Just Watched 'fury'

[mb339pan]

For me, Fury did one thing very well:  it showed the claustraphobia  of living and fighting in a tank.  Has any movie really done that before? 

did very well to see the stupidity of "evil side"

the final scene is something indescribable idiot, not to mention the myopia of the Germans of the trap in the woods, crucks change made in china optics of your pak 40, the fight scenes are pitiful

[SYN_Mike77]

Lebanon did. And did it much better.

I just watched the trailer for that above and yeah, gotta try to find that one!  Netflix?

[Finkeren]

I just watched the trailer for that above and yeah, gotta try to find that one! Netflix?

It was on there at some point, but I don't know if it's there anymore.

[Guest deleted@13284]

I started to watch 'Lebanon' but found the constant view through the 'gunner's sight' quite annoying,and at times poorly implemented. I will continue however because it's quite interesting.

[Chuck_Owl]

About The Pacific:

 

I got much more enjoyment reading Sledge's book (With the Old Breed and China Marine)  than watching the series. I think Joseph Mazello, even if he did a good job as an actor... Mazello didn't capture Sledge's personality that I saw through the books and TV interviews with him. I still loved the TV series, don't get me wrong. However I think that a series on The Pacific was doomed from the beginning. Band of Brothers had this narrative about a single company going through Camp Toccoa, D-Day, Holland, France and Germany. In itself, the story is easy to follow. But, you gotta keep in mind that in the Pacific Theater, marine regiments got decimated to the point where between 1 or 2 battles there was almost no way to follow a single bunch of guys. The casualty rates were just too high if you compare with BoB. Plus: The Pacific is set from 1942 (Guadalcanal) to 1945 (Okinawa). That's three years, folks. While I wouldn't dare take something away from the 101st Airborne, Easy Company fought for a year tops (1944-1945). Overall, The Pacific and Band of Brothers had two different dynamics and it showed the opposing realities of the Pacific theater compared to Europe. I read Robert Leckie's book (Helmet for my Pillow), but it's more of an exercice of stylistic writing than an account of WWII battles. Characters are hardly developed, they are given silly names like Hoosier and Runner, and at the end of the book you get no sense of knowing Robert Leckie any more than before reading the book.

 

Overall I think The Pacific has to be taken for what it is, and I'm fine with that. I know Tom Hanks and Spielberg tried their best, and that's all I can ask for. 

 

About The Mighty Eighth:

 

The trailer you posted is not related to Spielberg's series. It was an independant trailer to gauge the interest for a movie of the same title. You can even hear sound effects recycled from Saving Private Ryan.

 

About Fury:

 

I loved the movie until the Battle of the Crossroads, which I'll just pretend never happened. While I'm okay with it not being 100 % realistic, it was still a commendable effort in terms of tactics, strategies... The characters seemed a tad one-dimensional but I didn't think that the killing of prisoners or the character traits themselves were that much out of place. I wasn't shocked. Most movies portray soldiers as dashing idealistic heroes... they tend to favour one side over the other yet very few movies actually give a "real" account of how people behaved and what really happened.

 

I spoke with a couple of Vietnam war veterans (and one Korean War vet that took part in the Chosin Reservoir battle) and I asked one of them what he thought of how soldiers were portrayed in movies. This old man told me: "I don't know... We certainly didn't see ourselves as star-spangled heroes... We cared more about the buddies we lost than the people we butchered... and we killed an awful lot of people out there."

Edited March 14, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[Feathered_IV]

Yes, it is called "The Mighty Eighth".

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnpVgYHTvPE

I'm confused. I thought that horrible horrible trailer was another bad war movie project by an entirely different team who were still seeking investors. Please don't tell me that's actually what Hanks and Speilberg are planning to dish out.

[9./JG27golani79]

According to this website the trailer isn´t connected to Masters of the Air.

 

http://reelbrief.com/?p=1144

 

 

This new WWII television series will be titled "Masters of the Air" - not to be confused with movie trailers released last year for the "Mighty Eight".

[Feathered_IV]

Thank God!

[D_Konig]

It just really bothered me that they could have still achieved the same effect of the final shootout scene in the movie and made it believable without many changes but opted for utter nonsense instead.

 

Also like to point out the tank crew ambushes the germans from point blank range (dumb) and in the middle of the day. By the end its the middle of the night so we are to assume somehow this disabled Sherman tank holds off a batallion of SS for hours and hours on its own under a stream of russian style human wave attacks.

