his mother got home from work. And that's just from the top of my head from a film I haven't seen in years. We don't know anything about the characters in Fury. Not one damn thing.
You know as much as you do about the characters in 12 O'Clock High. Another 'one dimensional' film adored and appreciated by many. Oh yeah, Hollywood was different then. It wasn't the practice of revealing in-depth biographical details to 'make the characters more interesting.' I think that was eventually added as a gimmick to appease the wives and girlfriends. :D
-
No. SPR is miles ahead in character development. We got to know a lot of their personalities and emotions, their pre-war lives; that they were from all walks of life. Ryan was a farm boy who lost his brothers... We even got to see his mother receiving the bad news. Captain Miller was a school teacher and I suppose that's were he got his leadership abilities. His sergeant was his buddy through the whole war and saved a piece of dirt from every country he'd been to. A real stand-up guy he could trust and confide in. The medic who got shot through the liver was a city boy raised by a single mom and felt bad about how he'd pretend he was asleep when his mother got home from work. And that's just from the top of my head from a film I haven't seen in years. We don't know anything about the characters in Fury. Not one damn thing.
I just love you guys who seem to enjoy over analyzing movies. Maybe they were going for a more generic character group to make it seem like this could be anybody driving this tank, or gunning that gun instead of a specific person. It's a movie and it was made for entertainment. Were you not entertained? :devil
Personally, I went with my father and we both enjoyed the movie and both thought it was very intense. To us the movie was hard nosed and in your face the whole way through. A 2 hour movie in 20 minutes. Good entertainment.
-
20 minutes in I was wishing for them all to just die. I bet guys like you also found Red Tails entertaining too. What a masterpiece of film making that was... :aok
-
20 minutes in I was wishing for them all to just die.
Must be a German thing.
-
Must be a German thing.
Naw, I think it is fairly universal.
-
Naw, I think it is fairly universal.
Not from the looks of this thread.
-
Not from the looks of this thread.
...considering I'm not German.
-
...considering I'm not German.
You'll do. :D
-
You guys just need to remember that Gscholtz is the authority on everything and that his opinion is the only one that matters.... lol
As for the movie, I was glad to see the Tiger in it. The scene was lacking a bit, but I think it got the point across that the Tigers had to be overwhelmed. Could it have been better, I am sure, but I am also sure there were technical limitations as far as the usage of the vehicles. Frankly, you aren't going to beat the crap out of vehicles that can not be replaced. As for the rest, I thought that the brutality of war was ever present and never romanticized. That's a good thing, because people need to realize that. There was also portrayals of Americans in less poor behavior and that's something that rarely sees play.
I believe the lack of character development is intentional in a way. As someone else mentioned, it kind of allows the placement of nearly anyone into the role.
-
From all over the world... Even from your little flag waving corner. ;)
Fury has one of those "the only good morality in wartime is no morality" themes. I admired the sound effects in the battle scenes. They'll probably win an award for those. But I hated the script and the dialog and gave up on it altogether after about 40 minutes. It lacks class. It is in many ways the opposite of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, which were about redemption through suffering and sacrifice under extreme duress. Fury was about degeneracy becoming the new righteousness. Ugly, and maybe even downright revisionist and historically inaccurate. Almost like a pornographic comic book version of history designed to appeal to adolescent boys raised on Game of Thrones episodes and Grand Theft Auto video games. As somome who actually spent a couple of years as a cavalry scout in the army, I can also say that the battle scenes lacked authenticity. Particularly in the amateurish way the troops talked to each other and moved during combat. Again, much more like a dumbed down and superficial comic book or a video game than something trying to simulate historical reality.
I only went to see this because my friend wanted to see it, I'm not a Brad Pitt fan, he is a horrible actor and I never enjoyed any of his movies, and the same with this one, the violence is gratuitous and certain scenes were overacted, and again I couldn't feel anything to any of the characters, they were bland and unlikeable. I really wanted my money back..what a waste of my time. There are much worthier war movies out there......like The Black Book, or Schindler's list....or just watch some of the old good war movies from the 50's and 60's. Apocalypse Now, Platoon or one of the best, Saving Private Ryan, the performances of Tom Hanks and Matt Damon were amazing. So, save your money and watch it on TV when it becomes available.
This movie was horribly disappointing. I read many reviews before going to see it tonight and was positively inclined to be impressed. It is as if the positive online comments were put there by PR agents of the movie company. They would not do that, would they? I was very disappointed. There is not a single uplifting aspect to it at all. Brad is a brutal actor. He gets away with a lot because of his good looks, that big chin of his and those lovely muscular shoulders. Acting is not something that comes easy to him. Yet he is making a very nice living with millions more in his bank account each year. Angelina is not giving him pocket money...yet. I could not recommend this movie to anyone. Wait for it to come out on TV and then have another one on stand by because you will not watch it all the way to the end unless you are a masochist. Sorry guys. I am a very positive upbeat person but this was an absolute disaster.
I have heard that Fury is based on a number of true stories from World War II. If that is the case, the collection of stories seem awfully disjointed, and lacking in continuity. Every movie about WWII had a mission to complete. In Saving Private Ryan, the soldiers try to recover a missing soldier, in the Great Escape, a group of allied POW's try to escape a Nazi POW camp, In Stalag 17, the allies try to uncover a Nazi spy in their midst, and probably the best of these is Band of Brothers, which follows the exploits of Easy Company the first parachute infantry regiment during World War II. There is no mission here, no cohesive story, the soldiers just hop from mission to mission, with seemingly no rhyme or reason. It's supposed to be a character study, but the characters are paper thin. Pitt is the leader of the group, but why do these soldiers follow him around through the whole war, and why are they willing to lay their lives on the line for him. The rest of the characters are little more than stereotypes, Swan spouts scripture at every turn, which is an insult to a true Christian. Garcia is a loutish Hispanic character, Grady Travis is the stereotypical Hollywood redneck, which is an insult to Southern people. And Lehrman is the new guy being put through the requisite amount of hazing before being accepted by the group. To top it off, the ending is shockingly unrealistic. If it wanted to concentrate on how muddy, and filthy and bloody war is they succeeded, but again, what kind of story do they want to tell, a heroic war story or a gritty anti-war war movie? The length of the movie, is far too long, and one scene, where the soldiers hold two women prisoner, encapsulates the problem. The scene goes on and on, and doesn't provide any insight to these men, or why they behave they way they do. 2 hours and 14 minutes is horrendously long for a movie with seemingly no point.
