It stands to reason that when the director secured the ONLY operational Tiger in the world for his movie he wasn't going to leave it hidden in some bushes!
Kenneth Marsden That’s true. But there could have been a better way of showing the Tiger off more in the open. (Kelly’s Heroes has the tank moving through a town as an alternative approach, same as Saving Private Ryan.)
look at it like this at least we in britain can see it working and not static like most tanks in the U.S and we captured it also so that 2 out of 2 ..lol
I'm going to have to agree that was part of this individuals drive in showing the tank like they did . Kinda sad that that exposure could have been intigrate into a story of the decline of troop quality and youths of very young age oporating tank in last ditch efforts . Real missed opportunity to set this movie far apart .
@@texasdeeslinglead2401 yes true, you can do alot with clear dialogue. In the Tiger scene, with troops dug in but in the open, could have said for example the previous krauts defending that area had possibly mined the tree line themselves, so that new panzer infantry moving in with the tanks had been made aware and had to dig in in the field for that reason. To avoid a risk of German mines. All sorts of booby traps were being set. I'd just about buy it!
I wonder what two half tracks mated together would look like? Probably a useless abomination, but hey you never know. I read a book about the "Jeep" and the amount of modified experimental version was amazing. Half tracks had a few variations but nothing like the jeep.
One of my favorite 'tank" movies was called "The Beast" put out in 1988. It was about a T-55 tank crew in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's. Good gritty realistic movie.
One thing about “Fury” is before the Tiger even Attacked, where was the Infantry support. By 1945 no American Armored Platoons would go into combat without Infantry support, especially in 1945 Germany. Another thing that makes no sense is the Tiger commander targets the 75mm Sherman but completely ignores the 76 mm Sherman, I’m very sure that German tank commanders would target the tank that has the larger gun no matter how green they are.
Gotta agree with why didn't the Tiger tank commander go after the 76mm Shermans first. Didn't the Brits attempt to disguise their Firefly tanks with the 17-pdr because the Germans would try to pick those off first? The Tiger tank scene would have made more sense if it had been a 75mm Sherman that had gotten behind it to kill it.
Man , you ain't lying . 76 or firefly are some devastating guns . A tiger would be looking for those beasts far more quickly than a dinky 105 or 75. And that m3 , just ignore that puny thing til last .
Rashad Lewis Also, I totally agree with the infantry support point. But, there have been numerous times throughout history where armored groups become separated from infantry forces, usually to the armored forces detriment.
Good Point and the fact that the Germans would be more methodical in ambushing an enemy tank column by taking out the first tank and then going after the last tank to pin the rest of the column!
when Hollywood talks of authenticity, they are only concerned with how authentic it LOOKS everything else comes under 'poetic license' peace (from the UK)
@@fanfeck2844 Sure, it's not a documentary, but that doesn't mean you can't criticize it when it is trying to (and failing in parts) portray a historical period.
@@fanfeck2844 documentary or not, doesn't mean you misconstrue facts or representation, sadly it appealed for the american market i think than any other. same thing for the dark waters movie coming out, its about a scandal from a company called 3M who have poisoned not only america but essentially the whole earth with non stick coating chemicals which were seen as absolutely carcinogenic and toxic to humans being illegally dumped. 10-15 years of lawsuits and investigation and study, ends up for a Hollywood movie to be made to represent what it is. sorry ive gone off track.
@@fanfeck2844 it's not my job to write the movie for them, and pretending there was literally no way they could have made a more realistic but at the same time suspenseful movie is a lazy excuse.
Everyone talks about the ending and the tiger scene being inaccurate, nobody ever talks about how none of the Sherman are killed by the concealed pak guns in the treeline.
Maybe because at that moment they were all wondering why the hell the Germans were in foxholes in the open field in front of the tree line instead of in covered positions in the tree line?
@@toddreaker2298 Well even a soldier who went just through the basics of operating their role on the AT gun had more than enough time, in that scene, to hit at least one tank properly.
cobalT I totally agree with the previous poster.. don’t forget .. this was the last few months of the war in Germany .. they were probably kids .. basic training? None .. here’s a shell it goes in that hole .. shoot the gun .. that was probably it
Holy crap, I just went and bought it to watch after seeing this, and goddamn, even if it gets a little bit goofy in terms of realism at the end, they don't shy away from it. I whole heartedly enjoyed this.
Back in 2017, I made a point to visit The Tank Museum with my kid. We are both military enthusiasts and so enjoyed the experience. Saw the Fury Sherman plus all the other vehicles. Wish we met you then. Cheers. 😮🤗🇨🇦
Saving Private Ryan was one of the most best done war movies in keeping "close" to keeping things more realistic. Fury was allot more accurate than people think. There is the scene where the tanks are driving through mud and in the mud is the flattened body of a German soldier. People getting driven over by tanks happens. There is a picture from Iraq of a Iraqi soldier that was driven over by Abrams during the invasion. And my dad was a combat engineer during Desert Storm. He saw a bunker get collapsed by a tank because the guys inside didn't want to surrender. So they collapsed the bunker with the weight of the tank. There was allot of Hollywood injected into that movie especially at the end. The whole time I was like.....why don't the Germans just go around it? But it is what it is. The tank crews interactions often reminded me of my interactions with scouts and tankers during my 15 yrs as a Bradley mechanic in the US Army. I have met people who have elements of those characters. I was surprised with the amount of room inside the turret they had lol. I mean the Abrams turret while not "cramped" for average sized people anyways, it is by no means roomy like the turret in the movie. And the Bradley turret can definitely only hold the 2 people who operate it. So for me I was kinda surprised by just how much room they had lol. But I don't have much to complain there as I was nearly always assigned as a M88a1 operator. And the first things we usually did was pull out the TC seats and the rigger seat by the back top hatch. And the water can trays in the floors. This gave us huge amounts of room for a Armored track vehicle. I mean your talking Xbox and TV by the back wall and car stereo cd players wired into the radio mounts so we could listen to tunes as we drove around. Mechanics had it hard OK! lol. But yeah we generally only run 2 man crews in the M88's with sometimes seeing 3 man crews. I rarely ran 3 man crews. And in Iraq during my 2nd tour I was the only assigned crew and often my 2nd guy was just some wheel mechanic wanting to experience riding in M88's during my recovery missions. Damn I got off topic lol. Anyways yeah Fury should be enjoyed as a popcorn war movie. Not a history documentary. But seeing the Tiger tank on screen is just epic every time. So glad I got to see that.
I’ve often wondered who gets the job of ‘technical advisor’ in these films. The amount of movies where someone steps on a landmine and it just goes ‘click’, for example.
WWIII mine: "CLICK ... Hello, I'm Boomy, your mine for today. I am armed and ready to explode, so perhaps you may want to call some of your friends over to try and disarm me? I will be sporting and give them a chance!"
Well I suppose that's more for the audience then the advisors not knowing their job, it's easier to create tension if the audience can hear the mine being stepped on especially if it leads to a scene of the characters trying to save the one who stepped on the mine.
The final battle wasn't just odd - it was downright absurd. A buttoned-up tank, with the resultant limited visibility imposed on the crew, at night, with only two machine guns that could be operated from within - one in a limited cone of fire from the hull; the other, a co-axial, only able to train as fast as the turret could turn. One single German, armed with a Panzerfaust, could have walked round in the darkness to a position behind the tank, and fired into its rear.
Exactly. Also, it was just stupid for them to stay and fight in one Sherman. Call in an artillery or air strike and gtfo asap and get another Sherman. That would have been what they really did and not only would they have probably survived but they would have done more damage to the enemy. I’m glad I’m not the only one that hated the ending.
I agree. It is utterly ridiculous to have the tank crew just duking out against the SS solo with all of that nonchalant flare. It is mostly forgettable and not really noteworthy compared to other scenes in the movie.
Tbf it does depend on the experience and training of the men, And what they have equipment wise. Untrained - undertrained, are terrible at battle. The tendency to tunnel vision on a target and attacking head on. Read. Some account of the volkstorm in the last days/weeks of the war. Total lack of tactical understanding resulted in their slaughter. Now, sure the movie hams it up to 11, as said its a Hollywood production for entertainment. If it was a experienced, and equipped unit. Then the end would be rather quick and anti climactic.
@@tisFrancesfault They were well equipped. You literally see them carrying numerous panzerfausts as they are marching (that magically disappear moments later). Eventually they break out a box of even more panzerfausts.
My biggest beef with the movie Fury, like David said, is the ending. It seems totally daft to engage a single immobilized Sherman tank with human wave style attacks, heedless of casualties. It just goes against any common sense and logic, even to a rookie commander. The SS commander knows full well the tank can't move, the tank is well equipped to deal with infantry and most likely the crew of the tank is seasoned. To me, the movie squandered an opportunity to showcase a tale of attack and repost, to really show the average person that tanks are not these unstoppable killing machines and that tanks have flaws and weaknesses.
The whole goal was to make money. Like all movies. As much as we hate it a more accurate movie might have made less money. It's like saving private Ryan and all the ridiculous camera shaking... even when standing in a field talking. I hate it. But they made money... and that is the goal... no matter how much they want to say its art.
