What does /k/ think of Fury? I just saw it and I thought it was the best war movie I've ever seen.
I saw it a couple hours ago.
THE first 5 star movie I've seen in years.
Powerful, gripping, I laughed, cried, and almost urinated all over myself.
>Large drink + 2.75 hour long movie = pain
Saw it last week. I liked it, but wouldn't watch it again. Just because I can't stomach the horrors. They did a great job though. I like that they didn't make all of the characters as glorified good guys.
All the feels at the end though...
>Oh look, its this thread again
Last week's threads were initial opening night reactions.
The vast majority of people here do not see films on opening night. If they go and watch it a week later I see no reason why they cannot share their opinions as well.
A lot of people also avoided those early threads due to spoiler fears (and /k/'s lack of spoiler tags).
Is it another allied glory film? If so i dont wamt to watch
No, it's not. In the lead-up to the film's release, people all over the internet were saying it would be. But there is a vast quantity of Americans being deplorable assholes. Almost to the point that you don't feel sorry for some of the characters.
It also has to do with human beings having these things that we call 'hands.' They are our primary means of manipulating the world around us, including picking up weapons and ammunition.
Saw it last night. Unlike any [American] war movie I've seen before. The US troops come across mostly as sadistic hooligans fighting fanatical SS troops with kids mixed in. The film is pretty brutal in bits, it makes war look pretty ugly.
Pacing crashed when they got to the woman's house though. I get that it was trying to create an atmosphere of tension and unease by playing with your expectations of what was going to happen. But it felt drawn out and was kind of unpleasant really.
I liked the combat scenes but the last stand at the end was over the top and unrealistic. It asks you to believe that the Germans couldn't flank behind a stationary tank and that, of the at least four you saw in the marching column, only two guys were able to fire a panzerfaust at the tank, achieving a single casualty overall.
>Unlike any [American] war movie I've seen before. The US troops come across mostly as sadistic hooligans fighting fanatical SS troops with kids mixed in.
Did you not see Inglorious Basterds or The Dirty Dozen?
They just rip off the the real story of Audie Murphy
it was just one guy fighting off a a SS platoon also it lived
i could deal with the cowboy americans clapping ending and the fucking world war 2 lazors but the what bugged me was the scene where they are crossing the field with infantry. I dont know where they found their extras or who didnt tell them their queses but when they finally start "fighting" its a mix of people waddling hip firing their guns flinching every shot and guys looking around to each other obviously trying to figure out if this is their part to move
>tfw you will never be immortalized holding an MG42
>tfw you will never be ready for the skeleton war with an MG42
For the 100th fucking time /k/ does not hate fury as a movie.
/k/ hates fury as a production because they destroyed the tank losned to them by that museam and refused to pay for damages because "We just made it better, everyone will want to see the tank that was used in our movie"
No. About 20 mins in they kills kids. About an hour in their drunk and bout to rape some girls. Half the guys are assholes and the other half consist of a kid, a war vet with ptsd and a priestly shia labeouf who actually acts.
I know. They should have stayed right where they were so the advancing Shermans could surround them and just shoot them to pieces with absolute impunity, possibly with white phosphorus being sucked in through the intake fans.
THANK you. I'm getting sick of reviewers and people in general saying that this film was unfair to Germans as they are portrayed as being foolish or some other gibberish. What would have REALLY been foolish is if the Tiger sat in place while it couldn't see the charging tanks. I've also seen it said that they should have reversed, but that wouldn't have changed their situation as they still wouldn't have been able to get a line of sight on the attacking enemy armor until the distance had for the most part been completely closed.
