homepage

Anyone see Fury yet?

Posted By: theKhan

Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 05:01 AM

Just got back from this.

I thought it was a great war movie, definitely will become iconic. The equipment was authentic and I thought that the tank engagement was also great. Was fantastic to see a real Tiger out to play.

Best thing about it was the crappy things people do at war. Couple of disturbing scenes.

Also, really do think that like SPR, the obligatory SS Amateur hour at the end was unnecessary.
Posted By: Richie61

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 05:48 AM

I went and saw it today. I thought the movie was AWESOME! Kind of a split between Band of Brothers and Saving Pvt. Ryan. Very realistic movie. The weapons were spot on and the special effects were great! The cannon sound effects were SWEET!

The movie didn't hold anything back. Dirty, grim and showed the horrors of war and the effects it has on the men who go to war. IMHO it won't be a box office hit. It's not an action flick, but a down and dirty war story.

I would rate this as a top 5 or better war movie! Going to add this to my collection the day of the DVD
release!
Posted By: No Name

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 05:56 AM

Looking forward to this one.
Posted By: knightgames

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 06:30 AM

ABC News had a segment devoted to the movie and asked a WW2 tank operator his opinion. He said they got the relations and activities within the tank accurate and was a good representation of what happens in battle.

Still not sure I want to see this. It seems like an old Nintendo video game I played where the lone tank goes in and saves the day. Loved the game. If the movie is like that I have no interest.
Posted By: Richie61

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 01:28 PM

It's not a movie where a lone tank takes on 20 Tigers and shoots while zooming around on one tread like a thrill show. driving

It's a very realistic movie in terms of their mission and outcome. Without giving too much away, they started with a group of Shermans and they are moving into a blocking position to stop a German force on the move. This is towards the very end of the movie. The Tiger combat is quick & sharp in the movie. It's not Tiger's everywhere. Really only one tank on tank combat scene out of the many combat sections of the movie.

Great movie, but the ending isn't a Hollywood ending of the good guys riding into the sunset. It's a war is hell, dirty, grim and the horrors of war flick. I didn't come out thinking war is fun, a great thing and let's all kill Germans and life is good.

I saw it at 3:50 PM and the place had mostly older people in their late 60's and older. After the movie ended there wasn't a single person talking. I followed a few of them out and they didn't say a single thing to their
wife as they walked thru the parking lot.

Said this before: "Dirty, grim and showed the horrors of war and the effects it has on the men who go to war."

PS: It's not a Kelly's Heroes in any shape or form wink
Posted By: HogDriver

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 02:15 PM

Originally Posted By: theKhan


Also, really do think that like SPR, the obligatory SS Amateur hour at the end was unnecessary.


That's what has me the most concerned about movies like this. How preachy or biased they're going to be.

Still want to see this though.
Posted By: GrayWolf

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 03:08 PM

Great War Movie, the final battle was a little over the top but I still recommend this film to any War Buff.
I give it 5 Stars *****

Iron Fury Co-op Missions for IFL44

Iron Reich Co-op Group

IFR Forum

~S~
Posted By: theKhan

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 03:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Richie61
It's not a movie where a lone tank takes on 20 Tigers and shoots while zooming around on one tread like a thrill show. driving

It's a very realistic movie in terms of their mission and outcome. Without giving too much away, they started with a group of Shermans and they are moving into a blocking position to stop a German force on the move. This is towards the very end of the movie. The Tiger combat is quick & sharp in the movie. It's not Tiger's everywhere. Really only one tank on tank combat scene out of the many combat sections of the movie.

Great movie, but the ending isn't a Hollywood ending of the good guys riding into the sunset. It's a war is hell, dirty, grim and the horrors of war flick. I didn't come out thinking war is fun, a great thing and let's all kill Germans and life is good.

I saw it at 3:50 PM and the place had mostly older people in their late 60's and older. After the movie ended there wasn't a single person talking. I followed a few of them out and they didn't say a single thing to their
wife as they walked thru the parking lot.

Said this before: "Dirty, grim and showed the horrors of war and the effects it has on the men who go to war."

