Fury (Brad Pitt / David Ayer)

cloud493

I didnt say I didnt like it, I said it wasn't perfect :P certainly theres a couple of episodes that aren't quite as good as the rest.

Lukker-

The movie was almost ruined by the ridiculous show-down at the end. What is American film-makers obsession with this? Even Spielberg couldn't help himself in Saving Private Ryan, although at least that was grounded in some form of reality.

TheFullDuck

Saw this the other day and enjoyed it immensely. Other posters have covered the few problems I had with it;

The sudden change from night to day being a big one and the storm trooper like shooting from the SS. I also felt the scene with the two fraulein dragged on a bit.

about the panzer launcher things I just thought while watching it they had the launchers but only had the few rockets left that the SS commander mentioned, my weaponry knowledge may be incorrect though.
Also was the scene where the SS lad looks under the tank and says nothing about your man hiding just a weak plot device thrown in at the end to show not all Nazis were bad, after being told for the previous 2 hours of the film that they are '****ing nazis'

vidor

Such a dumb film containing every possible cliche out there. We got Pitt (Wardaddy?!) in full chew the scenery mode but it's hard to blame the rest of the cast considering the script they had to work with. End of Watch is fine, Harsh Times less so, but this was on an entirely different level. Cannot understand the lack of negative reaction this is receiving. I actually laughed at 5+ scenes.

Kiith

I really enjoyed it. Yeah, there were some stupid bits and the last fight was kind of stupid, but the first tank battle (with the infantry) and the battle with the Tiger were brilliant. Really enjoyable overall.

MfMan

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Saving Private Ryan is probably the best war movie ever made, though you are entitled to pretend otherwise.

Oh God, no. Why would somebody go to all that trouble to save someone as lame as Matt Damon?

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is a great underrated (anti-)war movie.

LuckyLloyd

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Not a chance, could name 10 war films that are easily better.

Platoon for one.

Well I don't agree that Platoon is anywhere near as good a movie, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Looper007 wrote: »

No far from it, I don't agree as it terribly mawkish apart from the first 15 minutes and the final battle scene. Go watch Band of Brothers instead, far better.

I have of course seen Band of Brothers and it is of course brilliant. What gritty policing drama films can hold a candle to the Wire?

Duggy747

I want to see it almost primarily on the guts of this final battle everyone is talking about :pac:

Teyla Emmagan

Enjoyed this way more than I thought I would (though I went to some stupid preview in Liffey Valley where we had to endure half an hour of tosh live from the red carpet screening in the London Film Festival first). Thought the battle scenes were brilliant, and by the end of it I really wanted a tank. But the final battle? How utterly pointless. I would have knocked War Daddy over the head and dragged him off with me. Thought the scenes with the two German ladies were brilliant though, really ominous and creepy, but at the same time poignant. Didn't know how it was going to go down.

TerrorFirmer

I was very disappointed with this. It's a decent film, with some good performances, but how they could get it so very right for the first half of the film and then somehow manage to get their script pages mixed up with Rambo IV is beyond me.

It's a shame because it had so much promise. The two battle scenes prior to the final one are superb and quite accurate as films go - the sound in particular was phenomenal. Only for all that established credibility and potential to be thrown out the window shortly afterwards.

Hearing that someone thought the tracer rounds were lasers used to distinguish between the American and German forces makes me glad to have seen it. Brilliant.

J Mysterio

Stormtroopers, good lol.

Tristram

Didn't have high expectations so wasn't overly disappointed. Definitely lost the run of itself towards the end. Found Shia Labeouf to be the best actor in the movie much to my amazement.

hidinginthebush

Saw this last night, thought it was ok, not bad, but by no means great.

One thing that annoyed me through the whole film was

the special effects.
1. Yes I know we were told every fifth bullet was a tracer, but at times they looked like a laser fight due to the green tint given to them.
Edit. Just saw ktulu123s video, well I'll be damned!
2. The explosions had a tendency to look like fireworks, took many sparkles.

The pacing was quite strange too. The dinner scene was far too drawn out.

J Mysterio

Special effects were spot on.

BlitzKrieg

well they did get genuine tanks (a real fecking Tiger!) so for tank nuts it was a rather pornographic experience

razorblunt

The ending seriously let's this down.
Aside from that it was setting up to be a really excellent movie, Shia LeBoeuf is brilliant it has to be said, Michael Pena is just playing a cliche one movie at a time, his hard man act was paper thin I'm afraid.