The acting is underwhelming. Pitt gives a dull, listless performance, and expects the audience to follow him regardless. It's like he's saying, "I'm a star, that's why you should spend 2+ hours watching me." Sorry, that's not good enough. After two lackluster performances in 12 Years A Slave, and World War Z, I'm beginning to have serious doubts about Pitt's acting ability. He is capable of giving a good performance, he did give a great performance in Inglorious Basterds, ironically a World War II movie. Logan Lehrman gives the best performance, but the character is so hackneyed and clichéd, that it's hard to appreciate his performance. Shia La Bouf easily gives the most insincere performance of his life as a Bible thumping evangelical, and Michael Pena should be ashamed of the lines he has to say. If I want a sermon, I'll go to church, if I want a negative Latino stereotype, I'll watch John Leguizamo.
It is hard to put into words just how loathsome a movie 'Fury' is. The self hating writer/director must have correctly calculated that any WWII veteran of the European Theater must be in his or her's late eighties by now, thus avoiding the real potential of one of them slapping the living scheisse out of him for this atrocity. It begins with a ridiculous scene, is of the war movie genre that demands German soldiers running upright and without cover toward machine guns so our anti-heroes can mow them down conveniently, and consistently opts for opportunities to shove the new hip narrative that lovingly depicts American soldiers as murderous, war crime committing, raping thugs. See: 'Inglorious Basterds.' Much of it is hard to watch, especially after 'Saving Private Ryan' which set a high bar for any war movie following, the rest is drivel. And, not even good drivel at that. High marks (pardon the pun) though, for the German soldiers surrounding the tank, who stop firing for inexplicable reasons, but which coincide with long discussions on war and friendship by the tank crew.
(http://I had high hopes that Fury might end the dry spell of good WWII movies. I could have forgiven the checklist of war movie clichés Fury manages to work in had it not been for a laughable final battle more akin to something from The Expendables than a serious war movie. The final battle consists of scenes where a battalion of seasoned SS soldiers run back and forth through our heroes' machine gun fire, only stopping when it is time for a forced emotional exchange inside the tank. While the director chose to have every other enemy brandish an anti-tank weapon in the ominous lead-in to the final battle, for some reason only three of them are fired, two which miss at unrealistically close range. The ridiculousness of it all turned me into that obnoxious movie goer that laughs out loud during what should be a serious and emotional scene.
On the positive side it does manage the singular achievement of most war movie clichés fit into two hours:
Kill a German officer on horseback - check
Christian singing hymns - check
Mexican crew member made fun of for speaking Spanish - check
Hardened leader with a unknown pre-war history who has a private emotional breakdown - check
Young replacement who struggles to fit in with seasoned veterans but wins them over in the end - check
Soldier falls in love with local girl only to watch her die - check
A final mission with impossible odds - check
Moment of doubt when facing certain death but where everyone decides to stick together in the face of certain death - check
Retarded enemy is almost defeated only to remember how to do war, and only after our team has completed their emotional bonding and character development - check
One member escapes death against all odds-check
Enemy soldier shows mercy by not revealing hiding soldier - check
....and many many many more.)
Fury doesn't have a plot but is a road trip, compromised of a series of battles and the occasional pit stop for male bonding. Brad Pitt stars as Don "Wardaddy" Collier" the leader of a five man Sherman tank vehicle named "Fury". Wardaddy believes in the kill or be killed rules of war. The other characters in Ayer's own original script are lazy stereotypes. Shia LaBeouf is Boyd "Bible" Swan who, would you know it, quotes passages from the Bible. Michael Pena from Ayer's last film End of Watch, which was about the friendship between two police officers, features as Trini "Gordo" Garcia but his role makes little use of his charisma. The most unlikable part is reserved for Jon Bernthal as Grady, a knuckle-dragging brute, who might have been too unpleasant for the Dirty Dozen. There is almost no backstory, aside from the original tank crew being together since Africa and their dialogue is primarily inane, blokey conversations, compromised of homophobic slurs and primitive views of women. Some of this material is inaudible due to the slurred, mumbling line deliveries.
And here is the 10,000 character limit...
-
Holy hump-fest, Batman. We get it. We get it, already! :lol
-
Now you don't! You only pretend you do! ;)
-
Thank you, Kreskin. :old:
-
Nice, but I'm no Kreskin. Nor do I need to be one in this thread. :aok
-
Nice, but I'm no Kreskin. Nor do I need to be one in this thread. :aok
I pressed the wrong button, it seems. Was looking for the 'off' one. :)
-
I'm sorry. Only Skuzzy has access to that one. :)
-
I'm sorry. Only Skuzzy has access to that one. :)
You're not done yet, it seems. Well, I am. Thanks for the never-ending negatve film critique. :salute :cheers:
-
You're most welcome. :aok
-
Character development is a phrase people use to try and look smart.
We got enough of that from the details revealed to us. What do you want, footage of the driver during his former career as a ballet dancer or something?
-
Character development is a phrase people use to try and look smart.
We got enough of that from the details revealed to us. What do you want, footage of the driver during his former career as a ballet dancer or something?
Bazinga!
I've seen lots of real tank combat caught on camera. Everything from the Pershing-Panther engagement, to a TC who stuck a video camera on top of his turret during the M-1 assault of Baghdad. Though that stuff was real, it's definitely not like a movie. Even when an RPG team was wiped out by the coaxial machine gun, it still was pretty dull.
So basically Fury is just a story that involves some tankers. If you want reality, go to liveleak.
-
Character development is a phrase people use to try and look smart.
What a strange thing to say. Are you deliberately trying to look dumb when you talk or write something?
"Character development" is an industry standard term and to be quite frank you don't have to be a genius to understand what it means; what words would you choose to convey its meaning while maintaining your preferred image of not looking smart?
-
I saw this flick. It was weak. I did not care about any of the characters and actually was pleased when the bully guy (all the chars were overly cliched) was killed so I didn't have to listen to his poorly delivered dialogue again.
Pitt's performance was blank. He's so incapable of expressing emotion through his face that the director had to cut away from him during the two painfully awkward "scenes of remorse" where Pitt walks off on his own and reflects on his actions. Shoddy screenwriting. The structure of the movie, action scene / break / action scene / rest and recover / action scene bored me to tears.
I thought the cinematography was good aside from the general underexposed dark look of the film. It got really old quick.
I willing to suspend belief for war movies, but the final scene with the German SS battalions tard rushing the tank... come on... i started to break out in laughter.
-
To those of you who actually liked the film you can get a premium "Fury" in WoT. It's not a bad premium actually...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7A98cxOF78
-
I liked the movie. Like it's been said, the Tiger is the last operating of it's kind in the world and the M4Mk4 is the last also. The end reminded me of the last shootout in the WildBunch. Gory, intense, kinda like Saving Private Ryan.
-
I for one think the BOB scene of the 111's flying in formation made it a 4 star movie. I think the tank tactics in Fury did the same, as did the opening of SPR. If I want "character development" I'll watch Gone With The Wind.
It was a short violent life living in a tank crew in WW2. Many didnt even learn the first names of others in their tank. Most didnt want to. It was easier losing the noobs when you didnt know who they were. "Emotion" and "developing your character" didnt help you survive the war. Those guys turned into emotionless killers when thrown into a conflict that knew very little mercy. Of a scale almost unimaginable.
