Seen the movie "Fury", a definite "thumbs-up"

[Dave Boller]

Just saw it the other day. I'm sure everyone here would enjoy it. It's not a great movie, but it is a good solid movie to see. I won't get into the details so as not to ruin it for those who may not have seen it yet, but here goes. It tries too hard to be "Saving Private Ryan", but falls short I'm afraid. In fact, it borrows too many themes from it (which you can't help but recognize),the lack of originality which doesn't play well in my mind. And, some scenes do work out a little unrealistically. Still, the big-buget special effects, historically accurate equipment used, and tank combat scenes are awesome and the best for a movie, that I've ever seen. Visually, it's eye-candy for us WW-2 buffs. And, then of course, there's the "Bovington Tiger". Which in it's own private way, is the star of the film. It's unfortunate though that the average viewer will have no comprehension of, nor appreciation for, the significance of this appearance as we do. Personally, I'd like to throw in the fact that I was a proud contributor to it's restoration, the fruits of which I was thrilled to see. It's only in one part for a few minutes, but this (combined with the special effects) makes it the best tank-on-tank combat scene in cinema history without a doubt. No mock-ups here. The only wish is that they should have gotten more mileage out of it in the film. The only other criticism I would make is that it's a little too PC-ish, in that it wallows quite heavily in the old "war is hell" mentality throughout. I also would say, it villifies our troops a little too much, as well. In those areas it reminds me of the rather depressing movie "Platoon". We all know this stuff, and small doses of it in a war film is fine. But, I don't like it when Hollywood beats us over the head with it. At that point, it becomes propaganda. It's far more gratifying to see people's humanity rise above horrendous circumstances, rather than sink to their lower instincts. I know it's not always realistic, but in terms of entertainment, it's far more rewarding to watch. Yet one more difference between this movie and "Saving Private Ryan". In all though, it's a "must see" for everyone here. Hope you like it.

[lescooper]

Just got back from the Cinema, watched it tonight with the missus! A big thumbs up from me as well actually. A wee bit far fetched at times, howver great to see accurate representation of WWII Armour on the big screen. The Tiger gunner should have went to spec savers (the US members of the board wont know what that means) by the way.
But joking apart, a good film I give it 8/10.

[Steve Stuart]

I too, have just got back from seeing the film, via The Kite for a Pint! I was not left foaming at the mouth having seen the film, something I was scared about given the hypercritical comments that I have seen in other places about the film, where people were stating quite categorically that it was "terrible" and they would never go and see it......
It would be easy to be critical, but I stopped and had a look at the audience, and listened to them as well, the age of the viewers was skewed to the 20s to 30s by a big margin, and as this is Oxford, there were a large number of Americans also in the screening. It would have been interesting if there had been the opportunity to have asked a 'non expert' sample what they thought. I hope that the film will, stop, and make people think about warfare and realise that it is not something to get into lightly and make people have a better understanding of the pressures of the Second World War. I hope that Bovington will see more visitors as a result, from a younger generation and because of the film get a bit more of what the Museum is about.
I would perhaps rate it less highly than the previous post, but I also would give it a thumbs up, and encourage a viewing in the cinema whilst it is new, it is an important film and the chain of thoughts provoked are well worth it.
Did I have only one pint apologies.
Steve

[Dennis Jones]

We were down at Bovvy yesterday and had a look at the Fury exhibition. The Sherman used in the film is surrounded by props from the film set. They are showing on one screen clips from the film but more interesting was a screen showing behind the scenes and interviews with the guys from the museum who crewed the Sherman and the Tiger also the transportation of the Tiger on a big low loader which nearly caused a few accidents on the motorways with people taking a double take whilst driving past. It's not every day you see a WWII Tiger on the back of a lorry.

Dennis.

[Robin Ellis]

I saw the film last night and thought it was well made and pretty accurate in the finer details.

[Ian Rodney]

Just back this afternoon after seeing the "Fury" movie, thought it as excellent, and what it was must have been like to fight inside a Sherman in action.
Also great to see the famous Tiger 131 in action, I'm sure there will be more public wanting to see the real tank at Bovington now that the movie it out.
Almost makes me want to build a Sherman Firefly version…………


Cheers
Ian

[duncanallender]

Hi guys,
Yes a thumbs up from me as well. The battle scenes were well done and the general goings on at the front were quite realistic. Thought the story line was very Hollywood (ish),in that it lacked some of the gritty aspects.But it is a film and not the real thing, so..................

