I know you're in here somewhere Aghart! I watched a small piece of the making of the new movie,"Fury." There were a couple of WWII vets there as advisors who said that the movie was pretty much on the money. (one of the vets was almost 90, God bless him) I'd be interested on your take. I have never trusted a movie to tell very many truths, but these vets were pretty convincing and did congratulate the actors for doing such a good job. I realize that movies are just about the money and entertainment, but sometimes they do hit pretty close to home. Maybe there is a little history here. I know I put the finger on Aghart, but I am pretty sure there are some other vets out there who can put their own spin on it.
I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. Both the Sherman & Tiger tanks in the movie are the genuine articles.
Good movie, showed corruption of war, all sides. Was not impressed with final battle scene however, a little bit too Hollywoodish. Never served in military, but I have read several WWII books. Seemed unreal the way German troops tried to fight. Overall a GOOD movie though, would recommend.
I agree with all your comments. The final battle was pure Hollywood, that tank would have been destroyed and the whole crew killed within a few minutes. As soon as the tank opened up the german infantry would have surrounded it on all sides and launched hand held A/T rockets from all directions. The hull machine gunner can only fire to the front, the turret can only point in one direction at a time, which leaves us with two undefended directions the germans can attack. Why not have all the machine gun ammo in the turret from the start?
While I am not into war movies because I can't handle it emotionally, I am rather disappointed when I hear about how unrealistic they are. If you are going to make a movie about a historical event, you should make every effort to be as close to fact as possible.
I understand your views but movies are entertainment and not documentary's. I found the film very realistic in very many ways, the final battle was very gung ho, but I am a former tank commander so am clearly going to find it hard not to pick holes in it. For a war film it was pretty good.
Thanks for the review Aghart! I'm going to have to wait for it to hit netflix when the price will be a little better. I absolutely do not go to the movies. Too many people to watch and that makes it hard to watch the movie. That being said, I will definitely make it a point to see "Fury" based on your good recommendation. It's weird, but I have never seen a Vietnam movie all the way through (except the one with bombers going over hanoi) but other types of war movies do not bother me.
I haven't seen it yet, though likely will as I've seen just about every film on the Second World War that I can. One of the things that has turned me off seeing this on the big screen is the fact Shia LaBeouf is "starring" in it. I never been a fan of his work.
Just like most other people on the thread, I loved the rest of the movie, but the final battle was too unrealistic for me. The rest of the movie is great though, it showcases the war in not exclusively a positive light. It isn't easy to say much else about the movie without spoiling it, so I will end it here. I would reccomend the movie though.
I was talking today to a chap who works at Bovington Tank Museum and was part of the Museum team who worked on the film Fury (looking after the Tiger I). The scene where the Tiger destroyed the first Sherman (taking it's turret off) was created by using a Sherman hull with a plywood turret put on it. This empty hull (third in line) was in fact being towed using a steel cable by the second Sherman, this is why this scene was filmed from the front of the column so the tow cable was hidden from view. The museum staff were very well looked after and all those who crewed tanks were dressed in authentic uniforms, even if they were never going to be on film.
