The Chieftain summed up Fury in a pretty neat way, as a historical movie, it isn't the best but as a tanker movie, it captures that brotherhood almost perfectly
I appreciated how the film "re-gored" (for lack of a better term) American WW2 films. Bodies fly apart when struck, no matter what side the combatant is on. I think it's best thought of as being true to the feeling of being a late-war US soldier
Legit, it was dark as shit compared to say, Band of Brothers. Despite the old timers like Web yelling "WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING HERE!?!" and Perconte letting loose on one of the replacements at a checkpoint, Germany and especially Austria were bright and hopeful because it was "the end of the war."
@ Really? You don't remember the scene where the American soldiers were being shredded by the 20mm? Or when the American was atomized by his own sticky bomb? If anything Saving Private Ryan deserves more credit than Fury because they didn't rely on CG.
There's a couple things I'll say about the Tiger scene as a reason why things played out the way they did, and in order: 1. Hitting the last Sherman: The Tiger 1 had very good gun sights, but unlike the Sherman, those were the only sights available to the gunner (Sherman gunners had a periscope that allowed them to see where the gun was aligned with the main sight being used for ranging and final lay. Most German AFVs lacked the former). As such, it's entirely possible that the TC could have been looking at Fury, but the gunner was looking at the rear tank, and when the order to fire was given, the TC realized too late that his gunner was aligned on the wrong target. 2. The next thing that was done was to blind the Tiger with smoke. This is ultimately why the Tiger came out instead of remaining in cover. The Shermans were following doctrine at the time, which basically said that if you're out-ranged: CHARGE. (This has been incorporated into reacting to an ambush doctrine) 3. Finally, I'll chalk the poor tactical action up to basically war fatigue. Similar to what Hiller was facing in SPR The smart thing would have been to use the smoke and disperse and come at the Tiger from multiple angles, but unfortunately, War Daddy and the other TCs had been in combat so much, they were effectively worn out upstairs.
Speaking for the Tiger crew a little more, my headcanon was that since Germany was hurting for well-trained personnel at this point, the remaining men the panzer corps could scrounge together likely ranked fairly low on training, but high in fanaticism; leading to the young men in the Tiger being all too eager to take out as many Yankees as possible regardless of any other factors.
Bit of tanker trivia. Brad Pitt’s character’s nickname “War Daddy” may sound a little odd but it was taken from the WWII US tank ace of aces Lafayette “War Daddy” Pool. He was a tank commander credited with 12 tank kills, 258 other armored vehicle kills, and over 1000 German soldiers kia. This was all done over an 80 day period in 1944 from June to September. In that time he was shot out of three M4 tanks, including once by a “friendly” aircraft, and the last time lost a leg which ended his career.
@@redaug4212 100%, there's so many fascinating stories of real life WW2 that are made dumb by cinema. Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare's IRL inspiration pulled off the real heist... with ZERO KILLS. ZERO. It was a tense stealth mission to strike a blow against the U-Boat system, and they did it without any of the Far Cry-esque plot armored romp that Guy Ritchie's film does.
@@DogeickBateman Honestly, when you say that it happened without any fired shot, it just makes me wanna watch the movie with the real story even more, like:' what? They fired no guns?? I gotta see it how they did
I read this and saw in my mind the cat act like Simon's Cat (speak, and then point it's paw at it's mouth/go and retrieve it's food bowl, speak, then nudge the empty bowl towards Johnny)
Cat:- Looks furiously at the back of Johnny's head. "Clean the flour I said, and feed me now. Least I turn Tiger on your arse. I'll show you " "Hey stop scratching me, stop, sss meow."
What a great review. (Even the cat listened this time.) At the movie, I was badly let down by the last battle scene, but Johnny's right--this was the most accurate and authentic of our late-war ETO army ever put on film. Provoking all kinds of thoughts. Let's appreciate what we got from it.
I’ve always shared pretty much the same sentiment. The goal of the movie wasn’t to depict a 1:1 experience of a tank crew. It was to get the audience to feel what they felt; the absence of humanity in war
This movie may not have gotten all of the historical truths correct but it captured the emotional truth of what it was probably like in the final months of war. Movies are art, and art is about evoking some emotion, not all the greatest paintings are the most 'realistic' imo.
realistic and outright wrong and incorrect are two very different things. in the final months of war you are still getting one shotted by the very same german gun in your very same sherman, you are not driving in a transformer, they would have died 10 times over.
The movie perpetuates myths about the German army that are false, and that enough is a reason to dislike it. Enemy at the gates also portries the red army in a false way (in a different light though) and it caused an uproar among the living red army vetrrans, which I believe speaks for itself
@@aa1944-k2rOh wow, so you would you watch a movie where most of the main characters die in that scene and that's it? You really think that it would make the movie better?
@@stepanokhrimenko9189 did i say that? or did i say if they fought the way they fought and even in 1945 they would have all died? and yes, they all died except that one duel who hide below the tank, go watch the movie before you cry.
@ In the case of 'Enemy at the Gates' I would agree with you as that film based around very specific battle and group of real people. 'Fury' is based on a fictional group of people and doesn't pretend to depict a specific event or battle.
yea I get annoyed when people are like "A Tiger would never do that their training states".... its late war you dont know whats going through their minds things happen maybe the crew had so many victorys they got cocky or maybe it was a last hurrah because they were out of fuel or ammo like stated in the video, or it could be a newer crew, maybe they couldnt see the more powerful gun Fury had, if you listen to veterans or historic telling of battles soldiers are always doing odd and none standard actions. most things that happen in history are chance, a man turns left instead of right, a general doesnt get enough sleep ect...
I think this perfectly encapsulates why people are hard on this movie. They went through great lengths for historical accuracy on getting the realist depiction of WW2 tanks ever on screen, then flubbed it on basic tactics/combat.
If you want to see again how good the acting is watch the house scene where Brad pit is having the conversation with the lady in German, but without any subtitles.
“It’s called war, do you feel it?” Brilliant film for the character driven story. You really get into the heads of these five very different characters, all of whom have their own arcs in this blasted late war hellscape. The deleted scenes only improve that aspect of the film. As a work of art and acting, Fury’s great.
Johnny is very correct to say that the internet masses have unfairly over-criticized this film. If you look at it from a film standpoint alone, it's truly excellent, and evokes so much emotion, atmosphere, and the acting, sets, late WW2 visuals are top-notch. People really need to overlook their historical niggles and see this film for what it is. In the end its only a Film, but it has probably done more for interest in WW2 Armour than anything of the last decade, which IMO, means it has done its job from a historical standpoint. And lets be honest, there are vastly more worse contendors than this out there when it comes to historical films, that we should really give Fury a break already.
It was pretty solid, especially if people look up what the rules the film producers were required to go through to film with Tiger 131. Essentially they did the best they could with the rules the curators and insurance company imposed for that scene. And it seems like most people hate the movie because they've bought into the Whermacht superiority myth, when honestly Fury probably had them overperforming for April/May 45'.
I agree, this is a great film, I'm sure the keyboard warriors are out in force, I for one think the characters are great & the Co star of the film, Tiger 131, it doesn't get any better than that
What irks me the most is that this movie has so many things to offer, the camaraderie, the tank life, late war atmosphere, real running tanks. But they just Riddled it with SO many faults and inaccuracies, it almost negates anything positive that comes out of it. Its like a plate of food that looks good, smells good, the first few bites tastes great. But the more you eat it the worse it gets, and it eventually ends up giving you loose motions and stomach ulcers.
I think the best way to view Fury is the tone of the film, and the psychological study of the men who drive it. Everything outside of it is pretty stupid and cliche Hollywood, but the mental aspects of seeing the most "successful" type of men to be in a war is fascinating. There were Audie Murphies and Private Ryans, but there were also Wardaddies. Some reached the end, triumphant but introspective. Some never came out of it at all.
I was raised by a WWII vet as were most of my cousins and kids in the neighborhoods. Some drank to excess. Some beat their kids. Most demanded excellence from their kids. Some had an OK time adjusting to civilian life. Some had visible scars. Some complained about dentures never fitting when they were in their thirties. Some walked with a limp. I had a teacher who walked with a cane. One uncle always tried to run his own small business because he would never take another order again. They all had skills. They all pitched in to help paint each other's home, shingle roofs, put up fences. They usually tried to rais their kids by the numbers.
The one thing Fury had going for it is that it's Heart of Darkness DARK, yet through it all, Machine kept chugging. It did feel like an Anti-WWII film, in which case it'd made itself into a movie suited for the Vietnam War (more of the conventional fight against the NVA rather than the VC).