I agree, some points was a home home run, but other points I was like WTF... They had a chance and funding to be great. I enjoy it but you just have to shut your mind off watching it. But they had to make it dramatic for people who don't like history or care about authenticity.
Really all they had to do was make one simple change. Put the immobilised M4 on a bridge. That way it is logical that they HAVE to take it out, because they want that bridge. And it helps funnel the attack in a more believable way too.
G'day David, Thank you for this excellent review of 'Fury'. I'm a semi-retired film critic and journalist who still does occasional radio broadcasts on film topics. Because of my time in the ADF, my main sphere of interest is military documentaries and war films. Nicholas Moran's TH-cam channel, The_Chieftain and TTM TH-cam channel got me hooked on tanks. You bring up some really interesting and well-informed points ‘Fury’. To begin with, I liked 'Fury' a lot but after watching nearly 9K films over 50 years or so, I've come to know, personally and professionally, that there is no such thing as a 'perfect' film. 'Casablanca' almost gets there but it is not perfect. (Just read about what the director and some of the cast really thought about it.) 'Fury' reminds me of 'Saving Private Ryan' inasmuch as both films are almost like two different films cobbled together somewhat roughly. The first part of ...'Private Ryan...' are probably the most realistic modern battle sequences ever filmed. Such was its accuracy that it really put the wind-up millions, myself included. Even veterans who were there on Omaha Beach reckon it was pretty darned accurate. Then '...Private Ryan' takes a Hollywood nose-dive with all that business about the German soldier, they feel sorry for and let go, coming back to wreak havoc amongst the platoon later in the film. This partially spoiled the film for me. Still, as you say, Hollywood movies have to make money while they are entertaining. Similarly, but to a much lesser degree, 'Fury' is dotted with plot faults that make little sense. As you say, again, there was no good reason, apart from incompetence, for the Tiger tank to move closer to the Sherman. A stand-off kill shot was entirely possible. 'Fury' also reminded me of untold hundreds of A and B grade Westerns where the Indians ride around and around the fort being slaughtered by the horse-soldiers inside. 'Zulu' is an excellent modern example of this. So, the SS detachment in 'Fury' pestered the Sherman by piling up its own dead around the tank. A totally unnecessary tactic. Satchel charges or Panzerfäuste would have done the trick. Still, one can't have a single shot killing Brad Pitt, then roll end credits... it would have been really slaughtered at the box office. Even the close to perfect first half of Stanley Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket' sits at odds with the prolonged 'committee' discussion moralising on the killing a female Viet Cong sniper and finishes a 'silly' second half with the Mickey Mouse theme song. Speaking of Kubrick, one of the film makers I most respect, when faced with filming the utterly brilliant but totally depressing 'WW3' novel 'Red Alert', simply had to turn it into the comedy 'Dr Strangelove...". To do otherwise would have meant the real story would never have been distributed. (The book, Red Alert, by Peter George, is so very sad but an outstanding read!). Lastly, an Army mate of mine got me an inside and out tour of a Centurion and there was no way I could stand the intense claustrophobia, yet tanks still, like submarines and submarine films, fascinate me. I can't wait for your behind the scenes look at 'Fury' from The Tank Museum's perspective. Cheers, stay safe and all the best. BH
You make a very good point about the Tiger crew being possibly inexperienced, I've always said that. They really should have thrown in a line or two from the actors questioning the tigers move, and saying they must be a new crew and could have easily killed us if they'd stayed put.
Of course the Tiger wouldn't have moved, but the Tiger coming out of the brush like that looks awesome. We could talk about inexperienced tank commanders which I guess could let us somewhat justify it, but the reason it was written that way is because it looks cool. Also a good tank commander would have knocked out the lead tank with the 76mm gun on it, but of course the movie can't have them to do that because that is Brad Pitt's tank.
In fairness, at that point of the war the Tiger may well have been unable to move! I believe The Chieftain said in one of his Q&As that the Shermans smoking and taking cover was spot on, but that the 75s should have advanced while the 76s fired from cover. Of course that would mean Brad Pitt safe at the back and like you said, can't have that.
S-Tank, Leopard, Leclerc, Ariete, K2 Black Panther, Type 10, and many more. The best tanks are those that age on their training grounds without being used in war.
@@cobalt2361 No, it was trashed by the Turks in Syria. The only Leapards used in war were Canadian Leopard 1A3 versions (C1 and C2 MEXAS) and modernized Canadian and Australian Leopard 2 (A4) versions.. None used in ofensive actions. Other than that Danes used their UN snowwhite Leopard 1A5DK in Bosnian/Serbian conflict in a peace-keeping mission.
Ok, Hitler marches into Poland , unopposed, as per your wish. What do you do, when he turns his attention to other countries? Sponsor victory parades for him?
I agree that it is just a movie meant to entertain as long as we’re talking authenticity in tanks and equipment. I really don’t care if the suspension on a tank is wrong or unit insignia or whatever. My problem with Fury is that the reaction of the German battalion at the end is so unrealistic (but important for the movie) when they encounter the Sherman that it becomes almost unwatchable. A 12 year old kid would have said “let’s go around it”. But no. A heroic last stand by Brad Pitt requires the Germans to act like Zulus.
Actually movies are not meant to entertain at all. There is one goal... to make money. Anything else is just kidding yourself. Nobody in their right mind says... I have 80 million. Let's entertain. Sure. Brad claims he's an artist... and works for... how much? Nothing wrong with it. We all earn money. We all pay bills.
They could have had the exact same scene with the same amount of tension but just use 80% less enemies and have them being smarter and make the panzerfausts really worrying.
Y’all forget the purpose of the movie, it isn’t supposed to be a documentary or a super gritty realistic depiction of being a tanker in ww2. The point of the movie is to show the bond of a tanker crew. A glimpse in what being a tanker is like.
Don't tell these Wehraboos that. Especially don't say anything about the ending of Fury being based off the Battle of Lanzerath Ridge. Ya know the real life event of 18 U.S. soldiers holding off 500 German Paratroopers for a day and inflicting almost 100 casualties. This in turn held up the 1st Panzer Division from advancing for almost 20 hours. Imagine that, 18 soldiers holding up 500 Paratroops and a Panzer division until they eventually got flanked and captured. Kinda sounds just like the ending to Fury huh..
I learned several years ago in this business to be very, very careful about making a definitive claim "this never happened/never would happen". There's a prototype for anything, it seems.
to me it is about sloppy storytelling, not whether historical it could have happened or not. That Tiger tank implies and is presented as an insurmountable enemy so you as the audience expect it either to be the end game challenge or the hero to do something special to overcome it. If they'd wanted to show that by 1945 the Germans were the last scrapes from the bottom of the barrel and scared shitless to survive another few months so they could go home, well, then show that! Even split second aspect in the scene could narrate that. However what we see in the two main combat scenes are mindless zombies charging at the hero and expectantly dieing which has no tension and is even worse because the scenes tried to lie to the audience that it is more tense than it is.
I took the final scene as Hollywood's way of trying to portray the desperate and fanatical fighting at the end in places like Berlin or some of the other "fortress" cities. Same for the tiger scene, sure a Sherman can take a tiger at 400 meters, but a Tiger could do it at 2000 meters, so i think they captured that fear and inadequacy felt by some allied crews when facing the big cats. Like any movie, its not perfect, but It is one of the best made in recent times in my opinion.
I love a good war movie and Fury was definitely a good movie. Realistic battle scenes except for a couple of script malfunctions. The kind of movie you just want to come back and watch again. And how VERY cool you have the actual tanks especially the real Firefly "Fury" from the movie! Dead right about the end where the SS troops were mowed down like sheep was a bit off.
Sometimes the movie is reissued with a 'directors cut' or something to that effect which includes added material. Viewers really into militaria would love it. But the scene where the tank holds off a large German contingent all by itself is abit uncertain. One panzerfaust should have eliminated the tank and turned its occupants into crispy critters. Great settings and the tanks are magnificent. Plot too much set to Hollywood and the need to entertain...to hell with the details. As usual David Wiley gives a great commentary. Thanks David and stay home and stay safe everyone! Chris
I meet the Curator of the George S. Patton Museum. We are both civil war re-en-actors in the same unit from different areas of the country. He and I talked about tanks for about 3 hours. When ever I saw him at an event we talked tanks. Those conversations were better than any book. Great guy.
The Chieftain put it very well, I’m paraphrasing but the gist was no one crew experienced everything that happens in fury, but every crew experienced something that happens in the film.
Steven Triplow read up on the kv1 that literally did what fury did. Stopped at a crossroads. Held off 5000 german soldiers. Killing trucks and halftracks and AT guns. And eating 13 88mm anti air shells.
@@thedarkestnight9600 thanks for the reply all information shared is a chance to learn something new. I have actually heard about a KV1 Soviet tank that held up a whole division for a day. The Germans had nothing that could penetrate its armour and were completely shocked by its existance. Thanks for pointing it out. Still I wonder why not just go around it? However I still cant see any situation where a commander would throw hundreds of his men at stationary tank just to me mowed down by machine guns.
[that part towards the end] "...found a little bit questioning..." yeah, a British understatement for sure. But a nice video, didn't know the props used in the film were from this Museum. Do more reviews!