PS: It's not a Kelly's Heroes in any shape or form wink


The Tiger scene was realistic, except no Tiger driver worth his salt would start driving towards multiple Shermans. That aside, I really enjoyed that scene.

But the final battle was ridiculous, there is NO way that would ever happen..
Posted By: theKhan

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 03:43 PM

Originally Posted By: HogDriver
Originally Posted By: theKhan


Also, really do think that like SPR, the obligatory SS Amateur hour at the end was unnecessary.


That's what has me the most concerned about movies like this. How preachy or biased they're going to be.

Still want to see this though.


Its one of the few movies that deserves to be watched on the full screen. All flaws aside, definitely a great night at the movies.
Posted By: Richie61

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 04:01 PM

Originally Posted By: theKhan
The Tiger scene was realistic, except no Tiger driver worth his salt would start driving towards multiple Shermans. That aside, I really enjoyed that scene.


Thought he was trying to get clear of the smoke? Multiple Shermans at one point wacky
Posted By: marko1231123

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/18/14 11:30 PM

Originally Posted By: theKhan
Originally Posted By: Richie61
It's not a movie where a lone tank takes on 20 Tigers and shoots while zooming around on one tread like a thrill show. driving

It's a very realistic movie in terms of their mission and outcome. Without giving too much away, they started with a group of Shermans and they are moving into a blocking position to stop a German force on the move. This is towards the very end of the movie. The Tiger combat is quick & sharp in the movie. It's not Tiger's everywhere. Really only one tank on tank combat scene out of the many combat sections of the movie.

Great movie, but the ending isn't a Hollywood ending of the good guys riding into the sunset. It's a war is hell, dirty, grim and the horrors of war flick. I didn't come out thinking war is fun, a great thing and let's all kill Germans and life is good.

I saw it at 3:50 PM and the place had mostly older people in their late 60's and older. After the movie ended there wasn't a single person talking. I followed a few of them out and they didn't say a single thing to their
wife as they walked thru the parking lot.

Said this before: "Dirty, grim and showed the horrors of war and the effects it has on the men who go to war."

PS: It's not a Kelly's Heroes in any shape or form wink


The Tiger scene was realistic, except no Tiger driver worth his salt would start driving towards multiple Shermans. That aside, I really enjoyed that scene.

But the final battle was ridiculous, there is NO way that would ever happen..



You should read about Michael Wittman
He attacked a British armoured Colum in a single tiger destroying most of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/19/14 12:11 AM

Originally Posted By: marko1231123
Originally Posted By: theKhan
Originally Posted By: Richie61
It's not a movie where a lone tank takes on 20 Tigers and shoots while zooming around on one tread like a thrill show. driving

It's a very realistic movie in terms of their mission and outcome. Without giving too much away, they started with a group of Shermans and they are moving into a blocking position to stop a German force on the move. This is towards the very end of the movie. The Tiger combat is quick & sharp in the movie. It's not Tiger's everywhere. Really only one tank on tank combat scene out of the many combat sections of the movie.

Great movie, but the ending isn't a Hollywood ending of the good guys riding into the sunset. It's a war is hell, dirty, grim and the horrors of war flick. I didn't come out thinking war is fun, a great thing and let's all kill Germans and life is good.

I saw it at 3:50 PM and the place had mostly older people in their late 60's and older. After the movie ended there wasn't a single person talking. I followed a few of them out and they didn't say a single thing to their
wife as they walked thru the parking lot.

Said this before: "Dirty, grim and showed the horrors of war and the effects it has on the men who go to war."

PS: It's not a Kelly's Heroes in any shape or form wink


The Tiger scene was realistic, except no Tiger driver worth his salt would start driving towards multiple Shermans. That aside, I really enjoyed that scene.

But the final battle was ridiculous, there is NO way that would ever happen..