Even the Vietnam War despite being controversial wasn't the scale of brutality like World Wars 1 & 2, Just imagine fighting in the trenches of WW1 and seeing people getting gassed to death and mud and rats everywhere with frequent shelling and machine guns firing at human wave charges or in WW2 if you fought in places such as Normandy, Hurtgen Forest and Battle Of The Bulge or in the Pacific theatre and the Eastern Front seeing bodies being pancaked in mud or civilians that were hung or forced to fight to the death and also the misery of the Japanese theatre or Normandy during D Day seeing young boys all dead strewn along a beach ⛱️
@@Voucher765 But you gotta understand the media of the wars. Vietnam was the first war the average tom, joe, stacy, chad and their squirts could watch the war at home. No need of getting the British Pathé at the theatre nor read the morning delivery. The folks during WWI didn't see much except the scars it made on the land and in the fighting men. WWII was a bit more documented but the art of propaganda had progressed farther than ever before (ex: you only heard about some of the bad stuff and seen a whole lot of the good stuff).
Even if it lacked historical accuracy in certain fight scenes it still stuck with me on a rather positive note for it‘s tone and the musical score that perfectly suited it. I think there was a quote by a veteran saying if a war story has positive outlook, any sort of „happy ending“ , it‘s not a story to be taken serious. Real war stories are identified by their almost absurd gruesomeness and complete lack of any positivity. In 1944 and 1945, more people died than in all the prior years combined. I think Fury perfectly captured the despair, the chaos and the completely unnecessary waste of life during those last months of the war. War is never heroic, war stories never have a happy ending for anyone involved.
I think I've seen that move around 5 times now. Once you get over your internal tank nerd excitement then you begin to appreciate the story more. Wish there were more movies in co-operation with the Bovington Tank Museum. That place has so much potential.
There’s a couple of great books in the IWM collection about British tank crews in France, Germany in ‘44 and ‘45. The sense of constantly being urged forward at speed until you recklessly plunge in to the next mine/ATG/panzerschrek/faust/panzer and get blown up is so draining. This tactic probably saved lives in the big picture but you feel so sorry for the tankers.
I would say I've come around and changed my overall opinion of the movie, but it's because of those authentic and realistic details that I still harbour a hearty dislike for it. It's the wasted potential see. They had everything they needed to make a masterpiece and then abandoned the path they were on, because..? There really is no good reason to trivialise combat by trying to 'dramatize' it in what is otherwise supposed to be a representation of reality. In my mind either you're showcasing the horrible reality of war, or not. Having combat scenes play out like a terrible action flick by relying on hero system tropes turns your movie into a terrible action flick, regardless of how realistic the props are. Can't just claim to be realistically exploring the effects of violence and trauma on soldiers during active wartime if one isn't willing to actually address the source of it as realistically, especially when equipped with literally everything needed to do so. Yet the studio had the gall to claim that the combat/tactics displayed were realistic. That's what gets me, the outright lying. The disingenuous cynicism of big budget production companies that interfere with otherwise masterful films for a poor understanding of marketing. You did highlight some details I overlooked or forgot about and I do appreciate that, and those scenes for what they are. Truly.
My theory on the Tiger is that once it revealed itself there was the possibility they would call in a Thunderbolt so the Tiger wanted to get amongst them to make a harder target.
Saw this a while back but barely remember it. Maybe time for a rewatch. Also, if this movie has parts that make people uncomfortable, maybe that was the point? For every Private Ryan during the war, there were probably ten Wardaddys. Jonny, You and your cat at the end look like you’re both smiling and looking so much alike. 😊
Wardaddy - was a real guy. He didn't get killed but (iirc) he lost his legs or one of them when his tank was destroyed. It wasn't named Fury though ... I forget ... but there's a book about him. .
Excellent point about missing out on not showing us the Tiger crew at all or their situation. As many have said before, Fury ends for me when their track blows off - I'm not watching the rest. Imagine a version where the Tiger is the main villain and we see both crews hunting each other in sporadic encounters.
Awww, love kitty. Thanks for this review Johnny. Must admit i wasnt a huge fan of this movie, but it was still a worthwhile watch to at least see all those tanks in action. Much love to you and your kitties!
I don’t get the hate this movie receives. It’s Hollywood, they have a larger audience to take into account than “Band of Brothers” or “The Pacific”. Your average movie goer isn’t going to care about tank tactics. They are going to care about messages and emotions, which this movie does fantastically. The scene where they watch the bombers is the most powerful for me and articulates the whole movie. A stream of hundreds of bombers being confronted by a handful of fighters. The allies, an unstoppable steamroller being confronted by German remnants. Everyone knows the war is over but it hasn’t ended. “This war will end, someday, but until then more people need to die” is the perfect quote of war.
? Band of Brothers was way more successful than this movie and has a much stronger legacy with both casual audiences and historically-invested audiences.
@redaug4212 More so than even it's successor The Pacific because Band Of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan revolutionized movies and TV shows at the time they came out
The only issue I took was that the tracers ended up looking more like blaster bolts. But I suppose CGI had to be the only choice. Im not aware of how to do it practically.
Great review! For me, the bad parts in the movie mostly outshone the good parts so much that I overlooked them and wowed never to watch it again. Watching your review now some ten tears later, I can finally notice the good things. Please consider the movie "Nr.24" next.
Hey Johnny. I seldom disagree with your war film opinions BUT this is an exception. Fury is a hot mess. As a former tank crewman (M60A3 and M1A1) I admit to suffering from an inability to forgive grossly bad tactical and technical interpretations, which abound in this film. It’s excellent technical details (vehicles, uniforms, weapons, etc.) are wasted on a really bad script. As a former armor officer and student of WWII history, I struggle with films that poorly represent organization and leadership in both enlisted and officer ranks, which again this film portrays very badly. I was stationed in Germany in the mid 90’s during the 50’s anniversary celebrations at Normandy, Bastogne, and local concentration camps liberations. I had opportunity to interview American, British, and German veterans, including Col. Jimmie Leach, B Co commander, 37th Tank Battalion for whom I was assign escort duties for a week. Based on my experience, studies and interviews, Fury gets very little right and does more to dishonor the service and professionalism of the tank corps than pay tribute to it. About the best I can say about the film echos The Chieftain’s comments around the close camaraderie that develops amongst a tank crew. There are other poignant moments such as Pitt and Pena’s characters’ respective breakdowns, but overall the script is just a mess of bad story, plot, and one dimensional characters. The absolute best general portrayal of day-to-day WWII US Army small unit enlisted and officer relations and operations remains Band of Brothers.
Hey man I gotta say I always appreciate hearing views and perspectives from guys with the real life experience. My reviews are often just from my limited space so I am definitely always looking for comments like this and to hear from people like you. Also know I try to do all my reviews from a space of "Hey, here's what's good about this film." I feel like most reviewers have already trashed this film and others I review so why not try to help people enjoy what might be good about it.
There were German Tiger aces who shot the rear tank first at times such as the most famous German tank commander Wittmann. Shooting the rear tank first could lead to confusion and some tanks driving off unaware of what had happened.
However you feel about the film's questionable portrayal of military tactics, _Fury_ did a great job depicting the gritty and hellish nature of war during the last months of World War II.
Regarding technical errors, there is actually a blink-and-you-miss-it goof when Fury is smoking out the Tiger; when the camera pans to the ammo rack, Grady (Bernthal) grabs a shell labeled labeled "SHOT M93 HVAP" instead of a smoke round. In all honesty, an HVAP probably would have made that scene a whole lot shorter lmao
British Sherman fireflies tried to disguise the length of their gun barrels by various means to avoid being the primary target . I think if you were driving a Tiger you would be experienced enough to shoot the easy eight first.
I feel like they got the comradery and horrors of war down with this movie with some great acting. I think it falls short with a couple of over the top moments that kind of break the immersion and could have been done differently (Im looking at you Tiger fight and forced execution scenes)
A lot of the battle scenes are done like they are to make them interesting on screen. The tanks are way to close together and the ranges are way too short. If they were made realistically there would have been very little to see on screen.
If you analyze it a little closer, the movie is a retelling of Mobydick. Wardaddy is the Captain, Norman wearing a OD green uniform is suppose to represent Ishmael who was the green horn, and Of course Fury is suppose to represent the ship.
@@griz312 Cool, I just wanted to see how you’d run the analogy out. It’s been decades since I read Moby Dick, I’ll have to check it out again. I’ll have to rewatch Fury as well, it’s hard to believe it’s already been more than ten years since I saw it.
