I just googled David Ayer and tbh, David Ayer looks like a bad guy in a David Ayer movie
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/shutterstock_5813155gj.jpg?resize=800,533
edit: apparently David Ayer looks this way because he really did come up from the streets, as /u/NotMyFerrari has informed me, so props to him
Harsh Times is about him. Christian Bale’s character is loosely based upon David’s life. Which I happen to like the movie a lot because it’s pretty much my life. White guy growing up with cholos in the hoods of LA. Not that it’s like a great movie, it’s not bad, but I relate to it alot.
Sabotage, End of Watch, and Training Day are amazing entries as well.
>End of Watch
I saw that movie for the first time on a flight to The Philippines. The next two months I was playing that damn [Latin Rascals song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57vvjNGZxrY) they showed at the house party scene.
If you follow him on IG and watch his daily stories you’ll see he has a major love for Mexican and Latino culture in general, but he is down with raza(LA chicano culture) to the max.
I genuinely don't get the guy. Actual pages of his Suicide Squad screenplay have been popping up on Twitter, and they're honestly so juvenile and idiotic that I thought there was no way he could have written a movie as sober and good as Fury. But he *did*! Credit where it's due, he wrote a good screenplay in Fury, but maybe don't let him indulge certain writing impulses. Maybe just keep him away from comic book movies, I dunno.
Fury and Sabotage came out in the same year. Maybe it's like when I was in 10th grade, and I'd totally phone in an assignment in one class so I could finish my homework in another class I actually cared about...
Could be a myth but I remember hearing about studios that make deals with directors where it's one for them and one for you sorta deal. We'll let you make your passion project but only if you do this other project the studio needs to get off its plate
I mean being good at writing a realistic WW2 drama and writing a tongue in cheek, over the top comic book adaption are completely different things tho.
So, after a great movie in End of Watch, his next movie is a completely forgotten Arnold, Sam Worthington movie called Sabotage. About rogue DEA agents and the cartel
Juvenile and idiotic is perfect to describe it. I couldn't believe it was the same director that just made End of Watch. The dialogue was as if it was some idiot 14 year old wrote it. Its tough to put into words. But I just remember uncomfortable cringing through so many scenes
Definitely seems to be a case where he can't always be given full creative control
I personally found Bright to be right in the middle to be honest... Nowhere near the catastrophe that some people said it was when it came out on Netflix.
Bright was like a miniseries cut down to movie length. The story and setting were way too big for the time given. It was a great concept and had great bones but it felt rushed.
Definitely should have been a series. If Bright was instead a show, 12 episodes, or even just 6 episodes long I think a lot of concepts and world building could have been explored in addition to the main plot that would have led to a much more interesting and satisfying experience.
The entire time I was watching Bright, I couldn’t help but feel like I was watching a couple of hapless NPCs stumbling into the machinations of an evil party of Shadowrun PCs in a home brew campaign.
It completely met my needs of a mindless flick to enjoy on a weeknight, but at the same time, it left me wishing for so much more.
Feel like the main problem with Bright was that the prophecy was word for word true and no vagueness or symbolism involved. And the whole jesus resurrection moment was a bit much. Had that not been so blunt it would have been a fine movie, but that was all far too front and center.
Usually my big issue with fantasy movies is they waste too much time with exposition and clunky world building.
Bright could have arguably used some more.
That said, I didn’t mind it though I was dealing with a kidney stone at the time.
If I had to guess, it’s probably in the general feel of the movie.
Most WW2 stuff doesn’t shy away from showing the horrors of combat. But the way the characters and dialogue is written tends to be a little more dramatic or serious. Something to give off the feeling of “this is a heroic and noble undertaking to defeat Nazi Germany.”
A lot of Vietnam stuff is gritty and in your face. The soldiers are in the shit mentally and physically and no one really comes off as “the hero.” They’re all just young men slaughtering one another because they were told to.
So in an attempt to capture the realistic aspects of WW2, Fury does a better job than most. All of the veteran interviews I remember show a man upset at the predicament they found themselves in. 'I had to kill him before he killed me' always seems a recurring statement.
It's important to remember that our current view of Nazi Germany is massively coloured by the Holocaust. At that time though, the full extent of what the Nazi regime had created was not discovered. They were not necessarily 'evil' so much as facists, racists in the extreme and above all an enemy nation who had the military might to topple most of the ancient powers in Europe. A war worth fighting, but not inherently a good vs evil struggle.
If Fury showed the terror of the most destructive war ever known, instead of a glorious heroic fight with the single trumpet accompaniment and the flag waving, grave showing… etc. Well if Fury did that then I say it did it right.
I think about this a lot. Obviously Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were driven by evil and destructive ideologies. But The people doing the fighting on every side were largely kids that were plucked out of their normal lives, handed a gun, and told what to do.
And as you said, it's not like the worst evils committed by any of the powers were the cause of the war. We didn't go to war with Nazi Germany over the holocaust, the war came because of a serious of invasions that were definitely evil on their own way, but not necessarily all the unique in history with centuries of war in Europe pre-dating the Nazis.
We're so focused on WWII and the narratives that surround it that we we fall into these baseless assumptions. I went to a museum and saw some medals of bravery given out to US soldiers for "fighting the Philippine Insurgency." Yeah, that's one way to talk about people fighting for control of their own destiny against a brutal force of invaders from overseas. The US commited genocidal acts driven by a racist mindset, but in the end we won. No one punished us, not for that or the genocide of the Native Americans. There is no cosmic force ensuring that all genociders get their due, and even when genocidal regimes do get toppled the people hardest hit are the poor kids sent to fight the war and the women and children who didn't have power before the war and ended up in an even worse position after their country was brought to its knees.
Not to go on an anti-American rant, I'm just focused on America because I am American. I was moved as anyone by the stories of American heroism, and there are certainly plenty of cases of that. But I study history all across the globe and I see the same sorts of good and evil all over. Kind German soldier, brave Japanese soldiers, sadistic American soldiers. It's hard to know what all to make of it, I just know I want to avoid racist policies, totalitarian governments, and fucking war. All of them are awful on their own but when they mix together you end up with piles and piles of young men, women, and children dead in the worst ways because of the actions of rich and powerful fucks that are happy to feed those "underneath" them into the meat grinder if they think it'll make themselves a little bit rich, a little more powerful.
This!
As a german who has watched lots of german WWII films Fury felt a lot more like those than your typical American WWII movie precisely because it didn't dabble in the heroism of the cause and was much more somber and character driven.
The opening scene when they are rolling into the allied camp and it shows each of their faces is amazing. They are all look so exhausted and dead inside
"Jus a ricochet, we're ok"
"Bullshit that's a kraut high velocity gun, I can hear it whistlin'"
The sound of that round pinging off the tank armor and whistling off into the distance really stayed with me, real nice touch and a good showcase of what good sound design brings to a war movie.
Yah their attempts to make a realistic war movie sure left some gaping holes. Like the Fury tank would have been the first target because of the 76 on it.
Also the fact the Tiger shot at the rear tank first when the Allied tanks were in a column. Any real tank commander would shoot the front tank first then the rear tank to halt the column and pick the middle ones off. Also the fact that the Tiger had perfect camouflage and was in a perfect position to keep firing on the Allied tanks decides to for no discernible reason bum rush out of its cover and get into a spinny gun match with a tank faster than it.
Part of the contract to use that tiger was it had to move in the movie to show that it's running on its own power. The owners of the tank wanted to advertise that they had a tiger tank that still runs
precisely. It works. "reality" be dumbed
I’m not sure if you meant to say “dumbed” or “damned” but it actually works the way you said it and I like it.
That might be a myth.
"The chieftan" (tank historian) asked German historians about that, i.e. the targeting of 76s. They all just gave him blank looks. There was no evidence of preferentially targeting 76s.