I've always though that as history nuts, if we can still pick the film to bits over bits and peoces but still really enjoy it then thats the sign of a good film.
When you pay a star big bucks to play a hero you have to make sure he is seen to play that hero. The big names pull in the money, not all the folks who sweat to get all the details right.
David you nailed all the things I loved about Fury and all the things I hated, but as you said "it is a movie". Can't wait to find out what your guys went through when producing the film. Story wise it could have been MUCH better but from the authenticity perspective they did well...for Hollywood.
I enjoyed Fury and I thought it was a hell of a lot more accurate than most people have ever given it credit to be. First, the movie never explicitly says where in Germany they are nor an exact date outside of April 1945. At this point, the German military is a complete mix mash of experience, moral, health and age. Training is done as quickly as possible and covers the basics like how to load and shoot. It is a civilian army. There was a jadgtiger that was lost due to volkssturm not being able to figure out what it was and shooting it with multiple panzerfaust. Panzer crews where made of fresh students and either second rate instructors or the few that where able to came back from panzer division Lehr and that was all the point after the battle of the bulge offensive had failed. These units were also given whatever tanks were still available ranging from pz 2fs to king tigers. The few experienced guys that are still around are either tired of fighting and are only still fighting cause their buddy next to them is or they have not found a chance to desert without getting shot. The other reason a lot are still fighting is that they don't care about their lives anymore and want to get revenge for their situation. Think about it, you have been fighting in poor conditions with few supplies, you are being beaten back by an army with more supplies and men than you could imagine, there is an army coming from the other direction than you get news that the home you have been thinking about and missing, is gone. Everything you owned is ashes and most of your family is dead. The guy on the other side of the line is part of the army responsible for that. Enjoy the war, it might be over soon. The movie also never states what SS division the 300 men are from. By late 1943, the SS was no-longer an elite force as many divisions were rear guard troops at best. By the end of the war some divisions were made of conscripts from foreign nations. As far as we know, the 300 were a unit that has been on anti partisan duty and filled with fanatic replacements. There are problems with the accuracy of the movie but not as far as people act about it.
When there was no clap I realised they are breaking new ground. It's the most epic expansion to the Tank Museum Cinematic Universe. (TMCU, if you will) (I missed the clap too.)
While the final scene was unrealistic, the Tiger engagement was actually pretty solid overall, in my view. Probably the main point of contention is whether the Tiger should have engaged Fury (76mm) first or started at the back, the way the scene unfolds. Assuming the Tiger commander could even see the flash suppressor at that range, he would have two basic options. Typically, you engage the furthest target for two reasons. The first applies more to infantry tactics (think SGT York) whereby you pick of the last soldier and everyone else doesn't even realize they are under attack at first. This gives the defender a brief window of opportunity to narrow the odds. This doesn't really hold true in armor because the noise is so loud that the tanks being attacked will immediately know they are under attack, as shown in the video clip. However, by attacking the rear target, the nearer targets remain relatively free of obscurants which makes targeting them easier. If you attack the front tank, depending on your aspect ratio, you effectively create a smoke screen for the oncoming tanks. As for attacking the lead vehicle, in this situation, it would be totally sensible for two reasons. First, it briefly jams up the column. Follow-on tanks may slow or even stop, if terrain does not allow them to disperse. More importantly, it takes out the one 76mm gun in the group of four. If you look closely, tanks two and three have 75mm guns. Tigers were NOT afraid of the 75mm gun. They were mildly entertained by the 76mm gun. What concerned them more than the guns was the number of tanks. As shown here, one on three is difficult. For anyone interested in M4 Shermans vs Cats (Tigers and Panthers), check out my video on the topic. th-cam.com/video/0-_ieebbp9M/w-d-xo.html
David, watching the out takes provided some of the backstory.I also can’t understand why Pitt didnt have a chance to explicate why he was “damaged” and why he sought redemption.
In Robert Kershaw's fantastic book on Market Garden, It Never Snows In September, he tells of how German veterans of Market Garden thought Bridge Too Far was hilarious!
@@billyruffian1 There are inaccuracies in Kershaws book. Such as saying PzIV/70 were used by the Germans. According to the Doyle Encyclopedia of German Tanks they didn't enter service until Nov 44. BTF is correct enough for a film, it's not a documentary. Again it picks up the main points of failure. Cornelius Ryan's book is probably the best book of Op MG. For example the flame thrower attack on the bridge pill box did happen.
You are so correct...the movie was not a documentary or a tank training film but a movie made to entertain. The many tactical errors are only obvious to those of us who are current or ex-military (like me) or military historians. Saving Private Ryan had errors, too but it was entertaining as well. If the movie generated interest in the Tank Museum and tanks in general I think that is the best possible outcome of the movie. Thank you, sir, for making these videos during these unusual times for we fans of the Tank Museum.
Enjoyed the review and all your great videos David but didn't enjoy the movie for reasons already stated by so many people. Worth watching just to see the Shermans and Tiger driving around. I haven't read all 812 comments but did anyone else mention the 'Star Wars' laser effects whenever anyone fired a machine gun?
@Necramonium Daniel Day-Lewis was kept in jail for prisoner role. Learned to reload a musket in a run, then to track and hunt game, skin animals, build a canoe, and more all for the role of Hawkeye -- an adopted son of last of the Mohicans. He learned to speak Czech for the role of a doctor in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", and he trained boxing for the role of a boxer Danny Flynn for nearly 3 years! Didn't use a shower for weeks in some other role but can't remember which one.
@@oldesertguy9616 All humans are weird when studied closely, just that for good or for bad, celebreties are going to seem stranger and more angry about being constantly studied, even when they try to get for some relatively 'freedom' or 'more less-stressed 'normal' time out of the spot light of the ever stalking/stalker-ish tabloid hacks. Not that should condone 'The Beef's' [translation joke] occasional outbursts or disregard of others, but, it gives a slight insight...
@@razor1uk610 LeBeouf takes it to extremes in the weirdness department. He actually started taking drugs to play a drug addict and on another occasion was walking around with a paper bag on his head. That's weird.
Nice review. Yes, some purists do not like the end fight (I don't either), but if 10% of the movie is bad, it doesn't make it a bad movie, just not a perfect one. I liked Brad Pitt, he looked so dog tired and about to lose it. I liked the interior shots of the tank and how the crew worked the machine.
Has anyone seen the 1969 film, "The Bridge At Remagen"? It's loaded with Chaffee tanks and is the most realistic Hollywood WW2 movie I've ever seen. The acting is top notch. The Germans speak English amongst themselves, though.
This review is surprisingly close to my own impressions. Yeah, final battle was forced and jarringly unrealistic, but the rest of the movie was really good and even brilliant at times.
Remember the tension Hitchcock got with a guy with a knife ? Imagine how tense it could have been in an imobilised Sherman with 5 or 6 panzer Fausts teams stalking you. Instead we got that nonsense. It could have been great It wasn't
Excellent film, from the first scene of tank silhouettes (Is that a Panther? And a Pzkw IV there? ) through the "Tiger Problem" (It's a Tiger I, not first string in '45) to the moment Pitt decides to stay with the tank. Enter Hollywood.
Agreed. The John Wayne, Audie Murphy, and trained soldiers running at a tank, all are things we need to turn off our brains for. A film is meant to entertain large audiences and not just us fanboys. Thank you for such a excellent review.
In reality that Movie would have been pretty short. First: Sherman encounters a Tiger - game over for Fury within 2 minutes. Second: Sherman encounters a SS platoon - game over for Fury within 3 minutes.
My favourite war film is Where Eagles Dare. It’s got a helicopter and 5000 round SMG magazines. Historical accuracy is not all important, entertainment is.
I liked the movie and regularly watch it. It was nice to identify some of the familiar locations. The show down scene requires a willing suspension of disbelief because as David says it's a movie. No its not wholly accurate, of course it isn't, but it was representative of many last stand actions that took place, that may have only lasted 30 seconds in reality. For anyone whose been through conflict, they would know that these types of actions may only be minutes long, but at the time can seem a lifetime in themselves. I think this scene portrays it well, particularly well, especially after the last shots are fired, the SS unit calmly moves off in a fairly matter of fact manner. Great film and a good review.
I loved the film, its grit and realism.Its very well acted. But the ending is pure Hollywood. Apart from the obvious points mentioned, the suicidal SS unit, and the Tiger breaking cover, the panzerfaust that enters Fury would surely have killed the crew entirely! However, good film.
I'd love be visitor at the next Tank Fest, or Tiger Day - but medical reasons prevent me from making this journey. What I'd like you do is to consider a Livestreaming of these events - I surely would pay for this service that would allow me to be part of the event - and maybe you could develop another revenue stream for the museum.
I would have liked to see the battle his tank was in at the start of the film. Looked like it was very epic. Nicely worded review/talk. I liked the general film (last scene maybe not so much). Good point regarding the late-war competence and nervousness. When it's so clear the war isn't going your way, and the veterans are either dead or too tired to fight, the fear and related "incompetence" (not that they are stupid or not good soldiers per se) will be believable. imo.