You should read about Michael Wittman
He attacked a British armoured Colum in a single tiger destroying most of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann



Something tells me no Hollywood studio will be making a film based on that. ;-)
Posted By: KRT_Bong

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/19/14 03:35 AM

Seems to me I read somewhere that it would take several Sherman's working together to take down one Tiger, the Tiger having a slower turret speed but enough armor to literally shrug off the Sherman's shells.
Posted By: Pooch

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/19/14 10:09 PM

Wow. Just came back from seeing this. You certainly don't walk out of the theater thinking, "Gee, it must have been really cool to have served in a Sherman tank during WW2." No sugar coating, here.
Terrific film. I've been following it's development ever since I heard about the project, last year. It didn't disappoint me.
Posted By: SFViper19D

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/19/14 10:15 PM

Saw it and loved it. They nailed so many of the details even down to the interior sound of bullets bouncing off the exterior of the tank.
Posted By: reconmercs

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/19/14 10:31 PM

Saw it, probably will see it again before it leaves the theaters. Absolutely loved it, its definitely up there with Saving Private Ryan if not better in some aspects. Definitely gives you an even deeper appreciation for that generation of fighting men.
Posted By: Plainsman

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/19/14 11:59 PM

I enjoyed the movie. It's two and a quarter hours long but didn't feel like it. The time went by quickly, although it dragged a bit in the middle when they were trying to set up the change in the newbie assistant tank driver's character transition. And what happened at the end with the same newbie assistant tank driver was totally unbelievable. Totally. A similar thing was set up realistically in Saving Private Ryan, but it wasn't realistic here. Not a bit. That was really annoying and diminished the sense of realism that existed in most of the movie. They also needed a better actor for that particular character. The boy could not act.

The way they make movies in Hollywood is basically cookie cutter. Either the central character does not change but has such an effect on the other characters that he causes them to change, or everyone stays basically the same throughout the movie but the central character changes. None of the veteran tank crew were going to change. It wouldn't have been realistic. They were set in their ways, having fought Germans on two continents. So the producer, director, and screenwriter had a problem. They had to come with a character would change in some profound and noticeable way. So they tacked on this kid [I won't spoil it] to undergo this huge character transition in what seemed record time. Those of us that saw the movie know what happened to change him. It felt a little bit too pat.

Other than that bit of Hollywood nonsense, I loved the battles, the language, etc. The first person shots of the tank gunner firing at the Tiger near the end were very cool.
Posted By: carrick58

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/20/14 12:30 AM

wave

Good or bad, I will see this flick in a theater. Hollywood is Moneywood. Cuttercutter is a cheaper way to go. I agree with Plainsman 's comments. tanksalot
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/20/14 12:41 AM

A lot right. A lot wrong.

Never knew you could see tracers when fired AT you. Road marching around totally oblivious to providing security drove me nuts. All tank guns and turrets always pointed at the 12 o'clock. Or at each other when ever on a road. these things drove me NUTS.




I loved how they portrayed how many US vets felt about the SS and how they should be treated. I wish they more explained WHY this was. So many modern folks have a hard on for SS troops. I think showing how US troops felt about them was pretty great.

The working tiger... awesome!

More chopped liver after a certain 2 frag grenades went off in a confined space.


hmm pull into a German town and get drunk when in the middle of the enemies heart land? Seems like a BAD idea to me. Just who was pulling security? Why let your biggest firepower asset crews go get drunk?

Click to reveal..
Final battle was truly laughable. So vet SS guys never thought of smoking out the static tank and then going with a close in assault until after they lost like 20 guys? Not to mention why on earth would you stay and fight a clearly losing battle. Why not throw thermite on the engine deck, pull back, let folks know what is coming and then draw a new working tank from the motor pool and go back out? By not reporting what was coming and if you where wasted right quick without inflicting large casualties you are in effect doing more harm than good. But this was kind of covered in the movie. However just the same. An entire tank platoon goes off the air, maybe it might be important to know WHY by higher. And driving around the German country side as a single tank platoon with no infantry support?

Why was a Staff Sgt called TOP? Seemed off to me. Maybe I missed something there.
Posted By: marko1231123

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/20/14 12:51 AM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
Originally Posted By: marko1231123
Originally Posted By: theKhan
Originally Posted By: Richie61
It's not a movie where a lone tank takes on 20 Tigers and shoots while zooming around on one tread like a thrill show. driving

It's a very realistic movie in terms of their mission and outcome. Without giving too much away, they started with a group of Shermans and they are moving into a blocking position to stop a German force on the move. This is towards the very end of the movie. The Tiger combat is quick & sharp in the movie. It's not Tiger's everywhere. Really only one tank on tank combat scene out of the many combat sections of the movie.