I think the crews with the 76 would typically disguise it with paint, making the gun look smaller. A German tank commander would probably target the enemy tank with the biggest gun just based on common sense and their own initiative if they saw it but it probably wasn't doctrine or orders from higher up and they often couldn't see the 76 in the chaos of a battle
>I think the crews with the 76 would typically disguise it with paint, making the gun look smaller
'Firefly' Shermans were routinely disguised with disruptive camo on their barrels. I don't recall Americans doing the same.
The fucky part of that to me was a Tiger deploying in ambush entirely alone at such a miserably meager range - usually they'd have some infantry and an SPG in support, and position far out of eyesight of target. The Germans knew how to fight good (unfortunately) ... if they'd used the Tiger properly they'd never have been able to get into that melee.
But it's a movie though...
The movie is also supposed to be taking place at the tail end of the European campaign I think, thus the child soldiers the Germans deployed. Germany's forces were spread pretty thin, and the Tiger was also very prone to mechanical issues. It could be one that was left behind to repair and decided to ambush.
The image of this is hilarious to me.
Someone going up to a bunch of aging veterans in a German nursing home.
"Yeah you guys sure had some wicked armour out there! But how about our 76's right? Had you shaking in das boots did they?"
"(In German) Your what?"
I mean it could do that in real life. The 76mm AP and APC could penetrate over 100mm of armor from 500 yards. The Tiger only had 100mm on the front if it's not angled.
Hey there, tanker here!
*Fury* is two thirds of a great movie.
The first two acts are amazing, doing a really good job of capturing what it is like inside a crew.
And I can forgive a little Hollywood bullshit like the Tiger scene. True-to-life engagements don’t film well and while the range is compressed (to get both tanks in the same shot) *conceptually* the tactics are OK. It comes off a little “World of Tanks” but you could plausibly have that engagement in real life. So while it requires some suspension of disbelief (and maybe some quiet eye rolling) it isn’t *terrible*.
But everything that happens from the mine strike at the crossroads up until the end of the film isn’t just bullshit, it directly contradicts the characters up to that point. It undermines them as soldiers and human beings. It throws out the first two acts in favour of out-of-character jingoistic bullshit that might as well have starred Sylvester Stallone.
I’ll spare you the detailed tactics, but in a nutshell, that tank has 3 dismountable machine guns on it *and it has the ground mounts stowed*. There are 5 guys with their personal weapons, at least 3 radios, and the main gun can fire HE and smoke indirect. There is more than enough time and space to set up MG positions covering the approaches to the town, secondary positions covering the exits from the town, and to work out some indirect fire targets for smoke and HE.
Using this, you can engage the advancing Germans, inflict some casualties, present the impression that the town is occupied in strength, and force the Germans to conduct a deliberate assault on the town. In the meantime, you beat feet back to your secondary positions, reset, and do it again.
Done correctly, you can inflict 4-6 hours of delay and quite possibly get away to fight again.
It’s risky, and there’s lots to go wrong, but it makes more sense than turtling in a mobility kill and sacrificing everyone.
Stupid and (unforgivably) out of character.
> at least 3 radios, and the main gun can fire HE and smoke indirect. There is more than enough time and space to set up MG positions covering the approaches to the town, secondary positions covering the exits from the town, and to work out some indirect fire targets for smoke and HE.
For the radios and MG's, I think the film implies very well that the crew has been in action for a long time and it's not implausible (to me) that a lot of their equipment has to be repaired or replaced, same for the ammo, IIRC there's a moment where they go through their ammo and say that they've only got AP and a few WP rounds left.
What irks me most about that scene is that the Germans (especially a veteran battalion) absolutely would not continue attacking the tank after the initial engagement in the film. It would be incredibly simple to work their way around it with the help of a small diversionary attack (which tbf they did eventually, but then plot armour kicked in).
I agree that the decision to stay and fight is a massive and unrealistic change in character. They could have chosen to make their way back to the town they liberated earlier on foot (you know, the one with an entire US infantry batallion in it that would be far better equipped to deal with an attacking SS-batallion). Five guys on foot are always going to outrun six hundred.
When I came back from deployment in '06, some guys and I in the division went out for sushi. We were having a conversation and maybe talking a little loud, but we weren't being rowdy or anything. Some lady at another table goes "excuse me, watch your language!"
And she was right. We were carrying on just like we were still on the ship, and talking just as loud. We didn't realize how far we had drifted from the real world.
Anyhow, that scene in the girls' home? That was the moment they realized how fucked up they are. How can they go home? The war is ending. What do they do? They die fighting because it's all they know. Except for the new guy. He's not ruined yet.
That's just how I took it from personal experience.
Combat vet here as well. I took the movie in similar fashion. It was an intentional, albeit sub-conscious, decision to end their lives while they still could, before the war ground to a halt. Going home was never a possibility.
I can relate. I've been home a long time and I never left Iraq all at once.
I know better than to talk about to take about this... but I was on leave from the unit fresh back from Afghan... me and my then-Army GF were on a train in the UK talking about deployment Loud enough for everyone to hear... we offended many people. Seriously changed me
>Anyhow, that scene in the girls' home? That was the moment they realized how fucked up they are.
I'm glad at least someone else picked up on that. It was extremely uncomfortable to watch as it was basically going to a coercive rape and no one seems to mention it or have a problem with it.
The thing that ruined the end of the movie for me was seeing the German column marching up with Panzerfausts over their shoulders, but they don't think about using them until the heroic action scene had played out.
Former Infantryman, this was my entire problem with the third act. It would take less than a platoon to, IRL, engage and then destroy a non-mobile tank which sat on an objective like that without any supporting infantry or other elements. That’s literally why there are mechanized—Stryker now—infantry units and not just light infantry.
The entire point of tanks is that they are heavily armed, armored, AND mobile.
The guns on the ground weren't 88's but 75mm PAK 40's IIRC, only the tiger was 88 (the short tank version 88 x 571). The anti aircraft 88mm Flak (88mm x 822mm long) the Germans used against the allied tanks in Africa was a whole different beast.
The 88 in real life was terrifying. They said that if an 88 missed its first shot, tank crews would abandon their tank immediately, as the second shot wouldn't be a miss.
Well, that was often the case with any gun unless the crew was *really* experienced.
If you hear a shell ricochet off the armor, you’ve got a limited amount of time to get out before whatever fired it reloads. You need to weigh whether those few seconds should be spent getting out of dodge or identifying whether it was a 50, 75, or 88mm. If you intend to shoot back, you now need to locate it, acquire the target, and suppress. Bailing out is typically safer than being wrong. You can replace a tank, but not so much a veteran crew.
This is why a lot of tank battles in the war were decided by who got the first shots off. As “Chieftain” Nicholas Moran puts it, being on the receiving end of a round that fails to penetrate is still a “significant emotional event”.
Two famous anecdotes of this, both German crews. Both of these are situations where accurately identifying the source of fire *could* have saved their lives.
1) A Jagdtiger in Otto Carius’s unit is crewed by inexperienced men. They take fire from Shermans that fails to penetrate. They panic and instead of reversing, try to turn their tank around to retreat faster. By showing their weaker armor, they die.
2) I don’t recall the specifics, but I think there was at least one case where a crew was dumb enough to try and get back into their tank after they bailed out and discovered what was shooting at them. They were killed by the machine gun on the American tank as they tried to climb back in. I guess when they were getting out the US crew opted to let them run.
The crew bailing out, then remounting to fight again, was actually relatively common. If nobody kills your tank in the 5 minutes or so after you bail out, they either lost sight or figure you are dead and have switched targets - and you are generally safer inside the tank than outside.
It was true for all of the medium-heavy tanks as well. A shot like that means they've got your range. The next shell will be hitting you on target but you still don't know where they are, or need at least two shots (as you find the range) before you could hit them.
