Fury (2014)

If not, the Fury DVD release date is tentatively set for January 20, 2015.

 

KB you have plenty of acreage to build a movie theater.

 

Certainly it would more likely have been a Tiger II, but I believe some late-model Tiger 1s were in Germany i nearly 1945. I'll probably jave to hunt through 'Tigers In Combat' to be sure.......

While we're at it, maybe someone can enlighten me about the 'Tanks Of Fury' section in the Official Movie Website. OK, it lists Panzer IV, Tigers 1 & II, but excludes the Panther and includes the Panzer 1 ( ! ) with the caption 'The Allies faced an uphill struggle against tanks like the Panzer 1...'

Yikes ! Looks like I need to do my homework.......... :eatpopcorn:

 

Uphill struggle? You mean like this? I can almost hear the gearbox straining under the harsh load of that 25 degree slope!

 

Well most tanks had one main gun but the Panzer 1 had two @!! Terroriffing . I cannot remember were they 79.2 mm ????? And fully automatic. How they kept a couple of thousand rounds in the turret remains a mystery..

 

I'm beginning to believe that too many of us are up on too many facts and figures and philosophies to sit back and enjoy a good shoot'em up anymore.

 

Well, there is a distinct difference between "a good shoot'em up" and "target practice."

 

Maybe so my friend, but I still liked it.

 

I do wish I could just sit and enjoy a film. It's not in the cards anymore. I agree with the sentiment though.

 

Me too Bobby, as did both my sons. There's also a good deal of the nitpicking that in my opinion is just incorrect.

 

At first I had issues with the "alleged" overuse of cliches as mentioned here on this thread. I read what was posted here and took it all in positively, noting that just about every statement had it's merits. But I got to thinking (I know, it's dangerous), that there's always a new generation of folks in the viewing audience that has no appreciation as we do when viewing/nitpicking/dissecting a newly released war flick. If there were no story line (to include aforementioned cliches), it would seem as a documentary, or just a long list of combat scenes that they have no idea why it happens that way, or why the combatants think/talk/bitch/act/do the way they do. Imagine a two hour movie that was nothing but an expanded portion of the first 25 minutes or so of Saving Private Ryan". Yes, cool as that may seem to us, most people would have to go to therapy afterwards or would never ever walk into a theater that is showing a war movie again. Character building, image building and perception building and so on building is necessary to set the groundwork to make a movie appreciable to those who are not a up on all things war as us Rogues are. Faced it, most Americans don't know when the War of 1812 started or who were the participants of the American Civil War. Loading a movie with cliches and such "brings them along" so to speak so they might just enjoy the movie enough to buy a bunch of overpriced popcorn and soda pop, and maybe God forbid, they might be moved enough by it to go home and crack a book or Google something about what they just saw. Naaaah.

 

Can't wait for hollywood to expire. If someone had only invested the same amount into a CG with good (no name) voice actors, the movie prolly could have been much better...
Something along the lines of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1j1nzSfZzU

 

Hey Poppy, go clean you inbox out again. It's either jam-full up or you've been banned from PM'ing.

 

Just when I was thinking this thread had gone quiet.....

....too quiet.....

 

It's just picking up steam over on the talk.

 

Same discussion I am assuming?

 

Roger that.

 

And there wasn't in this movie.

 

The Smithsonian Channel ran a program called "Tanks of Fury," about the filming of the movie. The producers went all out for historican accuracy, right down to the last running Tiger I's useage and vehicle history to the camo patterns on the Waffen SS uniforms. Fury led me on an emotional roller coaster I hadn't been on since Schindler's List. My one, and only one nit, was the five P-51's the flew over at treetop level early in the film. There should have been four or eight, since they were inbound, and not at such low altitude right over allied lines. Kinda thing gets you shot down by your own side!

Yes, there were some cliches. They're cliches now, but would they have been so in 1945?

And one more thing. Too many say the ending was too far fetched. Really? During the actual Battle of the Bulge, a squad of US and a squad of German soldiers sat down to Christmas dinner together in a farmhouse kitchen. That really happened. So the last battle scene of a fictional movie is too far fetched? There's any number of actual "Horatius at the Bridge" moments in WWII: Outpost Snipe is a good example.

 

At the end of the day, it's a movie - if we're happy with it, that's OK. For me, the idea that a regiment of Waffen-SS would sacrifice themselves in waves against a lone, disabled tank without simply outflanking it and destroying it from all sides is rather far-fetched.

But that's just me.