Fury: WWII Tank flick. Thumbs Up?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

TedKennedy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11,442
Reaction score
12,944
Location
Tulsa
I finally saw it. It's a solid Hollywood movie, but overall pretty silly. The whole '1 disabled tank vs an SS Battalion' was pretty dumb.

Seeing the upgunned Sherman against a Tiger was cool. Absorbing 3 rounds from a Mauser... ehh.

Hey - it's an 8x57, don't you know "it's bark is worse than it's bite" (from WWII US Army training on the MG42)
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
13,611
Reaction score
14,231
Location
Norman
I finally watched it over the weekend. It's pretty good flick, though very dark; definitely worth watching. I guess anything's possible, and it probably happened, but it really struck me as odd that they had to hold the crossroads, but sent armor without infantry support to do it.

Ideals are peaceful. History is violent. -- Don "Wardaddy" Collier
 

TwoForFlinching

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
10,439
Reaction score
5,675
Location
Lawton
I finally saw it yesterday, couldn't help but just 'meh' at it. Good action, but the story skipped way too fast to the epic end battle. Not enough character evolution and junk. Seemed like it was in that middle gray area of rotten egg between Saving Private Ryan and The Expendables... Not enough action/story line to satisfy either. I'd probably watch it again when it hits cable in a year.
 

Perplexed

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
15,883
Reaction score
10,853
Location
Tulsa
This thread reminded me, I saw the movie a couple weekends ago. I agree with a couple of the posters that it was overly Hollywoodized - for example, a lone Tiger with no support whatsoever going up against a platoon of Shermans? Not likely. A disabled E8 - even the mighty Fury - defending a crossroads all by itself against a battalion of SS troops, and nearly wiping out the battalion for what seemed like hours, before succumbing? Yeah, right.

Overall, I'd give the movie a B-, simply because it was entertaining, with a modicum of historical accuracy marred by implausible action.
 

Fyrtwuck

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
9,971
Reaction score
2,929
Location
Blanchard
I was looking at the cast before I went to see it and Clint Eastwood's son Scott was listed. I was looking for him in the movie and I didn't see him.
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
13,611
Reaction score
14,231
Location
Norman
I was looking at the cast before I went to see it and Clint Eastwood's son Scott was listed. I was looking for him in the movie and I didn't see him.
IMDB has a still of him on the .50 cal of a Sherman, so he was apparently on one of the other tank crews, but it's not wide enough to tell which tank it was. He's listed as Sgt. Miles, so he may be one of the tank commanders.
 

Toujours Pret

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
147
Reaction score
10
Location
Norman
I had looked forward to this movie, as the first tank movie since Kelley's Heroes. The prerelease hype over the attention to detail in the production was not totally false. having served in armor ( the tanks of the late 60's and early 70's were not that far removed from WWII armor as far as their mechanics and fire control) the thing they got right was the mud, the familial rapport of the crew and the fatigue shown by guys who were constantly working to keep things running. While getting that look right, the other details left a lot to be desired. The infantry types appeared to have no clue what they were doing, and the plot with its climatic battle scene wound up being silly. Still, I didn't feel cheated of the admission price or the two hours it took to watch.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom