Fury: New WW2 film about U.S. tank crew coming in 2014

Discussions on WW2 and pre-WW2 related movies, games, military art and other fiction.
User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 15:35
Location: Authie

Re: Fury: New WW2 film about U.S. tank crew coming in 2014

Post by BillHermann » 09 Jan 2017 03:03

offizier1916 wrote:watched the film and it was one of the worst war films i watchedk so far. i dont like how pitt played, but he played way better than he did in "inglorious basterds".
but again, just my opinion. before i watched the film i read some reviews on rotten tomatoes and there it got pretty good critics. but i just dont like this "overacting" and this predictable story line. it appeared to me that the director tried to portray the allies and germans as "complicated" and he tried to portray the americans as "evil" as well, tried to show how war changes the soldiers.... but it appeared to me that he never could put aside this "american hollywood" aura. Look how this liitle group of americans can easily destroy like 500 waffen ss "idiots", they dont hit at all. look at the sherman vs tiger scene
Oh and yea, the waffen ss soldiers sang end of april 45 in the battle zone loudly....omg

all in all: below average film. Movies as "Stalingrad" or "unsere väter unsere mütter" are imo 10x better while having 10x lesser budget.
Just because a movie does not show war in the way you think it should be does not mean that it's awful. Now I do agree that The German film Stalingrad is better as a film I do find it interesting that your two picks are German. Film makers always take liberty including the two that you think are great also have liberties. Films along with actual war footage have a purpose. The purpose is to entertain, tell stories, motivate and send a message. Just because filmmakers do this does not mean that film is garbage.

offizier1916
Member
Posts: 340
Joined: 20 Sep 2015 10:37
Location: Deutschland

Re: Fury: New WW2 film about U.S. tank crew coming in 2014

Post by offizier1916 » 09 Jan 2017 08:08

BillHermann wrote:
offizier1916 wrote:watched the film and it was one of the worst war films i watchedk so far. i dont like how pitt played, but he played way better than he did in "inglorious basterds".
but again, just my opinion. before i watched the film i read some reviews on rotten tomatoes and there it got pretty good critics. but i just dont like this "overacting" and this predictable story line. it appeared to me that the director tried to portray the allies and germans as "complicated" and he tried to portray the americans as "evil" as well, tried to show how war changes the soldiers.... but it appeared to me that he never could put aside this "american hollywood" aura. Look how this liitle group of americans can easily destroy like 500 waffen ss "idiots", they dont hit at all. look at the sherman vs tiger scene
Oh and yea, the waffen ss soldiers sang end of april 45 in the battle zone loudly....omg

all in all: below average film. Movies as "Stalingrad" or "unsere väter unsere mütter" are imo 10x better while having 10x lesser budget.
Just because a movie does not show war in the way you think it should be does not mean that it's awful. Now I do agree that The German film Stalingrad is better as a film I do find it interesting that your two picks are German. Film makers always take liberty including the two that you think are great also have liberties. Films along with actual war footage have a purpose. The purpose is to entertain, tell stories, motivate and send a message. Just because filmmakers do this does not mean that film is garbage.
Nah, i could have picked films like "au revoir les enfants" (french production) or some dutch films, who are, imo way better than "fury" or other hollywood productions. but you are right, that every director takes his liberty to realize his vision of the film. but i dont have to agree with his end product. I dont want to generalize hollywood, because "Schindlers list" is one of the best movies i watched. Or operation valkyrie was pretty good as well, althouth i normally dont like Tom cruise as an actor, in valkyrie he played very good. fury, like "pearl habor" or "inglorious basterds" are just not my type of film i like. FOR ME, there is missing something....

User avatar
Nickdfresh
Member
Posts: 182
Joined: 27 Jul 2007 13:59
Location: United States

Re: Fury (2014), WW2 Rambo ala Sherman Crew

Post by Nickdfresh » 09 Jan 2017 19:57

Michael Kenny wrote:A single man with a 50mm AT gun loaded/sighted/fired his gun and destroyed 13 tanks. He also held off infantry attacks for 3 days killing 100 of them. That must mean he wounded c 300 and repelled say 500?

Frankly the film is more believable.

Did they make a film about him, too? :D :lol: :P :x

Return to “Movies, games & other fiction”