Thursday the 30th 19:10 hrs.  

                Here's some interesting info.

Hey doog,

That enter the Tiger scene had me grinning too.   I think , unknowingly , I even let out an explicit or two when the initial rounds bounced harmlessly off the Tigers hull.  Point blank tank battle  encounters were common  when engaging a Tiger . I was not aware that it could take place within  as little as 10 to 20 yds. as depicted in the movie with no effect. If this was true , then that 's pretty disheartening .

The Star Wars laser beams were my biggest beef with the movie. Although that was a minor issue. Even the 105 mm and 120 mm tank rounds I've sent down range didn't look like that.

I do have to add that I was literally grinning like a toothless, drooling idiot when the Tiger came on screen, and my heart was almost beating out of my chest. What a great, exciting scene! Glad to see, too that "Hollywood" didn't have them take it out with a frontal shot, which was obviously impossible. Glad to see that they did their homework on that scene. :)

Thanks for the " Two Thumbs Up " !

It is well worth the $6 and couple hours out of a Saturday afternoon to watch it.

Interesting reviews.

I have yet to see the movie.

I will most likely see it on dvd or Blue Ray due to lack of time to go to a movie theater.

I agree with Doog's comments - including what he says about the scene in which the German prisoner gets executed. The sergeant would have been afraid that one of the witnesses would blow the whistle.

On the other hand there are quite a few documented cases of American soldiers shooting German troops - including concentration camp guards - after they surrendered.

It would have been reasonable to note that many of those refugees were trudging westward so they could surrender to the Americans or British rather than the Soviets, who were notorious for behaving far worse.

I've been grading papers so long that I tend to rate movies on the ten-point letter grade system. I think I'd give "Fury" about an 83: a low B, but not a B-. "Saving Private Ryan" gets a 94, and Pearl Harbor" gets a 70 (C-). My all-time favorite war movie, "Twelve O'Clock High," gets a 97. (I don't give 100s.)

Saw the flick today.I would agree that there is many places where artistic license is taken and unrealistic things occur. But overall it gives a good view of a crew in a tight space for a long time. The scene inside the tank were very realistic to those who have spent time crammed in a "can". It is Hollywood, The acting was good,  great fighting scenes. Not for the rivet counter but a good war movie with some scenes that rival the beach in Saving Private Ryan.

Worth seeing

Rounds Complete!!

By that stage of the war, old men and children were given a panzerfaust, that's it, nothing else. You gotta get about 30 yards away and it is probably like trying to hit it with a bottle rocket. Logs on the side and sand bags would have negated the warhead and even if it did hit, there was a greater chance of it caroming off the side than destroying the tank.

I saw it yesterday. I'd rate it a 7/10. The tank action sequences were definitely exciting, and the tedious "fraulein" section was interestingly shot and scripted, but ultimately unnecessary.  Would have been much happier with another "tank" scene somehow.

The one part I really didn't like and thought was a bit of BS was the part right after the engagement with the three anti-tank guns where Pitt's character tried to "toughen up" the new driver. Totally a war crime, and while perhaps understandable in the context of the era and the day, I would find i hard to believe that this kind of action would have taken place with impunity in front of that many soldiers.

And I wonder if the SS would have spent so much effort on one tank at a crossroads when they could have easily bypassed it or taken it out with panzerfausts. I think the "standoff" in the end was pure entertainment, but hardly realistic. Hollywood wins in this case.

I caught it at a 4:00 matinee yesterday. (There were five other people in the theater.) I haven't decided whether I liked it or not.

I'm no tank expert, but I thought the Shermans looked fine and that genuine Tiger was great. (I suspect they all got quite a bit of help from computer graphics, but it was fascinating to watch them in action.) Those who suspected the movie would sugar coat history needn't worry. It presents a remarkably ugly impression of the last stage of the war in Europe: dreary scenery, perpetually grey skies, lots of mud, and plenty of gore (though none that I'd call gratuitous). The Brad Pitt character is a decidedly unpleasant guy: sour, foul-mouthed, cynical, and brutal. He also has another, surprising side: he speaks fluent German, and occasionally launches into serious forays into philosophy. ("Peace is idealistic. History is violent." I think I already knew that.) I don't think veterans will be happy with the movie's depiction of American fighting men. ("Saving Private Ryan" left me with sympathy and admiration for WWII vets. I don't think "Fury" will have that effect on many viewers.)

There's a lengthy sort-of romantic sequence involving the tankers and a pair of German civilian women. I thought that scene did contribute to the movie, but lasted at least twice as long as necessary.

I went into the theater wondering how effectively modern, widescreen photography could put across the awful claustrophobia of the inside of a Sherman in action. I was impressed. What I didn't think came across so well was the NOISE. In a lot of scenes the sound effects are deliberately turned down.

When I like a war movie I'll probably go see it more than once. (I saw "Saving Private Ryan" in the theater three times.) i'm not inclined to go see "Fury" again - and I won't try to talk my wife (a former Marine) into seeing it. I do intend to buy it on video, though, and I'll recommend it to the students in my American military history course - with the caveat that this movie gives one pretty strongly negative interpretation of the American combat experience in WWII. It should be taken in the context of other interpretations.

Saw it this evening. Good movie and yes ..........it's a Tiger. And I couldn't agree with you more about it being amazing that a 70 year old track is still operational.

The Tiger is real, it's been the topic of many German armor modeling forums. My take on armor used in any war film is that they are simply movie props. The fact that the tank is really a Tiger instead of an ersatz T-34 or even the panzer gray painted M47s from Battle of the Bulge or tan painted M48s from Patton really doesn't matter to me as far as the plot or entertainment aspect is concerned.