The scene of the Heavies flying back from Bombing Germany was awsome.
I would have liked a nod toward the Historical reason why the Germans were still fighting. As I already mentioned the Party had an iron grip on both the armed forces and especially the populace, "course the hacks always found a reason to avoid the front lines". But Germany, its populace, and its armed forces, were a very much different show after the events of 20 July 1944. History seems to forget the upheaval that the attempt on Hitler unleashed. I know my eyebrows raised after studying the after effects in a few books, "Im a book shop 'ho". ;)
Its worth reading up on. Had they not tried to blow up Adi, and of course failed, the war would have been shorter and less bloody.
-
What tank tactics are you referring to?
-
If I don't want any depth to a movie I might as well go play WOT... that's what the movie felt like, only less exciting.
-
If I want girlie elements in my movie I'll watch a chick flick. If I want an overabundance of background I'll watch a documentary. :D
-
Tulsan WWII hero advises Brad Pitt, movie team making 'Fury'
Upon his arrival in Hollywood, Paul Andert could see how important his role would be as a consultant.
Brad Pitt and his producing partners were filming “Fury,” an $80 million movie about World War II and the tanks that were used to drive into Germany and defeat the Nazis.
They were making a film about the famed 2nd Armored Division, a group of 14,000 soldiers, of which only a handful are still alive.
Andert is one of those men.
That would be Technical Sgt. Paul Andert, a 91-year-old Tulsa man and a platoon sergeant during the invasions of North Africa and Sicily.
One of this country’s most decorated soldiers, he was part of the D-Day landing at Normandy, and he fought in the Battle of the Bulge.
He arrived in Los Angeles in August 2013 along with three other 2nd Armored Division members to meet with Pitt, his co-stars and writer-director David Ayer.
Their meeting was a four-hour swap of war stories and a military education.
“I could tell that they didn’t know much about how things worked in an armored division. Like an actor, one of the tankers (soldiers inside the tank) asked me, ‘How did you see, because I couldn’t see anything in there?’” Andert remarked.
“I told them that of course you are partially blind inside the tank, and that’s where my job as infantry came in: I was riding on top of the tank, telling those inside where the fire was coming from, saying ‘We’re taking fire from the left’ or the right or from behind.
“I would call them on the phone that was on the back of the center tank (of five tanks driving forward as a platoon of tanks). We spent 30 months going from Africa to Sicily to Germany, and I probably spent half of that time on top of a tank.”
In talking with Pitt and actors Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal, was there any other immediate advice he offered the stars?
“They showed up, and some had ponytails,” Andert recalled. “I told them that those had to go.”
As a consultant, Andert said the “Fury” production team wanted his expertise “purely because there aren’t many of us left.” But when they fly him to Washington, D.C., next week for the film’s Wednesday premiere, that will be about celebrating him for the hero that he has always been.
“We got them corrected on some things. We had to tell them that some of the cuss words they were using weren’t right because we weren’t using some of those until after the war,” Andert said.
“Later they recorded me on video, too, and during that we talked about many more things, like concentration camps and rescuing people from burning barns. ... The filmmakers said they wanted the real information, and I think it’s time that we got down to what it was really like.”
Andert served with the 41st Armored Infantry Regiment, part of the 2nd Armored Division, serving between 1940 and 1945, from the ages of 17 to 22.
He can confirm that war, for lack of any other appropriate term, is hell.
He also realizes how difficult it can be to portray such carnage on the big screen, but he’s doing what he can to make sure that “Fury” is as accurate as possible.
For many years, Andert showed off a German soldier’s helmet he had brought home from the war. The helmet had belonged to the last man he had killed in Germany.
“When you were fighting, you had to be a savage,” Andert said. “Then, when you stop, you have to become a human being again, and you wonder, ‘How did I do that?’
“You had to become two different people. You went a little nuts. People ask, ‘How did you do that?’ and there’s only one answer: We had to.”
Andert served under Gen. George S. Patton and knew the man well from their 2nd Armored Division days.
“Old blood and guts,” Andert said, chuckling as he recalled Patton’s nickname and the man as a great leader. “It was his guts and our blood.”
Then there was his meeting with Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, as recalled by Andert.
Eisenhower: “You’re a bit young to be a platoon sergeant, aren’t you?”
Andert: “Yes, sir.”
Eisenhower: “You lied about your age to get in, didn’t you?”
Andert: “Yes, sir.”
Andert received the Silver Star (the third-highest award for valor and gallantry an Army serviceman can receive) to go with his two Bronze Stars and pair of Purple Hearts after being injured twice.
If you read Andert’s book “Unless You Have Been There,” you will find a tell-it-like-it-is account of his war experiences. He’s considering writing another book.
“The medals mean a lot to me, because they mean I was knocked off a couple of times,” he said. “I was in a plane that crashed, a boat that sank, a truck that was blown up, and I was blinded by the flash of a cannon shell.
“Another book could be on the 14 times that I should have been knocked off for good.”
There are plenty of military veterans who rarely talk about their battle experiences, if at all.
Andert talks to kids at elementary schools and church groups and many more, keeping a busy schedule after the death of his wife of 65 years and a couple of his children.
“I feel like I have to talk. I don’t know how a person can be a leader, and I don’t know how you can expect to win a war if you don’t know how it’s done,” he said.
“We haven’t truly won a war since WWII,” he declared, “and we can’t be a nation of wimps.”
Hollywood goes to war
When talking about war films, Andert has seen his share, and he often sees something that’s not quite right. The best he’s seen? “Pork Chop Hill,” a 1959 Gregory Peck film based on a Korean War battle.
“Saving Private Ryan” was “very good at the beginning part, the landing on Normandy,” said Andert, who was there. “But after that part, not so much.”
He hasn’t seen “Fury” yet to give his review, but Andert said he has reason to trust Pitt.
At the conclusion of that 2013 meeting, while the other men hovered around Pitt asking for a multitude of photos to be signed, Andert sat down and made out a list of his own requests for photos and autographs.
When his chance came to speak privately with Pitt, Andert gave him some of his books, and he asked for autographed photos to be sent later to about a dozen people, most of them veterans hospital nurses and those with local hospitals who have helped him for years.
“Brad did it all. He sent those items to everyone I asked. To us veterans, he always signed, ‘With respect,’ and I respected that,” Andert said.
He motions across the room to an American eagle statuette. It’s an item he has purchased multiple times and sent to some of his favorite people. He had one delivered to Hollywood.
“I sent one to Brad, and I told him, ‘This goes to a true patriot. This is my Academy Award to you.’”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/scene/moviereviews/tulsan-wwii-hero-advises-brad-pitt-movie-team-making-fury/article_73262e30-163c-54ba-a451-aa3698a03ad9.html
-
So they had an infantryman advise them on tank operations... That explains a lot. Like how platoon level tactics were totally missing from the movie.