I remember my Grandma talking about Otto Carius (she fled Germany as a teen in 1946 to Iceland) and how the mood was especially later in the war. The wasted lives, fear, bad leadership and (especially finding out in later years) bad intelligence regarding things on the enemy and so on. The late-/end-war era for Germany was very frantic and chaotic. Meanwhile, the StuG was still doing its job in the shadow of the big cats ;P
Definitely not wrong about cutting some of the fury crews story out. Seeing all the deleted scenes has made it apparent they could do an extended version with all of those in it.
Compliments to your bookshelf, specifically, "J. C. Leyendecker". He was a superb illustrator, Norman Rockwell was a sort of tele-student of his. May I request a discussion of the "just war theory". It has been examined for over a thousand years by many of best minds. What are your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, Mark Ingraham
OH! Also, there is a very good Russian film called "I was eighteen". Eastern front, end of the war, lots of T34s and one scene where they just simply run over a 75 mm anti tank gun.I enjoyed it very much. The film that is.
Running over an AT gun position is entirely realistic and a tactic in manuals. Remember, every tank in WWII had to stop to fire accurately. Even when properly used the US stabilizers just allowed you to keep the target close enough to rapidly engage after stopping and that was the best case scenario. If you found an AT gun at close range, just running it down is probably the most effective and safest option. If they are ready to fire, you do not want to stop. If they aren’t ready to fire, great.
Thanks for an excellent review, with good insights on how film production actually works, and has may I add since the start of it all around the turn of the last century. And, almost out of the blue it re-watching the 1943 "Sahara" with Humprey Bogart in a M3 Lee crossing the desert. Funny, it's now longer since I last saw it, than WW2 was when I did. Keep up your great work - and Stay Safe!
Excellent review answered a few questions for me. Like the Tiger looked real because it was (not the mocked up T-34s we usually see, and not an excellent CGI which I thought it was because I'm not used to seeing a real Tiger in movies, just CGI that seems to get better and better all the time anyway) and why would the Tiger not do what they do best, kill from a distance? Very enjoyable. * However, I believe my copy of the movie is just titled 'Fury;, not 'The Fury' which kind of grated, sorry for my pickiness.
@@TheSYPHERIA You have to ask? Really? If I had been in charge, my men would have immediately taken cover while two soldiers with one of the panzerfausts shown earlier snuck round the tank and blew it up from the rear. Casualties would have been minimal or non-existent. Instead, the Germans used suicidal attacks on the front of the tank where all its guns were. How many Germans died that way? 50? 100? I lost count. That officer deserved to be fragged.
An excellent review for a great movie by someone who knows what he is talking about. The one thing I liked was that the soldiers didn't act like typical Hollywood soldiers. As with "Saving Private Ryan", they portrayed the soldiers as just average Americans doing what they had to do to survive and do the best job they could.
I love historical accuracy when it comes to WWII movies, but even though this movie had a lot of inaccuracies, it also had a lot of accuracies as well. I personally loved the film and I love how it shows you what war looks like! I saw it in theaters when it came out and I was on the edge of my seat when I witnessed the battle scenes. People need to understand that it’s a movie, not everything is going to be perfect and it’s also meant for entertainment.
I don't criticize most movies . I just enjoy seeing the vehicles and characters . Take a breath and enjoy . If I had extra funds I'd send you a donation . I'm not a rich yank. I was a lawman who was wounded in the line of my duties . I live on my retirement which is the same money I made in 2005 . No increases . Cheers and be well .
You hit the nail on the head when you said its a film not a documentary, Hollywood always have to make a film that appeals to the widest audience so they can get there investment back. I can think of many films that have been spoiled by the Holywood effect. The charge on the machine gun position in Saving Private Ryan is a case in point, why would you do that, they had a sniper, but you know what I mean, happens in so many films. I still like the film though and film quality and sound are second to none.
As you said, a film to entertain, done very authentically -- tank life, crew grittiness, horror of war. BUT. Comic book level: three Shermans frontally charging (as in traditional Naploean-era European infantry line advance) a Tiger in defilade at close range?! And, an immobile Sherman taking on a veteran SS pioniere unit who throw themselves at the tank like lemmings. Plus, as you said, the film was a mish-mash compilation of WWII tropes, stolen from other films, such as 'Saving Private Ryan,' 'Cross Of Iron,' etc., tiring. Turns out the characters' backstory, interaction, abd development should have been the most interesting and compelling part of the film, but was ruined by the absurd comic book battle scenes (the charge, the shootout). Could have been a prequel and sequel or even a three-part series but Hollywood wanted to make the one-and-done bang-bang 'cowboys and indians' circa World War II era movie.
I agree with you about the charge scene. As an ex armoured troop commander I watched that thinking " they are way to close together. They should be moving in pairs, or there must be another troop in an overwatch position". Problem is a realistic version of that scene would be boring, because you would see one tank, unless they did a very wide angle shot, which wouldn't have the same visual impact.
@The Tank Museum Hopefully during filming, the Tiger wasn't forced to turn when in reverse - allegedly a big 'No No' never to do, as it could bind up on the sprocket, or throw a track.. Sorry about that. @David Willey I agree with your summisation about Fury, it is a film, a closer to many historical & personable things and truths than other tank films before or after it. (coughs White Tiger; more a Soviet/maskirovka styled politically mataphorical/allegorical film in some ways, naturally so, inothers an action film with the skin of a tank & a limited-budget over it IMHO .- Although it is sometimes well acted, Yuriy Kirshev as Counter-Intelligence Colonel Aleksey Fedotov is/was excellent, very nuanced, good facial range of situational emotiveness.)
It stands to reason that when the director secured the ONLY operational Tiger in the world for his movie he wasn't going to leave it hidden in some bushes!
Kenneth Marsden That’s true. But there could have been a better way of showing the Tiger off more in the open. (Kelly’s Heroes has the tank moving through a town as an alternative approach, same as Saving Private Ryan.)
look at it like this at least we in britain can see it working and not static like most tanks in the U.S and we captured it also so that 2 out of 2 ..lol
I'm going to have to agree that was part of this individuals drive in showing the tank like they did . Kinda sad that that exposure could have been intigrate into a story of the decline of troop quality and youths of very young age oporating tank in last ditch efforts . Real missed opportunity to set this movie far apart .
never thought of it that way
@@texasdeeslinglead2401 yes true, you can do alot with clear dialogue. In the Tiger scene, with troops dug in but in the open, could have said for example the previous krauts defending that area had possibly mined the tree line themselves, so that new panzer infantry moving in with the tanks had been made aware and had to dig in in the field for that reason. To avoid a risk of German mines. All sorts of booby traps were being set. I'd just about buy it!
Two copies of half-track on the bookcase makes a whole track
I wonder what two half tracks mated together would look like? Probably a useless abomination, but hey you never know. I read a book about the "Jeep" and the amount of modified experimental version was amazing. Half tracks had a few variations but nothing like the jeep.
Been done...
Needs more dog.
LMAO
Only in the movies.
If David Wiley ever fancies a career change (unlikely!) he can always be a film reviewer 👍
At the theaters with Wiley and Fletcher.
An honest shill. Quite refreshing.
@@Hybris51129 I would watch that.
One of my favorite 'tank" movies was called "The Beast" put out in 1988. It was about a T-55 tank crew in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's. Good gritty realistic movie.
Good film.
I agree! Great movie!
I agree, that was an excellent film !
"I'll kaboom tank"
Yup, good movie!
One thing about “Fury” is before the Tiger even Attacked, where was the Infantry support. By 1945 no American Armored Platoons would go into combat without Infantry support, especially in 1945 Germany. Another thing that makes no sense is the Tiger commander targets the 75mm Sherman but completely ignores the 76 mm Sherman, I’m very sure that German tank commanders would target the tank that has the larger gun no matter how green they are.
Gotta agree with why didn't the Tiger tank commander go after the 76mm Shermans first. Didn't the Brits attempt to disguise their Firefly tanks with the 17-pdr because the Germans would try to pick those off first? The Tiger tank scene would have made more sense if it had been a 75mm Sherman that had gotten behind it to kill it.
Man , you ain't lying . 76 or firefly are some devastating guns . A tiger would be looking for those beasts far more quickly than a dinky 105 or 75. And that m3 , just ignore that puny thing til last .
Rashad Lewis I would assume the excuse would be untrained commanders who did not know any better
Rashad Lewis Also, I totally agree with the infantry support point. But, there have been numerous times throughout history where armored groups become separated from infantry forces, usually to the armored forces detriment.
Good Point and the fact that the Germans would be more methodical in ambushing an enemy tank column by taking out the first tank and then going after the last tank to pin the rest of the column!
The Tiger battle scene for me was Word of Tanks advertising their game.
"World"...they say too much video gamming causes brain loss. LOL.
@@THE-HammerMan it's actually part of the name, but if you want, see War Thunder.
when Hollywood talks of authenticity, they are only concerned with how authentic it LOOKS
everything else comes under 'poetic license'
peace (from the UK)
Derek Jinks , like the guy says, it’s not a documentary
@@fanfeck2844 Sure, it's not a documentary, but that doesn't mean you can't criticize it when it is trying to (and failing in parts) portray a historical period.
