Fury, the movie

[vito]

Although I enjoyed the movie as a good war action feature, I'm sure I was not the only one who thought the ending was hokey. Can you actually believe that a German soldier from an elite unit would spot the American hiding under the tank and just walk away? German SS troops were put through rigorous training including becoming accustomed to total obedience to orders. I read once about training that involved assigning a puppy to the trainee who would accompany the young man 24/7. Late in the training the soldier would without warning be told to kill his companion dog. Those hesitating were drummed out of the program, and according to the article I read, few hesitated when so ordered. I don't see troops like this ignoring an enemy hiding a few feet away and unable to resist.

 

[UncleEd]

By the end of the war, the so-called SS was a polyglot of grab as catch can soldiers and the dedicated Nazis who supposedly made up the SS were few and far between, having been killed or captured or in hiding.

And just because it was a SS unit does not mean that all or most of its members were dedicated soldiers let alone Nazis.

I believe, from what I've read, that a lot of what is in Fury was taken from vignettes gleaned from numerous books or personal experiences.

 

[J. W.]

Although I enjoyed the movie as a good war action feature, I'm sure I was not the only one who thought the ending was hokey. Can you actually believe that a German soldier from an elite unit would spot the American hiding under the tank and just walk away? German SS troops were put through rigorous training including becoming accustomed to total obedience to orders. I read once about training that involved assigning a puppy to the trainee who would accompany the young man 24/7. Late in the training the soldier would without warning be told to kill his companion dog. Those hesitating were drummed out of the program, and according to the article I read, few hesitated when so ordered. I don't see troops like this ignoring an enemy hiding a few feet away and unable to resist.

Just my take, but I figured that the soldier didn't see him because he was cover mud and crud. He raised his hands to surrender because he assumed he'd been spotted but actually hadn't.



Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk

 

[wyccad915]

Although I enjoyed the movie as a good war action feature, I'm sure I was not the only one who thought the ending was hokey. Can you actually believe that a German soldier from an elite unit would spot the American hiding under the tank and just walk away? German SS troops were put through rigorous training including becoming accustomed to total obedience to orders. I read once about training that involved assigning a puppy to the trainee who would accompany the young man 24/7. Late in the training the soldier would without warning be told to kill his companion dog. Those hesitating were drummed out of the program, and according to the article I read, few hesitated when so ordered. I don't see troops like this ignoring an enemy hiding a few feet away and unable to resist.

Remember, in the beginning it states in text how Hitler in desperation had declared total war, mobilizing every man, women, and child. For this reason, I am in the same mindset as UncleEd.

 

[Rangerpat]

I sort of agree with J.W. that the U.S. soldier was not actually seen by the SS soldier.

That was the only scene in the whole movie that made no sense to me.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

The Nazis seemed to put the non-German 'volunteers' - like the Finns, Bosnians, Arabs, etc in the SS.

 

[UncleEd]

A bit more on the SS.

In It Never Snows in September, the German's view of Market Garden (nicknamed a bridge too far) most units including the SS were thrown together from whatever soldiers could be rounded up (many tried to hide) to stop the surprise attacks.

What surprised me was how many so-called "units" were not only thrown together but how the mode of transportation was bicycles.
Can you imagine a company or battalion moving en masse on bikes to get to the fighting?

And those "units" were often armed with a collection of old German, captured Russian and American arms.

Had a neighbor who served in the Germany Army, the Wehrmacht, for nearly 10 years. He was wounded twice by
Americans and when he was in a field hospital, a dedicated SS officer berated the Army because it was full of useless cowards and that it was up to the SS to win the war. This was about 1945.

One tidbit I found fascinating, and I've seen Fallschirmjaeger photos, was that the British sten was often favored because it fed from the left side, not the bottom like the "Schmeisser." This allowed a paratrooper to keep lower to fire without the interference of the "Schmeisser" magazine.

 

[badge]

It was just a movie,...... a decent one I thought. I very much enjoyed seeing the only working and functioning Tiger 1 in the world at work. God bless our Sherman crews of that era.

 

[the ringo kid]

Although I enjoyed the movie as a good war action feature, I'm sure I was not the only one who thought the ending was hokey. Can you actually believe that a German soldier from an elite unit would spot the American hiding under the tank and just walk away? German SS troops were put through rigorous training including becoming accustomed to total obedience to orders. I read once about training that involved assigning a puppy to the trainee who would accompany the young man 24/7. Late in the training the soldier would without warning be told to kill his companion dog. Those hesitating were drummed out of the program, and according to the article I read, few hesitated when so ordered. I don't see troops like this ignoring an enemy hiding a few feet away and unable to resist.

It is hard to accept but--ive known a few in the W-SS who have done things like that--ie--allowing the man to leave instead of not capturing or killling him kind of thing. My good friend Remy Schrijnen--did things like that. He was in the SS Strumbrigade Langemarck. Ive known others in the WSS to do the same. According to him (as translated by my lady pal--Susanne), he did that so as not to have to be burdoned with taking care of a prisoner. Ive heard similar stories coming from other WWII German vets--as well as a WWII British VC recipient, and others.BTW,SS Strumbrigade Langemarck--was considered a "white unit." They were not stained with a reputation with slaughter--like some of the other SS units were.

Remy Schrijnen--was Flemish as well as most of the men in Langemarck.

 

[the ringo kid]

The Nazis seemed to put the non-German 'volunteers' - like the Finns, Bosnians, Arabs, etc in the SS.