-
I saw this flick. It was weak. I did not care about any of the characters and actually was pleased when the bully guy (all the chars were overly cliched) was killed so I didn't have to listen to his poorly delivered dialogue again.
Pitt's performance was blank. He's so incapable of expressing emotion through his face that the director had to cut away from him during the two painfully awkward "scenes of remorse" where Pitt walks off on his own and reflects on his actions. Shoddy screenwriting. The structure of the movie, action scene / break / action scene / rest and recover / action scene bored me to tears.
I thought the cinematography was good aside from the general underexposed dark look of the film. It got really old quick.
I willing to suspend belief for war movies, but the final scene with the German SS battalions tard rushing the tank... come on... i started to break out in laughter.
10 bucks says you have been to a ballet before.
-
Do you guys who's championing this move have stocks in the production company or what? Or perhaps you're just embarrassed you've admitted to liking it.
-
So they had an infantryman advise them on tank operations... That explains a lot. Like how platoon level tactics were totally missing from the movie.
Oy. Are you in poo-fest mode or something? You're taking your critique past the point of your personal expertise and experience (and pooing on the expertise and experience of those that were there). That vet is my grandfather's peer.
-
We get that you don't like the movie!
I liked it, it was exactly what I thought it would be!
-
You say that Arlo like you know my "personal expertise and experience"... However, it is irrelevant since nothing I say or reference to is going to sway your mind that Fury is not a good, realistic tank movie.
-
You say that Arlo like you know my "personal expertise and experience"... However, it is irrelevant since nothing I say or reference to is going to sway your mind that Fury is not a good, realistic tank movie.
I'm fairly confident that it pales compared to the veteran that provided consultation for the movie (which you attempted to marginalize). We've all heard your opinion. One poster even sympathized in full. If your goal is to sway differing opinions instead of just adding yours, good luck with that. Personally, I'd of realized all I'm doing is not winning the thread, in your shoes. :aok
-
So your interest is in "winning the thread". I see.
I am actually infinitely more qualified than that vet to comment on the movie since I have actually seen the movie. According to your "Tulsan WWII hero" article, he has not.
And while you cherish the opinion of this one vet who hasn't even seen the movie you ignore the vets who cry "bull****" and "they lied about my unit", "only 10% of it was true"... You know, the vets who have actually seen the movie and have informed opinions.
Yeah, these veterans you choose to marginalize.
-
So they had an infantryman advise them on tank operations... That explains a lot. Like how platoon level tactics were totally missing from the movie.
or send a typist to gun in a tank
-
10 bucks says you have been to a ballet before.
yup i go occasionally you'll find me me often at the Metropolitan Opera and NY Phil or Carnegie Hall
-
The movie was definitely not perfect, but I think it conveyed an experience by those involved in the war in the armored units equipped with Shermans. Was it accurate... I wasn't there, and there not too many still alive that were. To attempt to say a highly decorated infantryman attached to armor would not have some expertise we (those that were not there, and can only imagine) do is simply sad.
Gscholtz, you obviously don't like the movie... so be it. Move on and worry about something else. The movie brings to light something that has really not been touched on in length when it comes to allied armor.
I think that is enough said by me in this thread.
-
10 bucks says you have been to a ballet before.
I have been to many ballets and actually studied ballet in my youth earning four (4) Ford Foundation Scholarships at home, and summer Scholarships to The San Francisco Ballet Company (twice), and The New York City Ballet (once). Ballets, like movies, can be good, or bad.
-
GScholz, by looking at the picture you have under your name, I can see why you did not like the movie.
-
Really? Should I judge you by your avatar as well, Mr. Duck?
-
The movie was definitely not perfect, but I think it conveyed an experience by those involved in the war in the armored units equipped with Shermans. Was it accurate... I wasn't there, and there not too many still alive that were. To attempt to say a highly decorated infantryman attached to armor would not have some expertise we (those that were not there, and can only imagine) do is simply sad.
Gscholtz, you obviously don't like the movie... so be it. Move on and worry about something else. The movie brings to light something that has really not been touched on in length when it comes to allied armor.
I think that is enough said by me in this thread.
Who let u out of the bk forums bodhi
-
GScholz, by looking at the picture you have under your name, I can see why you did not like the movie.
...and the "anti-american nazi-card" flies up again. :D
GScholz, your avatar is starting to approach some of the best animated boobies-avatars on this BBS in entertainment value! :D
...thehehehehee...
EDIT/Somehow a very old thread came to my mind: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,17940.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,17940.0.html). Comedy gold! :rofl/EDIT
-
:lol
-
Who let u out of the bk forums bodhi
door was unlocked...
-
The movie had some flaws. The major one for me was the scene in the house. It labored the point too much to have any impact. And when the impact did come it was so long after the stage had been set all the tension for that moment had been lost. Plus the nasty bully of a loader was way overdone. His character is too nasty to be believable, even in such a situation. Had the scene simply ended in them grabbing the boss and the new guy and leaving AND THEN the impact it would have been far better.
The other flaw for me was the ending sequence. I understand why but it requires a suspension of belief. You mean to tell me an SS PanzerGrenadier battalion circa 1945 doesn't have any Panzerfaust's readily available? I mean I understand the characters need to stay alive but honestly? After you see a bunch of Hitler youths burn out a Sherman with just one Panzerfaust in the first half an hour?
The film was excellent. Truly excellent. Very hard hitting and definitely worth a purchase. But a missed opportunity.
-
We get that you don't like the movie!
I liked it, it was exactly what I thought it would be!
You actually enjoyed yourself at a movie without worrying about what Gschlotz from Norgeria opinions might be?
-
It's a outrage!
-
:lol
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/1779819_745205942223563_5473558386156739726_n.jpg)
-
The Germans cannot win wars and they like leather shorts and big sausages :old:
The British army were warriors and the SS were savages :old:
-
:lol
(https://dl.dropboxu558386156739726_n.jpg)
I was thinking about that when I saw of them with panzerfausts.
-
Oddly enough, the SS weren't featured as the heros of this movie. Bad movie. Bad bad movie. :D
-
Yeah, the Americans were really portrayed as true heroes... :aok
-
Don't be such a hater, bro. :D
-
I don't hate, I'm a lover! :P
-
Yeah, the Americans were really portrayed as true heroes... :aok
Define true hero for us.
-
:lol
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/1779819_745205942223563_5473558386156739726_n.jpg)
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
:aok
-
Define true hero for us.
I believe that's the opposite of untrue hero.
-
Define true hero for us.
Someone who stops savages putting children in ovens
-
It's a outrage!
Huzzah! :old:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/1779819_745205942223563_5473558386156739726_n.jpg)
Fantastic! :lol
-
Oh dear it's U971 all over again :devil
-
Don't be such a hater, bro. :D
Did you "forget"?
