| Tango01 | 21 Oct 2014 3:45 p.m. PST |
"David Rae served in the British Army for 22 years. He retired as a warrant officer and regimental sergeant major—but not before completing four tours in Bosnia, one in Iraq and three in Afghanistan. His specialty was armored reconnaissance. Now, he works on movies. Director David Ayer's tank epic Fury was his first. The film, out now, follows an American Sherman tank crew in the waning days of World War II. It's 1945 and the Allies are on German soil, inching toward Berlin. Brad Pitt plays Sgt. Don Collier, commanding a Sherman named Fury…"
Full article here.
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Dynaman8789 | 21 Oct 2014 4:53 p.m. PST |
Just saw it and was not impressed with the "realism". It was Hollywood from start to finish. Nice special effects and the look of things was nice too but the plot, egads… |
| cosmicbank | 21 Oct 2014 5:33 p.m. PST |
Problem with made in Hollywood is it has to appeal to a market larger than wargamers, history nuts, and other wackos who are worried about the fact that the "blank" was not used by the "blanks" during "blank" and I count myself as all three. 1970 Waterloo great movie lost a ton of money. |
| dBerczerk | 21 Oct 2014 5:49 p.m. PST |
I saw it and enjoyed it. A bit slow at times, but worthwhile. I won't pay to see it a second time, but would recommend it to anyone interested in the period. |
| John Tyson | 21 Oct 2014 7:04 p.m. PST |
I liked "Fury" but didn't love it. I give it a 7 out of 10. I did like the vehicles. |
| Disco Joe | 21 Oct 2014 7:09 p.m. PST |
The vehicles were the best part of the movie. |
| Buck215 | 21 Oct 2014 7:39 p.m. PST |
I enjoyed "Fury" a little more than all of you. Yes, it was Hollywood, but the theater I saw it in was packed with people who also enjoyed it and may have had their interest in WW2 and what tankers went through during the war piqued. What did not hurt was on Saturday billionaire Paul Allen had set up an M4A1 Sherman tank from his armor collection outside the theater box office as a publicity stunt for the movie and his armor/aircraft collection at Paine Field. That tank was the star and many people who had never seen a tank up close and personal were now impressed and eager to see the fim. The expressions on the faces of little kids who saw the Sherman in person was priceless! As I said, I really enjoyed "Fury"… |
| Patrick R | 21 Oct 2014 9:18 p.m. PST |
I was impressed the other day by the amount of accurate WW2 equipment and tactics used in a film, they did use some more modern slang, and there was the usual love story and the perpetual infighting that passes for "character development" these days. Too bad the film was actually about WWI … |
| langobard | 22 Oct 2014 3:14 a.m. PST |
I simply cannot understand why people, even in a forum like this, continue to complain about realism in a movie. Its a movie, it is designed to entertain as many people as possible, and thereby make as much money for the backers as possible. That is the point of any movie. If it was a documentary, it would be different, and I would hold it to a different standard, just as I hold a genuine history book to a different standard to a work of fiction. The Amytiville Horror starts with the words "This is a true story", but its still found in the fiction section of every library. Movies are no different, they belong in the 'fiction' section of our visual libraries whether they are based on true stories (I have no idea if 'Fury' makes such a claim) or the fact that events such as WW2 actually occurred. The best advice for people I can think of for whom 'realism' is imortant in a war movie is probably to wait until it isn't going to cost them anything to watch it. That way they can spend their money on things they find more suitable, rather than feeling agrieved that they have done their hard earned money on something they didn't like! |
| OSchmidt | 22 Oct 2014 6:20 a.m. PST |
Not going to see it. Been burned too many times will wait till it gets to television and I have no doubt when it does I will watch it for ten minutes before I decide it's stupid and turn it off. War movies written by people who have no idea of war and no idea of the military experience and who hat soldiers and all who have patriotism cannot be good. |
| nazrat | 22 Oct 2014 6:38 a.m. PST |
What makes you think they "hat" soldiers? Jeez, the manure that gets slung around here!! |
Patrick Sexton  | 22 Oct 2014 8:10 a.m. PST |
This movie was definitely NOT written by people who hate soldiers. Not by a long shot. |
 Legion 4  | 22 Oct 2014 8:24 a.m. PST |
Here's something we have to remember about war movies … Besides the "Hollywoodizing" of certain things. Based on my experiences, sadly, not all soldiers do things that are considered "tactically" correct or make bad decisions in real life … |
ScottWashburn  | 22 Oct 2014 8:33 a.m. PST |
I enjoyed it. It wasn't a masterpiece, but it was a good solid film. Many similarities to SPR and I was reminded a bit of "Sahara" with a lone tank trying to hold off a swarm of German infantry. Not exactly the same ending, though… |
| Yesthatphil | 22 Oct 2014 8:34 a.m. PST |