I give the film credit for getting a real Tiger(though the tactics are amusingly nonsensical) and having a solid soundtrack. The actors also put forth their best, where I think the film starts unravelling is in a lot of the details and the actions themselves. While reprisals were certainly widespread, public execution of surrendering Volksturm would have been met with severe punishment as when a US SGT in Italy shot surrendered prisoners, because this behavior would have caused further reprisals and stiffened resistance. Again, it's not so much the action happening as there being zero fallout from it and it just not being addressed at all. The film somewhat trips itself up in contrast where it wants to be darker and grittier, but then contradicts its own message with the Waffen SS soldier just letting Norman go without any real reason to.
The tank battles & final stand are some of the best in film, how can you not get pumped at "send me more pigs to kill"? Tbh i feel like these men are closer to what ww2 tank guys were like vs other films that make it sexy
It reminds me of Pork Chop Hill - the weariness of fighting when it's about to end. No one wanting to die when they have suffered. War is grim and turns good men in peacetime into those doing bad things not because they are bad men but they want to survive.
Thanks again for your balanced and objective critiques of historical film. Always look forward to your reviews and breakdowns and thoughts. Bravo Zulu. The longer I’ve assessed historical films the more it’s important to analyze the individual component elements of a film and judge them on how accurate or expertly executed they are. The final assessment helps to identify what type of movie we are watching. As a veteran, our focus on the technical accuracy will be prominent. It’s the same when looking at historical accuracy with historical figures, fictional era characters, historical events, etc. One assessment I’ll make about “historical” films is does it generate interest and curiosity that will motivate the audience to study and learn about the historic accounts by those who experienced these events? Once you can see where a film lands on the fiction vs historical production, it helps to understand what kind of film was created, regardless of what anyone says it’s supposed to be. Though Fury has a lot of technical problems, one thing that is incredible about the film and cannot be criticized is the use of historical artifacts, many of which are combat veterans of the war. To see them roar to life is outstanding. These artifacts may never be on film again as they are incredibly valuable. Midway is another film that has NUMEROUS problems but it does honor heroic historical figures and generated a lot of interest in the battle itself. To be honest it is a good looking film.
I remember watching fury at my math class in high school and even had a lucky break day instead of studying, but man when I first saw it was an exciting yet dark history lesson from a math class haha
While perhaps reviewed and talked about many times over, thank you for taking this request and in so doing giving your own take and perspective on the film. I've watched it once before and found it to be especially butal, but appropriately so. While the tank battles felt quite impressive and awesome, I also felt a great sense of destress. It's not something I enjoyed and for this reason I haven't wanted to watch it again. Unlike some other war films or series that seem to have moments of levity or so sense of optimism, in this film there was little to none of that which I remember. It was a grind straight through of human tragedy and suffering. But in this way I feel that it works well as an anti-war film where so many other war films seem to fall short. If I watch a movie about war and get excited about the idea, or lack any reservations about watching it again then was it successful, as an anti-war film? It's something that I consider. I understand that it's subjective and speaks to an individual's own level of tolerance, as for example I can re-watch band of brother while others might it find it too much to watch again or to even sit through it once. I guess I just feel that some movies make war seem more glorious and justified than others. I saw little glory or purpose in the acts depicted in this film and for that reason I'm grateful that it exists and feel that it deserves to be watched at least once, if only once, in spite of its shortcomings. Take care and get well soon!
Yeah I've always been conflicted about this movie, I like your assessment Johnny. Pretty quotable movie too, one of War Daddy's quotes has always resounded in my mind, and I made an adaptation to reflect my work and general life experience, that quote was: "Ideals are peaceful, history is violent" My adaptation is: "Ideals are orderly, reality is chaos" I suppose it's in the same vein as the long quoted " No plan survives enemy contact"
Thank you for the review. Some of the movies you watch are somewhat difficult to source. I would very much appreciate a mention in the description of where you viewed it. Peaceful Skies
My personal problem with fury is honestly not that different with a lot of war movies where they try to do the "war is hell" message, it just turns more into propaganda then actually trying to get the message across, by showing everything bad happening, not in a overwhelming way but so much so that it becomes parody. Like the first scene with the burning guy that offs himself. All they should have done was him leaving the vehicle, yelling and rolling around and the flames killing him finally. The message would have been clear and good enough. But instead, you let him sit on the ground, pause while on fire, grab is gun, take a deep breath, while still on fire, then yell with the camera zooming on his face, then him shooting himself, ending the scene dramatically....why? Why ruin it like that? The bad tactics doesnt help either especially with immersion, you want me to believe these tankers are men who fought from North Africa to the final month of ww2, yet they make all those errors? Riiight.
That's interesting because that's my single most disliked scene in the whole movie as well. I just purposely avoided it trying to keep my video from being age gated. They had a ton of good acting in this movie. I felt like the characters just in how they carried themselves expressed more about what they've been through than having to make us watch a vulgar scene like that. The more powerful scene was Michael Pena simply just talking about shooting horses at the dinner table.
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory Jeez, Johnny...Then I STRONGLY recommend not going to any of the Reddit or other platform threads covering the Ukraine War. There's stuff getting captured in 4K HD by drone cam that makes a little tank immolation look mild. (although there is stuff like that, too). It isn't always cinematic, but it is very real.
lol Yep, I had the same impression from that scene. Just edgy for the sake of being edgy. I also laughed out loud when the new guy was trying to save the German girl from the rubble, and the punisher (the guy who plays the same character in every movie) grabs him by the collar and yells "THIS IS WAR!" in his face. Like, yea, we get it... no need to literally spell it out. It just feels like a caricature of "badass WWII veterans" than actual Humans from the time period.
I won't lie. I have become a bit more sensitive to violence as I get older. I won't complain, though. I'm blessed to be reviewing war movies and not fighting in a war.
In hindsight, I'm a bit more skeptical of the extreme tilt of the film toward making the U.S. troops more and more inclined to barbarism etc. I understand "war is hell" and that at such a late stage, with battle fatigue and the brutality taking its toll that there were instances of troops on both sides behaving badly, but the scene where they just straight up murder the German POW seemed a bit over the top. It's more than likely that someone other than Norman would have had moral qualms with shooting a defenseless prisoner in cold blood, especially with that many troops present, but instead they opt to portray all the soldiers as heartless bastards. For me, it seems like the writing and directing of the film focuses so much on the emotional gravitas of the scenes and leaves out the likely nuance of the situations. Another example being the scene where Norman gets pressured and, in turn, pressures the German girl to sleep with him and, essentially, paints this as something cute that we should be OK with. Once again, I get that, in war, soldiers will do stuff like that, but the moral grayness of it seems obliterated by several jokes making light of it and everyone treating it so casually. Reminds me of the veterans watching Band of Brothers and the Pacific and being upset that they were portrayed using such foul language and making it clear that was not the norm. Similarly, I feel that Fury falls into the trap of forgetting what era it takes place in and that the moral fabric of these men was much higher than what we have now.
Good War movies remind us that war is something we should not repeat. I watched this movie once and will remember it for a long time. The movie The Thin Red Line might be worth a review. ❤😺
I think the films use of Death Trap was why the tactics were the way they were. Also the chieftain Nicholas Moran as the technical advisor clearly did not do his job well when it came to tactics. Overall I do like Fury flaws and all
Fury fails not because of the bs tank tactics or the melodramatic ending. It fails because the characters say and do stupid things. Thanks for the great video, Johnny!
The Germans are portrayed as complete amateurs and losers, not soldiers seasoned in combat for 5.5 years. Yes, it's the last month of the war in Europe and old people and kids are fighting too. But the scene with the Pak 40 looks like its crew had a stroke. This gun could fire 15 rounds per minute with a well-trained crew.
Get well soon! Here's some nordic movies you might want to consider for a future video: -Talvisota, Winter War (1989) -Raja 1918, The Border (2007) -Max Manus (2008) -Flammen & Citronen, Flame and Citron (2008) -Lupaus, Promise (2005) especially interesting film because it focuses on women in Lotta service during WW2. -Nimed marmortahvlil, Names Engraved In Marble (2002) -1864 (2014) -Kampen Om Tungtvannet, Operation Swallow: The Battle for Heavy Water (1948) Many of the actors are the real Norwegian commandos that took part in the said operation. Hopefully some of you will watch one or two of these movies, they are great.
Like most WW2 movies most of the actors are too old. Tank commanders would've been in their 20s. Even some sub captains were in their late 20s. That's the heart breaking thing about war is that it's mostly guys in their late teens we were sending to storm the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima.
What I find funny is how all the tankers I know and ones online love this movie the only people that don't like it are armchair commandos and War Thunder players.
Charging a group of Shermans across an open field in a Tiger 1 may seem ridiculous but so-called panzer Ace Michael Wittman got killed doing exactly that, straight into the sights of a Sherman Firefly and right across the front of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers at very close range. He ended up taking so much fire from so many directions farmers were still plowing up pieces of his Tiger half a century later.