-
Did you "forget"?
No, sir. I am sorry for the delay, however.
-
Oh dear it's U971 all over again :devil
good one
-
U971 is that the British story the colonials made out they did?.
-
While I understand the need for some to share their opinion that an action movie is bad because it's not an accurate enough documentary and that all the fictional characters were portrayed inaccurately/unbelievably (or even that the Americans are always mucking up history to make themselves look better) .....
No, wait .... I don't. :D :cheers:
-
Then you need to stop asking so many damn questions. :cheers:
How would you know?...
What did you base your opinion on?...
Out of curiosity, what 'non-traditional/non-stereotype' charactures would you have preferred?...
So you would replace Fury's tank crew with which characters from any of the three examples you mentioned?
Etc. etc. etc...
-
Then you need to stop asking so many damn questions. :cheers:
Etc. etc. etc...
The rhetorical question isn't designed to be an excuse for a poorly derived defensive retort. It can be, however, an oppprtunity for reflection. :aok
-
Wet balls
-
The rhetorical question...
Then you need to look up what a rhetorical question is and how it is used, because you clearly do not know. :aok
-
Then you need to look up what a rhetorical question is and how it is used, because you clearly do not know. :aok
You seemed perfectly content to treat them as such on page three. I'm not sure why that was your answer to:
While I understand the need for some to share their opinion that an action movie is bad because it's not an accurate enough documentary and that all the fictional characters were portrayed inaccurately/unbelievably (or even that the Americans are always mucking up history to make themselves look better) .....
No, wait .... I don't. :D :cheers:
-
And you keep asking questions and engaging me in debate. For someone supposedly not interested in my opinion you sure ankle-hump a lot. :aok
-
I didn't address you with a question. I made an observation about the apparent need of some posters in the thread (even if it obviously includes you). Even then, if you felt the need to address my post as if it were a question aimed at you, you're not much into offering a direct or logical answer. Your need to go on and on defensively about your opinion of the movie is my fault from page three? Really? :aok
-
I made a review of the film in a thread about the film... You have done nothing but troll me and others who didn't like the film. For some reason, probably nationalistic, you can't abide someone not liking this film. Well, isn't it time you stopped humping my leg little dog? (That's a rhetorical question btw.) :aok
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/1qn8sVt.gif)
-
You two are definitely that awkward couple at the dance...
(http://shaunynews.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/cb3cf555e413992044a7b650b250e270-couple-awkward-dance.jpg?w=593)
-
U971 is that the British story the colonials made out they did?.
I saw a movie called U571 that claimed to be a fictional account and gave full credit to those who obtained the enigma machine and broke the German code.
Is U971 the one with Kelsey Grammar?
-
It's the one with Bon Jovi...
-
I made a review of the film in a thread about the film... You have done nothing but troll me and others who didn't like the film. For some reason, probably nationalistic, you can't abide someone not liking this film. Well, isn't it time you stopped humping my leg little dog? (That's a rhetorical question btw.) :aok
Well, regarding your review, I kinda figured it was more an emotional thing than anything else. Kinda sad to see that revealed. ;)
-
Saw it today and really liked it - sure it had a number of cliches, but then so does SPR has which I still think is an excellent film - but even then, SPR is no more revolutionary in story or plot than like good number of classic war films from the 50's, 60's or 70's.
Tronsky
-
The problem with a war movie like Fury - they could of easily...easily turned it into a 13 hour BoB. Start with the crew in Africa and follow them right into Germany.
There was so much I think the director wanted to say about war - he showed it in the brutal hedge fight...for me that was one of the more realistic engagements and messages. It was a brutal...utter brutal engagement. And our grandfathers (or fathers) had to fight in situations like that for months and years. Makes you appreciate how fracking crazy all the tank crews were - every member except for the new kid were nutz and so desensitized to the everyday death and destruction they faced they were barely human. The movie did a good job on showing that. The Tiger battle - was cinematic - which is what movies do cause they only have 2 hours to tell their story.
-
wouldn't a tiger crew rather increase their distance to the enemy rather than decrease it? seems like charging 3 shermans at once opens you up to getting killed. :)
-
And at the range they were fighting the 76 mm M1 on Fury would have had a good chance of penetrating the front armor of the Tiger, and certainly the side armor. And they perpetuated the myth about the Tigers rear being the only weak spot when in reality its side and rear armor was of equal thickness so they could just as easily have shot it in the side. They managed to get into a defilade position on the opposite side of the road from the Tiger and smoke him... Then they charge the Tiger head-on rather than use dead terrain to flank it. And that's just a tiny fraction of the historical errors and military ineptness displayed by the filmmakers. I do get that there are limitations as to what looks good on film, but it could have been done a lot better. The script felt sloppy and rushed.
-
Speaking of war movies, something a bit different might be worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKy7Q50tJ84
-
And at the range they were fighting the 76 mm M1 on Fury would have had a good chance of penetrating the front armor of the Tiger, and certainly the side armor. And they perpetuated the myth about the Tigers rear being the only weak spot when in reality its side and rear armor was of equal thickness so they could just as easily have shot it in the side. They managed to get into a defilade position on the opposite side of the road from the Tiger and smoke him... Then they charge the Tiger head-on rather than use dead terrain to flank it. And that's just a tiny fraction of the historical errors and military ineptness displayed by the filmmakers. I do get that there are limitations as to what looks good on film, but it could have been done a lot better. The script felt sloppy and rushed.
to make a movie, the tiger fight had to be moved tighter, for the camera, as in any movie and any fight between enemies, to film it at the distances needed for accurate historical perspective, well it wouldn't have been much of a movie then!
The fight itself is the same fight I've read over and over, showing an attrition rate about on par with the scene,
the tiger wouldn't have been moving at all except to position its gun for the next shot as it would be in cover, the M4's would be advancing as fast as possible to get past it and hit it in the rear or sides near the engine compartment,
yes, the actual distance would have been greater,,, show me what movie used accurate distances to display this fight please?
-
The best tank battle film to date in my opinion is the 1955 Czechoslovak film "Tank Brigade". It depicts the Battle of the Dukla Pass in September–October 1944. It also sort of follows a tank crew, but not nearly as intimate as in Fury. There's plenty of theatrics in this film as well, but hardly as silly and overdone as that ludicrous last battle in Fury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOwxUZwUz7Y
And yes, those are real T-34s and real Pz. IVs and real StuG IIIs, real 109s and even a real Panther. And it's filmed at the real locations of the historical battle...