 

Had they made it so the Germans approached at dusk or sunset, it would have been better. The tank crew would initially get the jump on them and maybe get 10-15 guys before they withdraw and come back from another direction.

 

It was a suicide mission and they knew it as well as the audience so there really was no need for the over the top body count. Even a dumb inexperienced batallion commander would have eventually on his own or had a plan formulated from the bottom up from SOMEONE in that unit that knew what they were doing - at worst a deception force or supression force would get in to fight thr tank while the rest could flank it in dramatic slow mo john woo gunfight bullets flying fashion for the inevitable killshot from an AT weapon or simply mount thr tank like they did and fire into the crew compartment.

 

Final note, I actually laughed out loud when Brad Pitt took a K98 round to the chest from 300 meters and recovered almost spitefully like he simply suffered a punch to the chest. Hilarious.

 

Brad Pitt is a tough dude.

 

I like Sgt Horvaths (actors name eludes me) death sequence in SPR much better by comparison. Someone mentioned they thought that was bad too - really ?

I didnt mind that movie at any stage except for 3 guys charging an MG42 emplacement in broad daylight. Come on, Spielberg.

Lastly yes, Red Tails. I think i made it 20 minutes in. I couldnt handle it. Awful.

[=CFC=Conky]

Hi Bearcat,

 

Regarding 'Red Tails', I felt the film was made in the style of WW2-era films, replete with cheesy dialogue and sinister looking Nazis, a lot like Raiders of the Lost Ark. There were some excellent details (aircraft zig-zagging while taxiing), and some 'Easter eggs' (near the end of the film, as the 262's fly past the bomber stream, the engine sound is that of Tie fighters).

 

That said, I feel the HBO film 'Tuskeegee Airmen' did a better job of telling their story.

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

Edited March 15, 2015 by CFC_Conky

[johncage]

if that was the intention, they should have made that more prevalent, and people who have had a different perception of it, instead of, "what a pile of crap"

 

the reviews for fury reinforce that old lesson people are so eager to make excuses for their low standards. god forbid one expect quality from their arts and entertainment.

Edited March 15, 2015 by johncage

[SharpeXB]

Regarding the POW scene. It's not that these things don't happen in wartime, but if they involved US soldiers those men would be prosecuted. That is a very serious war crime so the way it's portrayed in the movie being carried out in full view of a hundred other soldiers is even more absurd. Any of the men who witnessed that event and did not report it would also be subject to prosecution. So Wardaddy isn't too smart assuming nobody would say anything. As a movie making bit, it doesn't help you to empathize with the character at all. It just makes you think he's criminal and stupid.

As far as soldiers executing POWs, sorry to shatter your bubble but yeah, it happens all the time on all sides. Sanity is the first thing that goes out the window.

That's the way some movie makers like to portray soldiers, as crazy thugs. War is MAD and to survive the war the soldier must become MAD! What a bunch of hooey. I imagine real soldiers take offense at this stereotyping.

[Bearcat]

Hi Bearcat,

 

Regarding 'Red Tails', I felt the film was made in the style of WW2-era films, replete with cheesy dialogue and sinister looking Nazis, a lot like Raiders of the Lost Ark. There were some excellent details (aircraft zig-zagging while taxiing), and some 'Easter eggs' (near the end of the film, as the 262's fly past the bomber stream, the engine sound is that of Tie fighters).

 

That said, I feel the HBO film 'Tuskeegee Airmen' did a better job of telling their story.

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

 

Oh yes.. well that is partly because the HBO film was basically an autobiography of this man:

.. while Redtails was a compilation of a lot of separate stories and they tried to tie them into the main characters. Yet they still missed the coke story, and the great wing tank caper.. There was so much more they could have done with that film but part of the problem was a lot of the Airmen or their families wanterd to get paid for the use of the names.. hence the whole fictional thing.. Now I don't know how it was with the BoB.. I don't know if Babe and the rest of those guys got money.. I assume Winters did because he was also a consultant on the film....but what could have been an epic film turned into a joke.. and that whole twist with the drinking pilot..? That was a complete fabrication. All those men had so much respect for B.O. Davis and knew what was at stake.. none of them would have dared to do anything like that.