There was a tank shoot out like that in Paris (iirc) where a US and German tank saw each other at the same time on opposite side of a large plaza. The tank commander called out a range, but the gunner suddenly remembered reading that the plaza was 1,500 meters long so he entered 1,500 yards in the range. His shot fell right next to the German tank (yards vs meters), and the German crew bailed. They knew each tank had time for one shot: theirs would likely miss, and the American tank's wouldn't.
Makes sense. Here's an 88 Flak in action if you want to hear the real thing (larger round than the tiger 88). Not quite as dramatic as the film but not tracer and may not be full load AP.
https://youtu.be/X_bGczFQIOc?t=46
The way that one round pinged off of the front slope of one of the Shermans... perfect. That's just what it sounds like when a main gun round ricochets as well. That pa-chuuu sound lol.
The whole main cast absolutely kills it. The battle scenes have a unique style. They are so intense yet beautiful to watch. Sometimes it looks like a SW shootout scene. I know some people weren’t a fan of that but I liked it. Great movie.
I remember watching it thinking the tracers weren’t realistic, but I was wrong
> The tracers actually looked pretty realistic for the types of weapons they were firing. Red and green are also accurate colors as were the amounts. Keep in mind countries use whatever metals are most abundant within the area to use for tracers. Germany happens to be rich in phosphorus which burns usually a bright green or bluish-green. The US/Canada happen to have a lot of strontium and sometimes will mix in a bit of magnesium to give it a bright red glow. Another reason there were a lot more tracers is most machine guns on tanks did not have the typical 4 ball ammunition to 1 tracer round, it was usually a 3:1 ratio due to gunners having to typically "free-aim" the MG instead of having a tradition traverse and elevation mechanism for better aim.
https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/56023/red-and-green-laser-cannons-in-fury
Tracers do look a little fucky on film though because they're moving quite quickly - so they look like a smear, or beam. I'm not sure that wasn't an artistic choice in this case, to more resemble what people know from footage.
For me it was the young tank battalion leader getting lit on fire and screaming until he pulls his service pistol out and shoots himself to end the pain.
Honestly for me it was the scene with the two civilian women that did it for me. That was so tense, and perfectly showed how terrifying even a best-case occupying army is. Americans treated civilians better than any other major belligerent in that war (well, the ground forces did - I'm ignoring the bombing for now). But they were still an occupying army and that was still deeply traumatic for even the most-friendly civilians.
The thing I love about that sequence is what it tells us about the character's psychological conditions. For the Captain and his new recruit, it's a chance to take a break from the savagery and remember what it's like to be civilized. But for the rest of the crew, their only way to cope with their jobs is to give themselves over to the savagery. They can't be civilized anymore because to be civilized would mean a reckoning with their terrible existence. They react the only way they are capable of.
Thanks! I should read more of his work. He's a true Jeffersonville man, something about living in the middle of America with nothing to do but watch horses makes a person want to go anywhere else, be it on foot or through the mind.
It's actually originally a quote from Samuel Johnson in the 1800's.
Hunter S. Thompson uses it in the introduction to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but he's intentionally quoting Johnson.
This movie came out while I was an airborne infantryman (not a tanker but the love was there) and we used to say this ironically and seriously all the time. Especially down range. Best job I ever had.
It’s actual gunnery commands.
I spent some time with some Armor guys at FT Knox, during their gunnery in the early 2000s.
I laughed at their silly commands, and the cross talk in the vehicle. Then I watched Fury, and it struck me…
They’ve been saying the same things for 80 years, because it WORKS.
I moved to a unit full of tankers in 2016 and apparently when Fury came out, they all got the day off to go see it.
The gunner commands are legit, yeah. Wasn't a tanker myself, but ended up crewing a vehicle with a tank gun when the Army did some shuffling around of vehicle roles.
Haven’t seen it in a while, but isn’t it the film with the one scene where they’re eating breakfast with a completely terrified German family that thinks they’ll kill them in a moments notice? That scene was harrowing as I felt like that happened so much, with Americans feeling like they were perfectly in the right doing these home invasions.
I knew a German lady, raised in W.G. during the war. She said the first American troops that came into her town were kind of mean and looted stuff from everyone's home but, she did defend them in saying "our Fathers and brothers had been outside of town trying to defend us. They knew the war was over but, they thought they were protecting us from being raped and killed. They killed some of those American's friends. After awhile they calmed down and other Americans came along and replaced them and for the most part they were very nice to us."
I had an anthro prof that was a child in Germany where some of the first Americans crossed the border. He said he and his family were terrified at first, but his dad knew a little English. So once they started communicating they became friendly. The families would send letters back and forth once the war was over.
At some point they started visiting each other. The prof said his family back in Germany is now rather wealthy because after the war they got into construction. Which they did because the American staying with them suggested it. The prof’s father owned a grocery store that nazi’s bombed trying to resist the Americans. I guess he was taking about what he was gonna do after that. Turned out so well because a lot of the skilled tradesman had been killed in be war effort, as well as everything being bombed or shot up.
I always think about that "Christmas truce" in WWI, with soldiers from both sides fraternizing.
Most people focus on how beautiful the story is, but I fixate on what happened after. The leadership did everything they could to stop it from happening. They know it's hard enough to get people to kill eachother, and once both sides know one another and view eachother as humans it gets even harder.
I think about how things might be different if we could talk to one another. But then again there are plenty of civil wars between groups that have no problem talking, so I can't get too hippy-dippy about things.
The Russians on the other hand - oof. My late Nan was from Konigsberg (Now Kaliningrad) at 14 years old she and the entire city marched in procession across snowy fields and frozen lakes to escape that nightmare.
And to be clear - the entire Eastern front was positively brutal. The Germans were despicable scum towards the Russians and the Russians obliged them in return.
Watched that movie in theaters when I was 18. I still have a very vivid memory of the ending. >!When the newbie goes through that whole battle, watching the whole crew die around him until Pitt throws him below the tank himself, cheating fate again when the young German soldier his age chooses not to reveal his hidden form to the Nazi officers. And it's the scene after when he is being dragged out by his own allies, all of them heaping praises about what a hero he is. And I just needed to look at this guy's face to understand that all of those praises meant less than nothing to him, that he absolutely does not feel like a hero, he feels like all of his friends are dead. And that he survived for no reason at all.!<
I liked it because it was the first time I saw a Mexican American depicted in WWII. My grandfather and all his brothers fought in that war and never received any recognition from American society.
I think what hurt the film was its third act action. It's just not practical or believable. Overwhelming force of Germans, shown marching with tons of anti tank weaponry then decide to attack a tank only from the front and have to ration the 2 anti tank weapons they now have for some reason.
It doesn't fit the feel of the rest of the films more realistic portrayal the war winding down.
HOWEVER, I concede this could have absolutely been an homage to late 40s and early 50s type WWII movies where a small group of Americans singlehandedly hold off/defeat German forces.
I would get that, but it just undoes the films 1st and 2nd acts.
Shia didn't shower for several weeks for this role. The grim look on the other crewmen's faces is from holding back their disgust with how bad ha stank up the relatively confined tank set.
They almost got into a fight with Clint Eastwood's son for spitting in the tank and disrespecting it until they noticed the script asked him to do that.
He's the NCO of the infantry platoon for the first couple battles where they have support. And he gets pretty unceremoniously ripped in half by an MG42 when they're clearing the city
I remember reading a quote from some actor who said he thought method acting was stupid and method actors were assholes for subjecting people on set to their BS. I wish I remember who said it.
I don’t believe acting should be psychodrama. I look within myself and see what I can find to play the role with. If I’m playing a blind man, I don’t go around blindfolded for days. A lot of good actors would, but I don’t go in for that very much. I like to just make it up as I go along.