-
As for showing the horrors of war with a tank-crew as the main setting, Fury doesn't hold a candle to "The Beast".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWbp5hxzXTo
-
Or how about this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb8OqoMraMI
-
It's certainly funnier than Fury :cheers:
-
As for showing the horrors of war with a tank-crew as the main setting, Fury doesn't hold a candle to "The Beast".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWbp5hxzXTo
The best tank battle film to date in my opinion is the 1955 Czechoslovak film "Tank Brigade". It depicts the Battle of the Dukla Pass in September–October 1944. It also sort of follows a tank crew, but not nearly as intimate as in Fury. There's plenty of theatrics in this film as well, but hardly as silly and overdone as that ludicrous last battle in Fury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOwxUZwUz7Y
And yes, those are real T-34s and real Pz. IVs and real StuG IIIs, real 109s and even a real Panther. And it's filmed at the real locations of the historical battle...
LOL!!! Really?
The first was clips of all the "high points/battle" all it was is a bunch of extras running around with a bunch of long shots of tanks on parade. The second was even worst, it looked like a "Rambo" wanna be!
Again, Fury wasn't a documentary....which is where you seem to have the problem with "authenticity/realism". It was just a war movie made for entertainment value. At 60 million plus so far it seems people were entertained.
We get it, you didn't like it, it wasn't what you expected/wanted, but it is what it is.
-
LOL!!! Really?
The first was clips of all the "high points/battle" all it was is a bunch of extras running around ...
... Or 3000 regulars of the Czechoslovakian army used in the making of that film. Those tanks are driven and commanded by real soldiers, not actors.
The second was even worst, it looked like a "Rambo" wanna be!
Why don't you see the film and THEN comment on it. You know, like a sensible person would.
-
From all over the world...
Comments like "I'm not a Brad Pitt fan, he is a horrible actor and I never enjoyed any of his movies" and "Brad is a brutal actor" are either from boobs or clueless dolts who haven't seen movies such as 12 Monkeys, True Romance, or Fight Club. ;)
-
The best tank battle film to date in my opinion is the 1955 Czechoslovak film "Tank Brigade". It depicts the Battle of the Dukla Pass in September–October 1944. It also sort of follows a tank crew, but not nearly as intimate as in Fury. There's plenty of theatrics in this film as well, but hardly as silly and overdone as that ludicrous last battle in Fury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOwxUZwUz7Y
And yes, those are real T-34s and real Pz. IVs and real StuG IIIs, real 109s and even a real Panther. And it's filmed at the real locations of the historical battle...
Wow! That is amazing! I'll see if I can find out how to get it.
-
As for showing the horrors of war with a tank-crew as the main setting, Fury doesn't hold a candle to "The Beast".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWbp5hxzXTo
That is a great movie. I was going to mention it, but you beat me to it. :aok
-
I just got back from seeing Fury.
I was glad to see it. There are parts I liked and parts I didn't think were done so well, but I'm glad that they made it, and I hope that it does well. If movies like this don't make money, the odds of really great war movies being made goes down. I think that it was a labor of love. For me, it is not as good as great war movies (like 30 Seconds Over Tokyo, 12 O'clock High, A Bridge Too Far, Das Boot, Midway, Saving Private Ryan) but a lot better than bad war movies (like Pearl Harbor and U-571).
Things I liked: the tanks (of course, especially the Tiger), that they made it clear to the audience how vulnerable Shermans were, that they had some scenes out of tank-warfare stories I've read, that they put in a fight with several Shermans vs. a Tiger where the Tiger killed all but one, and the one only succeeded by getting around the Tiger to shoot it other than in the front and from close range.
Things I didn't like: the overly creepy characters, the cliché aspects of plot and characterization, too many instances of Shermans taking a hit and not catching fire, that tanks were missing too many shots in a row at close range, that the Tiger battle was not pulled off as well as it could have been, that burning tanks didn't light off violently enough, the whole one tank vs. 200-300 guys battle.
The things I liked are where they did research and tried at least to put them in. The things I didn't like were Hollywoodisms, which I expect in most movies. Only a rare handful of movies avoid getting polluted by Hollywoodisms, so I am at least a little tolerant there.
-
We can at least be thankful that it isn't a Bollywood film. If it was, the Fury and Tiger crews would have had a dance-off in the middle of the fight...
-
Wow! That is amazing! I'll see if I can find out how to get it.
I just ordered it from a seller on eBay.
-
Hopefully you got the DVD with English subtitles!
http://www.panorama.sk/en/dvd/tank-brigade/1928
-
Hopefully you got the DVD with English subtitles!
http://www.panorama.sk/en/dvd/tank-brigade/1928
It said it had English subtitles. Here's hoping the description is correct. :)
-
They make movies to make money
-
I just got back from seeing Fury.
I was glad to see it. There are parts I liked and parts I didn't think were done so well, but I'm glad that they made it, and I hope that it does well. If movies like this don't make money, the odds of really great war movies being made goes down. I think that it was a labor of love. For me, it is not as good as great war movies (like 30 Seconds Over Tokyo, 12 O'clock High, A Bridge Too Far, Das Boot, Midway, Saving Private Ryan) but a lot better than bad war movies (like Pearl Harbor and U-571).
Things I liked: the tanks (of course, especially the Tiger), that they made it clear to the audience how vulnerable Shermans were, that they had some scenes out of tank-warfare stories I've read, that they put in a fight with several Shermans vs. a Tiger where the Tiger killed all but one, and the one only succeeded by getting around the Tiger to shoot it other than in the front and from close range.
Things I didn't like: the overly creepy characters, the cliché aspects of plot and characterization, too many instances of Shermans taking a hit and not catching fire, that tanks were missing too many shots in a row at close range, that the Tiger battle was not pulled off as well as it could have been, that burning tanks didn't light off violently enough, the whole one tank vs. 200-300 guys battle.
The things I liked are where they did research and tried at least to put them in. The things I didn't like were Hollywoodisms, which I expect in most movies. Only a rare handful of movies avoid getting polluted by Hollywoodisms, so I am at least a little tolerant there.
This was pretty much my impression as well. Every movie is going to have parts that we don't like, but that's no reason to hate it. Nothing is perfect. I am glad that I paid money to see it, and I will most likely buy it on DVD.
-
We can at least be thankful that it isn't a Bollywood film. If it was, the Fury and Tiger crews would have had a dance-off in the middle of the fight...
i might have enjoyed this more
-
:lol
-
We can at least be thankful that it isn't a Bollywood film. If it was, the Fury and Tiger crews would have had a dance-off in the middle of the fight...
Thanks, now I have a picture of Chris Pratt being War Daddy.
"I have a plan!"
"You have a plan?!" -crew
"I have...part of a plan!" :lol
I enjoyed the movie overall. Gritty, action packed and simple in its approach to give you a glimpse into the life of a worn down tank crew. :aok
-
We can at least be thankful that it isn't a Bollywood film. If it was, the Fury and Tiger crews would have had a dance-off in the middle of the fight...
:lol
:rock
-
There are war movies and there are war theme action movies. A war theme action movie better be funny, otherwise it's a waste of my time.