 

In the HBO film.. the fact that the plane had the markings of the 100th, bore the number 10 and the lead character was from Ottumwa Iowa were all based on that fact.  His wife is this woman . She is a wonderful woman.. and she is not Arlene. Arlene was a girlfriend that he had before they met.. When I spoke to her about 10 years ago she was very adamant about that.. I also spoke to George Robert's widow. His daughter is Robin Roberts of ABC news. I was trying to see if I could obtain a picture of George "Spanky" Roberts' plane so I could skin it.. but they had no images of his plane. Lots of images of him though..

[pencon]

Yeah Red Tails sucked hard , that's for sure . Fury was a big let down too, wasn't much in the way of tank battles .

[D_Konig]

Sharpe,

 

I am a soldier and infantry veteran of Afghanistan. These kinds of incidents are not far from reality at all - speaking from experience and one needs only to do some research. There are mountains of stories about this sort of thing.

 

The more brutal and prolonged the combat, the more animalistic the men become, on all sides. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

To think that we in the west are somehow morally and genetically immune to falling victim to war crimes and general bloodlust in this kind of insane environment (trust me, all sense of sanity goes bye bye) just because we are the 'good guys' is flawed and incorrect thinking.

 

Abu Ghraib, The marines desecrating executing and urinating on dead iraqi fighters in Iraq, Canadians taking ears for war trophies in Afghanistan come to mind just off the top of my head in recent memory.

 

"War is hell" is a very accurate statement for alot of reasons that go far beyond the obvious.

 

The Vietnam war was also full of examples of how this sort of thing was much more rampant when media coverage and independent war correspondence came into its own.

[SharpeXB]

I'm not saying atrocities don't happen in wartime, I'm saying it was a poor filmmaking choice in this movie.

[D_Konig]

Oh well I see what youre saying but i meant to day I didnt take any offense to that scene or anything like that but then again im the type of guy that doesnt pretend that kind of thing doesnt happen when he knows better.

 

I like films that realistic, especially war films. I get you have to take dramatic license here and there to tell a story and I was fine and enjoying it up until the last part we already covered that was just... too much.

 

A decent series I just watched ( not phenomenal but I enjoyed it) was a german series Unsere Mutters Unsere Vatters or Generation War in English.

 

Theres so many great stories that could be told while remaining true to the source that it boggles my mind to see stuff like this come up again and again.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Regarding the POW scene. It's not that these things don't happen in wartime, but if they involved US soldiers those men would be prosecuted. That is a very serious war crime so the way it's portrayed in the movie being carried out in full view of a hundred other soldiers is even more absurd

 

Quite. We hear about it from all fronts, but we also hear about this being prosecuted. Even the über-evil German SS or conducted their atrocities in small villages or in hidden camps. Their Soviet counterpart the NKVD hid away in the Katyn forest to execute the Polish officers, knowing full well how the regular army would react.

 

The callous attitude to prisoners of war in Hollywood films is a fairly recent phenomenon, and not representative of what you would learn from reports from either side during the war, particularly not in Western Europe. Death rate among German POWs in American hands are estimated to 0,15%*. Most people dropping their guns and sticking their hands in the air in the ETO survived. Had the "Hollywood" treatment of prisoners been the norm, soldiers would have very little to gain by surrendering and would fight to their death.

 

 

* From Ferguson, Niall (2004). "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat". War in History 11 (2): 148–92, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

Edited March 15, 2015 by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

[SharpeXB]

A decent series I just watched ( not phenomenal but I enjoyed it) was a german series Unsere Mutters Unsere Vatters or Generation War in English.

I just got that series but haven't watched it yet. It looks good.

[SharpeXB]

Yes, Hollywood seems to love war atrocities. One of the worst is in "The Patriot" that portrays British soldiers burning civilians, women and children alive in a church as reprisal for "guerrilla" (that word had not yet been invented) attacks on their soldiers. Once again as if all bad guys in the movies are an SS Einsatzgruppen. Never mind that in the 18th century the British army was a professional highly disciplined force that would hang a private soldier who so much as stole a chicken from the local population. Or the fact that the colonists in question, rebellious as they might be were still British subjects. The bad guy in the movie "Tavington" is based upon Banastre Tarleton who was a controversial figure for cutting down enemy troops attempting to surrender but did nothing like the act in the film. Later in the war when Tarletons men tried to surrender they were given "Tarleton's quarters"

[unreasonable]

Yes, Hollywood seems to love war atrocities.

 

I think that is true, but is part of the general trend to portray all forms of authority as being hypocritical, which has been current since the 60s and 70s cultural revolution and the Vietnam fiasco. Earlier films, Hollywood or British, tended to take the patriotic line, adding a dash of racism when the enemy were asians.