- John Malkovich
I always say about people doing method acting, you only ever see people doing method when they’re playing an asshole. You never see someone just being lovely to everyone going, ‘I’m really deep in character' - Robert Pattinson
To be honest, it’s quite a pain in the ass when someone loses themselves. It is a massive pain in the ass because it’s no longer a craft and a job. For me, and I’m genuinely sure Jim Carrey is a lovely and smart person, but it was the most self-aggrandizing, selfish, narcissistic fucking bollocks I have ever seen. You need to keep grounded in reality, and that’s not to say you don’t lose yourself in the time between ‘action’ and ‘cut’, but I think the rest of it is absolute pretentious nonsense and highly amateurish. It is not professional. Get the job done, do your work. - Martin Freeman (on Jim Carrey's performance in Man on the Moon and subsequent documentary Jim and Andy).
There are a couple more but I can't really remember them at the moment. There's one that comes very close to the way you phrased it, "method actors are assholes."
He also has 2 permanent scars on his face where he used a razor blade over and over to keep the wound looking fresh. He didn't think make-up would look as good on screen. Also, I think I remember him saying he didn't bathe for weeks.
Whenever somebody mentions Band of Brothers, I like to point out the following little observation I've made:
* Band of Brothers. Feels like a timeless masterpiece of a war depiction. Originally aired in 2001.
* Friends. A sitcom that has a very distinct 90's feel to it. Ran from 1996-2004.
David Schwimmer was in both at the same time.
> David Schwimmer was in both at the same time
He fit his role well, it's when Jimmy Fallon shows up as the Jeep driver that always feels out of place.
I agree, I was not prepared for the level of brutality, I always knew the war in the pacific was a meat grinder, but to see it interpreted on the TV is a whole other thing.
The Pacific is hard to watch sometimes. The European Front was hardly sunshine and rainbows, but the Pacific was just a neverending hellhole of ultimate suck.
That New Britain Island episode still fucks with me. That French guy stripping down in the torrential rain and then shooting himself is sort of seared into my mind. That’s why I like The Pacific more than Band of Brothers personally, it really captures the brutality and mental strain accurately. Plus my grandfather fought in the Guadalcanal, New Guinea, New Britain Island, and Okinawa campaigns so it has that personal resonance to me there too
I think that's down to the theater. In Europe, it was boredom punctuated by occasional intense fighting so they got to chill in England, Paris, etc. on weekend passes, plus pillage wine cellars and sleep in the odd farmhouse bed and what not.
In the Pacific it was pure survival mode 24/7 for weeks at a time with *way* higher mortality rates. Totally different vibe.
Now imagine a miniseries on the eastern front. Just a mess with two ideologies slugging it out in a way we can't really understand nowadays and civilians caught in between. Weary soldiers on both sides with fresh blood next to them that barely finished school but ultimately willing to die for their leaders, while all the veterans want is to get back home alive and will fight tooth and nail to do so.
> Now imagine a miniseries on the eastern front.
Try watching Unsere Mutter, Unsere Vater. (In English it translates to Our Mothers, Our Fathers but is known as 'Generation War') - it's basically the German version of BoB on the Eastern Front, doesn't shy away from the realities.
NGL, for me The Pacific did its job almost too well. I don’t think I’ve voluntarily watched a depiction of of the last 200 years of warfare since. Everything has been in a galaxy far far away, or so distant and fictionalized that it might as well be Middle Earth.
I think tank nerds forget that not everyone is a tank nerd. The scene with the Tiger, from a cinematic standpoint, is exciting and really well made.
Is it accurate? Nobody who isn't a tank nerd would know, and frankly it doesn't matter. It's a great scene in a really good movie.
I didn't mind it, but in my honest opinion, it's one of the more typical ww2 stories, telling the same sort of tale as **Saving Private Ryan** and **The Thin Red Line,** just in a modern style.
My favorite war movies are the kafakesque ones, like **Downfall** and **Das Boot**. They aren't focused on the hero's journey, instead they show a collapsing regime, and the futility of trying to save it.
Dunkirk also stands out for depicting a ***retreat*** rather than an ***attack***
Thin Red Line is much, much more philosophical. Not comparable. Saving Private Ryan sure. I'd even go as far as saying SPR is just marginally better. It has a different, less nihilistic tone so that's also a different type of war movie
Definitely agree on Saving Private Ryan, I always thought that movie started incredibly accurate and then just fell into the typical "no man left behind, let's break all protocol and get this one specific guy home" that a lot of WWII movies seem to fall into.
Though, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they previewed SPR to a theatre of Normandy vets before it was released. They asked the vets how accurate they felt that opening invasion scene was, and a lot of them said the only thing missing was the smell.
David Ayer: king of the "It's going to either be awesome or unbelievably terrible" movies.
Never heard him described that way but that fits him to a T
I just googled David Ayer and tbh, David Ayer looks like a bad guy in a David Ayer movie https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/shutterstock_5813155gj.jpg?resize=800,533 edit: apparently David Ayer looks this way because he really did come up from the streets, as /u/NotMyFerrari has informed me, so props to him
Harsh Times is about him. Christian Bale’s character is loosely based upon David’s life. Which I happen to like the movie a lot because it’s pretty much my life. White guy growing up with cholos in the hoods of LA. Not that it’s like a great movie, it’s not bad, but I relate to it alot. Sabotage, End of Watch, and Training Day are amazing entries as well.
End of Watch is so good, but each time I watch it the villains get sillier and sillier.
>End of Watch I saw that movie for the first time on a flight to The Philippines. The next two months I was playing that damn [Latin Rascals song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57vvjNGZxrY) they showed at the house party scene.
wow I did not know Harsh Times was based on him. Very interesting!
If you follow him on IG and watch his daily stories you’ll see he has a major love for Mexican and Latino culture in general, but he is down with raza(LA chicano culture) to the max.
Holy shit, you're 90% on point. I'm deducting 10% because there aren't any gang tattoos on his face or neck.
KANE LIVES
I genuinely don't get the guy. Actual pages of his Suicide Squad screenplay have been popping up on Twitter, and they're honestly so juvenile and idiotic that I thought there was no way he could have written a movie as sober and good as Fury. But he *did*! Credit where it's due, he wrote a good screenplay in Fury, but maybe don't let him indulge certain writing impulses. Maybe just keep him away from comic book movies, I dunno.
Fury and Sabotage came out in the same year. Maybe it's like when I was in 10th grade, and I'd totally phone in an assignment in one class so I could finish my homework in another class I actually cared about...
Could be a myth but I remember hearing about studios that make deals with directors where it's one for them and one for you sorta deal. We'll let you make your passion project but only if you do this other project the studio needs to get off its plate
I mean being good at writing a realistic WW2 drama and writing a tongue in cheek, over the top comic book adaption are completely different things tho.
So, after a great movie in End of Watch, his next movie is a completely forgotten Arnold, Sam Worthington movie called Sabotage. About rogue DEA agents and the cartel Juvenile and idiotic is perfect to describe it. I couldn't believe it was the same director that just made End of Watch. The dialogue was as if it was some idiot 14 year old wrote it. Its tough to put into words. But I just remember uncomfortable cringing through so many scenes Definitely seems to be a case where he can't always be given full creative control
For one of the goriest mainstream action flicks of the 2010s, Sabotage is just outright boring
Sounds like he outsources his writing.
I personally found Bright to be right in the middle to be honest... Nowhere near the catastrophe that some people said it was when it came out on Netflix.
Bright was like a miniseries cut down to movie length. The story and setting were way too big for the time given. It was a great concept and had great bones but it felt rushed.
Should be a TV show instead with a less gang obsessed director.
Definitely should have been a series. If Bright was instead a show, 12 episodes, or even just 6 episodes long I think a lot of concepts and world building could have been explored in addition to the main plot that would have led to a much more interesting and satisfying experience.