Great movie, but the ending isn't a Hollywood ending of the good guys riding into the sunset. It's a war is hell, dirty, grim and the horrors of war flick. I didn't come out thinking war is fun, a great thing and let's all kill Germans and life is good.

I saw it at 3:50 PM and the place had mostly older people in their late 60's and older. After the movie ended there wasn't a single person talking. I followed a few of them out and they didn't say a single thing to their
wife as they walked thru the parking lot.

Said this before: "Dirty, grim and showed the horrors of war and the effects it has on the men who go to war."

PS: It's not a Kelly's Heroes in any shape or form wink


The Tiger scene was realistic, except no Tiger driver worth his salt would start driving towards multiple Shermans. That aside, I really enjoyed that scene.

But the final battle was ridiculous, there is NO way that would ever happen..



You should read about Michael Wittman
He attacked a British armoured Colum in a single tiger destroying most of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann



Something tells me no Hollywood studio will be making a film based on that. ;-)




LoL very true,

But here's a very good documentary about his exploits and the mystery surrounding his death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mCNz7OC8YIs
Posted By: Mechanus

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/20/14 12:56 AM

From a technical standpoint, it's good looking in some scenes, the special effects look good.

The story is very uneven, so I'll include a little lite spoiler warning.

For all the grim dialogue and attempt to portray a grim, bottomless sewer depicting total war the action sequences are more out of place, they feel like they belong in an action film, there's Rambo territory here. It rips off Saving Private Ryan in key moments, in fact one of the characters is the exact same character, you'll recognize him immediately.

The story tries so hard to manipulate the audience, it's transparent. There is so much orchestral theme music going on during the battles, which is what SPR avoided. For instance, the fighting actually quits during the middle of a battle so that characters can have their dramatic dialogue, the battle sounds may even completely disappear so they have a moment to talk, complete with theme music and that very typical female choir voice that sings that "whoaaaaaaaaaaa" and even piano music to try and convey sentimental feelings.

The final battle is boring, it's just not realistic. Based on the trailer I'm not surprised they went for that, based on critics' reviews I thought maybe my mind would be changed in that the film might be more realistic. But no, it's more like the trailer.

Click to reveal..
An experienced platoon leader would probably in all likelihood not continue on after losing 75 percent of the tank platoon (down to a single tank), and then attempt to hold the road without infantry support, and after a mobility kill- it's been immobilized by a mine. It doesn't matter though because the dumb Nazi attack waves come in and rush the tank prove easy to mow down.

I also question the Tiger abandoning its position and charging the Sherman tanks, if it had to move, it should have went into reverse gear and continue firing from changing fire positions- in reverse. It squandered its advantage for no reason to charge and close the distance- which is unlikely because Tiger crews were selected because of their experience, which is also why they were effective.

Posted By: Mechanus

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/20/14 01:40 AM

By the way, here are a couple of trailers I saw:

Ridley Scott is doing the story of Exodus. You can see his style in it.




Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/20/14 02:24 AM

Hardly surprising demographics report from the studio,


"Sony's marketing played up Fury's intense tank-on-tank action, which made it a strong option among male moviegoers. Unfortunately, the movie never really connected with women, who wound up accounting for just 40 percent of the audience on opening weekend. It also struggled with younger moviegoers: the audience was 51 percent over the age of 35."
Posted By: Mechanus

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/20/14 02:29 AM

There was a decent spread in the theatre I saw it- but the funny thing is, the audience reaction just didn't seem that connected it. The parts that were supposed to be funny no one was really laughing or anything.

There's not even that much tank vs. tank combat. It's difficult making a film that is centered around a tank, that's just a hard story to convey. Buttoned up doing nothing in such a cramped environment for a long time would not make for a good movie. So a lot of the story actually is the drama outside of the tank or when the crew is sitting around chatting and you get Brad Pitt's influence and perspective. It requires a strong character performance, which you got in places, but somehow it wasn't tied together good by the actual violence. Somehow it lacked something compelling.