TerrorFirmer

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

well they did get genuine tanks (a real fecking Tiger!) so for tank nuts it was a rather pornographic experience

Only real working Tiger in the world. Other movies use obvious stand ins - White Tiger has a very suspicious looking Tiger!

First half of the movie was stellar in all aspects.

It's only the final act that let it down so badly.

Still worth a watch for history buffs and movie goers alike.

Cantremember

It's a very good movie. Historically the tank versus tank battles are accurate but that's for people who like that sort of thing. I disagree with those who thought the ending was off. If you know about battles you know that it comes down to the decision of sergeants in particular crises. One tank against 300 infantry? A cannon and four machine guns one a 50 cal? War produces heroes. Get over it.

TerrorFirmer

Cantremember wrote: »

It's a very good movie. Historically the tank versus tank battles are accurate but that's for people who like that sort of thing. I disagree with those who thought the ending was off. If you know about battles you know that it comes down to the decision of sergeants in particular crises. One tank against 300 infantry? A cannon and four machine guns one a 50 cal? War produces heroes. Get over it.

An immobile Sherman tank versus 300 Waffen SS infantry armed heavily, as portrayed in the film, with Panzerfaust anti-tank charges?

It's a film, I get that, but the portrayal of war in the first half of the movie was starkly at odds with the final act.

It lapsed into a GI JOE sunday cartoon with the bad guys attacking the heroes in carefully and highly appropriately for cinematic purposes, staged human wave attacks. It was beyond stupid and belonged in the script pages of the next Rambo movie.

If the film had bothered to portray the opposing forces as Volksturm, then it might have held more sway and credibility - in fact, that would have suited it perfectly, come to think of it.

Old men and young boys cobbled together in hastily formed and ill equipped units with little no no training and thrown into battle.

But as it was portrayed in the film - an immobile single tank versus a Waffen SS battalion, it just did not work.

For anyone that 'knows anything about battle', right until May 1945 and the very end of the war, Waffen SS units were well equipped and well trained.

A single panzerfaust would knock out a Sherman, let alone 300 infantry armed with dozens of them in the dead of night.

Cantremember

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

An immobile Sherman tank versus 300 Waffen SS infantry armed heavily, as portrayed in the film, with Panzerfaust anti-tank charges?

It's a film, I get that, but the portrayal of war in the first half of the movie was starkly at odds with the final act.

It lapsed into a GI JOE sunday cartoon with the bad guys attacking the heroes in carefully and highly appropriately for cinematic purposes, staged human wave attacks. It was beyond stupid and belonged in the script pages of the next Rambo movie.

If the film had bothered to portray the opposing forces as Volksturm, then it might have held more sway and credibility - in fact, that would have suited it perfectly, come to think of it.

Old men and young boys cobbled together in hastily formed and ill equipped units with little no no training and thrown into battle.

But as it was portrayed in the film - an immobile single tank versus a Waffen SS battalion, it just did not work.

For anyone that 'knows anything about battle', right until May 1945 and the very end of the war, Waffen SS units were well equipped and well trained.

A single panzerfaust would knock out a Sherman, let alone 300 infantry armed with dozens of them in the dead of night.

This brought me back. The Waffen SS were sorely depleted by April 1945. These were portrayed as infantry: machine guns are not heavy weapons and useless against tanks. The panzer Faust was effective at close quarters no doubt but first you have to get close. I don't know if there were dozens of them in the final scene: I have an excuse to go back and count them now. If you look up numbers of dead in single engagements you will see a german machine gunner on Omaha beach is said to have killed or injured almost 2000 Americans. 3 machine guns in an armoured position? Of course it's the movies in Fury but it's not incredible. More likely that it doesn't suit a certain view of what war movies should be.

TerrorFirmer

Cantremember wrote: »

This brought me back. The Waffen SS were sorely depleted by April 1945. These were portrayed as infantry: machine guns are not heavy weapons and useless against tanks. The panzer Faust was effective at close quarters no doubt but first you have to get close. I don't know if there were dozens of them in the final scene: I have an excuse to go back and count them now. If you look up numbers of dead in single engagements you will see a german machine gunner on Omaha beach is said to have killed or injured almost 2000 Americans. 3 machine guns in an armoured position? Of course it's the movies in Fury but it's not incredible. More likely that it doesn't suit a certain view of what war movies should be.

The Waffen SS were sorely depleted by 1945? Waffen SS received the best equipment ahead of all Wehrmacht units - in fact, the Waffen SS launched a major offensive against the Russians in April 45 in Romania, and even made headway before being stopped. They weren't successful - but until the end of the war they remained a viable fighting unit. The Waffen SS received the best equipment and training right until May 1945, and often chewed up Allied units.