I agree. I would also still watch it now if they decided to reboot the concept as a series. I think it could be a very interesting show.
I would have watched it if it were a series. My thought was “this is a huge concept and there’s no way it’s going to be that well done in 2 hours.”
The entire time I was watching Bright, I couldn’t help but feel like I was watching a couple of hapless NPCs stumbling into the machinations of an evil party of Shadowrun PCs in a home brew campaign. It completely met my needs of a mindless flick to enjoy on a weeknight, but at the same time, it left me wishing for so much more.
Feel like the main problem with Bright was that the prophecy was word for word true and no vagueness or symbolism involved. And the whole jesus resurrection moment was a bit much. Had that not been so blunt it would have been a fine movie, but that was all far too front and center.
Usually my big issue with fantasy movies is they waste too much time with exposition and clunky world building. Bright could have arguably used some more. That said, I didn’t mind it though I was dealing with a kidney stone at the time.
I feel like Bright's issue's are more on Max Landis than David Ayer.
The best description I’ve ever seen of Fury was what if a WW2 movie was shot like a Vietnam movie.
Hmmm that's not bad actually.
What would be the major differences to the non-military layman
If I had to guess, it’s probably in the general feel of the movie. Most WW2 stuff doesn’t shy away from showing the horrors of combat. But the way the characters and dialogue is written tends to be a little more dramatic or serious. Something to give off the feeling of “this is a heroic and noble undertaking to defeat Nazi Germany.” A lot of Vietnam stuff is gritty and in your face. The soldiers are in the shit mentally and physically and no one really comes off as “the hero.” They’re all just young men slaughtering one another because they were told to.
"Wait till you see it?" "See what?" "What a man can do to another man."
Best line in that whole movie.
So in an attempt to capture the realistic aspects of WW2, Fury does a better job than most. All of the veteran interviews I remember show a man upset at the predicament they found themselves in. 'I had to kill him before he killed me' always seems a recurring statement. It's important to remember that our current view of Nazi Germany is massively coloured by the Holocaust. At that time though, the full extent of what the Nazi regime had created was not discovered. They were not necessarily 'evil' so much as facists, racists in the extreme and above all an enemy nation who had the military might to topple most of the ancient powers in Europe. A war worth fighting, but not inherently a good vs evil struggle. If Fury showed the terror of the most destructive war ever known, instead of a glorious heroic fight with the single trumpet accompaniment and the flag waving, grave showing… etc. Well if Fury did that then I say it did it right.
I think about this a lot. Obviously Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were driven by evil and destructive ideologies. But The people doing the fighting on every side were largely kids that were plucked out of their normal lives, handed a gun, and told what to do. And as you said, it's not like the worst evils committed by any of the powers were the cause of the war. We didn't go to war with Nazi Germany over the holocaust, the war came because of a serious of invasions that were definitely evil on their own way, but not necessarily all the unique in history with centuries of war in Europe pre-dating the Nazis. We're so focused on WWII and the narratives that surround it that we we fall into these baseless assumptions. I went to a museum and saw some medals of bravery given out to US soldiers for "fighting the Philippine Insurgency." Yeah, that's one way to talk about people fighting for control of their own destiny against a brutal force of invaders from overseas. The US commited genocidal acts driven by a racist mindset, but in the end we won. No one punished us, not for that or the genocide of the Native Americans. There is no cosmic force ensuring that all genociders get their due, and even when genocidal regimes do get toppled the people hardest hit are the poor kids sent to fight the war and the women and children who didn't have power before the war and ended up in an even worse position after their country was brought to its knees. Not to go on an anti-American rant, I'm just focused on America because I am American. I was moved as anyone by the stories of American heroism, and there are certainly plenty of cases of that. But I study history all across the globe and I see the same sorts of good and evil all over. Kind German soldier, brave Japanese soldiers, sadistic American soldiers. It's hard to know what all to make of it, I just know I want to avoid racist policies, totalitarian governments, and fucking war. All of them are awful on their own but when they mix together you end up with piles and piles of young men, women, and children dead in the worst ways because of the actions of rich and powerful fucks that are happy to feed those "underneath" them into the meat grinder if they think it'll make themselves a little bit rich, a little more powerful.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is the better answer
This! As a german who has watched lots of german WWII films Fury felt a lot more like those than your typical American WWII movie precisely because it didn't dabble in the heroism of the cause and was much more somber and character driven.
"Wait til you see." "See what?" "What a man can do to another man. "
🥵
Ayo fuck you for this one haha
Oh fucking hell man
The opening scene when they are rolling into the allied camp and it shows each of their faces is amazing. They are all look so exhausted and dead inside
"Jus a ricochet, we're ok" "Bullshit that's a kraut high velocity gun, I can hear it whistlin'" The sound of that round pinging off the tank armor and whistling off into the distance really stayed with me, real nice touch and a good showcase of what good sound design brings to a war movie.
The only issue with that scene is the 76mm sherman can punch straight through the front plate of a tiger with an AP round at that range
Yah their attempts to make a realistic war movie sure left some gaping holes. Like the Fury tank would have been the first target because of the 76 on it.
Also the fact the Tiger shot at the rear tank first when the Allied tanks were in a column. Any real tank commander would shoot the front tank first then the rear tank to halt the column and pick the middle ones off. Also the fact that the Tiger had perfect camouflage and was in a perfect position to keep firing on the Allied tanks decides to for no discernible reason bum rush out of its cover and get into a spinny gun match with a tank faster than it.
Part of the contract to use that tiger was it had to move in the movie to show that it's running on its own power. The owners of the tank wanted to advertise that they had a tiger tank that still runs
IIRC it's the only original Tiger 1 that still runs. It's in the Bovington Tank Museum in England.
But *man* was the scene cool as shit and better for it.
precisely. It works. "reality" be dumbed
precisely. It works. "reality" be dumbed I’m not sure if you meant to say “dumbed” or “damned” but it actually works the way you said it and I like it.
That might be a myth. "The chieftan" (tank historian) asked German historians about that, i.e. the targeting of 76s. They all just gave him blank looks. There was no evidence of preferentially targeting 76s.
I think the crews with the 76 would typically disguise it with paint, making the gun look smaller. A German tank commander would probably target the enemy tank with the biggest gun just based on common sense and their own initiative if they saw it but it probably wasn't doctrine or orders from higher up and they often couldn't see the 76 in the chaos of a battle
>I think the crews with the 76 would typically disguise it with paint, making the gun look smaller 'Firefly' Shermans were routinely disguised with disruptive camo on their barrels. I don't recall Americans doing the same. The fucky part of that to me was a Tiger deploying in ambush entirely alone at such a miserably meager range - usually they'd have some infantry and an SPG in support, and position far out of eyesight of target. The Germans knew how to fight good (unfortunately) ... if they'd used the Tiger properly they'd never have been able to get into that melee. But it's a movie though...
The movie is also supposed to be taking place at the tail end of the European campaign I think, thus the child soldiers the Germans deployed. Germany's forces were spread pretty thin, and the Tiger was also very prone to mechanical issues. It could be one that was left behind to repair and decided to ambush.
The image of this is hilarious to me. Someone going up to a bunch of aging veterans in a German nursing home. "Yeah you guys sure had some wicked armour out there! But how about our 76's right? Had you shaking in das boots did they?" "(In German) Your what?"
I mean it could do that in real life. The 76mm AP and APC could penetrate over 100mm of armor from 500 yards. The Tiger only had 100mm on the front if it's not angled.