Based on the trailer, I was hoping that it wasn't going to be a lone tank takes on the world, it was sort of not like that and sort of like that. I wrote in my spoiler tag why I thought the final act was anti-climatic and took away from the film a bit.
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/20/14 02:55 AM

Mechanus you make good points on your show me.

Click to reveal..
In fact Fury was a 76mm armed easy 8. At the ranges at the end of the battle that gun was totally able to penetrate a Tigers front armor at the ranges portrayed after the tiger charged. Even a 75mm armed sherman with APCR should be able to cut threw a tigers front armor at 50 meters.

Still I forgive that cause its an actual working real Tiger. biggrin
Posted By: theKhan

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 10/21/14 03:11 AM

Were any of you guys that watched it

Click to reveal..
disturbed by the scene where he casually shot the German POW that just showed them pictures of his family?
Posted By: Timothy

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 05:50 AM

Originally Posted By: theKhan

Also, really do think that like SPR, the obligatory SS Amateur hour at the end was unnecessary.


I was thinking it was more of the political SS at the end, which were more true believers than the hardened fighters. A few of the histories I've read indicates that the quality of the SS units were much much degraded with a few fighters and a mix of old and young.

Originally Posted By: theKhan

The Tiger scene was realistic, except no Tiger driver worth his salt would start driving towards multiple Shermans. That aside, I really enjoyed that scene.

But the final battle was ridiculous, there is NO way that would ever happen..


Click to reveal..
I disagree, I would have pushed forward to get out of the smoke. That said, at that close, I think they would have known that the Sherman to worry about was the one with the 17 Pounder. The turret is different enough it should be clear which one to shoot first. I also don't know if the Tiger would have been that bad of a shot at that close of range. I would have cleared that smoke much quicker and just pounded the Shermans. I don't know why they put space between them and the Tiger, the right answer in an open field like that is to close the distance and swarm.


Originally Posted By: FlashBurn
A lot right. A lot wrong.

Never knew you could see tracers when fired AT you. Road marching around totally oblivious to providing security drove me nuts. All tank guns and turrets always pointed at the 12 o'clock. Or at each other when ever on a road. these things drove me NUTS.


Click to reveal..
I still think those AT guns wouldn't have missed at that close of range.


Quote:
I loved how they portrayed how many US vets felt about the SS and how they should be treated. I wish they more explained WHY this was. So many modern folks have a hard on for SS troops. I think showing how US troops felt about them was pretty great.


Click to reveal..
I didn't realize it was an SS guy. I was thinking, "Really? I could see that with a Japanese prisoner, but not so much a Wermacht soldier."


Quote:
The working tiger... awesome!

More chopped liver after a certain 2 frag grenades went off in a confined space.


Click to reveal..
That was my thought. I was expecting the face ripped off scene. I had one go off on me pretty close once during a training event and just the over pressure was painful, can't imagine the shrapnel cutting the body too. Also, turrents have locking handles.


Quote:
hmm pull into a German town and get drunk when in the middle of the enemies heart land? Seems like a BAD idea to me. Just who was pulling security? Why let your biggest firepower asset crews go get drunk?


Click to reveal..
I really didn't like that douche bag part of the scene. The guy was just over the top.


Quote:
Click to reveal..
Final battle was truly laughable. So vet SS guys never thought of smoking out the static tank and then going with a close in assault until after they lost like 20 guys? Not to mention why on earth would you stay and fight a clearly losing battle. Why not throw thermite on the engine deck, pull back, let folks know what is coming and then draw a new working tank from the motor pool and go back out? By not reporting what was coming and if you where wasted right quick without inflicting large casualties you are in effect doing more harm than good. But this was kind of covered in the movie. However just the same. An entire tank platoon goes off the air, maybe it might be important to know WHY by higher. And driving around the German country side as a single tank platoon with no infantry support?

Why was a Staff Sgt called TOP? Seemed off to me. Maybe I missed something there.



Click to reveal..
Top was referring to him being the highest ranking NCO. We refer to our 1SG as Top.