There's nothing wrong with geeks expecting movies to get the history and associated details right. Seriously. I have never seen a movie which was in any way improved by the mistakes or Gibsonesque falsifications. They spend an absolute fortune and could just as easily get them right as wrong – it is simply laziness and lack of care by the highly paid professionals … From an artistic point of view, I don't really care either way (if it is a compelling film I will enjoy it anyway … ) but we should not accept being fobbed off over authenticity – if you accept second rate, you always get second rate (it's as simple as that!) … Phil |
| Dynaman8789 | 22 Oct 2014 10:57 a.m. PST |
Accuracy – I didn't care that it was a real Tiger they were using in the film, I'm just as happy with the Tiger used in Kelly's Heroes or Saving Private Ryan. Just so long as they don't use two different models of american tanks for each side I'm usually happy. My main gripe with the movie is that all the main characters (save peach fuzz boy) are total scumbags. Soldiers get jaded, surly, etc but this crew was something else. |
| John Tyson | 22 Oct 2014 12:09 p.m. PST |
D-8789, I agree with your gripe about the main characters all being scumbags. I suspect the writers of "Fury" wanted to show men suffering from combat exhaustion, thus their crude behavior. But for me also, it came across as demeaning of the WWII men who sacrificed so much. |
| jgibbons | 22 Oct 2014 5:34 p.m. PST |
I tend to agree – i couldn't get that invested in the characters…. I didn't find them very likable until the end… The equipment/uniforms were great… |
| Surferdude | 22 Oct 2014 11:52 p.m. PST |
No matter what it was better than getting dragged along to see the normal tripe or 'chick flick' :) |
| Triplecdad | 27 Oct 2014 6:15 a.m. PST |
The best thing about a movie like Fury is that no matter how "right" or "wrong" it is historically, it does interest younger wargamers to game the period . . . and subsequently learn more about that period. I think FOW is about the worst WWII game around, but it does interest kids in gaming that time period. |
| PeterH | 27 Oct 2014 10:58 a.m. PST |
loved it, inaccuracies and all. I did smile a bit during the German assault though (don't want to say more) |
| Tumbleweed | 27 Oct 2014 11:35 a.m. PST |
It's got to be better than staying at home and watching Madonna videos. |
| 4th Cuirassier | 28 Oct 2014 3:49 a.m. PST |
I'm always baffled by these gripes that they used the wrong tank to depict this, that or the other WW2 type. In A Bridge Too Far they used Anthony Hopkins to depict John Frost. Here's Anthony Hopkins:
Here's John Frost:
Well I'm sorry but Anthony Hopkins looks NOTHING LIKE John Frost. His hair's the wrong colour and too long, his eyes are the wrong colour, his moustache is ALL WRONG and I REFUSE TO SEE THIS STUPID MOVIE etc etc If a film makes needs to portray King Tigers and can't find any, it is IMHO quite OK to use Leopards instead. |
| mysteron | 28 Oct 2014 5:46 a.m. PST |
I think its flavour we need to look at rather than 100% Historical accuracy, another words a compromise. I suppose Battle of the Bulge was one extreme using modern tanks, terrain that didn't resemble Belgium , well not the Belgium I visited anyway. Where as films like A Bridge too far with the incorrect type of Shermans does give you the flavour and is believable to a wider audience . Not seen Fury yet but I am hoping it is of the same ilk. |
| Gamesman6 | 28 Oct 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
"the perpetual infighting that passes for "character development" these days." Thought you were talking about TMP! or any other forum! ;) |
| Gamesman6 | 28 Oct 2014 6:45 a.m. PST |
"War movies written by people who have no idea of war and no idea of the military experience and who hat(e) soldiers and all who have patriotism cannot be good." Yes but what does that have to do with this movie. Also taking the first part of the thought.
"War movies written by people who have no idea of war and no idea of the military experience" We could say the same for much about most people who play and write wargames. Reading books etc. doesn't substitute for the actual experience, and experience in one field of conflict doesn't itself translate to another and neither case of itself equates to being able to convey that to people who have not shared it. |
| Gamesman6 | 28 Oct 2014 6:46 a.m. PST |
It's a movie, you have either seen it or not, and if you have you liked it or you didn't. The rest is detail and opinion… |
| Gamesman6 | 28 Oct 2014 7:49 a.m. PST |
Also interesting that some mention that something is too much a "movie", while others don't like it because they could get invested in the characters. O.o |
| darthfozzywig | 28 Oct 2014 10:49 a.m. PST |
Also interesting that some mention that something is too much a "movie", while others don't like it because they could get invested in the characters. O.o Hahah yeah, I noticed that as well. I saw it a few nights ago and I really enjoyed it. Script, acting, and directing were all really good. It wasn't an "military people are bad!" movie by any stretch, and it was wasn't filled with over-the-top heroics (read up on Audie Murphy). It felt a heckuva lot more realistic than most war movies – especially the rah-rah ones. Not going to see it. You're missing out. |