Tactics aside, I don't think any film comes close to capturing the horror, misery and exhaustion experienced by any and all servicemen and women come 1945. It's a feeling which is all over memoirs of infantry, tankers and aviators but I don't think there's another film which captures the grim grinding misery which constituted the end of a cataclysmic episode of these people's lives
I ended up hating it. That ‘five Sherman’s to one Tiger’ trope was well represented. The final battle with an immobilized’Fury’ against a battalion of Nazi infantry with AT weapons was not terribly believable or even well done. The tank/infantry coordination that would have been well learned at this stage of the war was not well represented. There was not much tank vs. tank action. Maybe historical, but tank nerds want to see tank on tank action.
4:40 It's more than that. A: The Sherman's are violating protocol by being all bunched up. Ok, maybe they were foolish enough to think they were save so I might let that slide. B: In a convoy you always take out the lead vehicle first so the rest bunches up, then the last so they can't escape and then you shoot everything trapped in between. The Tiger shoots the last tank first which doesn't even qualify as a rookie mistake. C: The only Sherman in that group that poses any threat to the Tiger at range was Fury because of the better gun which is easy to identify even at great distance due to the longer barrel and the addition of a muzzle break. This means Fury was not only in the prime position to be shot first but also the most high value target of the group yet the Tiger still fired at the last vehicle first. Identifying the Easy 8s would have been one of the first things any tanker would have learned in training no matter how rushed it may have been. D: The Tiger is in a hull down position which only exposes its turret. A perfect position. It still leaves it to close the distance to the tanks that can only hope to kill it at close range while the Tiger could take all of them out at any distance its cannon can reach. Horrible.
@@scockery Maybe but all they had to do is keep it stationary in its hull down position and shoot at the lead tank first and the trailing tank next. Everything else could have stayed the same...
The none stop battle after battle in a day. The meat grinder. The brotherly part of crew. Mentality of them all. And the last stand... Tiger fight. GG'S tanks
I actually think the tactical misgivings are a critical part of why Fury falls flat for many. Fury depicts a lot of the allied troops as being, as you say, harsh and uncivilized - barbaric even. They've lost their humanity and they're wholly possessed by fear and anger. The problem is that we who have read memoirs and know the technical details and such, know just why this is believable. Because the Tiger could easily have knocked out all 4 of those shermans before they even realised where the fire was coming from. Because the pak 40s could have done the same. Because basically, these guys had time and time again survived, or seen others survive, thanks only to sheer luck and by April '45 that had destroyed their mental state. So by portraying the battles as Fury does, it undersells the level of terror the average allied soldier went through. We are expected to treat the characters as human, subject to human emotion, and yet time and time again they seem to be bulletproof.
I for one have never understood the hate this movie gets. Firstly chances are 99% of the people that are pointing out things like “flaws“ our individuals that have either no experience in the military or they get all of their information from things like video games, and other movies. While it is true that the M4 Sherman had thin armor it actually was not that uncommon for them to survive getting hit by other tanks. There’s actually a great example in I believe it’s Belgium. A Sherman Tank that wasn’t even one of the longer barrel old E8 versions Took. I believe it was three shots from a panther tank. Now, yes, the panther tank was armed with a 75 mm canon whereas a tiger one has an 88 mm canon. But that doesn’t change the fact that a Sherman tank was able to take hits. The only reason this particular one got knocked out was because one round that the panther fired bounced up off of the front of the tank and hit the gun tube and basically did kind of like a cartoon style burst of it. This was the only reason this tank was knocked out. Well, it is true that this movie does have its flaws. We also have to take it into consideration that this isn’t a documentary. It’s a Hollywood film designed for entertainment. Creative liberties have to be taken. Yes, there are obvious flaws and yes, many of them don’t make sense. For instance, like pointed out in the video, the thing concerning the crew of the tiger tank. Because we don’t know anything about the soldiers that were operating the tiger you know, unfortunately like Johnny pointed out in his video here we don’t know how things were. Was this an inexperienced crew? Had they never worked together? Were they Feeling low morale or like he mentioned were they on the Proto methamphetamine that the German military used to keep their soldiers alert? Honestly, it could be anything. I actually really liked how this movie doesn’t glorify the combat. We see that the American soldiers can be justice reprehensible as the Germans were. In fact and unfortunate truth is that things like this actually did happen. One thing that people need to remember is by the time that you allies had entered Germany they were no longer liberators. They were invaders. And the Germans were no longer fighting to hold onto conquered territories. They were defending their homes. Many of them had probably already lost good friends and family members due to the allied bombings. It’s actually believed that one of the reasons why so many soldiers fought so hard on the German side wasn’t because they were loyal to the angry mustache man , but rather they had nothing else to lose. There’s a great photograph taken only days after the succession of hostilities in Europe, where a German soldier is seen sitting on the stoop of what was once his home in I believe it was the city of Stuttgart unfortunately said stoop was all that was left. His house was gone. And his family was dead. He was literally all alone. So the fact that a lot of people don’t like how poorly the American soldiers are being portrayed in some areas of this movie, unfortunately is not something that is uncommon.
The Sherman didn't have thin armour. It was as thick as other medium tanks. In fact, it's almost as effectively thick as a Tiger's and in some models it was thicker than a Tiger's.
0:22 The Cat is furrious with you. But speaking about audience criticism of the movie: Yes, you can scrutinise its technical inaccuracy, but that doesn't mean its a bad depiction of war. Unless its a documentary, people need to suspend their disbelief when watching war media, because their focus is trying to depict the experiences of people who lived through war. The play/movie Journey's End, written by a WW1 veteran and is one of the most highly rated war stories among military historians, was acclaimed for how well it depicts the psychological effects of living in the trenches of the Western Front. Like with Apollo 13, the vast technological and scientific details of the military is far too complicated for most of the audience to properly understand, and will inevitably become too mired in detail to tell a proper story. You may get away with this in military novels, but these are a niche genre and would be very hard to do or sell in a major movie production.
Sorry if my voice is off in this one. I got one of those colds where I must make all suffer with me.
I have a cat just like that! He doesn't give me sick days off either!
Still sounds great no worries!
Yeah that crap has definitely been going around. I’ve been having “the crut” off and on for the past two weeks.
Get well soon.
You think it's bad now - wait until you're 73 ...
.
The Chieftain summed up Fury in a pretty neat way, as a historical movie, it isn't the best but as a tanker movie, it captures that brotherhood almost perfectly
I appreciated how the film "re-gored" (for lack of a better term) American WW2 films. Bodies fly apart when struck, no matter what side the combatant is on. I think it's best thought of as being true to the feeling of being a late-war US soldier
WWII movies have been gory since Saving Private Ryan. I wouldn't give credit to Fury for that.
Legit, it was dark as shit compared to say, Band of Brothers. Despite the old timers like Web yelling "WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING HERE!?!" and Perconte letting loose on one of the replacements at a checkpoint, Germany and especially Austria were bright and hopeful because it was "the end of the war."
@@redaug4212 Private Ryan initially shows it , but then it regresses. It ended up portraying to us that we fought PG13 German soldiers.
@ Really? You don't remember the scene where the American soldiers were being shredded by the 20mm? Or when the American was atomized by his own sticky bomb? If anything Saving Private Ryan deserves more credit than Fury because they didn't rely on CG.
There's a couple things I'll say about the Tiger scene as a reason why things played out the way they did, and in order:
1. Hitting the last Sherman: The Tiger 1 had very good gun sights, but unlike the Sherman, those were the only sights available to the gunner (Sherman gunners had a periscope that allowed them to see where the gun was aligned with the main sight being used for ranging and final lay. Most German AFVs lacked the former). As such, it's entirely possible that the TC could have been looking at Fury, but the gunner was looking at the rear tank, and when the order to fire was given, the TC realized too late that his gunner was aligned on the wrong target.
2. The next thing that was done was to blind the Tiger with smoke. This is ultimately why the Tiger came out instead of remaining in cover. The Shermans were following doctrine at the time, which basically said that if you're out-ranged: CHARGE. (This has been incorporated into reacting to an ambush doctrine)
3. Finally, I'll chalk the poor tactical action up to basically war fatigue. Similar to what Hiller was facing in SPR The smart thing would have been to use the smoke and disperse and come at the Tiger from multiple angles, but unfortunately, War Daddy and the other TCs had been in combat so much, they were effectively worn out upstairs.
Speaking for the Tiger crew a little more, my headcanon was that since Germany was hurting for well-trained personnel at this point, the remaining men the panzer corps could scrounge together likely ranked fairly low on training, but high in fanaticism; leading to the young men in the Tiger being all too eager to take out as many Yankees as possible regardless of any other factors.