The last scene, I agree with you. Fall back, nothing to be gained by sacrificing yourself. I also don't understand why they didn't bring the ammo from the outside into the tank before the fight.
Posted By: Timothy

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 05:58 AM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
Hardly surprising demographics report from the studio,


"Sony's marketing played up Fury's intense tank-on-tank action, which made it a strong option among male moviegoers. Unfortunately, the movie never really connected with women, who wound up accounting for just 40 percent of the audience on opening weekend. It also struggled with younger moviegoers: the audience was 51 percent over the age of 35."


In a soldier town, except a few middle age wives toting along with their husbands, the girl I was with was the only female in the movie. Worse part was that after the movie she broke down having had one of close friends killed in front of her in Sh!tholestan. Yea, that wasn't my shining moment of "Let's spend a great evening together." I had never seen her memorial tattoo in uniform before.

Click to reveal..
I would have much preferred a different ending. It was too set. I almost called the scene step by step. I think they should have had twice the number of tanks, had their number cut in half by the Tiger. Continue on and get ambushed with infantry support by an overwhelming force, and let everyone duke it out in a desperate blocking maneuver. It would have had the same action as the last scene, but without the predictability.


Posted By: Alicatt

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 10:08 AM

Seen this on Friday, on the whole enjoyed it. The big downer about watching films in Belgium is the compulsory intermission, 45 minutes in and ...

Click to reveal..
you are on the emotional rollercoaster of the shooting of the POW, the scene looks up to see the bomber formation coming over and... 10 minute break


really broke the connection with the characters.

Agree with most of what has been said about the scenes in the spoiler tags here.

Our local war memorial in Hechtel Belgium

and in the next town Leopoldsburg
Posted By: Sluggish Controls

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 10:34 AM

Watched Fury on Saturday. Left the theatre with a slight "meh", not grim enough.
For what it is worth, I enjoyed the character played by the "The Walking Dead" fellow most, whatever his name is.

Cheers,
Slug
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 01:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Alicatt
Seen this on Friday, on the whole enjoyed it. The big downer about watching films in Belgium is the compulsory intermission, 45 minutes in and ...



Wait, what? They stop the movie?? WTF kind of rule is that?
Whoever did it deserves to get a one hour special on CNN called "stupidest person on the planet alive today."



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Peally

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 02:20 PM

When I went to see Unknown the lady friend I had along went to pee during the 3 minutes where they explained the whole movie and plot about two thirds of the way in. I generally just hold it and squirm like a flailing idiot for the whole movie.

Intermissions are not a bad idea biggrin
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 02:23 PM

I guess Belgium didn't read the memo on the fact that Hollywood films stopped having intermissions integrated into the story oh, about 45 years ago.
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 02:25 PM

Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
I guess Belgium didn't read the memo on the fact that Hollywood films stopped having intermissions integrated into the story oh, about 45 years ago.


Even then it was usually 3 hour epics. When epics fell out of favor by by intermissions.
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: FlashBurn


Even then it was usually 3 hour epics. When epics fell out of favor by by intermissions.
Yeah that's a good point. I have a few films on dvd that have the intermissions like Blue Max, Tora Tora Tora and Patton.
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 02:39 PM

Ben Hur comes to mind... And that crappy Liz Taylor Cleopatra. Oh Spartacus.

I miss GOOD epics. Wish those would come back.

And we need them now. In the era that a small soda is like freaking 24 ounces of suger it would be nice to not be crawled over by folks making a run for the can. UGh... small should be no more than 12 ounces of freaking soda. Who buys a large it the movies? how can you drink that and not run for the can? biggrin
Posted By: Pooch

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 02:46 PM

I really enjoyed it. Just one part, at the end, bothers me. I can't say because its a spoiler. I don't know how to use the spoiler alert. Thought it was good, though. Gonna pick it up on DVD when it comes out.
Posted By: Mechanus

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 06:27 PM

Just like bold or italicized text, insert brackets in your text beginning with spoiler and ending with /spoiler - if that makes sense.