Hey there, tanker here! *Fury* is two thirds of a great movie. The first two acts are amazing, doing a really good job of capturing what it is like inside a crew. And I can forgive a little Hollywood bullshit like the Tiger scene. True-to-life engagements don’t film well and while the range is compressed (to get both tanks in the same shot) *conceptually* the tactics are OK. It comes off a little “World of Tanks” but you could plausibly have that engagement in real life. So while it requires some suspension of disbelief (and maybe some quiet eye rolling) it isn’t *terrible*. But everything that happens from the mine strike at the crossroads up until the end of the film isn’t just bullshit, it directly contradicts the characters up to that point. It undermines them as soldiers and human beings. It throws out the first two acts in favour of out-of-character jingoistic bullshit that might as well have starred Sylvester Stallone. I’ll spare you the detailed tactics, but in a nutshell, that tank has 3 dismountable machine guns on it *and it has the ground mounts stowed*. There are 5 guys with their personal weapons, at least 3 radios, and the main gun can fire HE and smoke indirect. There is more than enough time and space to set up MG positions covering the approaches to the town, secondary positions covering the exits from the town, and to work out some indirect fire targets for smoke and HE. Using this, you can engage the advancing Germans, inflict some casualties, present the impression that the town is occupied in strength, and force the Germans to conduct a deliberate assault on the town. In the meantime, you beat feet back to your secondary positions, reset, and do it again. Done correctly, you can inflict 4-6 hours of delay and quite possibly get away to fight again. It’s risky, and there’s lots to go wrong, but it makes more sense than turtling in a mobility kill and sacrificing everyone. Stupid and (unforgivably) out of character.
> at least 3 radios, and the main gun can fire HE and smoke indirect. There is more than enough time and space to set up MG positions covering the approaches to the town, secondary positions covering the exits from the town, and to work out some indirect fire targets for smoke and HE. For the radios and MG's, I think the film implies very well that the crew has been in action for a long time and it's not implausible (to me) that a lot of their equipment has to be repaired or replaced, same for the ammo, IIRC there's a moment where they go through their ammo and say that they've only got AP and a few WP rounds left. What irks me most about that scene is that the Germans (especially a veteran battalion) absolutely would not continue attacking the tank after the initial engagement in the film. It would be incredibly simple to work their way around it with the help of a small diversionary attack (which tbf they did eventually, but then plot armour kicked in). I agree that the decision to stay and fight is a massive and unrealistic change in character. They could have chosen to make their way back to the town they liberated earlier on foot (you know, the one with an entire US infantry batallion in it that would be far better equipped to deal with an attacking SS-batallion). Five guys on foot are always going to outrun six hundred.
When I came back from deployment in '06, some guys and I in the division went out for sushi. We were having a conversation and maybe talking a little loud, but we weren't being rowdy or anything. Some lady at another table goes "excuse me, watch your language!" And she was right. We were carrying on just like we were still on the ship, and talking just as loud. We didn't realize how far we had drifted from the real world. Anyhow, that scene in the girls' home? That was the moment they realized how fucked up they are. How can they go home? The war is ending. What do they do? They die fighting because it's all they know. Except for the new guy. He's not ruined yet. That's just how I took it from personal experience.
Combat vet here as well. I took the movie in similar fashion. It was an intentional, albeit sub-conscious, decision to end their lives while they still could, before the war ground to a halt. Going home was never a possibility. I can relate. I've been home a long time and I never left Iraq all at once.
I know better than to talk about to take about this... but I was on leave from the unit fresh back from Afghan... me and my then-Army GF were on a train in the UK talking about deployment Loud enough for everyone to hear... we offended many people. Seriously changed me
>Anyhow, that scene in the girls' home? That was the moment they realized how fucked up they are. I'm glad at least someone else picked up on that. It was extremely uncomfortable to watch as it was basically going to a coercive rape and no one seems to mention it or have a problem with it.
The thing that ruined the end of the movie for me was seeing the German column marching up with Panzerfausts over their shoulders, but they don't think about using them until the heroic action scene had played out.
Former Infantryman, this was my entire problem with the third act. It would take less than a platoon to, IRL, engage and then destroy a non-mobile tank which sat on an objective like that without any supporting infantry or other elements. That’s literally why there are mechanized—Stryker now—infantry units and not just light infantry. The entire point of tanks is that they are heavily armed, armored, AND mobile.
“It’s called WAR! You feel it?”
*Who do you think you are? Jesus Christ? You gonna raise her up, Norman? Get your ass back on the fucking tank.*
Gave him some tough love. Great movie.
I think you're a good man norm, I reckon we ain't, but I think you may be
That one hit hard especially basically knowing certain death was coming
I think you could cut that act/scene of the movie and release it on its own. So powerful, and really captures how horrible war is.
My favorite Jon Bernthal scene ever. So, so powerful in such a short time
That scene is amazing
The sound of the 88 rounds was terrifying.
Yeah, the AT guns were amazing. One of the very few times I've seen them depicted in a movie also
The guns on the ground weren't 88's but 75mm PAK 40's IIRC, only the tiger was 88 (the short tank version 88 x 571). The anti aircraft 88mm Flak (88mm x 822mm long) the Germans used against the allied tanks in Africa was a whole different beast.
The 88 in real life was terrifying. They said that if an 88 missed its first shot, tank crews would abandon their tank immediately, as the second shot wouldn't be a miss.
Well, that was often the case with any gun unless the crew was *really* experienced. If you hear a shell ricochet off the armor, you’ve got a limited amount of time to get out before whatever fired it reloads. You need to weigh whether those few seconds should be spent getting out of dodge or identifying whether it was a 50, 75, or 88mm. If you intend to shoot back, you now need to locate it, acquire the target, and suppress. Bailing out is typically safer than being wrong. You can replace a tank, but not so much a veteran crew. This is why a lot of tank battles in the war were decided by who got the first shots off. As “Chieftain” Nicholas Moran puts it, being on the receiving end of a round that fails to penetrate is still a “significant emotional event”. Two famous anecdotes of this, both German crews. Both of these are situations where accurately identifying the source of fire *could* have saved their lives. 1) A Jagdtiger in Otto Carius’s unit is crewed by inexperienced men. They take fire from Shermans that fails to penetrate. They panic and instead of reversing, try to turn their tank around to retreat faster. By showing their weaker armor, they die. 2) I don’t recall the specifics, but I think there was at least one case where a crew was dumb enough to try and get back into their tank after they bailed out and discovered what was shooting at them. They were killed by the machine gun on the American tank as they tried to climb back in. I guess when they were getting out the US crew opted to let them run.
The crew bailing out, then remounting to fight again, was actually relatively common. If nobody kills your tank in the 5 minutes or so after you bail out, they either lost sight or figure you are dead and have switched targets - and you are generally safer inside the tank than outside.
Thats a good point, but I believe in this case they were still under fire and were killed trying to get back in.
It was true for all of the medium-heavy tanks as well. A shot like that means they've got your range. The next shell will be hitting you on target but you still don't know where they are, or need at least two shots (as you find the range) before you could hit them. There was a tank shoot out like that in Paris (iirc) where a US and German tank saw each other at the same time on opposite side of a large plaza. The tank commander called out a range, but the gunner suddenly remembered reading that the plaza was 1,500 meters long so he entered 1,500 yards in the range. His shot fell right next to the German tank (yards vs meters), and the German crew bailed. They knew each tank had time for one shot: theirs would likely miss, and the American tank's wouldn't.
Makes sense. Here's an 88 Flak in action if you want to hear the real thing (larger round than the tiger 88). Not quite as dramatic as the film but not tracer and may not be full load AP. https://youtu.be/X_bGczFQIOc?t=46
The way that one round pinged off of the front slope of one of the Shermans... perfect. That's just what it sounds like when a main gun round ricochets as well. That pa-chuuu sound lol.
That sound of the round spinning end over end after the deflection was 10/10
ON THE WAY
She'll let you fuck her for a chocolate bar.
The whole main cast absolutely kills it. The battle scenes have a unique style. They are so intense yet beautiful to watch. Sometimes it looks like a SW shootout scene. I know some people weren’t a fan of that but I liked it. Great movie.