@@fanfeck2844 documentary or not, doesn't mean you misconstrue facts or representation, sadly it appealed for the american market i think than any other.
same thing for the dark waters movie coming out, its about a scandal from a company called 3M who have poisoned not only america but essentially the whole earth with non stick coating chemicals which were seen as absolutely carcinogenic and toxic to humans being illegally dumped.
10-15 years of lawsuits and investigation and study, ends up for a Hollywood movie to be made to represent what it is.
sorry ive gone off track.
Eric F , so what would you prefer? Tiger waits in hiding, takes out all four Shermans, The End
@@fanfeck2844 it's not my job to write the movie for them, and pretending there was literally no way they could have made a more realistic but at the same time suspenseful movie is a lazy excuse.
Everyone talks about the ending and the tiger scene being inaccurate, nobody ever talks about how none of the Sherman are killed by the concealed pak guns in the treeline.
Maybe because at that moment they were all wondering why the hell the Germans were in foxholes in the open field in front of the tree line instead of in covered positions in the tree line?
Dylan Milne
I can understand that scene.
Those German soldiers were probably raw recruits with very little to no training.
@@toddreaker2298 Well even a soldier who went just through the basics of operating their role on the AT gun had more than enough time, in that scene, to hit at least one tank properly.
As he stated the German training was varied and you just never know what happens during combat. If he was amped up along with adrenalin ya never know.
cobalT I totally agree with the previous poster.. don’t forget .. this was the last few months of the war in Germany .. they were probably kids .. basic training? None .. here’s a shell it goes in that hole .. shoot the gun .. that was probably it
A film review that turns into a teaching moment.
Excellent!
Holy crap, I just went and bought it to watch after seeing this, and goddamn, even if it gets a little bit goofy in terms of realism at the end, they don't shy away from it. I whole heartedly enjoyed this.
Back in 2017, I made a point to visit The Tank Museum with my kid. We are both military enthusiasts and so enjoyed the experience. Saw the Fury Sherman plus all the other vehicles. Wish we met you then. Cheers. 😮🤗🇨🇦
Saving Private Ryan was one of the most best done war movies in keeping "close" to keeping things more realistic. Fury was allot more accurate than people think. There is the scene where the tanks are driving through mud and in the mud is the flattened body of a German soldier. People getting driven over by tanks happens. There is a picture from Iraq of a Iraqi soldier that was driven over by Abrams during the invasion. And my dad was a combat engineer during Desert Storm. He saw a bunker get collapsed by a tank because the guys inside didn't want to surrender. So they collapsed the bunker with the weight of the tank. There was allot of Hollywood injected into that movie especially at the end. The whole time I was like.....why don't the Germans just go around it? But it is what it is. The tank crews interactions often reminded me of my interactions with scouts and tankers during my 15 yrs as a Bradley mechanic in the US Army. I have met people who have elements of those characters. I was surprised with the amount of room inside the turret they had lol. I mean the Abrams turret while not "cramped" for average sized people anyways, it is by no means roomy like the turret in the movie. And the Bradley turret can definitely only hold the 2 people who operate it. So for me I was kinda surprised by just how much room they had lol. But I don't have much to complain there as I was nearly always assigned as a M88a1 operator. And the first things we usually did was pull out the TC seats and the rigger seat by the back top hatch. And the water can trays in the floors. This gave us huge amounts of room for a Armored track vehicle. I mean your talking Xbox and TV by the back wall and car stereo cd players wired into the radio mounts so we could listen to tunes as we drove around. Mechanics had it hard OK! lol. But yeah we generally only run 2 man crews in the M88's with sometimes seeing 3 man crews. I rarely ran 3 man crews. And in Iraq during my 2nd tour I was the only assigned crew and often my 2nd guy was just some wheel mechanic wanting to experience riding in M88's during my recovery missions. Damn I got off topic lol. Anyways yeah Fury should be enjoyed as a popcorn war movie. Not a history documentary. But seeing the Tiger tank on screen is just epic every time. So glad I got to see that.
I’ve often wondered who gets the job of ‘technical advisor’ in these films. The amount of movies where someone steps on a landmine and it just goes ‘click’, for example.
WWIII mine: "CLICK ... Hello, I'm Boomy, your mine for today. I am armed and ready to explode, so perhaps you may want to call some of your friends over to try and disarm me? I will be sporting and give them a chance!"
Mark Pendragon exactly:) although it has been useful over the years as a way to spot walts...
Well I suppose that's more for the audience then the advisors not knowing their job, it's easier to create tension if the audience can hear the mine being stepped on especially if it leads to a scene of the characters trying to save the one who stepped on the mine.
There is an opinion they just take on historical advisors to be able to say they have....
I think Lindybeige did a video on it.
@@ArcanisUrriah lindy beige? the guy who makes a 55 minute video for 15 minutes worth of info.
End of the movie should be refereed to as "Fritz & hanz forget there panzerfausts"
Hanz and Franz are gonna . . . . '
lmao
Trouble was the scenes they are marching show plenty equipped with panzerfausts
The final battle wasn't just odd - it was downright absurd. A buttoned-up tank, with the resultant limited visibility imposed on the crew, at night, with only two machine guns that could be operated from within - one in a limited cone of fire from the hull; the other, a co-axial, only able to train as fast as the turret could turn. One single German, armed with a Panzerfaust, could have walked round in the darkness to a position behind the tank, and fired into its rear.
It's. A. Film.
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe you easy to fool
Exactly. Also, it was just stupid for them to stay and fight in one Sherman. Call in an artillery or air strike and gtfo asap and get another Sherman. That would have been what they really did and not only would they have probably survived but they would have done more damage to the enemy. I’m glad I’m not the only one that hated the ending.
The scene was laughable.
The ending of this movie absolutely destroys the movie to the point that I can't even bear to watch it again.
Why is that?
I agree. It is utterly ridiculous to have the tank crew just duking out against the SS solo with all of that nonchalant flare. It is mostly forgettable and not really noteworthy compared to other scenes in the movie.
@@javidmurvatovYT Poor writing. The situation is utterly ridiculous. They would have 'beat feet'.
Tbf it does depend on the experience and training of the men, And what they have equipment wise. Untrained - undertrained, are terrible at battle.
The tendency to tunnel vision on a target and attacking head on. Read. Some account of the volkstorm in the last days/weeks of the war.
Total lack of tactical understanding resulted in their slaughter.
Now, sure the movie hams it up to 11, as said its a Hollywood production for entertainment.
If it was a experienced, and equipped unit. Then the end would be rather quick and anti climactic.
@@tisFrancesfault They were well equipped. You literally see them carrying numerous panzerfausts as they are marching (that magically disappear moments later). Eventually they break out a box of even more panzerfausts.
"No one would ever do that! Ok, that one time they did, but..."
Fantastic Review! Thank you David and the Tank Museum for adding these fantastic vehicles and your expertise and accessories to Fury.
My biggest beef with the movie Fury, like David said, is the ending. It seems totally daft to engage a single immobilized Sherman tank with human wave style attacks, heedless of casualties. It just goes against any common sense and logic, even to a rookie commander. The SS commander knows full well the tank can't move, the tank is well equipped to deal with infantry and most likely the crew of the tank is seasoned.
To me, the movie squandered an opportunity to showcase a tale of attack and repost, to really show the average person that tanks are not these unstoppable killing machines and that tanks have flaws and weaknesses.
The whole goal was to make money. Like all movies. As much as we hate it a more accurate movie might have made less money. It's like saving private Ryan and all the ridiculous camera shaking... even when standing in a field talking. I hate it. But they made money... and that is the goal... no matter how much they want to say its art.
I agree, some points was a home home run, but other points I was like WTF... They had a chance and funding to be great. I enjoy it but you just have to shut your mind off watching it. But they had to make it dramatic for people who don't like history or care about authenticity.
LazyLife IFreak *sad close range tiger sounds*
Really all they had to do was make one simple change. Put the immobilised M4 on a bridge. That way it is logical that they HAVE to take it out, because they want that bridge. And it helps funnel the attack in a more believable way too.
@@Retrosicotte Excellent point! I find most annoying movies could be fixed by changing a scene or 2. Or by adding or cutting 1 scene
When the movie came out, I thought, wow how detailed this is. Thank you guys from Tank Museum Bovington to make this happend!
G'day David, Thank you for this excellent review of 'Fury'. I'm a semi-retired film critic and journalist who still does occasional radio broadcasts on film topics. Because of my time in the ADF, my main sphere of interest is military documentaries and war films. Nicholas Moran's TH-cam channel, The_Chieftain and TTM TH-cam channel got me hooked on tanks. You bring up some really interesting and well-informed points ‘Fury’.
To begin with, I liked 'Fury' a lot but after watching nearly 9K films over 50 years or so, I've come to know, personally and professionally, that there is no such thing as a 'perfect' film. 'Casablanca' almost gets there but it is not perfect. (Just read about what the director and some of the cast really thought about it.)