 

Post Twin Towers, I tentatively hypothesise, we now have two competing paradigms of America at war: the Democrat model based on the anti-authority model and the Republican based on the older ideal, with perhaps a few mixing them together. 

 

On the subject of WW2 atrocities you are right that official UK/US policy was to prosecute, and this was no doubt effective once prisoners reached rear areas, with rare exceptions. However, to quote from wiki  'Stephen Ambrose [uS historian] related: "I've interviewed well over 1000 combat veterans. Only one of them said he shot a prisoner... Perhaps as many as one-third of the veterans...however, related incidents in which they saw other GIs shooting unarmed German prisoners who had their hands up.' I imagine that the majority of these cases were where enemy soldiers were in the act of surrendering, others soon after surrender.

 

I am not sure that the behavior of British or Canadian troops would have been much different. I have looked (quickly) for evidence of court martials for such offenses but cannot find any.

[Feathered_IV]

Take Ambrose with a pinch of salt. He also said he had dozens of interviews with Eisenhower on topics from D-Day to giving up smoking. Ike's meticulous diary and PA documents show that they didn't even meet.

[johncage]

hollywood loves to "subvert" the traditional portrayal by flying off way to the other side of the spectrum and depicting either the allies or the germans, or both, as caricatures existing solely for the purpose of making the film more "edgy" and "gritty". forget properly and realistically portraying reality or human nature, just push that anti-war agenda out there, meanwhile make the movie look like a damn videogame with human wave attacks like some kind of bad ai programming.

 

this ayers guy is very hit and miss, mostly misses, and this was a miss.

[Feathered_IV]

Correction to the above: Ambrose is credited with meeting DDE on three occasions totaling less than five hours. Still not "hundreds and hundreds of hours on a daily basis for a couple of years" though.

[unreasonable]

Take Ambrose with a pinch of salt. He also said he had dozens of interviews with Eisenhower on topics from D-Day to giving up smoking. Ike's meticulous diary and PA documents show that they didn't even meet.

 

Fair enough, I was not aware of that. We do know about incidents like this however: no doubt there were many more that never came to light. My guess would be that it would have been pretty much the norm without official discouragement, as was the case on the eastern front and in the far east. So I am saying that the official position was both desirable and effective to a considerable degree, but that the practice was still fairly common. Obviously hard to prove one way or the other. 

 

After all rape by allied servicemen was also punished severely, but we know this was widespread.

 

My Edit: Historians blow their own trumpet like everyone else...

Edited March 16, 2015 by unreasonable

[Brano]

I enjoyed the Fury film a lot.Because I was not expecting History Channel documentary.I was expecting holywood action film with lots of shooting,badaboom,blood and excellent Brad Pitt.I went to watch it after long day at work and I can tell you,I relaxed like after good massage   

And the "Rambo" style end of the film was just pure beauty

[Feathered_IV]

One thing that struck me aboout Fury was how tiny it was.  The setpiece battle scenes took place in little plots of land.  The command to "spread out" saw the Shermans move half a stones throw away from each other.  Mighty Tigers and formidable Pak guns engaged at the sort of ranges that would have infantry fixing bayonets.  Ruined vistas were confined to two or three houses.  The strategic crossroads that was apparently the turning point of the war in the west was just a muddy track with a single building next to it.  The irresistable phalanx of German might - just a few companies of unsupported infantry.  

[SharpeXB]

 

 On the subject of WW2 atrocities you are right that official UK/US policy was to prosecute, and this was no doubt effective once prisoners reached rear areas, with rare exceptions. However, to quote from wiki  'Stephen Ambrose [uS historian] related: "I've interviewed well over 1000 combat veterans. Only one of them said he shot a prisoner... Perhaps as many as one-third of the veterans...however, related incidents in which they saw other GIs shooting unarmed German prisoners who had their hands up.' I imagine that the majority of these cases were where enemy soldiers were in the act of surrendering, others soon after surrender.

 

I'm sure it's an unwritten rule of war that the enemy can't kill huge numbers of attacking troops and then expect to surrender to the survivors. The act depicted in the movie though is not done in the heat of battle but a straight up execution of a PoW in custody. Plus it's not an isolated act by an individual. As a vignette in the film it's just poorly handled.