> that part where norm has to pick up the piece of face from the guy he replaced
> tfw the hot german girl gets killed
> when Norm is forced to execute the German soldier
> That scene where Norm doesn't kill the German kid and the tank in front of them gets hit, and the guy on fire shoots himself.
i don't get why they can't just have normal people in a war film most of it is ether gay as fuck like band of brothers or edgy men like in platoon or that other vietnam film why not just have normal people man
He uses an StG 44 as his main rifle in the movie. Probably just one of those deals where he grabbed it off a dead German and likes to use it. I can't attest to how many people actually did that in the war, but I'm sure it isn't unheard of so it doesn't rustle me.
They did end up flanking the tank, quite a bit actually. But I'll agree, the ending was a bit over-the-top but compared to scenes like the Tiger fight, they kind of had to do something a tad in excess. I mean, it IS a movie. Was the scenario at the end feasible? Yes. Likely to actually happen? No, but anything is possible, and combined with the fact that it's a major motion picture, I'm letting it slide.
It was great. The battle with the Tiger kept me on the edge of my seat for the whole time. Loved how they showed that tank warfare works a lot with infantry too.
Still would have liked more tank porn.
>I get that it was trying to create an atmosphere of tension and unease by playing with your expectations of what was going to happen.
But that's what was great about that scene.
Predictable movies suck.
You can read here, for an example of machine gun effect on tanks:
>(b) "In addition to opening fire with the primary weapon -- the 57-mm -- the AT unit also opened with intense light machine-gun fire which forced the tank to button up and in effect blinded him. His vision apparently became confused and he was actually traversing his gun away from the AT guns when he was knocked out for good.
Desperation, maybe you can smash out some glass or something too. The sound is probably pretty disorienting as well.
I've heard tell of tanks crews being tortured into submission by persistent deafening small arms fire, though that isn't really relevant to the tiger scene.
> 90% of the people watching it know WWII happened and that's the extent of knowledge they have
MFW my little brother who turns 18 in two weeks told me that he wanted to see:
>" that Brad Pitt tank movie set in the 30s or whenever."
"You mean set in WWII?"
>"It's about WWII?"
And he claims to love America. I'd give him a fucking history book for his birthday if I thought that there was any chance it would get read.
I think they made a good point during the movie to show how loud small-arms are when they hit the tank, and how hard it can be to see when tracers/sparks are smacking all over the view-ports.
Also, I'm sure it's very possible to break/ruin a view-port if you mange to strike it enough.
I dont think they teach about WW2 anymore in school
From what I remember, they told us:
Germany Blitzkreigs, Britain, France, and loser euro countries declare war on them
Germany pisses off russia after signing treaty and war is declared
Japan bombs pearl harbor and war is declared
US nukes japan and russia seizes berlin
They never talked about china, spain, or africa
And this was in highscool so i guess they didnt want kids thinking about political systems or anything other than the fact that we won and nazis and commies are bad
That's pretty spot on from what I remember from high school history too, that and a lot of talk about how appeasement is bad.
Regardless. It's pretty clear that Germans/Nazis are the antagonist from the trailers. It just boggles my mind that America v. Nazi Germany didn't register as WWII for him, nor did the time period he assumed. Almost rethinking buying him a rifle for his graduation next summer, maybe I'll just get him some truck nuts.
Sounds like /k/'s earlier prediction of Saving Private Ryanberg Redux was spot on.
from Taki's Magazine:
suffice it to say that 15 minutes into the gross-out, porno-violent movie, I was rooting for Brad ... preferably roasted alive inside his Sherman tank.
The blood orgy was directed by one David Ayer, whose imaginative powers are on a par with those of a mosquito seeking blood. (Human faces lie around like dirty underwear, bodies are flattened out by tanks and become parts of the landscape, limbs and heads are severed, all in glorious Technicolor.) Pitt is the non-com officer who leads his crew into battle, taking on single-handedly a German battalion of 600, when all he has to do is walk away and fight another day.
Five Americans against 600 Germans; now, that’s instructive, because I always thought by April 17, 1945, when the movie supposedly takes place, it was the other way round.
Oh well, we can’t all be heroes in real life; some are only so on reel. What this movie needs is a bit of range, a bit of subtlety, a bit of talent, and a different director, different script, a different writer, and different actors. Otherwise, in its present state, only Dracula and ghouls will enjoy it. In fact, it could be advertised as the movie that turned Count Dracula to masturbation. But I’m being too hard on these “artists.” This is a low, dishonest period in film, with no class and certainly no dignity. Unarmed, unresisting prisoners with their hands up are executed by our American heroes, something that definitely took place and was done by both the good and bad guys during that terrible war, especially at the end. But to show it as deserved, a comeuppance, is a cheap shot that appeals to anti-German ghouls. No one, even among the bravest of the brave, wanted to risk his life two weeks before Germany surrendered, not even the Russians; but neither has anyone in modern Hollywood read history, so I shouldn’t quibble. Just take my advice and stay away.
Did this idiot even watch the film?
Its made extremely clear why 5 Americans are fighting 300 Germans. And why 'walking away' would have disastrous consequences. It also does not even slightly portray killing prisoners as a good thing either, that entire scene is disturbing. Or are they referring to the other scene where an SS officer who hung children for refusing to fight is shot? That is not 'anti-German', every other prisoner is spared in that scene.
>(Human faces lie around like dirty underwear, bodies are flattened out by tanks and become parts of the landscape
Both of those happen exactly once.
>Pitt is the non-com officer who leads his crew into battle, taking on single-handedly a German battalion
Five men in an armored fighting vehicle isn't 'single handedly'
It was estimated to be 300, and it's safe to assume that this was an exaggeration from a relatively green assistant driver who was stressed and panicked.
> but neither has anyone in modern Hollywood read history,
And this jack off has never actually seen the movie that he's reviewing.
>That SS soldier at the end who see's norman underneath the tank and lets him go after getting his whole regiment destroyed
also when marching the SS troops had like 6 Panzerfausts and only used 2 against there tank resulting in one casualty also the Grenade thrown in the tank did zero damage
>Two grenades practically dropped in Pitt's lap
>Pristine corpse the next morning
Yeah, that bugged me
Is anyone bothered by how hypocritical they were about war trophies?
>german has American coat
But then you have all kinds of metals and equipment like pitt's StG44.
So which is it? Why are war trophies only evil when it's your guy dead?
>>Two grenades practically dropped in Pitt's lap
>>Pristine corpse the next morning
To be fair those were concussion grenades and not fragmentation grenades. Outside of a confined space they have a 2 meter kill zone which is pretty small. Inside a tank it would obviously kill everyone inside.
The shockwave passes through flesh and pulps organs. It wouldn't necessarily tear chunks of flesh off or disfigure people, but it will certainly kill them from the shock wave.
I wasn't really expecting him to look like a pile of hamburger, but I mean something to show that two explosions happened right next to him in a confined space.
Granted, I know nothing about WWII era grenades (did not know those were concussion by the way, thanks) but I would think there would be at least some sort of light marring of clothes or skin from the blast.
I'm basing this off of one of my finer moments: when I lit a pack of fire crackers from the wrong end once when I was drunk, and ended up with blast marks on my shirt and a small burn hole or two.
I'm pretty sure the filmakers were well aware what two grenades would do to someone's face in an enclosed space.
But do you really think they would do that for Brad Pitt? Of course not. Hell, they let his old assistant driver's head get blown off, a tankers upper torso ripped off from a Tiger, and a random German's head squished under a tank, but letting Brad Pitt's glorious face get ripped up? Unheard of.
Point taken. I guess I just had high hopes that they would maintain a standard of graphic brutality by showing him with some sort of post-grenade damage, even if that meant like sexy wounds highlighting his cheekbones or jaw line or the explosions blowing his uniform off and leaving his body in some GQ pose.
Oh yeah, #nohomo, probably
I have no idea, but I imagine it would make you evacuate your bowels and pee a little.