I bet those weren't even real WW2 soldiers. I bet they used actors!

As a former tanker, I like to see the historical aspect of real WW2 armor being used. Amazed that a 70 some odd year old tank is still running. Glad to see there are armor collectors and museums that have maintained the equipment to running standards.

But you have to realize that depending on the budget of the film, the filming location and the availability of the hardware not every movie that features a Tiger, Panther, Abrams, etc. will be able to use the real thing.

If some Australian film company made a movie about the North Africa campaign, would the movie really suffer because they didn't have a real Tiger to film and instead used a dressed up panzer?

Saw it today. 

I can believe that the Tiger was real was real. The scene with it was great.

Gonna see it regardless. LOL!

Thanks for the recommendation MKelley. Hopefully will be seeing this next Tuesday, really looking forward to this.

I was told Fury is the only movie that featured the only surviving operational Tiger tank. No that is not a dressed up T-34. That is a Tiger.

I would say yes. If your a rivet counter you may be disappointed because I am sure some small piece of equipment is not right. But that being said they got most of it right. I thought it was good.

Even "The Longest Day" had a kiss in it ;) So MK, in your experience, and knowing the varied movie tastes of members here, do you recommend this movie for tread heads among us?

Ok, gentlemen I saw Fury today. I can't speak for the accuracy of the M4, but it was a good movie. Not any real romance. Only one kiss in the whole movie. Lots of shots of US and German equipment. Could not tell if it was FX or the real thing. I can tell you one thing the Tiger 1 was not a T-34 dressed up.

As long as they don't have those T-34 ersatz Tigers in this movie....I'm down. I understand they actually used the restored Bovington Tunisian Tiger in this film?........I hate those goofy movie Frankenstein Tigers built on T-34's......i.e. Kelly's Heroes...Saving Private Ryan etc.

LOL  The Final Countdown time warp was a bit of a stretch.  But it was enough to tick me off that the Tomcats had to turn back right when they had the chance to wipe out the Vals and Zeroes!

Sorry Karl...about 1:45 in the trailer the new guy is in what appears to be a dimly lit room with a gal so there's gonna be at least a bit of romance in it

So.....

I was walking past the open door to another in the complex the other day, on the way out after having met my wife after work to see a "feel good" movie, and the trailer to "Fury" was running. I stopped to watch, she (my wife) said: "What's that?" I told her, and since Brad's from the same town as my wife, it's on the "see" list. There's an angle I hadn't considered.

Yep, it's fiction, for sure, but I'm still going to go see it. I bet "The Beast" is fiction, too, but I have it on disc and pull it out every now and then. No getting the wife to watch that one though.

You know, the other day I went with my wife to see a movie. She's a fan of the Rock, and would leave me for him if he showed up at our door. It was about some dude name Hercules and his band of merry men. I doubt the events really occurred. In fact, I'm not sure many of the people ever existed. And don't get me started on those weaponized chariots.

Seems like a lot of ado is being raised about a WW2 movie that includes a tank. Instead of being happy that a new war movie is being made that includes one of the more popular armor modeling subjects, we are either questioning the accuracy of the story (it's called fiction) or dismissing the movie because of past movies the actors did.

We get war movies/shows based on actual events, like Black Hawk Down, Lone Survivor, The Great Raid, We Were Soldiers, Band of Brothers, etc. Very entertaining movies, but just because it is a war movie, does not mean it has to be based on actual events. Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Platoon were all fiction, but very entertaining. Even at a stretch, Forrest Gump could be considered a war movie that was entertaining and a total work of fiction.

Now if the tank transformed into a giant robot that strolled across Europe to stomp on Hitler, that would be weird, but it could also be entertaining.

If you want to talk about accuracy, what's up with a 50 something year old man playing a tank commander. An "old man" on a tank is around thirty. The oldest tank commander in a battalion would be around 40 something, and he's the battalion commander.

As long as they don't put a freakin' stupid, wholly-unnecessary romance in it (Pearl Harbor, Enemy at the Gates) to attract the ladies, it should be a lot of fun and a welcomed "tank movie" that have been long-ignored by Hollywood.

"Enemy at the Gates" got me a little peeved; the dumb romance they put in it wasn't EVER going to make it a "date movie", and the insipidly foolish ending they put on it was, again, entirely unnecessary. The story of Vasilley Zeitsev and how he killed Koenig was enthralling and incredible enough without having to change it with some concocted "Hollywood ending".

Band of Brothers was good, but was lacking in the accuracy department for a few things. Take the Albert Blythe situation for instance...

As for war movies and their inaccuracies, well, they are considered entertainment after all. If they don't advertise as "The Unbelievable, but true story of," whatever, it doesn't bug me.

What does bug me is some of the junk people post on message boards, like IMDB. Stuff like "That wasn't a real Tiger tank that got blown up!" Or, "You could tell that they weren't firing live ammo at each other, 'cuz you could see the front of the round was crimped and didn't have a bullet." Come on people! Its not like you can run down to the prop shop and have your pick of Tiger tanks for the movie. And no live ammo? Kinda makes sense to me.

Sometimes people get too caught up in the realism thing. Blatant lameness is one thing, but it is a movie after all.

I thought Band of Brothers was based on actual facts...

"In World War II the Borgstrom brothers, Elmer, Clyde, and twins Rolon and Rulon, were killed within a few months of each other in 1944. Their parents then petitioned for their son Boyd, who was also on active duty, to be released from service. Their sixth son, Elton, who had not yet reached conscription age was exempted from military service."