'Fury' reminds me of 'Saving Private Ryan' inasmuch as both films are almost like two different films cobbled together somewhat roughly. The first part of ...'Private Ryan...' are probably the most realistic modern battle sequences ever filmed. Such was its accuracy that it really put the wind-up millions, myself included. Even veterans who were there on Omaha Beach reckon it was pretty darned accurate. Then '...Private Ryan' takes a Hollywood nose-dive with all that business about the German soldier, they feel sorry for and let go, coming back to wreak havoc amongst the platoon later in the film. This partially spoiled the film for me. Still, as you say, Hollywood movies have to make money while they are entertaining.
Similarly, but to a much lesser degree, 'Fury' is dotted with plot faults that make little sense. As you say, again, there was no good reason, apart from incompetence, for the Tiger tank to move closer to the Sherman. A stand-off kill shot was entirely possible. 'Fury' also reminded me of untold hundreds of A and B grade Westerns where the Indians ride around and around the fort being slaughtered by the horse-soldiers inside. 'Zulu' is an excellent modern example of this.
So, the SS detachment in 'Fury' pestered the Sherman by piling up its own dead around the tank. A totally unnecessary tactic. Satchel charges or Panzerfäuste would have done the trick. Still, one can't have a single shot killing Brad Pitt, then roll end credits... it would have been really slaughtered at the box office.
Even the close to perfect first half of Stanley Kubrick's 'Full Metal Jacket' sits at odds with the prolonged 'committee' discussion moralising on the killing a female Viet Cong sniper and finishes a 'silly' second half with the Mickey Mouse theme song.
Speaking of Kubrick, one of the film makers I most respect, when faced with filming the utterly brilliant but totally depressing 'WW3' novel 'Red Alert', simply had to turn it into the comedy 'Dr Strangelove...". To do otherwise would have meant the real story would never have been distributed. (The book, Red Alert, by Peter George, is so very sad but an outstanding read!).
Lastly, an Army mate of mine got me an inside and out tour of a Centurion and there was no way I could stand the intense claustrophobia, yet tanks still, like submarines and submarine films, fascinate me.
I can't wait for your behind the scenes look at 'Fury' from The Tank Museum's perspective.
Cheers, stay safe and all the best. BH
A Bridge Too Far, still the best WW2 movie ever made!
You make a very good point about the Tiger crew being possibly inexperienced, I've always said that. They really should have thrown in a line or two from the actors questioning the tigers move, and saying they must be a new crew and could have easily killed us if they'd stayed put.
Oh wow! I was hoping for this video! Thanks very much indeed! Can't wait for the second part with the talk about the production!
Of course the Tiger wouldn't have moved, but the Tiger coming out of the brush like that looks awesome. We could talk about inexperienced tank commanders which I guess could let us somewhat justify it, but the reason it was written that way is because it looks cool. Also a good tank commander would have knocked out the lead tank with the 76mm gun on it, but of course the movie can't have them to do that because that is Brad Pitt's tank.
In fairness, at that point of the war the Tiger may well have been unable to move!
I believe The Chieftain said in one of his Q&As that the Shermans smoking and taking cover was spot on, but that the 75s should have advanced while the 76s fired from cover. Of course that would mean Brad Pitt safe at the back and like you said, can't have that.
Tiger 131: look mom im a movie star!
My 'favourite' part was the start when they're cleaning out the tank.
It's a horrific reality that we forget about.
War is always best avoided.
S-Tank, Leopard, Leclerc, Ariete, K2 Black Panther, Type 10, and many more. The best tanks are those that age on their training grounds without being used in war.
@@HanSolo__ Leopard was used by the Turks in Syria.
@@cobalt2361 No, it was trashed by the Turks in Syria. The only Leapards used in war were Canadian Leopard 1A3 versions (C1 and C2 MEXAS) and modernized Canadian and Australian Leopard 2 (A4) versions.. None used in ofensive actions.
Other than that Danes used their UN snowwhite Leopard 1A5DK in Bosnian/Serbian conflict in a peace-keeping mission.
Ok, Hitler marches into Poland , unopposed, as per your wish. What do you do, when he turns his attention to other countries? Sponsor victory parades for him?
@@HanSolo__ The Australian Centurions were also the only ones to experience a nuclear blast - and get used afterwards.
I agree that it is just a movie meant to entertain as long as we’re talking authenticity in tanks and equipment. I really don’t care if the suspension on a tank is wrong or unit insignia or whatever.
My problem with Fury is that the reaction of the German battalion at the end is so unrealistic (but important for the movie) when they encounter the Sherman that it becomes almost unwatchable. A 12 year old kid would have said “let’s go around it”. But no. A heroic last stand by Brad Pitt requires the Germans to act like Zulus.
Actually movies are not meant to entertain at all. There is one goal... to make money. Anything else is just kidding yourself. Nobody in their right mind says... I have 80 million. Let's entertain. Sure. Brad claims he's an artist... and works for... how much? Nothing wrong with it. We all earn money. We all pay bills.
It is so iritating that Fury is among a few movies that i didn't finish watching
They could have had the exact same scene with the same amount of tension but just use 80% less enemies and have them being smarter and make the panzerfausts really worrying.
As for Fury, a few guys stalking it with panzerfausts would have taken care of the problem.
To be fair, the zulus would have attacked from the flanks as well. 😀
Superb review and fascinating insights - thanks David. Really looking forward to the Fury production video.
Y’all forget the purpose of the movie, it isn’t supposed to be a documentary or a super gritty realistic depiction of being a tanker in ww2. The point of the movie is to show the bond of a tanker crew. A glimpse in what being a tanker is like.
Don't tell these Wehraboos that. Especially don't say anything about the ending of Fury being based off the Battle of Lanzerath Ridge. Ya know the real life event of 18 U.S. soldiers holding off 500 German Paratroopers for a day and inflicting almost 100 casualties. This in turn held up the 1st Panzer Division from advancing for almost 20 hours. Imagine that, 18 soldiers holding up 500 Paratroops and a Panzer division until they eventually got flanked and captured. Kinda sounds just like the ending to Fury huh..
I learned several years ago in this business to be very, very careful about making a definitive claim "this never happened/never would happen". There's a prototype for anything, it seems.
The_Chieftain What’s up chieftain, nice to see you here.
@@helilivesmatter1075 Just living the quarantine life..
The_Chieftain yeah, same back here in County Clare.
to me it is about sloppy storytelling, not whether historical it could have happened or not. That Tiger tank implies and is presented as an insurmountable enemy so you as the audience expect it either to be the end game challenge or the hero to do something special to overcome it. If they'd wanted to show that by 1945 the Germans were the last scrapes from the bottom of the barrel and scared shitless to survive another few months so they could go home, well, then show that! Even split second aspect in the scene could narrate that.
However what we see in the two main combat scenes are mindless zombies charging at the hero and expectantly dieing which has no tension and is even worse because the scenes tried to lie to the audience that it is more tense than it is.
@@mangalores-x_x Not so! Brad Pitt says "put some smoke on him and make him move"
I love it when experts comment on film/TV, really illuminating.
A Balanced Review! Thank you, Sir. I definitely watched this movie for the Tanks.
Great as yet unrevealed insight by someone who was there and is knowledgeable about tanks. Thank you.
I took the final scene as Hollywood's way of trying to portray the desperate and fanatical fighting at the end in places like Berlin or some of the other "fortress" cities. Same for the tiger scene, sure a Sherman can take a tiger at 400 meters, but a Tiger could do it at 2000 meters, so i think they captured that fear and inadequacy felt by some allied crews when facing the big cats. Like any movie, its not perfect, but It is one of the best made in recent times in my opinion.
I love a good war movie and Fury was definitely a good movie. Realistic battle scenes except for a couple of script malfunctions. The kind of movie you just want to come back and watch again. And how VERY cool you have the actual tanks especially the real Firefly "Fury" from the movie! Dead right about the end where the SS troops were mowed down like sheep was a bit off.
Sometimes the movie is reissued with a 'directors cut' or something to that effect which includes added material. Viewers really into militaria would love it. But the scene where the tank holds off a large German contingent all by itself is abit uncertain. One panzerfaust should have eliminated the tank and turned its occupants into crispy critters. Great settings and the tanks are magnificent. Plot too much set to Hollywood and the need to entertain...to hell with the details. As usual David Wiley gives a great commentary. Thanks David and stay home and stay safe everyone! Chris
I meet the Curator of the George S. Patton Museum. We are both civil war re-en-actors in the same unit from different areas of the country. He and I talked about tanks for about 3 hours. When ever I saw him at an event we talked tanks. Those conversations were better than any book. Great guy.
Really great arguments.
Sir I waited so long for this review to happen and finally it happened, thank you! Greetings from italy!
The Chieftain put it very well, I’m paraphrasing but the gist was no one crew experienced everything that happens in fury, but every crew experienced something that happens in the film.
Totally agree. Fury was awesome except for the last scene when it turned into a video game.
Steven Triplow read up on the kv1 that literally did what fury did. Stopped at a crossroads. Held off 5000 german soldiers. Killing trucks and halftracks and AT guns. And eating 13 88mm anti air shells.
@@thedarkestnight9600 thanks for the reply all information shared is a chance to learn something new. I have actually heard about a KV1 Soviet tank that held up a whole division for a day. The Germans had nothing that could penetrate its armour and were completely shocked by its existance. Thanks for pointing it out. Still I wonder why not just go around it? However I still cant see any situation where a commander would throw hundreds of his men at stationary tank just to me mowed down by machine guns.