No-one said anything about machine guns. In fact, in Fury, MG-42's were shown as deployed more than once. Now that you mention it, that only added to the farcical nature of the final scene. The MG42 has a fire rate far above the Browning, yet Brad Pitt manages to outshoot them with ease, despite them having 'the drop' on him (that is to say that Brad Pitt very casually outshot a thousand round a minute weapon that was shooting at him first).

The sniper ace scene only further added to the ridiculous nature of the scene. Yes, it took a conveniently placed German sniper ace to neutralize the threat...

The 'effective' range of a Panzerfaust is almost 90 meters - what's that, 150+ foot? Yet in the movie, an entire column of Waffen SS armed to the teeth with Panzerfausts were literally meters away - yet they couldn't touch an immobilized Sherman for whatever reason.

Even the continuity made no sense. A column of hardened Waffen SS troops marched towards the crossroads armed with Panzerfausts - yet towards the end, another scene said that the battalion had only a single crate of Panzerfausts that 'had to count', entirely ignoring the earlier scene - total continuity blunder.

Anyone with the vaguest interest in history will tell you that the final act of Fury was the brainchild of a Rambo fan.

Like I said - if David Ayer has decreed that Fury would face a battalion of Volksturm on the crossroads, the film as it was shot, would make entirely perfect sense. But as it is, it's nothing but Rambo transported back in time.

It just made no sense whatsoever and pandering to the fans of action cinema.

Which would be fine if the first half of the movie hadn't achieved commendable levels of authenticity.

Royal Irish

Whats with all the Rambo bashing?

con___manx1

Cantremember wrote: »

It's a very good movie. Historically the tank versus tank battles are accurate but that's for people who like that sort of thing. I disagree with those who thought the ending was off. If you know about battles you know that it comes down to the decision of sergeants in particular crises. One tank against 300 infantry? A cannon and four machine guns one a 50 cal? War produces heroes. Get over it.

typical american bull**** ending

I enjoyed the movie, great battle scenes, of course a little OTT at the end but that was to be expected.Think it broke new ground in terms of the battles and didn't feel like it was designed on a computer.
Dont think Pitt has the character for the role he played though, think it highlighted his limitations as an actor.

Maybe because Im comparing it to the movie The Beast, where you'd have to say the russian tank leader had infinitely more charisma then Pitt.

Cantremember

con___manx1 wrote: »

typical american bull**** ending

Down with "happy" endings! What would a good Irish ending be then?

Cantremember

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The Waffen SS were sorely depleted by 1945? Waffen SS received the best equipment ahead of all Wehrmacht units - in fact, the Waffen SS launched a major offensive against the Russians in April 45 in Romania, and even made headway before being stopped. They weren't successful - but until the end of the war they remained a viable fighting unit. The Waffen SS received the best equipment and training right until May 1945, and often chewed up Allied units.

No-one said anything about machine guns. In fact, in Fury, MG-42's were shown as deployed more than once. Now that you mention it, that only added to the farcical nature of the final scene. The MG42 has a fire rate far above the Browning, yet Brad Pitt manages to outshoot them with ease, despite them having 'the drop' on him (that is to say that Brad Pitt very casually outshot a thousand round a minute weapon that was shooting at him first).


The sniper ace scene only further added to the ridiculous nature of the scene. Yes, it took a conveniently placed German sniper ace to neutralize the threat...

The 'effective' range of a Panzerfaust is almost 90 meters - what's that, 150+ foot? Yet in the movie, an entire column of Waffen SS armed to the teeth with Panzerfausts were literally meters away - yet they couldn't touch an immobilized Sherman for whatever reason.

Even the continuity made no sense. A column of hardened Waffen SS troops marched towards the crossroads armed with Panzerfausts - yet towards the end, another scene said that the battalion had only a single crate of Panzerfausts that 'had to count', entirely ignoring the earlier scene - total continuity blunder.

Anyone with the vaguest interest in history will tell you that the final act of Fury was the brainchild of a Rambo fan.

Like I said - if David Ayer has decreed that Fury would face a battalion of Volksturm on the crossroads, the film as it was shot, would make entirely perfect sense. But as it is, it's nothing but Rambo transported back in time.

It just made no sense whatsoever and pandering to the fans of action cinema.

Which would be fine if the first half of the movie hadn't achieved commendable levels of authenticity.