Quote my post and you'll see what the text format below looks like:

Click to reveal..
insert text here


Posted By: Mechanus

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 06:38 PM

I think the theme music and the female choir voice was a bit out of control for this film- all other very ridiculous plot elements aside, if nothing else I think even removing those would have helped a bit. On some occasions, it might work- for example, Oliver Stone didn't use it during battles in Platoon except on one occasion- to show Sgt. Elias' death in some kind of requiem during his Jesus 'crucifixition'. That was to convey a certain theatre going off into symbolism.

Here, they just use it just because there is a battle going on. Two different effects. That detracts from the cacophony and confusion of battle, and kind of beautifies it a bit. As a result, it makes things abstract and I feel removes the audience from it. Saving Private Ryan doesn't delude itself this way- people point out the documentary style cinematography as the high watermark of war films, but it's also the sound editing that works so well- without violins and choir voices laid over it, the sound combines with the visuals. Then you can have theme music during the breaks from fighting later.
Posted By: PanzerMeyer

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 07:06 PM

I'll rent "Fury" from Netflix so I can judge for myself but it seems like "Fury" is pretty much a conventional Hollywood war movie complete with all of the necessary cliches.
Posted By: No105_Archie

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 07:12 PM

Jeeze I WISH they had intermissions in movies. When you get to "a certain age" it's tough to go 2 hours without a pee.

I think I'll wait for the Netflix version as well
Posted By: Peally

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 07:59 PM

Originally Posted By: No105_Archie
Jeeze I WISH they had intermissions in movies. When you get to "a certain age" it's tough to go 2 hours without a pee.

I think I'll wait for the Netflix version as well


Archie I'm 24 and always make it a point to not drink a lot beforehand and the still the call of the wild somehow beckons 5 minutes into any movie. I feel your pain biggrin

Same thing happens when I prepare for a long drive or get called up during a competition.
Posted By: Top Gun

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 08:21 PM

I brought my kids to it, they're young, only 13 & 10 but my 13 yr old had lots of questions about stuff that went out which is one of the reason I bring him to these War R movies. They don't see any other type of R movie, but this history movies bring out questions that school wouldn't teach.

There are always parts of movies you question that made no sense, I'm sure we'll be having the same type of thread for American Sniper after it releases...
Posted By: Peally

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 08:23 PM

I've already seen plenty of the OH MY GOD HE'S GOING TO SHOOT THAT POOR CHILD threads for that movie biggrin
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 08:35 PM

I always, ALWAYS, visit the restroom between getting the tickets ripped and buying the drinks or popcorn (if I even bother to) or sitting down.
If you're empty at minute zero, you should be able to hold it until the end unless you spent the hour before it started chugging a keg.



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Alicatt

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 10:01 PM

Originally Posted By: FlashBurn
Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
I guess Belgium didn't read the memo on the fact that Hollywood films stopped having intermissions integrated into the story oh, about 45 years ago.


Even then it was usually 3 hour epics. When epics fell out of favor by by intermissions.

The wife took the younger ones to see Manolo's Magische Rijs (Manolo's magic Journey) it was about 90 minutes and they had a break too.

First film I seen with an intermission was Lawrence of Arabia and that was a very long time ago. I would have waited to see Fury at home but we had made gift vouchers for the grand kids to take them to the cinema and this was the opportunity to do it.
Posted By: Pooch

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/03/14 11:15 PM

[test]
Posted By: Timothy

Re: Anyone see Fury yet? - 11/05/14 04:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Alicatt
Originally Posted By: FlashBurn
Originally Posted By: PanzerMeyer
I guess Belgium didn't read the memo on the fact that Hollywood films stopped having intermissions integrated into the story oh, about 45 years ago.


Even then it was usually 3 hour epics. When epics fell out of favor by by intermissions.

The wife took the younger ones to see Manolo's Magische Rijs (Manolo's magic Journey) it was about 90 minutes and they had a break too.

First film I seen with an intermission was Lawrence of Arabia and that was a very long time ago. I would have waited to see Fury at home but we had made gift vouchers for the grand kids to take them to the cinema and this was the opportunity to do it.


Gods and Generals had an intermission.
© 2020 SimHQ Forums