-
Just caught Fury <I know, way late>. I enjoyed it, although I think Hollywood did the Full Moron
treatment of the last fight.
1) Does anyone else find it unusual that the SS would be singing in road march formation in daylight
in April 1945?
2) Ok infantry guys, lets attack the suddenly non disabled Sherman frontally. while leaving all our
panzerfausts crated on our way to the front. Then let's use ALL of them on one tank...because I'm
sure they don't have any more we might run into later.
3) Great tactics Herr Himmler, let us not bypass one immobile Sherman, but throw our troops at it because
it's in our homeland!
4) I am not a Sherman expert, but shouldn't tank hatches be a little harder to open than simply climbing
on the tank and pulling?
I swear they can't help themselves, if it's a war movie they have to fark it up. The odd thing about
Fury was that the equipment they used was amazing. Dragon Wagon transporters, Tigers, nice variety
of halftracks and Shermans, their tech advisor must have been napping during the battle scenes :)
-
I thought Fury was entertaining. Those of who know a wee bit about WWII tactics can quickly point out a few things that were full of Hollywood and not typical SOP.
The things I was most annoyed by was the forced shooting of a POW, and the “200-300” of SS infantry armed with panzerfausts having such a hard time taking out a single immobilized M4A3 (W). Again, it was entertaining and I liked it far better than Radtails (RT was the WORST modern WWII film!!!). It had the typical Hollywood bravado.
All in all, it was worth the ticket and I will buy in on DVD when I’m able.
-
RT was the WORST modern WWII film!!!).
Pearl Harbor still edges it out for worst. ;)
-
Pearl Harbor still edges it out for worst. ;)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/PH_Mission-accomplished_zps6d657690.png~original)
-
I thought Fury was entertaining. Those of who know a wee bit about WWII tactics can quickly point out a few things that were full of Hollywood and not typical SOP.
The things I was most annoyed by was the forced shooting of a POW, and the “200-300” of SS infantry armed with panzerfausts having such a hard time taking out a single immobilized M4A3 (W). Again, it was entertaining and I liked it far better than Radtails (RT was the WORST modern WWII film!!!). It had the typical Hollywood bravado.
All in all, it was worth the ticket and I will buy in on DVD when I’m able.
Well I'll say this. In the movie they looked like pretty crack SS infantry when in reality at that date they had very little more then kids wearing the runes. Not their skills mind you but their age.
The war is full of instances of the enemy behaving like turkeys at a shoot. The Brits did it during Market Garden when they kept singing and marching even tho the column was getting slaughtered by snipers. The Germans did it during the bulge when columns just kept marching down roads into withering American fire. In the mini series BOB you saw a recreation of an actual event when a few platoons of airborne, along with artillery hammered a SS battalion. When we Yanks started using proximity fuses on arty we slaughtered Germans by the hundreds yet they kept marching on. Its a weird dynamic. Maybe leadership is taken out, maybe its shock of combat, maybe inexperience, maybe they are just afraid of consequences if they run. Maybe they were just dumb. But it happened.
But it did happen, even if the movie did kinda stretch the realism. My favorite scene was when they went 4 abreast to take on the 75mm's in the tree line and the surviving infantry pinned down rolled rifles tight into the single columns following the tanks per training.
OK would those 75mm's miss at those ranges? Probably not, it was a very dangerous ATG. But the audio of the high vel rounds was tremendous and it was a well shot scene. As for the Tiger scene? Well how often do you see a real Tiger in a movie so beggars cant be choosers but I think they were trying to recreate the theory that it took 4 Shermans to kill a Tiger and that 3 would have to engage while one snuck around to its arse. Of course by then "spring '45" the improved ammo and 76mm gun made the Sherman a decent tank but who cares? I'll buy the Blue Ray just to watch the Tiger period. :D
-
Typical Hollywood crap. Lots and lots of money, excellent equipment, good actors, crappy story, crappy execution.
I give it one star for using a real Tiger and not some welded T34...
-C+
-
Typical Hollywood crap.
You anti-american nazi you! :mad:
:D
-
I actually think the welded T-34/85s weren't THAT bad. I saw one up close at one of the Reading WW2
weekends and you had to be fairly knowledgable to notice the road wheels and fake turret hatch. The front
deck angles always bugged me, but I imagine the average guy on the street would never notice.
My point about the column of SS was not really about the singing, but no one was dim enough at that
stage of the war to provide such a tempting target for the fighter-bombers.
Also if they only had a short platoon of Shermans, why send them to defend a critical crossroads with
absolutely NO support. Not one infantry platoon or artillery fire support...nothing. That is definitely pure
Hollywood.
-
Pearl Harbor still edges it out for worst. ;)
Nope, I think even this one has it beat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrlfjiZO2dc
-
Ah, then there's the good ones.
December ..... 1941 ..... the California coast .....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_KOLqpo7z8
-
Nope, I think even this one has it beat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrlfjiZO2dc
What do you mean? That one is excellent! And very realistic. AH will be adding the Dragon Mk. II soon -- might be in the next patch.
-
What do you mean? That one is excellent! And very realistic. AH will be adding the Dragon Mk. II soon -- might be in the next patch.
But will it be perked? :P
-
I thought Fury was terrible. I saw 3 rivets out of place on the Tiger and the dirt looked english. :old:
-
I thought Fury was terrible. I saw 3 rivets out of place on the Tiger and the dirt looked english. :old:
Its a outrage! :aok
-
I thought Fury was terrible. I saw 3 rivets out of place on the Tiger and the dirt looked english. :old:
They used a real tiger in the filming as mentioned by the OP.
-
Yet another movie portraying american soldiers as undisciplined idiots and unprofessional aholes. I thought the acting was good. Very good in my opinion, the shot where Pitt's character asks the surrendering german civilian with the child soldiers about the SS officer sticks in my mind. The acting may have been too good, the tank crew became so unlikable you almost wanted them to die. The dinner with the germans scene was the best part of the film if you forget the ridiculously implausible love scene, it was a very good scene. It was the one scene that was void of action and tension music (the equivalent of a laugh track for drama). The movie was filled to the brim with hollywood war movie cliches. The climax was all hollywood jerry bruckheimer action movie. It may as well have been a zombie apocalypse horror flick at that point. Complete with persistent dense eerie orange fog.
"I just met these filthy violent home invaders four minutes ago when they were shouting at me and shoving me around at gunpoint as I was crying, convinced I was about to be raped. But despite the gunshots, explosions and people getting killed outside my window I'm going to make love to him because I'm a beautiful teenage girl and he played a piano."
"Our disabled tank is about to be swarmed by a battalion of dismounted infantry. Let's leave half of the ammo outside"
"I'm not worried about getting shot about the head and shoulders three times by a high power sniper rifle at close range because I know I can't die yet. Because I still have to shoot the final scene from Saving Private Ryan inside the tank."