Well I'll grant you panzerfausts but I've never been in combat so I don't know if it proceeds in as orderly a way as a textbook or typing on a computer. The Waffen SS were frequently cut to pieces by Russian and Allied units too: warfare tends to be about who has the mostest soonest. The offensive you mention was cut to pieces when, to quote wiki, the Russians took it seriously. Back to the movie: it did make sense on various levels. I like the stubbornness of Pitts character. Sometimes big events turn on one person doing their duty. I think the movie showed leadership in dreadful circumstances.

Cantremember

Cantremember wrote: »

Down with "happy" endings! What would a good Irish ending be then?

Hard to call that a happy ending really!!

Probably the blaze of glory was OTT, but its the movies after all, they had to make the final battle big and extravagant

Cantremember

I think there's a thread there: the Irish ending. "They're all gone now"

vidor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

they had to make the final battle big and extravagant

Well no, they didn't have to do that. But considering the amount of **** they threw at the screen prior to that, it hardly came as a surprise that they went stupidly OTT.

Dempsey

Saw this film last night. It was very good until the final act. It went into fantasy land.

I would have liked to have seen more battles with Tiger tanks. They were a magnificent piece of machinery at the time.

I've seen real war footage with tracers being used but in this film all I could think of was star wars. Did the allies and Germans use different coloured tracers during the war?

The failures in the final act have been documented by other posters. It descended into generic war porn by the end and the nazi not putting 100 bullets into Norman at the end was ridiculous.

All that said, it's a good film and it was worth going to the cinema for the sound alone. There is far worse ways to spend 2 hours. 7/10

Yawlboy

Watched this last night - best war film since Platoon in my opinion. Showed the brutality of war and the mud, dirt and blood involved really really well. The fight scenes were spectacular - probably some of the best I've seen. The mass bomber raid was a nice touch.

However a couple of things that really annoyed me -

Day to Night in less than 30 seconds?, Where did all the Panzerfausts go?, Two grenades exploding (after how long?) in a confined space (i.e. a tank) would have done a lot more damage to the bodies and a Waffen SS soldier leaving a young american go free after hundreds of his buddies were killed.

Walked out of the cinema thinking - This was brilliant EXCEPT...... and I keep thinking of those things that annoyed me rather than the rest of the movie

7/10

Faith+1

Yawlboy wrote: »

Watched this last night - best war film since Platoon in my opinion.
7/10

If it's the best war movie since Platoon and you only gave it 7/10 it really doesn't speak well for the others! How would you rate these then?

Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Hamburger Hill (1987)
Born on the fourth of July (1989)
Glory (1989)
Schindlers List (1993)
Saving Ryans Privates (1998) - Hate it when everyone say's it the best War movie!
Thin Red Line (1998)
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
We were Soldiers (2002)
Windtalkers (2002)
Flags Of Our Fathers (2006)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) - Best since Platoon in my opinion
Valkyrie (2008) - Gets alot of abuse but it's quite enjoyable

I'm just curious that's all, everyone's entitled to thier opinion!

SteveMcQueen68

I heard many people walking out the cinema after the end of the movie talking about how annoyed they were by the "unrealistic" battle at the end of the movie when the crew of the tank take on a battalion of Waffen SS. However battles just like this DID happen.

Audie Murphy who won the Congressional Medal of Honor in WW2 when he mounted an abandoned and burning M10 tank destroyer and took on German infantry with the .50 calibre machine gun mounted on the turret and killed and wounded dozens of German infantry until he ran out of ammunition breaking up their advance single handed. Murphy recreated his amazing feat in the movie To Hell And Back in which he acted as himself.

Beanstalk

I really enjoyed it!

yeah the ending was OTT but there's plenty of situations in WW2 where besieged units held out against the odds. I'm thinking John basilone etc. Plus there was a lot of open killing ground around the tank at the end which makes it in some way plausible they could have held out. Confusion, explosions, darkness, panic, all these things contribute to an unlikely outcome. The tank battle with the tiger was really intense. I was kind of disappointed they didn't show a Tiger 2 (king tiger), i was waiting for that. But it was still a brilliant, brutal war film.

Osmosis Jones

As unrealistic as it may seem

I really liked the ending with the German Soldier leaving him be. Shows that, just like the Americans, he was only doing his job and he wasn't some heartless murderer, much like Norman in the beginning of the movie.

Warper

Finally dawned on me that Brad Pitt really cant act, apart from the awful lead casting this is a decent film

Yawlboy

Faith+1 wrote: »

If it's the best war movie since Platoon and you only gave it 7/10 it really doesn't speak well for the others! How would you rate these then?

Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Hamburger Hill (1987)
Born on the fourth of July (1989)
Glory (1989)
Schindlers List (1993)
Saving Ryans Privates (1998) - Hate it when everyone say's it the best War movie!
Thin Red Line (1998)
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
We were Soldiers (2002)
Windtalkers (2002)
Flags Of Our Fathers (2006)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) - Best since Platoon in my opinion
Valkyrie (2008) - Gets alot of abuse but it's quite enjoyable

I'm just curious that's all, everyone's entitled to thier opinion!

I think the whole look of the film, the acting, the story, the mud, the blood, the noise, smoke etc. were brilliant, the few items I listed above really annoyed me but I should probably have scored it higher so lets say 8/10. I haven't seen Letters from Iwo Jima or Valkyrie so I stand by my Best since Platoon statement.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Well I'm not a film buff, and rarely go to see a movie (preferring the comforts of home) but as a soldier I'll usually try go see a decent war movie on the big screen.

This wasn't an entirely bad movie, it entertained me until the final battle scene. I've been under fire plenty of times and tbh that scene with Pitt using the tanks .50 just wouldn't happen, first off the violence of battle would keep you pinned down and secondly you'd be cut to ribbons in seconds ~ it wouldn't take a sniper to finish the job.. Btw at night the sniper would have used his iron sights and not his optics.

The machinegun tracer fire was like a lazer firefight in Star Wars ~ it looks nothing like that, and tbh when its that close you can barely see it.

I remember seeing incoming tracer fire in Platoon and thinking that it was very real looking, the rubbish in this movie didn't look realistic at all.

Wasn't a bad watch for a fiver (Wednesday night cheap ticket ) but (from a soldiers pov) it certainly wasn't up there with the best I've seen.

**late edit.. A stationary MBT wouldn't be attacked by a battalion in attack ~ an anti-tank crew would have been send forward to destroy the vehicle and the unit would just push on through.. Even two infantry sections in attack would destroy a disabled MBT without too much effort.

beauf

Watched this tonight. The "feel" seems just right. I was involuntarily trying to find cover in the seat. Sound was amazing.

I couldn't disagree with the criticisms, weakness'es mentioned above either. That said I've an interest in all things military, and for me its a must see.

I'm in the middle of reading "Citizen Soldiers" by Stephen E. Ambrose and it set the scene for this movie for me perfectly.

D'Agger

I went to this and was the only one of my friends who had issues with it - they all thought it was great, personally I thought it was good at best, nothing more than that.

I'm going to give it a second watch in the future to confirm my doubts but reading here has backed up some of the initial issues I found myself having with it.

The bullets - I know tracers are used but didn't Michael Penas character say that every five rounds it fired a tracer? So shouldn't one in every five have looked like something out of Star Wars as opposed to, what seemed to me, all of them?

I thought the performances were very good on the whole and this may be an unpopular opinion but - can there be a war movie without somebody quoting scripture more than twice. I get the setting and understand that a huge number of troops were religious around that time, but Shia Labeoufs character seemed to be preaching every time he opened his mouth. Again, I thought his performance was very good, however the quotes seemed to want to be profound and completely fell flat so far as I was concerned at least.

The scene with the panzer I thought was fantastic - it was brilliantly tense and whilst being full of action, it had the cat and mouse aspect of tank warfare in abundance. Top marks for that.

It was the final act, as many here have already pointed towards, that bothered me.

They held on for 6 hours if daylight is anything to go by, leaving that aside, like many I fail to see the SS having so much trouble with an immobilized tank. But the salt into those mere carpet burns were the German spotting Norman (again, fantastic performance by Lerman) and leaving him, additionally the fact that Norman looks up directly after trying to conceal himself had me wtf'ing inwardly at the cinema - keep your head down, play dead you moron!

Then, of course and predictably in hollywood fashion -

Brad Pitts immaculate face was unscathed by the three or so grenades chucked into a confined space....despite Normans predecessor losing his face to a hit which only demobilized Fury for a while. You just knew Pitt was going to look fine when Norman went back into the tank. The fact that it took two shots from a sniper to put Pitt back in the tank in the first place was just going that bit too far for me with regard to unbelievable fantasy.

Perhaps I've been too pedantic on some of those points but it's how I saw it and I've said I'll take a second glance to confirm for myself whether I've been a bit harsh on it.