That's why I don't watch movies like Transformers. Walking talking robots? Who's watch that!?
I totally agree with you... thought the way the ordinance fired was impressive.
[that part towards the end] "...found a little bit questioning..." yeah, a British understatement for sure. But a nice video, didn't know the props used in the film were from this Museum. Do more reviews!
Great movie. You make a very valid point, it’s a Hollywood movie, not a documentary. Keep the videos coming, thanks. 👍🏻🇦🇺
So this begs the question, what is your favourite war film David? And in extension, what is your favourite tank film?
I've always though that as history nuts, if we can still pick the film to bits over bits and peoces but still really enjoy it then thats the sign of a good film.
When you pay a star big bucks to play a hero you have to make sure he is seen to play that hero. The big names pull in the money, not all the folks who sweat to get all the details right.
For me the fight with the Tiger was always the hot topic of discussion for Fury, but accuracy aside, it's the best tank scene i have ever seen
David you nailed all the things I loved about Fury and all the things I hated, but as you said "it is a movie". Can't wait to find out what your guys went through when producing the film. Story wise it could have been MUCH better but from the authenticity perspective they did well...for Hollywood.
I enjoyed Fury and I thought it was a hell of a lot more accurate than most people have ever given it credit to be. First, the movie never explicitly says where in Germany they are nor an exact date outside of April 1945. At this point, the German military is a complete mix mash of experience, moral, health and age. Training is done as quickly as possible and covers the basics like how to load and shoot. It is a civilian army. There was a jadgtiger that was lost due to volkssturm not being able to figure out what it was and shooting it with multiple panzerfaust. Panzer crews where made of fresh students and either second rate instructors or the few that where able to came back from panzer division Lehr and that was all the point after the battle of the bulge offensive had failed. These units were also given whatever tanks were still available ranging from pz 2fs to king tigers.
The few experienced guys that are still around are either tired of fighting and are only still fighting cause their buddy next to them is or they have not found a chance to desert without getting shot. The other reason a lot are still fighting is that they don't care about their lives anymore and want to get revenge for their situation. Think about it, you have been fighting in poor conditions with few supplies, you are being beaten back by an army with more supplies and men than you could imagine, there is an army coming from the other direction than you get news that the home you have been thinking about and missing, is gone. Everything you owned is ashes and most of your family is dead. The guy on the other side of the line is part of the army responsible for that. Enjoy the war, it might be over soon.
The movie also never states what SS division the 300 men are from. By late 1943, the SS was no-longer an elite force as many divisions were rear guard troops at best. By the end of the war some divisions were made of conscripts from foreign nations. As far as we know, the 300 were a unit that has been on anti partisan duty and filled with fanatic replacements. There are problems with the accuracy of the movie but not as far as people act about it.
I agree if the deleted scenes were included into the movie this would have been one of the best war movies of all time imp
Hang on, where was the “Clap”?
The lack of clap makes me feel uncomfortable.
Classic cliffhanger stuff, "will he..?" ;-)
When there was no clap I realised they are breaking new ground.
It's the most epic expansion to the Tank Museum Cinematic Universe. (TMCU, if you will)
(I missed the clap too.)
Where was the clap?! Production quality massively reduced this weekend... :)
While the final scene was unrealistic, the Tiger engagement was actually pretty solid overall, in my view. Probably the main point of contention is whether the Tiger should have engaged Fury (76mm) first or started at the back, the way the scene unfolds. Assuming the Tiger commander could even see the flash suppressor at that range, he would have two basic options.
Typically, you engage the furthest target for two reasons. The first applies more to infantry tactics (think SGT York) whereby you pick of the last soldier and everyone else doesn't even realize they are under attack at first. This gives the defender a brief window of opportunity to narrow the odds. This doesn't really hold true in armor because the noise is so loud that the tanks being attacked will immediately know they are under attack, as shown in the video clip. However, by attacking the rear target, the nearer targets remain relatively free of obscurants which makes targeting them easier. If you attack the front tank, depending on your aspect ratio, you effectively create a smoke screen for the oncoming tanks.
As for attacking the lead vehicle, in this situation, it would be totally sensible for two reasons. First, it briefly jams up the column. Follow-on tanks may slow or even stop, if terrain does not allow them to disperse. More importantly, it takes out the one 76mm gun in the group of four. If you look closely, tanks two and three have 75mm guns. Tigers were NOT afraid of the 75mm gun. They were mildly entertained by the 76mm gun. What concerned them more than the guns was the number of tanks. As shown here, one on three is difficult.
For anyone interested in M4 Shermans vs Cats (Tigers and Panthers), check out my video on the topic. th-cam.com/video/0-_ieebbp9M/w-d-xo.html
David, watching the out takes provided some of the backstory.I also can’t understand why Pitt didnt have a chance to explicate why he was “damaged” and why he sought redemption.
You should do a breakdown of the t-34 movie next
I actually enjoyed that movie much more than fury
I can't get enough Willey, I eat it all up.
Should review A Bridge Too Far. Loads of tanks in the film, reasonable historically accurate, even if individual equipment was wrong.
Not a great film tbh. They had Frost as an advisor, but pretty much ignored all his first hand experience. Just another Hollywood film.
@@JohnyG29 So where was BTF not correct? The main historical events were covered in the film why the operation failed?
In Robert Kershaw's fantastic book on Market Garden, It Never Snows In September, he tells of how German veterans of Market Garden thought Bridge Too Far was hilarious!
History Buff does a good review of the facts.
@@billyruffian1 There are inaccuracies in Kershaws book. Such as saying PzIV/70 were used by the Germans. According to the Doyle Encyclopedia of German Tanks they didn't enter service until Nov 44. BTF is correct enough for a film, it's not a documentary. Again it picks up the main points of failure. Cornelius Ryan's book is probably the best book of Op MG. For example the flame thrower attack on the bridge pill box did happen.
I absolutely love this movie and feel all the deleted scenes add so much to the story and the depth of the characters.
You are so correct...the movie was not a documentary or a tank training film but a movie made to entertain. The many tactical errors are only obvious to those of us who are current or ex-military (like me) or military historians. Saving Private Ryan had errors, too but it was entertaining as well. If the movie generated interest in the Tank Museum and tanks in general I think that is the best possible outcome of the movie. Thank you, sir, for making these videos during these unusual times for we fans of the Tank Museum.
Enjoyed the review and all your great videos David but didn't enjoy the movie for reasons already stated by so many people. Worth watching just to see the Shermans and Tiger driving around. I haven't read all 812 comments but did anyone else mention the 'Star Wars' laser effects whenever anyone fired a machine gun?
I watched an interview with Shia Lebiuf and he said he still calls Brad Pitt “ Top”.
Shia LeBeouf is a weird dude.
@Necramonium Daniel Day-Lewis was kept in jail for prisoner role. Learned to reload a musket in a run, then to track and hunt game, skin animals, build a canoe, and more all for the role of Hawkeye -- an adopted son of last of the Mohicans. He learned to speak Czech for the role of a doctor in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", and he trained boxing for the role of a boxer Danny Flynn for nearly 3 years!
Didn't use a shower for weeks in some other role but can't remember which one.
@@oldesertguy9616 All humans are weird when studied closely, just that for good or for bad, celebreties are going to seem stranger and more angry about being constantly studied, even when they try to get for some relatively 'freedom' or 'more less-stressed 'normal' time out of the spot light of the ever stalking/stalker-ish tabloid hacks.
Not that should condone 'The Beef's' [translation joke] occasional outbursts or disregard of others, but, it gives a slight insight...
@@razor1uk610 LeBeouf takes it to extremes in the weirdness department. He actually started taking drugs to play a drug addict and on another occasion was walking around with a paper bag on his head. That's weird.
Nice review. Yes, some purists do not like the end fight (I don't either), but if 10% of the movie is bad, it doesn't make it a bad movie, just not a perfect one. I liked Brad Pitt, he looked so dog tired and about to lose it. I liked the interior shots of the tank and how the crew worked the machine.
Fury is up there with my favourite war films. Is it entirely accurate? No, of course not. Does that stop me from enjoying it? No, of course not.
Has anyone seen the 1969 film, "The Bridge At Remagen"? It's loaded with Chaffee tanks and is the most realistic Hollywood WW2 movie I've ever seen. The acting is top notch. The Germans speak English amongst themselves, though.
@@bigdog4173
It's on Amazon Prime.
This review is surprisingly close to my own impressions. Yeah, final battle was forced and jarringly unrealistic, but the rest of the movie was really good and even brilliant at times.
Remember the tension Hitchcock got with a guy with a knife ?
Imagine how tense it could have been in an imobilised Sherman with 5 or 6 panzer Fausts teams stalking you.
Instead we got that nonsense.
It could have been great
It wasn't
Excellent film, from the first scene of tank silhouettes (Is that a Panther? And a Pzkw IV there? ) through the "Tiger Problem" (It's a Tiger I, not first string in '45) to the moment Pitt decides to stay with the tank. Enter Hollywood.