Bit of tanker trivia. Brad Pitt’s character’s nickname “War Daddy” may sound a little odd but it was taken from the WWII US tank ace of aces Lafayette “War Daddy” Pool. He was a tank commander credited with 12 tank kills, 258 other armored vehicle kills, and over 1000 German soldiers kia. This was all done over an 80 day period in 1944 from June to September. In that time he was shot out of three M4 tanks, including once by a “friendly” aircraft, and the last time lost a leg which ended his career.
Should have gotten a movie about Lafayette Pool instead of this fictional slop, tbh.
@@redaug4212 100%, there's so many fascinating stories of real life WW2 that are made dumb by cinema. Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare's IRL inspiration pulled off the real heist... with ZERO KILLS. ZERO. It was a tense stealth mission to strike a blow against the U-Boat system, and they did it without any of the Far Cry-esque plot armored romp that Guy Ritchie's film does.
@@DogeickBateman Honestly, when you say that it happened without any fired shot, it just makes me wanna watch the movie with the real story even more, like:' what? They fired no guns?? I gotta see it how they did
propaganda bs
@gh87716 What? The real story? Sounds more believable than Fury
If Garfield was a real cat...
The cats hungry.
For souls
I read this and saw in my mind the cat act like Simon's Cat (speak, and then point it's paw at it's mouth/go and retrieve it's food bowl, speak, then nudge the empty bowl towards Johnny)
Cat:- Looks furiously at the back of Johnny's head. "Clean the flour I said, and feed me now. Least I turn Tiger on your arse. I'll show you " "Hey stop scratching me, stop, sss meow."
I was FURIOUS at the wasted potential. But the script was written by the same person who wrote the equally ahistorical U-571.
At least U571 is re-watchable.
What a great review. (Even the cat listened this time.) At the movie, I was badly let down by the last battle scene, but Johnny's right--this was the most accurate and authentic of our late-war ETO army ever put on film. Provoking all kinds of thoughts. Let's appreciate what we got from it.
I’ve always shared pretty much the same sentiment. The goal of the movie wasn’t to depict a 1:1 experience of a tank crew. It was to get the audience to feel what they felt; the absence of humanity in war
I enjoyed Fury. Last American movie with a tank crew was probably Kelly’s Hero’s, 55 years ago.
Now that's a much more fun movie! Way more positive waves.
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory Always a fun watch. Love me some Oddball
I'm surprised the scene right before the dinner scene wasn't mentioned.
This movie may not have gotten all of the historical truths correct but it captured the emotional truth of what it was probably like in the final months of war. Movies are art, and art is about evoking some emotion, not all the greatest paintings are the most 'realistic' imo.
realistic and outright wrong and incorrect are two very different things. in the final months of war you are still getting one shotted by the very same german gun in your very same sherman, you are not driving in a transformer, they would have died 10 times over.
The movie perpetuates myths about the German army that are false, and that enough is a reason to dislike it. Enemy at the gates also portries the red army in a false way (in a different light though) and it caused an uproar among the living red army vetrrans, which I believe speaks for itself
@@aa1944-k2rOh wow, so you would you watch a movie where most of the main characters die in that scene and that's it? You really think that it would make the movie better?
@@stepanokhrimenko9189 did i say that? or did i say if they fought the way they fought and even in 1945 they would have all died? and yes, they all died except that one duel who hide below the tank, go watch the movie before you cry.
@ In the case of 'Enemy at the Gates' I would agree with you as that film based around very specific battle and group of real people. 'Fury' is based on a fictional group of people and doesn't pretend to depict a specific event or battle.
yea I get annoyed when people are like "A Tiger would never do that their training states"....
its late war you dont know whats going through their minds things happen maybe the crew had so many victorys they got cocky or maybe it was a last hurrah because they were out of fuel or ammo like stated in the video, or it could be a newer crew, maybe they couldnt see the more powerful gun Fury had, if you listen to veterans or historic telling of battles soldiers are always doing odd and none standard actions. most things that happen in history are chance, a man turns left instead of right, a general doesnt get enough sleep ect...
I think this perfectly encapsulates why people are hard on this movie. They went through great lengths for historical accuracy on getting the realist depiction of WW2 tanks ever on screen, then flubbed it on basic tactics/combat.
If you want to see again how good the acting is watch the house scene where Brad pit is having the conversation with the lady in German, but without any subtitles.
“It’s called war, do you feel it?” Brilliant film for the character driven story. You really get into the heads of these five very different characters, all of whom have their own arcs in this blasted late war hellscape. The deleted scenes only improve that aspect of the film. As a work of art and acting, Fury’s great.
Blink twice if you're being mind-controlled by El Gato
I blinked thrice
😆😆
Johnny is very correct to say that the internet masses have unfairly over-criticized this film. If you look at it from a film standpoint alone, it's truly excellent, and evokes so much emotion, atmosphere, and the acting, sets, late WW2 visuals are top-notch. People really need to overlook their historical niggles and see this film for what it is. In the end its only a Film, but it has probably done more for interest in WW2 Armour than anything of the last decade, which IMO, means it has done its job from a historical standpoint. And lets be honest, there are vastly more worse contendors than this out there when it comes to historical films, that we should really give Fury a break already.
No, it sux
It was pretty solid, especially if people look up what the rules the film producers were required to go through to film with Tiger 131. Essentially they did the best they could with the rules the curators and insurance company imposed for that scene. And it seems like most people hate the movie because they've bought into the Whermacht superiority myth, when honestly Fury probably had them overperforming for April/May 45'.
@@RobertBee-c8b Bet you could make a better film eh?
@Aren-1997
Easily
I agree, this is a great film, I'm sure the keyboard warriors are out in force, I for one think the characters are great & the Co star of the film, Tiger 131, it doesn't get any better than that
Great review. You highlighted everything I liked and also everything I was disappointed with in this movie.
Another great vid Johnny, keep em coming!
What irks me the most is that this movie has so many things to offer, the camaraderie, the tank life, late war atmosphere, real running tanks. But they just Riddled it with SO many faults and inaccuracies, it almost negates anything positive that comes out of it.
Its like a plate of food that looks good, smells good, the first few bites tastes great. But the more you eat it the worse it gets, and it eventually ends up giving you loose motions and stomach ulcers.
I think the best way to view Fury is the tone of the film, and the psychological study of the men who drive it. Everything outside of it is pretty stupid and cliche Hollywood, but the mental aspects of seeing the most "successful" type of men to be in a war is fascinating. There were Audie Murphies and Private Ryans, but there were also Wardaddies. Some reached the end, triumphant but introspective. Some never came out of it at all.
I was raised by a WWII vet as were most of my cousins and kids in the neighborhoods. Some drank to excess. Some beat their kids. Most demanded excellence from their kids. Some had an OK time adjusting to civilian life. Some had visible scars. Some complained about dentures never fitting when they were in their thirties. Some walked with a limp. I had a teacher who walked with a cane. One uncle always tried to run his own small business because he would never take another order again.
They all had skills. They all pitched in to help paint each other's home, shingle roofs, put up fences.
They usually tried to rais their kids by the numbers.
The one thing Fury had going for it is that it's Heart of Darkness DARK, yet through it all, Machine kept chugging. It did feel like an Anti-WWII film, in which case it'd made itself into a movie suited for the Vietnam War (more of the conventional fight against the NVA rather than the VC).
Even the Vietnam War despite being controversial wasn't the scale of brutality like World Wars 1 & 2, Just imagine fighting in the trenches of WW1 and seeing people getting gassed to death and mud and rats everywhere with frequent shelling and machine guns firing at human wave charges or in WW2 if you fought in places such as Normandy, Hurtgen Forest and Battle Of The Bulge or in the Pacific theatre and the Eastern Front seeing bodies being pancaked in mud or civilians that were hung or forced to fight to the death and also the misery of the Japanese theatre or Normandy during D Day seeing young boys all dead strewn along a beach ⛱️
@@Voucher765 But you gotta understand the media of the wars. Vietnam was the first war the average tom, joe, stacy, chad and their squirts could watch the war at home. No need of getting the British Pathé at the theatre nor read the morning delivery. The folks during WWI didn't see much except the scars it made on the land and in the fighting men. WWII was a bit more documented but the art of propaganda had progressed farther than ever before (ex: you only heard about some of the bad stuff and seen a whole lot of the good stuff).
Even if it lacked historical accuracy in certain fight scenes it still stuck with me on a rather positive note for it‘s tone and the musical score that perfectly suited it.
I think there was a quote by a veteran saying if a war story has positive outlook, any sort of „happy ending“ , it‘s not a story to be taken serious. Real war stories are identified by their almost absurd gruesomeness and complete lack of any positivity.
In 1944 and 1945, more people died than in all the prior years combined.