Speaking of the arabs. they made the worst "'soldiers"'and I use that term very losely when talking about them.Their German cadre--tried to teach them soldeiring--but the arabs basically refused to try to learn. An ospry books title--I forget which one? probably from their Men at War series?? shows some photos of arabs in german uniform doinga drill--and they were absoultly patheic to say the least. Most joined for the pay--and the ""cool" uniforms. Their German cadre were frustrated and furious that they refused to give training even a limp try. Both units were disbanded not longa fter formation. They were also VERY untrustworthy.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

Knew a dude who married a gal over in West Germany.
Her dad had been a company commander in the SS.
He was a Muslim from one of the places that was at that time a part of Yugoslavia.
There was a standing shoot on sight order out for him down in Yugoslavia .

 

[Cleveland48]

Finally watched this movie, and I enjoyed it very much! Seems to be fairly accurate in terms of the weapons used, and also how soldiers act. Most of my WW2 books talk about all sides shooting prisoners sometimes. Not just the Germans and the Naps. So I thought it was a nice touch when they shot the survivor in the field. Made the move much more realistic for me. And I agree with some of the other post about him not being captured either. By this time in the war the crack SS troops were either dead or captured. And there ranks were filled with anyone who could carry a gun.

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

 

[Onomea]

I was on a long flight today and this was one of the movies on the flight.

I liked it, somewhat to my surprise.. Thought it quite well done.

The lack of the bigger picture, what some in the thread call a lack of structure, I thought was a positive. It is deliberate. The theme of the movie is a bug's eye's view of the universe -- one tank crew in a world war -- and the crew knows it is one, insignificant, isolated bug. It is about just trying to somehow get through it alive.

I did not like Brad Pitt as an actor twenty years ago. I thought him too much of a pretty boy. But I thought he was good in this role. Gritty.

And I, too, think that while the surviving crew member thought he had been spotted, that the German did not actually see him.

Good flick.

 

[Rick_A]

Watched this just the other day, twice. It was better the second time around. It was nice seeing a modern tank movie as the classics tell a good story but the action can be rather hokey. I've been watching war movies since very young and enjoy most. You can't beat a good written account or documentary but it was very entertaining and for the most part well scripted and acted. I like the focus on the small unit as some movies try too hard to be an epic. Focusing mostly on one tank and crew was refreshing.

I've gone from a HMMWV gunner to vehicle commander and can relate to both the camaraderie and the individual clashes of personalities while stuck in a vehicle for days or weeks at a time. Having done some miles in APC's I know how much it can suck being stuck in one. Even a "modern" LVTP7 really sucks for crew accommodations and the stifling smell of dirty folks and diesel fumes while packed like sardines can't be depicted in a movie.

Our best TOW gunner hit an M60 tank set as a target from eleven to twelve hundred meters square between the turret and tank spectacularly launching the barrel and turret into the air. I've also watched WP rounds impacting hillsides and the movie depictions were right on.

The only quirks I found was the rather spacious looking depiction of the tank interior, as others mentioned, and the German attack at the end depicted them as rather clumsy, poorly trained, and poorly organized. I guess if "Fury" went up in smoke in a minute or two it would have been a bit less dramatic. The circumstances that could have done in the original assistant driver are a mystery as well.

The wife liked it, though like any other such movie had her feeling sad. It makes me want to go out and get a 1917 with a matching holster and sweetheart grips with a depiction of my young sweetheart in them.

We've got a flat screen and surround sound so the theater doesn't add a whole lot to the experience save for discomfort and a headache.

 

[Absalom]

AFunny this thread just got revived. I didn't post in the original discussion after I saw the movie the first time in the theater; last night we watched it again on DVD.

I still think it's a very good movie. But I'm finding the whole final battle set-up more contrived the more I think about it.
First of all, this was supposedly April 1945 or thereabouts. The war was basically over. A suicidal heroic last stand by American soldiers may have made sense for the time of the finale of "Private Ryan", but here? Somehow doesn't compute.
Then the location. The director should at least have picked a real chokepoint worth defending. Of course, the obvious choice, a bridge, has been used so often, including in the final battle of "Private Ryan", that he needed something else, but a dirt road intersection in basically flat country that looked like it could be bypassed by going a few hundred yards right or left just doesn't cut it.
And finally, by that time 12-year-old Hitler youth were taking out Russian T-34 with one Panzerfaust. It now seems ridiculous that a few hundred supposed SS soldiers faced with a crippled Sherman would think of nothing better to do than to keep running about within the rather restricted field of fire of its on-board weapons to get mowed down by the dozens all night.

Again, I still really like the movie, but watching it with a bit more distance showed some obvious (to me) weaknesses.

 

[5Wire]

... I may look for this film on DVD if I don't see it in theaters. It sounds better than expected. Thanks for posting.

Watch on your computer, on Amazon. I did, pretty good movie.

 

[WardenRoss]

I just watched the movie "Fury".

This is simply a great war movie.

For me to refer to a movie as "great" the movie has to really "grab" my emotions. This move got to me.

The portrayal of the tank crew, how they were all from different social backgrounds, and how they became one-fighting-unit when in combat, was impressive.

My late Dad was one of these of "The Greatest Generation." This movie pays a great tribute not only to him, but to all who sacrificed so much for our freedoms.

Wardaddy stating "best job I ever had" will stick with me for a very long time.

No wonder Dad never talked much about the war.

 

[Faulkner]

I picked up a DVD of FURY and looked forward to watching it this past weekend. I was very disappointed, not necessarily a bad movie, just a okay movie to kill a couple of hours on a Saturday evening. I think they did a great job with the cinematography, the logistics and even decent actors, but with all that potential the writers missed the boat.