Agreed. The John Wayne, Audie Murphy, and trained soldiers running at a tank, all are things we need to turn off our brains for. A film is meant to entertain large audiences and not just us fanboys. Thank you for such a excellent review.
In reality that Movie would have been pretty short. First: Sherman encounters a Tiger - game over for Fury within 2 minutes. Second: Sherman encounters a SS platoon - game over for Fury within 3 minutes.
My favourite war film is Where Eagles Dare. It’s got a helicopter and 5000 round SMG magazines. Historical accuracy is not all important, entertainment is.
I liked the movie and regularly watch it. It was nice to identify some of the familiar locations. The show down scene requires a willing suspension of disbelief because as David says it's a movie. No its not wholly accurate, of course it isn't, but it was representative of many last stand actions that took place, that may have only lasted 30 seconds in reality. For anyone whose been through conflict, they would know that these types of actions may only be minutes long, but at the time can seem a lifetime in themselves. I think this scene portrays it well, particularly well, especially after the last shots are fired, the SS unit calmly moves off in a fairly matter of fact manner. Great film and a good review.
Congratulations for making into a big movie production.
Fury is one of my favorite newer war movies. I love the Sherman tank. It's one of my main rainy day movies.
I loved the film, its grit and realism.Its very well acted. But the ending is pure Hollywood. Apart from the obvious points mentioned, the suicidal SS unit, and the Tiger breaking cover, the panzerfaust that enters Fury would surely have killed the crew entirely! However, good film.
I'd love be visitor at the next Tank Fest, or Tiger Day - but medical reasons prevent me from making this journey. What I'd like you do is to consider a Livestreaming of these events - I surely would pay for this service that would allow me to be part of the event - and maybe you could develop another revenue stream for the museum.
The_chieftain interesting article for you on Fury and the tiger article. Even the solder playing the Tiger TV went..."why would I move?"
I could listen to this guy for hours and hours!
YES PLEASE, do make a video on the behind the scenes!
Thank you ,Mr Willey .
I am unfortunately too young to watch this film but I will definitely watch it when I am old enough.
I would have liked to see the battle his tank was in at the start of the film. Looked like it was very epic. Nicely worded review/talk. I liked the general film (last scene maybe not so much). Good point regarding the late-war competence and nervousness. When it's so clear the war isn't going your way, and the veterans are either dead or too tired to fight, the fear and related "incompetence" (not that they are stupid or not good soldiers per se) will be believable. imo.
I remember my Grandma talking about Otto Carius (she fled Germany as a teen in 1946 to Iceland) and how the mood was especially later in the war. The wasted lives, fear, bad leadership and (especially finding out in later years) bad intelligence regarding things on the enemy and so on. The late-/end-war era for Germany was very frantic and chaotic. Meanwhile, the StuG was still doing its job in the shadow of the big cats ;P
Definitely not wrong about cutting some of the fury crews story out. Seeing all the deleted scenes has made it apparent they could do an extended version with all of those in it.
Compliments to your bookshelf, specifically, "J. C. Leyendecker". He was a superb illustrator, Norman Rockwell was a sort of tele-student of his. May I request a discussion of the "just war theory". It has been examined for over a thousand years by many of best minds. What are your thoughts on the matter. Thanks, Mark Ingraham
This is absolutely the finest tank movie of all time. There is no film with tank battle scenes as great as this one.
Lol even T-34 is beter this movie is Bad
@@chewbaccassecretlover12444 I haven't seen t-34. I will look it up. I thought the battle scenes were great, but that's just my opinion.
Very good....Thanks very much..from..Kentucky...!
OH! Also, there is a very good Russian film called "I was eighteen". Eastern front, end of the war, lots of T34s and one scene where they just simply run over a 75 mm anti tank gun.I enjoyed it very much. The film that is.
Running over an AT gun position is entirely realistic and a tactic in manuals.
Remember, every tank in WWII had to stop to fire accurately. Even when properly used the US stabilizers just allowed you to keep the target close enough to rapidly engage after stopping and that was the best case scenario.
If you found an AT gun at close range, just running it down is probably the most effective and safest option. If they are ready to fire, you do not want to stop. If they aren’t ready to fire, great.
Thanks for an excellent review, with good insights on how film production actually works, and has may I add since the start of it all around the turn of the last century. And, almost out of the blue it re-watching the 1943 "Sahara" with Humprey Bogart in a M3 Lee crossing the desert. Funny, it's now longer since I last saw it, than WW2 was when I did. Keep up your great work - and Stay Safe!
Excellent review answered a few questions for me. Like the Tiger looked real because it was (not the mocked up T-34s we usually see, and not an excellent CGI which I thought it was because I'm not used to seeing a real Tiger in movies, just CGI that seems to get better and better all the time anyway) and why would the Tiger not do what they do best, kill from a distance? Very enjoyable.
* However, I believe my copy of the movie is just titled 'Fury;, not 'The Fury' which kind of grated, sorry for my pickiness.
Boundless enthusiaism for the subject Mr Wiley, thank you. I agree a three dvd set would be awesome - in partnership with the Museum perhaps?
Does Wardaddy at any point in that film ask "where's my infantry support"? It's been a while since i've seen it.
The ending battle is arguably the dumbest one ever seen in a film.
I know there were real events where a single tank commander fought against houndreds of enemy infantry, but the movie made it look like a bad joke.
Yeah. I agree. It was was so terrible it made me laugh.
Why?
@@TheSYPHERIA You have to ask? Really? If I had been in charge, my men would have immediately taken cover while two soldiers with one of the panzerfausts shown earlier snuck round the tank and blew it up from the rear. Casualties would have been minimal or non-existent. Instead, the Germans used suicidal attacks on the front of the tank where all its guns were. How many Germans died that way? 50? 100? I lost count. That officer deserved to be fragged.
An excellent review for a great movie by someone who knows what he is talking about. The one thing I liked was that the soldiers didn't act like typical Hollywood soldiers. As with "Saving Private Ryan", they portrayed the soldiers as just average Americans doing what they had to do to survive and do the best job they could.
I love historical accuracy when it comes to WWII movies, but even though this movie had a lot of inaccuracies, it also had a lot of accuracies as well. I personally loved the film and I love how it shows you what war looks like! I saw it in theaters when it came out and I was on the edge of my seat when I witnessed the battle scenes. People need to understand that it’s a movie, not everything is going to be perfect and it’s also meant for entertainment.
I don't criticize most movies . I just enjoy seeing the vehicles and characters . Take a breath and enjoy . If I had extra funds I'd send you a donation . I'm not a rich yank. I was a lawman who was wounded in the line of my duties . I live on my retirement which is the same money I made in 2005 . No increases . Cheers and be well .
I love how you used the very last words were still in this fight and then followed it up with a plea for support I thought that was rather clever
You hit the nail on the head when you said its a film not a documentary, Hollywood always have to make a film that appeals to the widest audience so they can get there investment back. I can think of many films that have been spoiled by the Holywood effect. The charge on the machine gun position in Saving Private Ryan is a case in point, why would you do that, they had a sniper, but you know what I mean, happens in so many films.
I still like the film though and film quality and sound are second to none.
As you said, a film to entertain, done very authentically -- tank life, crew grittiness, horror of war. BUT.
Comic book level: three Shermans frontally charging (as in traditional Naploean-era European infantry line advance) a Tiger in defilade at close range?!
And, an immobile Sherman taking on a veteran SS pioniere unit who throw themselves at the tank like lemmings.
Plus, as you said, the film was a mish-mash compilation of WWII tropes, stolen from other films, such as 'Saving Private Ryan,' 'Cross Of Iron,' etc., tiring. Turns out the characters' backstory, interaction, abd development should have been the most interesting and compelling part of the film, but was ruined by the absurd comic book battle scenes (the charge, the shootout).
Could have been a prequel and sequel or even a three-part series but Hollywood wanted to make the one-and-done bang-bang 'cowboys and indians' circa World War II era movie.
Still worth seeing just for the scene with 131 rumbling around.
Not claiming that the movie is wholly accurate or anything. But the US tank manual at the time said to charge if one was outranged by anti tank guns.
I agree with you about the charge scene. As an ex armoured troop commander I watched that thinking " they are way to close together. They should be moving in pairs, or there must be another troop in an overwatch position". Problem is a realistic version of that scene would be boring, because you would see one tank, unless they did a very wide angle shot, which wouldn't have the same visual impact.
@@ConstantlyDamaged I can see that on this platform in HD for free, not gonna buy that movie for a few short scenes.
@@Masada1911 But the 76 wouldn't have been out of range.
@The Tank Museum
Hopefully during filming, the Tiger wasn't forced to turn when in reverse - allegedly a big 'No No' never to do, as it could bind up on the sprocket, or throw a track.. Sorry about that.
@David Willey
I agree with your summisation about Fury, it is a film, a closer to many historical & personable things and truths than other tank films before or after it.
(coughs White Tiger; more a Soviet/maskirovka styled politically mataphorical/allegorical film in some ways, naturally so, inothers an action film with the skin of a tank & a limited-budget over it IMHO .-
Although it is sometimes well acted, Yuriy Kirshev as Counter-Intelligence Colonel Aleksey Fedotov is/was excellent, very nuanced, good facial range of situational emotiveness.)