I think Fury perfectly captured the despair, the chaos and the completely unnecessary waste of life during those last months of the war.
War is never heroic, war stories never have a happy ending for anyone involved.
Thanks for the balanced approach
I think I've seen that move around 5 times now. Once you get over your internal tank nerd excitement then you begin to appreciate the story more. Wish there were more movies in co-operation with the Bovington Tank Museum. That place has so much potential.
There’s a couple of great books in the IWM collection about British tank crews in France, Germany in ‘44 and ‘45. The sense of constantly being urged forward at speed until you recklessly plunge in to the next mine/ATG/panzerschrek/faust/panzer and get blown up is so draining. This tactic probably saved lives in the big picture but you feel so sorry for the tankers.
I would say I've come around and changed my overall opinion of the movie, but it's because of those authentic and realistic details that I still harbour a hearty dislike for it. It's the wasted potential see. They had everything they needed to make a masterpiece and then abandoned the path they were on, because..? There really is no good reason to trivialise combat by trying to 'dramatize' it in what is otherwise supposed to be a representation of reality.
In my mind either you're showcasing the horrible reality of war, or not. Having combat scenes play out like a terrible action flick by relying on hero system tropes turns your movie into a terrible action flick, regardless of how realistic the props are. Can't just claim to be realistically exploring the effects of violence and trauma on soldiers during active wartime if one isn't willing to actually address the source of it as realistically, especially when equipped with literally everything needed to do so.
Yet the studio had the gall to claim that the combat/tactics displayed were realistic. That's what gets me, the outright lying. The disingenuous cynicism of big budget production companies that interfere with otherwise masterful films for a poor understanding of marketing.
You did highlight some details I overlooked or forgot about and I do appreciate that, and those scenes for what they are. Truly.
My theory on the Tiger is that once it revealed itself there was the possibility they would call in a Thunderbolt so the Tiger wanted to get amongst them to make a harder target.
Saw this a while back but barely remember it. Maybe time for a rewatch.
Also, if this movie has parts that make people uncomfortable, maybe that was the point?
For every Private Ryan during the war, there were probably ten Wardaddys.
Jonny, You and your cat at the end look like you’re both smiling and looking so much alike. 😊
Wardaddy - was a real guy. He didn't get killed but (iirc) he lost his legs or one of them when his tank was destroyed. It wasn't named Fury though ... I forget ... but there's a book about him.
.
Excellent point about missing out on not showing us the Tiger crew at all or their situation. As many have said before, Fury ends for me when their track blows off - I'm not watching the rest. Imagine a version where the Tiger is the main villain and we see both crews hunting each other in sporadic encounters.
Ay thanks for doing Fury! Sorry to hear you got a cold though mate.
Awww, love kitty. Thanks for this review Johnny. Must admit i wasnt a huge fan of this movie, but it was still a worthwhile watch to at least see all those tanks in action.
Much love to you and your kitties!
Thank you kindly! I'll give Lucas some pets on your behalf.
I don’t get the hate this movie receives. It’s Hollywood, they have a larger audience to take into account than “Band of Brothers” or “The Pacific”. Your average movie goer isn’t going to care about tank tactics. They are going to care about messages and emotions, which this movie does fantastically.
The scene where they watch the bombers is the most powerful for me and articulates the whole movie. A stream of hundreds of bombers being confronted by a handful of fighters. The allies, an unstoppable steamroller being confronted by German remnants. Everyone knows the war is over but it hasn’t ended.
“This war will end, someday, but until then more people need to die” is the perfect quote of war.
? Band of Brothers was way more successful than this movie and has a much stronger legacy with both casual audiences and historically-invested audiences.
@redaug4212 More so than even it's successor The Pacific because Band Of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan revolutionized movies and TV shows at the time they came out
Great war movie. Bruce Crompton did the german cars.
The only issue I took was that the tracers ended up looking more like blaster bolts. But I suppose CGI had to be the only choice. Im not aware of how to do it practically.
CGI tracers can look good too. And here they did Star Wars blasters.
Great review! For me, the bad parts in the movie mostly outshone the good parts so much that I overlooked them and wowed never to watch it again. Watching your review now some ten tears later, I can finally notice the good things. Please consider the movie "Nr.24" next.
The other objective of this film is to give you a PTSD just for watching it.
And it achieves it every time you watch it!
Hey Johnny. I seldom disagree with your war film opinions BUT this is an exception. Fury is a hot mess. As a former tank crewman (M60A3 and M1A1) I admit to suffering from an inability to forgive grossly bad tactical and technical interpretations, which abound in this film. It’s excellent technical details (vehicles, uniforms, weapons, etc.) are wasted on a really bad script. As a former armor officer and student of WWII history, I struggle with films that poorly represent organization and leadership in both enlisted and officer ranks, which again this film portrays very badly. I was stationed in Germany in the mid 90’s during the 50’s anniversary celebrations at Normandy, Bastogne, and local concentration camps liberations. I had opportunity to interview American, British, and German veterans, including Col. Jimmie Leach, B Co commander, 37th Tank Battalion for whom I was assign escort duties for a week. Based on my experience, studies and interviews, Fury gets very little right and does more to dishonor the service and professionalism of the tank corps than pay tribute to it. About the best I can say about the film echos The Chieftain’s comments around the close camaraderie that develops amongst a tank crew. There are other poignant moments such as Pitt and Pena’s characters’ respective breakdowns, but overall the script is just a mess of bad story, plot, and one dimensional characters. The absolute best general portrayal of day-to-day WWII US Army small unit enlisted and officer relations and operations remains Band of Brothers.
Hey man I gotta say I always appreciate hearing views and perspectives from guys with the real life experience. My reviews are often just from my limited space so I am definitely always looking for comments like this and to hear from people like you. Also know I try to do all my reviews from a space of "Hey, here's what's good about this film." I feel like most reviewers have already trashed this film and others I review so why not try to help people enjoy what might be good about it.
It certainly captured how f-ing TIRED of the war US soldiers were at that point.
There were German Tiger aces who shot the rear tank first at times such as the most famous German tank commander Wittmann. Shooting the rear tank first could lead to confusion and some tanks driving off unaware of what had happened.
However you feel about the film's questionable portrayal of military tactics, _Fury_ did a great job depicting the gritty and hellish nature of war during the last months of World War II.
i really do love the outfits of grunts in fury. Trench coats raincoats they look battle hardend i love it
Best job I've ever had! ❤
the battle at the end is just ridiculous and hard to watch,
The Germans in this film are stupider than in the comedies of Louis de Funès.
inb4 the "erm, but what about Audie Murphy ☝🤓" excuse
I like how it sowed the approaching Germans marching with panzerfausts....then later they don't seem to have any.
Regarding technical errors, there is actually a blink-and-you-miss-it goof when Fury is smoking out the Tiger; when the camera pans to the ammo rack, Grady (Bernthal) grabs a shell labeled labeled "SHOT M93 HVAP" instead of a smoke round. In all honesty, an HVAP probably would have made that scene a whole lot shorter lmao
British Sherman fireflies tried to disguise the length of their gun barrels by various means to avoid being the primary target . I think if you were driving a Tiger you would be experienced enough to shoot the easy eight first.
I feel like they got the comradery and horrors of war down with this movie with some great acting. I think it falls short with a couple of over the top moments that kind of break the immersion and could have been done differently (Im looking at you Tiger fight and forced execution scenes)
A lot of the battle scenes are done like they are to make them interesting on screen. The tanks are way to close together and the ranges are way too short. If they were made realistically there would have been very little to see on screen.
Norman - Normal…pretty on the nose for a character that’s meant to be the pov of the Audience
The cat's glare suggests nothing will make Fury a feline favorite.
If you analyze it a little closer, the movie is a retelling of Mobydick. Wardaddy is the Captain, Norman wearing a OD green uniform is suppose to represent Ishmael who was the green horn, and Of course Fury is suppose to represent the ship.
The white whale is Hitler? Berlin? Peace?
@ The German Soldiers in general are the whale. Wardaddy has a uncompromising hatred towards them just like the captain.
@@griz312
Cool, I just wanted to see how you’d run the analogy out. It’s been decades since I read Moby Dick, I’ll have to check it out again. I’ll have to rewatch Fury as well, it’s hard to believe it’s already been more than ten years since I saw it.
I give the film credit for getting a real Tiger(though the tactics are amusingly nonsensical) and having a solid soundtrack. The actors also put forth their best, where I think the film starts unravelling is in a lot of the details and the actions themselves. While reprisals were certainly widespread, public execution of surrendering Volksturm would have been met with severe punishment as when a US SGT in Italy shot surrendered prisoners, because this behavior would have caused further reprisals and stiffened resistance. Again, it's not so much the action happening as there being zero fallout from it and it just not being addressed at all. The film somewhat trips itself up in contrast where it wants to be darker and grittier, but then contradicts its own message with the Waffen SS soldier just letting Norman go without any real reason to.