That BONNNGG sound made my asshole pucker up just sitting in the theater.
>Take advantage of a scene to reverse your expectations
>Then use it to demonstrate the emotional toll the long war is taking on the soldiers
>Also use it to demonstrate bitterness at the way Pitt's character seems to be favoring the new kid
>All in all great demonstration of character development and providing an insight to the psyche of these damaged men, almost to the point of making excuses for their behavior
This was a bad scene why again?
Seriously, from a military/amateur historian standpoint I see basically no flaws with the movie. It nailed the aspects of the war, of the soldiers, and of war in general.
I could probably find some from the viewpoint of an amateur film critic, but everyone hates those faggots anyways.
because its a fully automatic assault rifle being the most advanced and lethal small arm for its time in history. Also pitt's character has a deep hatred for the SS and most likely grabbed it off of them.
Yeah but that's the point- there's no real good guys. That german with the american coat and his buddies would have done the same thing if they had captured brad pitt and found that he had been using an stg44 or saw his medals in the tank.
The whole point is that soldiers are human, and humans have flaws- like hypocrisy
To be fair the panzerfaust only had an accurate effective range of 60m max and was basically a tank grenade that could be thrown further. The panzershreck would have wrecked that tank from concealment had they had one.
I like The Longest Day a lot, but it suffers greatly from a lot of the old school "hollywood-isms".
It's my favorite example of "Epic War Film", whereas Fury is now my favorite example of "Realistic War Film"
The WWII history course I took in college was slightly more in depth than this, but basically skimmed everything that wasn't related to Nazi territorial expansion. Then again the professor was basically in give no fucks mode and had like maybe a year left before retirement. Cool old Vietnam vet that cancelled more classes than anyone. Might have been mad because it was the only class I was really interested in that semester, but the complete lack of any sort of work/reading, easy as fuck essay exams, and ample time to do other coursework made up for it. The research paper I wrote was basically just a ten page timeline of the Manhattan project with flowery writing and redundancy to fill in the gaps. A-
>Germany Blitzkreigs, Britain, France, and loser euro countries declare war on them
>Germany pisses off russia after signing treaty and war is declared
>Japan bombs pearl harbor and war is declared
>US nukes japan and russia seizes berlin
>They never talked about china, spain, or africa
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning since the worlds been turning
Not that guy, however, it wasn't a bad scene at all. In fact it was one of the best in my opinion.
>Also a fucking working Tiger rolling out of a hedge
It showed a lull moment in the chaos of war, and the want of Pitt's character to return to a normal life.
Which was interrupted by the rest of the crew and reminded he is still in a war, still in germany, and still their sergeant.
That was the purpose of that scene.
The shelling which led to the death of Emma served as a end to the scene and to tell Norm that this is war. People die.
No, he plays his character.
A preacherman with a major moral dilemma about being in a war and the main gunner of the tank.
He frequently crys in the movie and the only time he is seen being a "tough guy" is when he's smiling and cheering after firing the main gun and hitting something.
wow i'm hearing that it's actually really good
fuck yeah i thought it was some shitsicle - muh - merica - victory - horribly - produced - dash - clusterfuck of disgusting unrealistic war scenes.
Fuck no, this is a WAR movie.
Not a action movie trying to talk about war.
If you haven't seen it yet, unfuck yourself.
Go see it in theaters, that way you can get the thump and atmosphere.
That part really got to me.
When I saw the AT shell ping off the tank in the field near the start I actually gasped out an "Oh shit!".
'71 gave me the same response when the soldier was executed at the start, it was literally one of the most harrowing scenes I've seen in a film
>Unarmed, unresisting prisoners with their hands up are executed by our American heroes, something that definitely took place and was done by both the good and bad guys during that terrible war, especially at the end. But to show it as deserved, a comeuppance, is a cheap shot that appeals to anti-German ghouls.