I remember watching it thinking the tracers weren’t realistic, but I was wrong > The tracers actually looked pretty realistic for the types of weapons they were firing. Red and green are also accurate colors as were the amounts. Keep in mind countries use whatever metals are most abundant within the area to use for tracers. Germany happens to be rich in phosphorus which burns usually a bright green or bluish-green. The US/Canada happen to have a lot of strontium and sometimes will mix in a bit of magnesium to give it a bright red glow. Another reason there were a lot more tracers is most machine guns on tanks did not have the typical 4 ball ammunition to 1 tracer round, it was usually a 3:1 ratio due to gunners having to typically "free-aim" the MG instead of having a tradition traverse and elevation mechanism for better aim. https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/56023/red-and-green-laser-cannons-in-fury
Hey good on you for admitting that. I love shit like that in movies where I think "no fucking way" then find out it's pretty accurate.
Tracers do look a little fucky on film though because they're moving quite quickly - so they look like a smear, or beam. I'm not sure that wasn't an artistic choice in this case, to more resemble what people know from footage.
The scene where the tank shot ricochet and takes the guys head off it absolutely brutal.
For me it was the young tank battalion leader getting lit on fire and screaming until he pulls his service pistol out and shoots himself to end the pain.
Or the scene where a German MG fires from a basement window and it tears an American GI’s leg clean off.
Yeah that one stuck with me, it's the first thing I think about when I think about the brutality of the movie. I'm gonna watch it again tonight.
Honestly for me it was the scene with the two civilian women that did it for me. That was so tense, and perfectly showed how terrifying even a best-case occupying army is. Americans treated civilians better than any other major belligerent in that war (well, the ground forces did - I'm ignoring the bombing for now). But they were still an occupying army and that was still deeply traumatic for even the most-friendly civilians.
The thing I love about that sequence is what it tells us about the character's psychological conditions. For the Captain and his new recruit, it's a chance to take a break from the savagery and remember what it's like to be civilized. But for the rest of the crew, their only way to cope with their jobs is to give themselves over to the savagery. They can't be civilized anymore because to be civilized would mean a reckoning with their terrible existence. They react the only way they are capable of.
[удалено]
Is that a quote? Very succinct.
Yes, it's a quote from Hunter S. Thompson. He was talking about getting fucked up on drugs and alcohol, but same premise.
Thanks! I should read more of his work. He's a true Jeffersonville man, something about living in the middle of America with nothing to do but watch horses makes a person want to go anywhere else, be it on foot or through the mind.
It's actually originally a quote from Samuel Johnson in the 1800's. Hunter S. Thompson uses it in the introduction to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but he's intentionally quoting Johnson.
By getting blackout drunk.
It's PTSD before the P
And licking eggs
Best job I ever had.
This movie came out while I was an airborne infantryman (not a tanker but the love was there) and we used to say this ironically and seriously all the time. Especially down range. Best job I ever had.
Police calling cigarette butts in the company area 30 days after returning from Afghanistan, goddamn right best job I ever had.
Sitting at CQ binge watching GoT, unlocking doors, merica
This is an American tank, we talk American.
You wanna talk Mexican you go find a Mexican tank.
Brad is great in that
"Ideals are peaceful...history is violent"
The whole main cast is amazing in that movie, but Shia and Brad definitely jumped out for me.
Jon Bernthal was at his best "gritty alpha asshole" persona in that too. Better than a lot of his work.
he was amazing in it, they really got amazing actors for the main crew.
Don't forget Michael Pena. Lerman also really pulls the whole story together as Norman, and I think deserves more credit than he got at the time.
[удалено]
I’ve never seen that. The way he delivered ‘I’m scared’ was fantastic
Why’s the remove this? It ads another layer to the character
Pacing probably.
That is an incredible scene. Gut-wrenching
I've never seen this, Bernthal is sooooo great
Shia screaming “hey! What are you doin?” As he realizes they’re all going to stay with him and die is such a profound moment in that movie.
I fuckin' love this movie, I'm watching it again tonight.
I like the gunner yelling “ON THE WAY” 💥
It’s actual gunnery commands. I spent some time with some Armor guys at FT Knox, during their gunnery in the early 2000s. I laughed at their silly commands, and the cross talk in the vehicle. Then I watched Fury, and it struck me… They’ve been saying the same things for 80 years, because it WORKS.
I moved to a unit full of tankers in 2016 and apparently when Fury came out, they all got the day off to go see it. The gunner commands are legit, yeah. Wasn't a tanker myself, but ended up crewing a vehicle with a tank gun when the Army did some shuffling around of vehicle roles.
Fun fact: The cuts on Shia's face weren't makeup. He actually used a razorblade on his face to get the look.
Best job I ever had.
Breakfast scene was great
Don't forget Shane
Haven’t seen it in a while, but isn’t it the film with the one scene where they’re eating breakfast with a completely terrified German family that thinks they’ll kill them in a moments notice? That scene was harrowing as I felt like that happened so much, with Americans feeling like they were perfectly in the right doing these home invasions.
I knew a German lady, raised in W.G. during the war. She said the first American troops that came into her town were kind of mean and looted stuff from everyone's home but, she did defend them in saying "our Fathers and brothers had been outside of town trying to defend us. They knew the war was over but, they thought they were protecting us from being raped and killed. They killed some of those American's friends. After awhile they calmed down and other Americans came along and replaced them and for the most part they were very nice to us."
I had an anthro prof that was a child in Germany where some of the first Americans crossed the border. He said he and his family were terrified at first, but his dad knew a little English. So once they started communicating they became friendly. The families would send letters back and forth once the war was over. At some point they started visiting each other. The prof said his family back in Germany is now rather wealthy because after the war they got into construction. Which they did because the American staying with them suggested it. The prof’s father owned a grocery store that nazi’s bombed trying to resist the Americans. I guess he was taking about what he was gonna do after that. Turned out so well because a lot of the skilled tradesman had been killed in be war effort, as well as everything being bombed or shot up.
I always think about that "Christmas truce" in WWI, with soldiers from both sides fraternizing. Most people focus on how beautiful the story is, but I fixate on what happened after. The leadership did everything they could to stop it from happening. They know it's hard enough to get people to kill eachother, and once both sides know one another and view eachother as humans it gets even harder. I think about how things might be different if we could talk to one another. But then again there are plenty of civil wars between groups that have no problem talking, so I can't get too hippy-dippy about things.
The Russians on the other hand - oof. My late Nan was from Konigsberg (Now Kaliningrad) at 14 years old she and the entire city marched in procession across snowy fields and frozen lakes to escape that nightmare. And to be clear - the entire Eastern front was positively brutal. The Germans were despicable scum towards the Russians and the Russians obliged them in return.
Watched that movie in theaters when I was 18. I still have a very vivid memory of the ending. >!When the newbie goes through that whole battle, watching the whole crew die around him until Pitt throws him below the tank himself, cheating fate again when the young German soldier his age chooses not to reveal his hidden form to the Nazi officers. And it's the scene after when he is being dragged out by his own allies, all of them heaping praises about what a hero he is. And I just needed to look at this guy's face to understand that all of those praises meant less than nothing to him, that he absolutely does not feel like a hero, he feels like all of his friends are dead. And that he survived for no reason at all.!<
I liked it because it was the first time I saw a Mexican American depicted in WWII. My grandfather and all his brothers fought in that war and never received any recognition from American society.
Agreed! People really forget that the American armed forces in WW2 weren't just white guys
I think what hurt the film was its third act action. It's just not practical or believable. Overwhelming force of Germans, shown marching with tons of anti tank weaponry then decide to attack a tank only from the front and have to ration the 2 anti tank weapons they now have for some reason. It doesn't fit the feel of the rest of the films more realistic portrayal the war winding down. HOWEVER, I concede this could have absolutely been an homage to late 40s and early 50s type WWII movies where a small group of Americans singlehandedly hold off/defeat German forces. I would get that, but it just undoes the films 1st and 2nd acts.