The tank battles & final stand are some of the best in film, how can you not get pumped at "send me more pigs to kill"? Tbh i feel like these men are closer to what ww2 tank guys were like vs other films that make it sexy
It reminds me of Pork Chop Hill - the weariness of fighting when it's about to end. No one wanting to die when they have suffered.
War is grim and turns good men in peacetime into those doing bad things not because they are bad men but they want to survive.
And what about the lazers coming out of the tanks?
It’s definitely a strange representation of tracer rounds.
The only bad thing in the movie is at the end..... Germans rushing the tank and not flanking it. Just ridiculous Alamo fort style scene... 😂
Thanks again for your balanced and objective critiques of historical film.
Always look forward to your reviews and breakdowns and thoughts.
Bravo Zulu.
The longer I’ve assessed historical films the more it’s important to analyze the individual component elements of a film and judge them on how accurate or expertly executed they are.
The final assessment helps to identify what type of movie we are watching.
As a veteran, our focus on the technical accuracy will be prominent.
It’s the same when looking at historical accuracy with historical figures, fictional era characters, historical events, etc.
One assessment I’ll make about “historical” films is does it generate interest and curiosity that will motivate the audience to study and learn about the historic accounts by those who experienced these events?
Once you can see where a film lands on the fiction vs historical production, it helps to understand what kind of film was created, regardless of what anyone says it’s supposed to be.
Though Fury has a lot of technical problems, one thing that is incredible about the film and cannot be criticized is the use of historical artifacts, many of which are combat veterans of the war.
To see them roar to life is outstanding.
These artifacts may never be on film again as they are incredibly valuable.
Midway is another film that has NUMEROUS problems but it does honor heroic historical figures and generated a lot of interest in the battle itself.
To be honest it is a good looking film.
I remember watching fury at my math class in high school and even had a lucky break day instead of studying, but man when I first saw it was an exciting yet dark history lesson from a math class haha
When the bullets start flying that's when you know who your real friends are
While perhaps reviewed and talked about many times over, thank you for taking this request and in so doing giving your own take and perspective on the film. I've watched it once before and found it to be especially butal, but appropriately so. While the tank battles felt quite impressive and awesome, I also felt a great sense of destress. It's not something I enjoyed and for this reason I haven't wanted to watch it again. Unlike some other war films or series that seem to have moments of levity or so sense of optimism, in this film there was little to none of that which I remember. It was a grind straight through of human tragedy and suffering. But in this way I feel that it works well as an anti-war film where so many other war films seem to fall short. If I watch a movie about war and get excited about the idea, or lack any reservations about watching it again then was it successful, as an anti-war film? It's something that I consider. I understand that it's subjective and speaks to an individual's own level of tolerance, as for example I can re-watch band of brother while others might it find it too much to watch again or to even sit through it once. I guess I just feel that some movies make war seem more glorious and justified than others. I saw little glory or purpose in the acts depicted in this film and for that reason I'm grateful that it exists and feel that it deserves to be watched at least once, if only once, in spite of its shortcomings. Take care and get well soon!
Came for the Scottish fold
Stayed for the film review
Thank you for pointing out the good. The bad has been done to death…
I love your videos and all, but I'm glad you can at least recognize that we're here for the cat. =)
The cats know it too =)
Yeah I've always been conflicted about this movie, I like your assessment Johnny. Pretty quotable movie too, one of War Daddy's quotes has always resounded in my mind, and I made an adaptation to reflect my work and general life experience, that quote was:
"Ideals are peaceful, history is violent"
My adaptation is:
"Ideals are orderly, reality is chaos"
I suppose it's in the same vein as the long quoted " No plan survives enemy contact"
Thank you for the review.
Some of the movies you watch are somewhat difficult to source. I would very much appreciate a mention in the description of where you viewed it.
Peaceful Skies
2:14 I think you nailed why fury is a good film but hard to watch Schindler’s list is very similar in that way
Agree. The movie is worth watching for the authentic vehicles and characters.
My personal problem with fury is honestly not that different with a lot of war movies where they try to do the "war is hell" message, it just turns more into propaganda then actually trying to get the message across, by showing everything bad happening, not in a overwhelming way but so much so that it becomes parody. Like the first scene with the burning guy that offs himself.
All they should have done was him leaving the vehicle, yelling and rolling around and the flames killing him finally.
The message would have been clear and good enough.
But instead, you let him sit on the ground, pause while on fire, grab is gun, take a deep breath, while still on fire, then yell with the camera zooming on his face, then him shooting himself, ending the scene dramatically....why? Why ruin it like that?
The bad tactics doesnt help either especially with immersion, you want me to believe these tankers are men who fought from North Africa to the final month of ww2, yet they make all those errors? Riiight.
That's interesting because that's my single most disliked scene in the whole movie as well. I just purposely avoided it trying to keep my video from being age gated. They had a ton of good acting in this movie. I felt like the characters just in how they carried themselves expressed more about what they've been through than having to make us watch a vulgar scene like that. The more powerful scene was Michael Pena simply just talking about shooting horses at the dinner table.
How does that saying go? "There is no such thing as an anti-war film"?
@@JohnnyJohnsonHistory Jeez, Johnny...Then I STRONGLY recommend not going to any of the Reddit or other platform threads covering the Ukraine War. There's stuff getting captured in 4K HD by drone cam that makes a little tank immolation look mild. (although there is stuff like that, too).
It isn't always cinematic, but it is very real.
lol Yep, I had the same impression from that scene. Just edgy for the sake of being edgy. I also laughed out loud when the new guy was trying to save the German girl from the rubble, and the punisher (the guy who plays the same character in every movie) grabs him by the collar and yells "THIS IS WAR!" in his face. Like, yea, we get it... no need to literally spell it out. It just feels like a caricature of "badass WWII veterans" than actual Humans from the time period.
I won't lie. I have become a bit more sensitive to violence as I get older. I won't complain, though. I'm blessed to be reviewing war movies and not fighting in a war.
In hindsight, I'm a bit more skeptical of the extreme tilt of the film toward making the U.S. troops more and more inclined to barbarism etc. I understand "war is hell" and that at such a late stage, with battle fatigue and the brutality taking its toll that there were instances of troops on both sides behaving badly, but the scene where they just straight up murder the German POW seemed a bit over the top. It's more than likely that someone other than Norman would have had moral qualms with shooting a defenseless prisoner in cold blood, especially with that many troops present, but instead they opt to portray all the soldiers as heartless bastards. For me, it seems like the writing and directing of the film focuses so much on the emotional gravitas of the scenes and leaves out the likely nuance of the situations. Another example being the scene where Norman gets pressured and, in turn, pressures the German girl to sleep with him and, essentially, paints this as something cute that we should be OK with. Once again, I get that, in war, soldiers will do stuff like that, but the moral grayness of it seems obliterated by several jokes making light of it and everyone treating it so casually. Reminds me of the veterans watching Band of Brothers and the Pacific and being upset that they were portrayed using such foul language and making it clear that was not the norm. Similarly, I feel that Fury falls into the trap of forgetting what era it takes place in and that the moral fabric of these men was much higher than what we have now.
in fact the story is adapted from a tank named "in the mood" and "in the mood 2" the first being a 75mm
Very well written indeed, Johnny.
In the words of Billy Joel "Man, what are you doin' here?"
Good War movies remind us that war is something we should not repeat. I watched this movie once and will remember it for a long time. The movie The Thin Red Line might be worth a review. ❤😺
4:00 the tank Museums TH-cam channel does a great behind the scenes on the use of their tanks in fury
I think the films use of Death Trap was why the tactics were the way they were. Also the chieftain Nicholas Moran as the technical advisor clearly did not do his job well when it came to tactics. Overall I do like Fury flaws and all
Nicholas Moran wasn't the technical advisor on Fury, Kevin Vance was.
Fury fails not because of the bs tank tactics or the melodramatic ending. It fails because the characters say and do stupid things.
Thanks for the great video, Johnny!
The Germans are portrayed as complete amateurs and losers, not soldiers seasoned in combat for 5.5 years. Yes, it's the last month of the war in Europe and old people and kids are fighting too. But the scene with the Pak 40 looks like its crew had a stroke. This gun could fire 15 rounds per minute with a well-trained crew.
quite the diplomatic review, props!
you have some convenient timing, i just rewatched this last week for the first time in years.
Get well soon!