I will say this - I'm glad it was pointed out that Norman was a 'fighting, ****ing, war machine' I said to my buddy it should be called 'The luckiest damn War Hero in the World' about two thirds in -

Everything came up Millhouse for good aul Norman in the end.

Sad Professor

I quite enjoyed this actually, especially Price’s operatic score. The inaccurate portrayal of war and combat didn’t bother me. I gave up expecting war movies to be realistic a long time ago (even Platoon has serious issues as Stone himself freely acknowledges). I just accept war movies for what they are now - genre movies that recycle the same scenarios over and over again, sometimes with a twist.

I don’t believe a movie told from the soldier’s perspective can ever be an anti-war movie. It doesn’t matter how gruesome the violence is, it will end up glamourising the soldier or his sacrifice. You want to make a true anti-war movie, you tell it from the perspective of the civilians caught in the crossfire or the aftermath. Like the millions of German women who were raped, savaged or forced in prostitution by invading Russian and American forces. Sadly few films have been made about this.

Tomohawk

For me this is the best war film ever made, though I have a soft spot for Cross Of Iron too...

Riddle101

Saw this movie today with my dad. I initially came out thinking it was a great war film. Just the right amount of drama and fighting you can expect from a war movie. But on reflection I may have gotten a little over excited tbh.

The end battle was a little over the top. No way would the 300 Waffen SS be taken so easily like that. It was like watching Stormtroopers from Star Wars or something. The whole heroic fight to the death thing was just typical Hollywood.

Also Brad Pitt was a little ridiculous as times. The SS throw two grenades into the tank and it has very little impact. Brad Pitt's body would have been almost unrecognizable giving how close he was to the grenades. In fact the scene where Norman had to clean the inside of the tank, including the remains of the dead solider who he replaced was a better indication of what would have happened. It's almost like the Director insisted on given Pitt as much face time on camera as he could.

Either way, I liked the film anyway but it wasn't the best.

Reekwind

Bit of an odd question here. Those who have seen the film, are there many/any scenes in spoken German with English subtitles?

I ask because I'm thinking of seeing an English version with subtitles in a Dutch cinema but not if chunks of the film are in German (and therefore with Dutch, rather than English, subtitles).

.ak

Riddle101 wrote: »

Saw this movie today with my dad. I initially came out thinking it was a great war film. Just the right amount of drama and fighting you can expect from a war movie. But on reflection I may have gotten a little over excited tbh.

The end battle was a little over the top. No way would the 300 Waffen SS be taken so easily like that. It was like watching Stormtroopers from Star Wars or something. The whole heroic fight to the death thing was just typical Hollywood.

Also Brad Pitt was a little ridiculous as times. The SS throw two grenades into the tank and it has very little impact. Brad Pitt's body would have been almost unrecognizable giving how close he was to the grenades. In fact the scene where Norman had to clean the inside of the tank, including the remains of the dead solider who he replaced was a better indication of what would have happened. It's almost like the Director insisted on given Pitt as much face time on camera as he could.

Either way, I liked the film anyway but it wasn't the best.

Agree with everything here, thought it was a really good WW2 movie up until the end scene where it got a little Hollywood (but still enjoyed it).

Being a bit pedantic, but I don't think those stick grenades would do that sort of damage, they're not high explosives like you would get now adays, think more pipe-bomb effect, being shredded by shrapnel is more likely to happen, you'd bleed out rather than be turned to mush.

razorblunt

Reekwind wrote: »

Bit of an odd question here. Those who have seen the film, are there many/any scenes in spoken German with English subtitles?

I ask because I'm thinking of seeing an English version with subtitles in a Dutch cinema but not if chunks of the film are in German (and therefore with Dutch, rather than English, subtitles).

I can only think of a few instances where Pitt is talking to/at Germans.

OldeCinemaSoz

We hated the part where the kraut soldier was topped but
loved the bit where the Nazi boy was.

All's FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR.

J Mysterio

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

We hated the part where the kraut soldier was topped but
loved the bit where the Nazi boy was.

All's FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR.

What?

beauf

All true but the sound was great.

Are there any wwii movies that aren't deeply flawed in some way.

Tony EH

Well, there's two mentioned above, 'Das Boot' and 'A Bridge Too Far', and while they certainly have some flaws (mainly technical), I couldn't call them deeply flawed.

'Fury', however, gets a lot technically correct (within reason), but then buggers a lot of other basic things in the process. Like tankers riding into combat and they aren't buttoned up? That's just Hollywood nonsense. They wouldn't have lasted five minutes.