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

[OpanaPointer]

I was just happy they got the sound of a .50 cal. right.

[AJFFM]

Finally watched it.

I was finally impressed by a modern WWII film made by Hollywood until the last action sequence although I began to really slip much earlier when I found out that Germans had no mortars and couldn't use panzerfausts at close range.

It is of the calibre of Saving Private Ryan in terms of realistic war depiction before the last sequence ruined it for me.

Entertainment wise, its a solid 7.5/10.

For a more realistic film, see Cross of Iron, still my favourite WWII film (except for those darn 1970s hair styles).

[BillHermann]

Frankly I find it funny that Cross of iron would be considered more realistic. I could say it is a better film but not realistic.

[AJFFM]

Why?

Germans were shown as they were actually were, losing, human and taking heavy casualties. Sure the class struggle theme that permeates through the film somewhat underwhelms its realistic nature but is a far better representation of both the protagonists and antagonists than the American WWII depictions (The Iwo Jima duo excluded) of superhuman American warriors from the Age of Heroes facing subhuman enemies who are both ruthless and idiotic.

[Felix C]

Just saw it. Some good, some very good and some abysmal parts. Especially the ending being awful.

Have any surviving armored vets from 1945 commented on the accuracy?

[Ostkrieg]

I wasn't crazy about this film, but not because of historical inaccuracies. The message of the movie seemed to be "War is hell" over and over again, which is the message of 99% of war movies, especially ones that embrace the gore and carnage contemporary movies can get away with these days. Absolutely zero character development, zero story, and pretty much every war movie cliche you can imagine: the young lieutenant that noncoms don't respect, a Southern fried American soldier, jaded veterans secretly admitting they appreciate the humanity of the new guy, etc.

The worst for me was Michael Pena's character complaining about killing horses for days in Normandy after D-Day. If you know next to anything about the Eastern Front, and the horrors inflicted upon the Soviet population and how high the mortality rate was for German and Soviet soldiers (to say nothing of civilians), killing horses would sound like a walk in the park. The ultimate "War is hell" movie is "Come and See!"

Still, it was never boring and if you like war movies, especially those in the tradition of Sam Peckinpah, I would say this was all right. Just not quite as good as sometimes tried to be.

[aghart]

The Sherman returned to it's correct position within the Fury exhibition at Bovington.

[OpanaPointer]

Worse attempt to thwart Panzerfaust I've ever seen.

[B Hellqvist]

Worse attempt to thwart Panzerfaust I've ever seen.

Log on attempt.

[Michael Kenny]

The worst for me was Michael Pena's character complaining about killing horses for days in Normandy after D-Day. If you know next to anything about the Eastern Front, and the horrors inflicted upon the Soviet population and how high the mortality rate was for German and Soviet soldiers (to say nothing of civilians), killing horses would sound like a walk in the park.

I have read an account by a US pilot who said the exact same thing. He had no problem straffing men and machines but said he hated seeing the horses get hit. I think another example where the film takes a small historical fact (like the beat up HJ boy) and weaves it into the film

[ROLAND1369]

With combat soldiers the reality of war is that with time and repetition, the killing of men and seeing them die becomes the current normal due to the need for both the survival instinct and sanity. The killing of animals is a much rarer occurrence and becomes abnormal. Acts considered abhorrent or cruel by rear area soldiers and citizens who have never experienced combat are common occurrences and become background noise. Learned from the reality fighting as a ground combatant in two wars, not from an abstract discussion.

[Monsoon]

I watched this again a few days ago. Yep, there were inaccuracies, but it was a decent movie. I think for everything that people complained about there was an incident in the war when it happened. Audie Murphy held off a German attack with a exposed .50 on the back of a tank destroyer.

Did US troops kill POWs? Yep.
Did US troops shoot civilians? Yep. My Dad's uncle told him they were told to shoot civilians if they saw them humping weapons. Just to make sure no press guys were around to witness it.

All in all, it wasn't bad. As someone said, it was worth $7 and two hours of my time.

[ROLAND1369]

A small thing but under the Geneva convention of the time Civilians carrying weapons lose the protection afforded noncombatants, and are fired on the same as soldiers. Persons carrying weapons in civilian clothes with no identifiable marks were liable to be shot as guerrilla. Thus a civilian not at least wearing a volkssturm armband was legally and likely to be shot, not being entitled to pow status. These are the legal facts, however as the Russians learned in Afghanistan, and I am sure that the Germans also learned in Russia and the West a sniper does not kill and then surrender with an empty weapon. There are the rules made by a bunch of old faggots in Switzerland who have never heard a shot fired at them in anger and there are the rules of those who have.

[stg 44]

I watched this again a few days ago. Yep, there were inaccuracies, but it was a decent movie. I think for everything that people complained about there was an incident in the war when it happened. Audie Murphy held off a German attack with a exposed .50 on the back of a tank destroyer.

And directing artillery while at a much greater distance.
http://homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_1 ... audie.html

[Fliegende Untertasse]

Anybody else catch themselves humming "Enter enter mission" after the Tiger scene ?

Moe anime homage in Hollywood tough guy war movie is not something you see everyday.