Here's some nordic movies you might want to consider for a future video:
-Talvisota, Winter War (1989)
-Raja 1918, The Border (2007)
-Max Manus (2008)
-Flammen & Citronen, Flame and Citron (2008)
-Lupaus, Promise (2005) especially interesting film because it focuses on women in Lotta service during WW2.
-Nimed marmortahvlil, Names Engraved In Marble (2002)
-1864 (2014)
-Kampen Om Tungtvannet, Operation Swallow: The Battle for Heavy Water (1948) Many of the actors are the real Norwegian commandos that took part in the said operation.
Hopefully some of you will watch one or two of these movies, they are great.
Like most WW2 movies most of the actors are too old. Tank commanders would've been in their 20s. Even some sub captains were in their late 20s. That's the heart breaking thing about war is that it's mostly guys in their late teens we were sending to storm the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima.
What I find funny is how all the tankers I know and ones online love this movie the only people that don't like it are armchair commandos and War Thunder players.
Tactics aside, I liked the movie. Liked it a lot better than Pitt's other WWII movie.
Charging a group of Shermans across an open field in a Tiger 1 may seem ridiculous but so-called panzer Ace Michael Wittman got killed doing exactly that, straight into the sights of a Sherman Firefly and right across the front of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers at very close range. He ended up taking so much fire from so many directions farmers were still plowing up pieces of his Tiger half a century later.
Yes, but it was almost a year earlier, the Allies would have probably learned better tactics by then.
Yes but those Shermans were in a hiding position...
I wish they just made a modern Audie Murphy movie instead. The last stand in fury was cringe
People would say that movie was unrealistic. LOL.
Enigma (2001 film) with Kate Winslet and an all star British cast. An excellent movie combining Bletchley Park and the U-Boat war.
Tactics aside, I don't think any film comes close to capturing the horror, misery and exhaustion experienced by any and all servicemen and women come 1945. It's a feeling which is all over memoirs of infantry, tankers and aviators but I don't think there's another film which captures the grim grinding misery which constituted the end of a cataclysmic episode of these people's lives
The Pacific did it better.
I ended up hating it. That ‘five Sherman’s to one Tiger’ trope was well represented. The final battle with an immobilized’Fury’ against a battalion of Nazi infantry with AT weapons was not terribly believable or even well done.
The tank/infantry coordination that would have been well learned at this stage of the war was not well represented.
There was not much tank vs. tank action. Maybe historical, but tank nerds want to see tank on tank action.
Wow the cat has gorgeous eyes. Very handsome creature
The visuals and sounds are stunning, but the movie itself is an absolute garbage... Such a shame.
By far the only reason to watch this film, in my opinion, is to see a real Tiger tank, Tiger 131, used in the film.
Anyone hating this movie for "tactical inaccuracies" is a sociopath.
😂😂😂👌🤡
All the benefits of modern production ruined by a crap screenplay. I always hated this movie.
4:40 It's more than that.
A: The Sherman's are violating protocol by being all bunched up. Ok, maybe they were foolish enough to think they were save so I might let that slide.
B: In a convoy you always take out the lead vehicle first so the rest bunches up, then the last so they can't escape and then you shoot everything trapped in between. The Tiger shoots the last tank first which doesn't even qualify as a rookie mistake.
C: The only Sherman in that group that poses any threat to the Tiger at range was Fury because of the better gun which is easy to identify even at great distance due to the longer barrel and the addition of a muzzle break. This means Fury was not only in the prime position to be shot first but also the most high value target of the group yet the Tiger still fired at the last vehicle first. Identifying the Easy 8s would have been one of the first things any tanker would have learned in training no matter how rushed it may have been.
D: The Tiger is in a hull down position which only exposes its turret. A perfect position. It still leaves it to close the distance to the tanks that can only hope to kill it at close range while the Tiger could take all of them out at any distance its cannon can reach.
Horrible.
People don't always do what they're supposed to.
@@Darilon12 Yes but this is akin to shooting the guys holding pebbles instead of the one aiming a gun at you.
From what I heard is they were limited in what they could do with the Tiger. Because it belongs to a museum.
@@scockery Maybe but all they had to do is keep it stationary in its hull down position and shoot at the lead tank first and the trailing tank next. Everything else could have stayed the same...
Michael Wittmann says not always. In his most famous engagement he shot the rear tank first and then took advantage of the confusion that caused.
The none stop battle after battle in a day. The meat grinder. The brotherly part of crew. Mentality of them all. And the last stand... Tiger fight. GG'S tanks
I actually think the tactical misgivings are a critical part of why Fury falls flat for many.
Fury depicts a lot of the allied troops as being, as you say, harsh and uncivilized - barbaric even. They've lost their humanity and they're wholly possessed by fear and anger. The problem is that we who have read memoirs and know the technical details and such, know just why this is believable. Because the Tiger could easily have knocked out all 4 of those shermans before they even realised where the fire was coming from. Because the pak 40s could have done the same. Because basically, these guys had time and time again survived, or seen others survive, thanks only to sheer luck and by April '45 that had destroyed their mental state. So by portraying the battles as Fury does, it undersells the level of terror the average allied soldier went through. We are expected to treat the characters as human, subject to human emotion, and yet time and time again they seem to be bulletproof.
I for one have never understood the hate this movie gets. Firstly chances are 99% of the people that are pointing out things like “flaws“ our individuals that have either no experience in the military or they get all of their information from things like video games, and other movies.
While it is true that the M4 Sherman had thin armor it actually was not that uncommon for them to survive getting hit by other tanks. There’s actually a great example in I believe it’s Belgium. A Sherman Tank that wasn’t even one of the longer barrel old E8 versions Took. I believe it was three shots from a panther tank. Now, yes, the panther tank was armed with a 75 mm canon whereas a tiger one has an 88 mm canon.
But that doesn’t change the fact that a Sherman tank was able to take hits. The only reason this particular one got knocked out was because one round that the panther fired bounced up off of the front of the tank and hit the gun tube and basically did kind of like a cartoon style burst of it. This was the only reason this tank was knocked out.
Well, it is true that this movie does have its flaws. We also have to take it into consideration that this isn’t a documentary. It’s a Hollywood film designed for entertainment. Creative liberties have to be taken.
Yes, there are obvious flaws and yes, many of them don’t make sense. For instance, like pointed out in the video, the thing concerning the crew of the tiger tank. Because we don’t know anything about the soldiers that were operating the tiger you know, unfortunately like Johnny pointed out in his video here we don’t know how things were. Was this an inexperienced crew? Had they never worked together? Were they Feeling low morale or like he mentioned were they on the Proto methamphetamine that the German military used to keep their soldiers alert?
Honestly, it could be anything.
I actually really liked how this movie doesn’t glorify the combat. We see that the American soldiers can be justice reprehensible as the Germans were. In fact and unfortunate truth is that things like this actually did happen.
One thing that people need to remember is by the time that you allies had entered Germany they were no longer liberators. They were invaders.
And the Germans were no longer fighting to hold onto conquered territories. They were defending their homes. Many of them had probably already lost good friends and family members due to the allied bombings. It’s actually believed that one of the reasons why so many soldiers fought so hard on the German side wasn’t because they were loyal to the angry mustache man , but rather they had nothing else to lose.
There’s a great photograph taken only days after the succession of hostilities in Europe, where a German soldier is seen sitting on the stoop of what was once his home in I believe it was the city of Stuttgart unfortunately said stoop was all that was left. His house was gone. And his family was dead. He was literally all alone. So the fact that a lot of people don’t like how poorly the American soldiers are being portrayed in some areas of this movie, unfortunately is not something that is uncommon.
The Sherman didn't have thin armour. It was as thick as other medium tanks. In fact, it's almost as effectively thick as a Tiger's and in some models it was thicker than a Tiger's.
@ The Sherman “Jumbo”
But not all M4s were built the same.
@ yeah, that's what I said.
Combat fatigue.....What about all those poor ladies who had to sort out the mail.....they were the true heroes
0:22 The Cat is furrious with you.
But speaking about audience criticism of the movie: Yes, you can scrutinise its technical inaccuracy, but that doesn't mean its a bad depiction of war. Unless its a documentary, people need to suspend their disbelief when watching war media, because their focus is trying to depict the experiences of people who lived through war.
The play/movie Journey's End, written by a WW1 veteran and is one of the most highly rated war stories among military historians, was acclaimed for how well it depicts the psychological effects of living in the trenches of the Western Front. Like with Apollo 13, the vast technological and scientific details of the military is far too complicated for most of the audience to properly understand, and will inevitably become too mired in detail to tell a proper story. You may get away with this in military novels, but these are a niche genre and would be very hard to do or sell in a major movie production.
We breed ragdoll kittens, that's a super nice kitty you've got there, a high quality cat :)
And he knows it! =)