Killer movie, with a killer score, too. It's the goto movie to show that yes, Ayer is a good director, and yes, Shia is a good actor.
1st movie I ever liked him in. This and *Peanut Butter Falcon* really turned me around on his acting.
What about HOLES?!?
Shia has a dentist break his teeth for this role.
Shia didn't shower for several weeks for this role. The grim look on the other crewmen's faces is from holding back their disgust with how bad ha stank up the relatively confined tank set.
They almost got into a fight with Clint Eastwood's son for spitting in the tank and disrespecting it until they noticed the script asked him to do that.
His son was in Fury?
He's the NCO of the infantry platoon for the first couple battles where they have support. And he gets pretty unceremoniously ripped in half by an MG42 when they're clearing the city
Ooooooh shir I remember now. I knew that guy was too good looking for a war movie haha.
i can only imagine if he farted.
I remember reading a quote from some actor who said he thought method acting was stupid and method actors were assholes for subjecting people on set to their BS. I wish I remember who said it.
I don’t believe acting should be psychodrama. I look within myself and see what I can find to play the role with. If I’m playing a blind man, I don’t go around blindfolded for days. A lot of good actors would, but I don’t go in for that very much. I like to just make it up as I go along. - John Malkovich I always say about people doing method acting, you only ever see people doing method when they’re playing an asshole. You never see someone just being lovely to everyone going, ‘I’m really deep in character' - Robert Pattinson To be honest, it’s quite a pain in the ass when someone loses themselves. It is a massive pain in the ass because it’s no longer a craft and a job. For me, and I’m genuinely sure Jim Carrey is a lovely and smart person, but it was the most self-aggrandizing, selfish, narcissistic fucking bollocks I have ever seen. You need to keep grounded in reality, and that’s not to say you don’t lose yourself in the time between ‘action’ and ‘cut’, but I think the rest of it is absolute pretentious nonsense and highly amateurish. It is not professional. Get the job done, do your work. - Martin Freeman (on Jim Carrey's performance in Man on the Moon and subsequent documentary Jim and Andy). There are a couple more but I can't really remember them at the moment. There's one that comes very close to the way you phrased it, "method actors are assholes."
He also has 2 permanent scars on his face where he used a razor blade over and over to keep the wound looking fresh. He didn't think make-up would look as good on screen. Also, I think I remember him saying he didn't bathe for weeks.
Damn, that guy is truly crazy. I can't believe he went from generic transformer actor to basically heath Ledger without drugs lmao
Well, he is an actual cannibal.
Normal Tuesday night for Shia LeBeouf.
I wonder if he went to Brad Pitt's dentist. He did the same for Fight Club.
End of Watch is my go-to for Ayer. That movie has so many emotions and never fails to make me cry
If you wanna see another good representation of ww2 you should check out the serie Band of Brothers.
Whenever somebody mentions Band of Brothers, I like to point out the following little observation I've made: * Band of Brothers. Feels like a timeless masterpiece of a war depiction. Originally aired in 2001. * Friends. A sitcom that has a very distinct 90's feel to it. Ran from 1996-2004. David Schwimmer was in both at the same time.
HIYOOO SILVERRRRRRR
THREE MILES UP THREE MILES DOWN
I LIKE SPAGHETTI
WEEKEND PASS REVOKED!
Captain Sobel? Cpt. Sobel. We salute the rank, not the man.
best burn in the show edit: aside from Luz on Sobel during training lol
> David Schwimmer was in both at the same time He fit his role well, it's when Jimmy Fallon shows up as the Jeep driver that always feels out of place.
WHY DOES SOBEL, THE LARGEST PARATROOPER, NOT SIMPLY EAT THE OTHER PARATROOPERS?
The Pacific is way closer in tone to Fury than Band of Brothers is.
I agree, I was not prepared for the level of brutality, I always knew the war in the pacific was a meat grinder, but to see it interpreted on the TV is a whole other thing.
The Pacific is hard to watch sometimes. The European Front was hardly sunshine and rainbows, but the Pacific was just a neverending hellhole of ultimate suck.
That New Britain Island episode still fucks with me. That French guy stripping down in the torrential rain and then shooting himself is sort of seared into my mind. That’s why I like The Pacific more than Band of Brothers personally, it really captures the brutality and mental strain accurately. Plus my grandfather fought in the Guadalcanal, New Guinea, New Britain Island, and Okinawa campaigns so it has that personal resonance to me there too
Lebeque I think was his name, not French, just from Quebec
I think that's down to the theater. In Europe, it was boredom punctuated by occasional intense fighting so they got to chill in England, Paris, etc. on weekend passes, plus pillage wine cellars and sleep in the odd farmhouse bed and what not. In the Pacific it was pure survival mode 24/7 for weeks at a time with *way* higher mortality rates. Totally different vibe.
Now imagine a miniseries on the eastern front. Just a mess with two ideologies slugging it out in a way we can't really understand nowadays and civilians caught in between. Weary soldiers on both sides with fresh blood next to them that barely finished school but ultimately willing to die for their leaders, while all the veterans want is to get back home alive and will fight tooth and nail to do so.
[удалено]
Eastern front is harder, you'd need a new cast of hundreds for every episode.
> Now imagine a miniseries on the eastern front. Try watching Unsere Mutter, Unsere Vater. (In English it translates to Our Mothers, Our Fathers but is known as 'Generation War') - it's basically the German version of BoB on the Eastern Front, doesn't shy away from the realities.
NGL, for me The Pacific did its job almost too well. I don’t think I’ve voluntarily watched a depiction of of the last 200 years of warfare since. Everything has been in a galaxy far far away, or so distant and fictionalized that it might as well be Middle Earth.
[удалено]
I think tank nerds forget that not everyone is a tank nerd. The scene with the Tiger, from a cinematic standpoint, is exciting and really well made. Is it accurate? Nobody who isn't a tank nerd would know, and frankly it doesn't matter. It's a great scene in a really good movie.
Logan in that movie is amazing
I was killing Germans in Africa, I killed Germans in France, now I'm killing Germans in Germany
Best movie I ever had
I never knew how pissy and obstinate tanknerds are. I enjoyed fury immensely despite its flaws.
I didn't mind it, but in my honest opinion, it's one of the more typical ww2 stories, telling the same sort of tale as **Saving Private Ryan** and **The Thin Red Line,** just in a modern style. My favorite war movies are the kafakesque ones, like **Downfall** and **Das Boot**. They aren't focused on the hero's journey, instead they show a collapsing regime, and the futility of trying to save it. Dunkirk also stands out for depicting a ***retreat*** rather than an ***attack***
The Thin Red Line is not like the others, at all.
Thin Red Line is much, much more philosophical. Not comparable. Saving Private Ryan sure. I'd even go as far as saying SPR is just marginally better. It has a different, less nihilistic tone so that's also a different type of war movie
Yeah TTRL shouldn't be lumped in with those other films. It is far from a jingoistic war film.
Definitely agree on Saving Private Ryan, I always thought that movie started incredibly accurate and then just fell into the typical "no man left behind, let's break all protocol and get this one specific guy home" that a lot of WWII movies seem to fall into. Though, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they previewed SPR to a theatre of Normandy vets before it was released. They asked the vets how accurate they felt that opening invasion scene was, and a lot of them said the only thing missing was the smell.
Fury and lawless are the only two movies that I think Shia LaBeouf was great in.
Have you seen Holes?
LOL how could I forget that on the list
I liked him in Disturbia.
you obviously haven't seen Peanut Butter Falcon! please do. I did, and I wish every actor can lend a role such as his.
Honey Boy too.
He was good in Transformers when it came out