>something happened in a war that the movie is about
>HOW DARE YOU SHOW IT YOU'RE JUSTIFYING THE NAZIS
That entire scene was great, the way you looked out and saw lots of dead GI's before the tanks started rolling made you nervous since you knew the Germans were waiting.
Then once you saw that a lot of the GI's were still alive and they got up to follow the tanks was amazing, the few that almost got run over was tense as fuck. It was an amazingly well done scene
god damn this scene was horrible, I felt so bad for norman
>the few that almost got run over was tense as fuck
That shit was exactly like some of the shit I saw in the army.
"HEY, YOU GOT GUYS IN FRONT OF YOU!! Christ, man get your head out of your ass"
I know that some of us believe that Milsurp has a certain spirit in it, in each rifle and that they are happiest when being used
If that is true, then that Sherman driving around in the muddy fields of England blasting at a Tiger, even if it was blanks, is probably the happiest its been in 70 years. Certaintly a better fate than sitting quietly in a warehouse collecting dust
Its a war machine
Source on the tank being destroyed
>saw it just now
>MFW THERE WAS TRIGGER DISCIPLINE
instant 5 points there
-2 for the gay village scene and the hollywood ending
>a tiger getting killed by a sherman
I mean, I know it's possible, but how retarded does your crew have to be?
AS A MADDER OF FACT!
While I give you 1/2 points for being correct about the grenades, they actually had fragmentation sleeves on them.
Interesting little thing that I noticed I thought was rather neat.
There is no source because they did not destroy it. The Museum is keeping the Sherman in film condition until 2016 as part of a tie in display, there would be no reason to return it to display condition yet.
He did very, very well in this film. Some /k/ommandos may disagree with me, but I almost think he was right up there with Brad Pitt. Even if they disagree with me, I think it's pretty universal of people who have seen the film to think that he did a very good job besides.
My favorite was the latino, though.
That post could and probably would be written exactly the same way if it was serious, what is your point. Sarcasm is rarely obvious in text because it relies on tone of voice mostly.
I am the poster of that comment. It was pure sarcasm, don't worry.
The only 'tank' movie I can think of right off the bat is Kelly's Heroes, and that wasn't really about the tank.
this is bait
there is no way you can actually think that was a 10/10 movie
+it did a great job of showing the horrors of war
-brad pitt topless scene shoehorned in
-cowwadoodie: the movie
-the SS running at the tank like commies
>not just set up a mortar position
-only one tiger scene
6/10 would watch stream on superchillin
>Reading Emma's palm
>You will have meet the love of your life and live long and prosperously
>House gets shelled 5 minutes later
To be fair the first kill was a surprise attack so it was 3 on one.
And if i remember correctly Fury was the only one left that could still do any considerable damage, I dont know if those shorter barrel Sherman s had rounds that could pierce the tiger but I am shit when it comes to tanks so i could be wrong
>best war movie I've ever seen.
Must not have seen very many war movies, plot was hardly there, the final battle was dumb as hell and the characters were dull.
The first battle was well done and the Tiger was cool but the film was nothing special.
The 75-mm M3 (the shorter gun) can do it, but only from close ranges. Knife-fighting, really. It wasn't ideal. That said, Tigers could be, and were, killed by Shermans using the gun in the war.
That having been said, it's somewhat of a myth that only the rear could be penetrated. The upper side hull, what you prominantly see resting above the tracks, was every bit as 'thin' as the rear, but without the reverse slope and with less coverage in the way to interfere with shell dynamics.
The gun that Brad Pitt was using, the 76-mm M1A2, could hole a tiger in the side or the rear from over a thousand yards. It's obvious to us that they were stressing the rear shot to add drama to the scene. But really, it's entirely possible that not every tank crew of the period had intimate knowledge of the Tiger like you and I have the luxury of having.
>that opening scene with all those destroyed tanks
>wreck of a Panther among them
I would have liked to see what that fight looked like.