[Stephen White]

I finally caught up with Fury, complete with Chinese sub-titles, It angered and amused me in equal measure.

It exemplified for me the central dilema of the cinema - to get a script funded you need a "bankable star" and a few salacious moments of so called drama. Tell everyone you are passionate about "accuracy" but then compromise reality with drama at every turn. The gratuitous execution of prisoners, the drunken rabble, the bullying within the crew were all intended to shock, not to represent anything remotely close to a US Army which had, in the real world, by Spring 1945, become hightly professional and effective. I just didn't recognise any of the behaviours of a trained tank crew in the way that lot were portrayed. The closest parallel in history was probably the way the Soviet Army behaved in Berlin.

Despite the Director's apparent wish for "accuracy", it was also tactically illiterate. The much vaunted scene with Tiger 131 involved a troop of Shermans lining up within touching distance and charging head on across and open field. The hero, Fury then dances around the Tiger, exchanging shots. I was rocking with laughter by that stage and the Chinese audience were looking bemused. If the film had a military advisor, he (she?) must have taken the day off when that scene was filmed.

In my more balanced and lucid moments, I'd certainly echo some of the comments Dave made in his original post and Steve made, especially about attracting an interest in tanks and tank museums but the film left a slightly bitter taste. I'm sure that is a mild response compared with the reaction any surviving US Army veterans must have felt seeing it.

Final thought: what a travesty compared with Band of Brothers, which for me is an example of just how you should portray war in films/TV. Now i'll get off my soapbox.

Stephen

[Dave Boller]

Hi Stephen. I agree with just about everything else you said. Initially, I felt the same way you did about the Tiger combat scene. The distances seemed rediculously close. But, the more I thought about it afterwards, the more spot-on it is than you might give it credit for. When you're making a film, sometimes artistic license comes into play for a more visually interesting appearance. A typical tank battle, at say 1200 meters, kinda looses it's dramatic impact when viewed at those distances. So, for the sake of entertainment, I get it, and can forgive it. But, that having been said however, tank battles at point-blank ranges, was not as unheard of as you might think, especially in the hedge-row country of France. I also realized, that it really is an encapsulated version of a typical tank battle between American and German forces of the time. Tigers in particular, usually operated in what was called a "Fire-brigade" fashion. That is, a lone tiger would be sent out to lie in ambush at breakthrough points in the front line to blunt the offensive. American tanks almost always operated in at least platoon strength (5 tanks). German Tigers rarely did, unless there was a major offensive going on(eg: "The Bulge"). The German Tigers were forced to spread themselves thin along the front because they just didn't have the numbers to operate effectively any other way. Usually, the situation would play out exactly the way you saw it in the film. The hidden, ambushing Tiger would get in the first few shots, taking out 1 or 2 tanks (or more)before the Shermans would turn, drive towards the Tiger and attempt to surround it to get in a rear, or flanking shot where the armor was weakest. "Numbers" was the only strength the Americans could play, particularly when air support wasn't around. So such was the strategy used for each side during the War, and it's portrayed quite accurately in the movie. There's a really good series of books called "Panzer Aces" by Stackpole Pub. It's all actual accounts of tank battles during the War; it's absolutely an engrossing read. Get them if you can.

[Paul Morris]

Hi fellas.
Not seen it yet lol still cant decide with seemingly equal numbers telling me its great on one side and not so on the other and far from wanting to become a referee in this debate but feel I must say this to Dave ... Stephen has lets say some experience and knowledge on the subject lol.
Cheers Paul.

[Dave Boller]

Hi Paul. This is a "thumbs-up" for everyone here because of the subject matter. You may love it. You may hate it. Regardless, it's a movie of interest for all of us here and should be seen for that reason alone. And let's face it, there aren't to many of those kind made. Enjoy. With regard to Stephen, I'm not quite sure what your "LOL" means. There's more than one way to take that, but I am acquainted enough with him from this forum to know he's not shy about sharing his opinions. And, right or wrong, I admire and commend him for that. It's usually out of fear that we stifle our thoughts. Learning and personal growth, never takes place without intellectual challenge. Being thin-skinned is a hinderence to that. Besides, there's no reason to play one's cards close to the vest here. We are all commrades.