[DD_Arthur]

I enjoyed the Fury film a lot.Because I was not expecting History Channel documentary.I was expecting holywood action film with lots of shooting,badaboom,blood and excellent Brad Pitt.I went to watch it after long day at work and I can tell you,I relaxed like after good massage   

And the "Rambo" style end of the film was just pure beauty

 

I have not seen Fury and I have no intention too.  I'm just not into war movies but I think Brano is right.  It's just a piece of entertainment.  It's the culmination of a risky investment hoping for an enormous return.  These things should never be taken seriously or looked at as any sort of documentary.

 

 

One thing that struck me aboout Fury was how tiny it was.  The setpiece battle scenes took place in little plots of land.  The command to "spread out" saw the Shermans move half a stones throw away from each other.  Mighty Tigers and formidable Pak guns engaged at the sort of ranges that would have infantry fixing bayonets.  Ruined vistas were confined to two or three houses.  The strategic crossroads that was apparently the turning point of the war in the west was just a muddy track with a single building next to it.  The irresistable phalanx of German might - just a few companies of unsupported infantry.  

 

Yep.  Thats the same for all war movies in my experience.  It would be a rather boring film if you can't get your leading man and the supporting cast in the money shot!  

[Uufflakke]

I just watched the trailer for that above and yeah, gotta try to find that one!  Netflix?

 

Lebanon online (free and without plug ins ) here:

 

http://nobuffer.info/gor.php?url=pgjae3uah0ta

 

http://daclips.in/cdrxv2s5cnvn

[6./ZG26_Emil]

One thing that struck me aboout Fury was how tiny it was.  The setpiece battle scenes took place in little plots of land.  The command to "spread out" saw the Shermans move half a stones throw away from each other.  Mighty Tigers and formidable Pak guns engaged at the sort of ranges that would have infantry fixing bayonets.  Ruined vistas were confined to two or three houses.  The strategic crossroads that was apparently the turning point of the war in the west was just a muddy track with a single building next to it.  The irresistable phalanx of German might - just a few companies of unsupported infantry.  

 

This is a gripe I have with most WW2 films especially modern ones, the ranges are always tiny. Why is it so important to have a tank dual occurring at 50 paces rather than 800m surely a good director could still make a battle exciting or 'action packed'. 

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

While we're on the subject of films about tanks, has anyone seen the 1995 re-make of the 1943 classic, 'Sahara'?

 

The plot is pretty close to the original and while the choice of lead actor (Jim Belushi), is quite strange considering the original was played by Humphrey Bogart, it wasn't the worst war movie I've ever seen. I still prefer the original; the war was far from being won, which added a certain edge to war movies of that era.

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky 

[Cybermat47]

 

I much preferred 'White Tiger' even though it had a mocked up Tiger (the replica they were making for it wasn't ready in time).

 

Just finished watching that film.

 

At least 'Fury' seems to have focus. 'White Tiger' jumps from Hitler talking to Satan (no, really), a crazy Russian guy who somehow makes a FULL recovery after having 90% of his body burnt who worships the Tank God and sets out to destroy the White Tiger, then focus shifts onto the German high command having a meal after surrendering, back to the tank storyline, ends that without a resolution, and then goes back to Hitler talking with Satan (again, this really happens).

 

And there is almost no incidental music, making it extremely boring to sit through.

[1./JG42Nephris]

Well Fury moves in one row with typical US/Hollywood war movies. I guess 70 yrs ago it would have been called propaganda.

However unbelievable that a set of these actors accepts a book like that,... I dont want to estimate how many people really belive the stuff presented in those movies.

Looks like US is in need of those Cpt.America movies

[Guest deleted@13284]

Just finished watching that film.

 

At least 'Fury' seems to have focus. 'White Tiger' jumps from Hitler talking to Satan (no, really), a crazy Russian guy who somehow makes a FULL recovery after having 90% of his body burnt who worships the Tank God and sets out to destroy the White Tiger, then focus shifts onto the German high command having a meal after surrendering, back to the tank storyline, ends that without a resolution, and then goes back to Hitler talking with Satan (again, this really happens).

 

And there is almost no incidental music, making it extremely boring to sit through.

Each to their own I guess. If I had the choice to sit through either again it won't be Fury.

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

Wasn't going to say anything (which some times is the best avenue) but just for the record .... I liked it. I'm no tanker, and I wasn't in WW2. Though I've seen my own brand in Nam. So "I" am NO authority on this. I enjoyed White Tiger for what it is but to me, Fury was good (effects wise at least). The human factor as displayed in Fury,could be debated until the oceans dried up and blew away as we all have our "opinions". 