-
I'd might as well say "Yet another movie portraying german soldiers as fanatic idiots and unprofessional aholes."
Who the hell approaches a destroyed tank up front? SS? And friggin continues to do so when shot at! The final fight was absurd in every way and the tank fight scene was not really any better than that.
And of course there needs to be the "Kill the POW" scene. Pfffftt... War is hell and all that BS that will make any bizarre reasoning to make sense.
I really liked the SPR when it came out because it could create a shock of combat but the faults in storyline somewhat ruined that too. The buggers had an incredible sniper in their team and decided to attack a defended radar station head on! I would have deployed the sniper in a convenient spot to cover the attack and told him to put a bullet through anybody's head who touches the MG. But no, the needless and ridiculous scene was there to make more drama and finally to create another POW scene to support the idea that mercy is for the weak and will get you killed, more sooner than later. BAM! another POW killed. War is hell bla bla bla.
Damn these cliches. Makes me think that while the writers and directors are idiots the people who give money to these projects are even more so and with the icing of notoriously bad taste.
The only good bit of drama was when the young guy was under the tank and the young SS soldier did not react in seeing him there. That was not overbloated with ridiculous introduction nor with any post dramatization yet it tried the resign the youth from senseless killing. That is, if you understood the message.
-C+
-
I'd might as well say "Yet another movie portraying german soldiers as fanatic idiots and unprofessional aholes."
Who the hell approaches a destroyed tank up front? SS? And friggin continues to do so when shot at! The final fight was absurd in every way and the tank fight scene was not really any better than that.
It was a zombie horror flick in an antique military uniform. Suddenly it's night time (very suddenly). They're barricaded in the cabin surrounded by a horde of zombies coming through the fog. They're killing the zombies as fast as they can but they just keep coming. Then, oh no! Somebody forgot something important outside. Someone is gonna have to go outside and get it!
-
This just in, AH members get their Bachelors in Cinematic Arts :rolleyes:
Watched it again this weekend. Still liked it. I am a simple man.
-
Someone hacked Sony I guess,, earlier they said it had been illegally downloaded almost 900,000 times,, not bad for a movie some of you can't hardly stand!
-
I'd might as well say "Yet another movie portraying german soldiers as fanatic idiots and unprofessional aholes."
Who the hell approaches a destroyed tank up front? SS? And friggin continues to do so when shot at! The final fight was absurd in every way and the tank fight scene was not really any better than that.
Except that wasnt really the German army. It was the remnants of what remained of the German armed forces in spring of 1945. Kids, Old men, wounded soldiers, thrown together in strange units, led mostly by inept officers and party hacks. In front of them were the guns of the allies. In back of them was a firing squad and K-camp or noose for their families. I already told you after July '44 the German armed forced were controlled more and more by the "N" party. Most of all the army.
And the SS? What could really have been left of the crack SS infantry divisions by then? Most of all in the west? No doubt all that was left was thugs and K-camp guards who's only skill was murdering unarmed woman and kids. I for one have no problem imagining a bunch of incompetent morons wearing the runes by March/April '45 and marching into MG fire with their heads up their arses.
This was not the superb force that invaded Russia in '41. This was the left overs more afraid of their own leaders then they were the Yank MGs. Since D-Day they had lost over 600,000 men alone in the west. Most very good troops.
Honestly the only problem I have with that final scene, and yeah it was a bit of a stretch, was that the SS soldiers looked a little to old, a little to clean, a little to well fed, a little to well armed, and way to enthusiastic. The portrayal of the kid with the panzerfaust was far more realistic. Heck at least 1/2 of SS volunteers at the end of the war werent even German.
-
As we are arguing Fury's qualities, should we say compared to what? In my opinion, the highest-quality military movies/series are:
Band of Brothers
A Bridge Too Far
Das Boot
Midway
Patton
Lawrence of Arabia
12 O'clock High
30 Seconds Over Tokyo
Grave of the Fireflies
Theirs is the Glory (because everyone in it was there)
Ones that almost make it into that list for me, but not quite:
Saving Private Ryan (awesome cinematography, good acting, plot not the best because it is, after all, a Spielberg movie, so it has to have something enormously stupid)
The Beast (great movie, but just not quite up to level of the above for reasons I can't articulate)
Black Hawk Down (I thought it was great -- maybe I should put it in the above, but not sure)
Battle of Britain (excellent, but not as polished as the above)
Piece of Cake (ditto)
-
Out on blu ray today,, got me a copy and some popcorn! See you later!
We need an armor emocon!!! :noid
-
only beef i have is the cheesy "lazer look alike" tracer rounds
-
Specs!
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/e1f84e9c524812d6365b6d9c08170bb3_zpsd24b9d0e.jpg)
-
only beef i have is the cheesy "lazer look alike" tracer rounds
You mean like these?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpseedqNzbg
-
As we are arguing Fury's qualities, should we say compared to what? In my opinion, the highest-quality military movies/series are:
Band of Brothers
A Bridge Too Far
Das Boot
Midway
Patton
Lawrence of Arabia
12 O'clock High
30 Seconds Over Tokyo
Grave of the Fireflies
Theirs is the Glory (because everyone in it was there)
Ones that almost make it into that list for me, but not quite:
Saving Private Ryan (awesome cinematography, good acting, plot not the best because it is, after all, a Spielberg movie, so it has to have something enormously stupid)
The Beast (great movie, but just not quite up to level of the above for reasons I can't articulate)
Black Hawk Down (I thought it was great -- maybe I should put it in the above, but not sure)
Battle of Britain (excellent, but not as polished as the above)
Piece of Cake (ditto)
"When Trumpets Fade" could easily be added to that list and makes a mockery of "Saving Private Ryan".
-
"When Trumpets Fade" could easily be added to that list and makes a mockery of "Saving Private Ryan".
Mockery? How so (out of curiousity)?
-
You mean like these?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpseedqNzbg
pay attention to the movie,they dont look the same
-
Comments like "I'm not a Brad Pitt fan, he is a horrible actor and I never enjoyed any of his movies" and "Brad is a brutal actor" are either from boobs or clueless dolts who haven't seen movies such as 12 Monkeys, True Romance, or Fight Club. ;)
:aok
for sure
although "true Romance" cant really be used to display his acting..(even though he was awesome in it, I think Gary Oldman stole the show :rofl)..Snatch on the other hand :rock
-
:aok
for sure
although "true Romance" cant really be used to display his acting..(even though he was awesome in it, I think Gary Oldman stole the show :rofl)..Snatch on the other hand :rock
Oh, yeah! Gary Oldman is *awesome* in True Romance. He is also one of my favorite actors. :aok
-
pay attention to the movie,they dont look the same
They do if you consider the frame exposure rate of typical 24 fps film. It can look even more like lasers if you use longer exposure.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Tracer_fire_at_MCB_Camp_Pendleton_DM-ST-89-00210.jpg)