 

Chief

[StG77_Kondor]

I actually enjoyed it - overall. Granted, I probably give it a 6/10 for entertainment/acting, etc.

 

However - a lot of the small details in the movie were well researched. Full disclosure - I do WWII reenacting, both US and German. The equipment, field gear, uniforms, etc are the best I've seen from any American full length feature film.  The US Captain, is wearing an Italian camouflage parka, the rest of the Germans are wearing either the best reproduction uniforms - and in some cases even original gear was used.

 

There were a lot of small scenes taken from real pictures/events during the war. The first one was during the beginning of the movie where the bloodied to a pulp Waffen SS POW is paraded back to base. It was clearly influenced by this picture of a 12th SS POW outside of Caen.

 

 

The little details - how Pitt yelled at Norman for crying on the intercom - to turn it off if he's going to cry (watched the movie with a cold war era tank vet - said that happened more than a few times when he was in). Tracer colors for both US and German army weapons were correct.

 

Sure the movie has TONS of problems. Dumb Germans not using actual German tactics is glaring. The Pak gun not being properly sighted at what? 100 yards? After they supposedly destroyed an American convoy at the same distance? Weird.

 

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, it surely isn't the best. Not by a longshot. BUT to me it shows that maybe Hollywood - or at least these guys - where willing to listen to legitimate experts who know how to pay attention to the smaller details that all of us as WWII buffs can appreciate. At the same time it is still Hollywood - and we can always expect the bad guys to fight like Star Wars Stormtroopers. It was also big for me to see that the portrayal of American troops wasn't as noble as we've seen in previous blockbuster WWII movies, executing POWs, raping civilians.

 

In the end, I feel the level of detail they paid to the small things made it worth the price for me. And any movie that has an MP-44 as the main 'hero' weapon, gets my vote. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

However - a lot of the small details in the movie were well researched.

  Taking nothing away from you opinion which I respect, the larger detail was what was so sorely lacking. The battle at the crossroads, was in my opinion frankly ridiculous. Even if you know very little about tactics, I am sure most folks would know that attacking a tank from the front with a Kar 98 or any small arm would be completely and utterly pointless. The films director and or writer or both sent the film into realms of sheer stupidity at the end. 

 

Just look at all those Panzerfaust the Germans had in crates and were carrying in a pervious scene, and it takes some bright spark about 25 minutes to realise "hey these are really useful against a tank!" Hell it goes from day to night before they realise this.

Yes it's an action film but please David Ayer don't insult peoples intelligence with some of the most ridiculously silly "battle/action scenes committed to film.  Oh he already did he made Fury!

 

Ps. I didn't really like Fury

[StG77_Kondor]

  Taking nothing away from you opinion which I respect, the larger detail was what was so sorely lacking. The battle at the crossroads, was in my opinion frankly ridiculous. Even if you know very little about tactics, I am sure most folks would know that attacking a tank from the front with a Kar 98 or any small arm would be completely and utterly pointless. The films director and or writer or both sent the film into realms of sheer stupidity at the end. 

 

Just look at all those Panzerfaust the Germans had in crates and were carrying in a pervious scene, and it takes some bright spark about 25 minutes to realise "hey these are really useful against a tank!" Hell it goes from day to night before they realise this.

Yes it's an action film but please David Ayer don't insult peoples intelligence with some of the most ridiculously silly "battle/action scenes committed to film.  Oh he already did he made Fury!

 

Ps. I didn't really like Fury

 

 

I agree with you. In the larger scope, the movie absolutely fails. Maybe I see the glass being half full. Did Fury fall into some of the same traps as most American WWII movies? Definitely. However, seeing how some of the closer details were done properly and were well researched...gives us maybe hope for the future. Not every GI was like Captain America - and not every German - even Waffen SS - were monsters.  Hollywood still has a long way to go until they get into 'Unsere mutter, unsere vater' territory (and even this mini series has many 'Hollywood' type flaws). 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I agree with you. In the larger scope, the movie absolutely fails. Maybe I see the glass being half full. Did Fury fall into some of the same traps as most American WWII movies? Definitely. However, seeing how some of the closer details were done properly and were well researched...gives us maybe hope for the future. Not every GI was like Captain America - and not every German - even Waffen SS - were monsters.  Hollywood still has a long way to go until they get into 'Unsere mutter, unsere vater' territory (and even this mini series has many 'Hollywood' type flaws). 

Indeed