Fury (Brad Pitt / David Ayer)

Cantona's Collars

First on-set pics are out of Brad Pitts WWII movie Fury.Shia LaBeouf also stars.David Ayer is directing the movie.Filming is taking place in Oxfordshire,England.

Fury is set in the final days of World War II’s European theater and revolves around the five-man crew of an American tank named Fury that runs across a desperate German division. Pitt will play a battle-hardened sergeant named Wardaddy.

senordingdong

Looks like a Band of Inglorious Bastards.

Have any idea of the tone of the movie?

vepyewwo

Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGvZoIrXpg

Really liking what I see of this, few things better than a good boys own adventure and this seems to be rather dark and supposedly is quite accurate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGvZoIrXpg

BlitzKrieg

Deleted User wrote: »

Really liking what I see of this, few things better than a good boys own adventure and this seems to be rather dark and supposedly is quite accurate.

God I hope its accurate, Red Tails left such an immensely sour taste in my mouth in the way of ww2 films by how amazingly stupid it got with the airplanes, If this goes the same way with a Sherman bouncing off shell after shell, the most nerdy side of my will probably die from frustration.

pixelburp

A lone tank crew goes up against the Germans you say? That's groovy, sounds familiar.:D



The film looks ok, I wasn't really sold on the previous films of Ayar's that I've seen; certainly looks like he's continuing his theme of brotherhood on the front lines. He's nothing if not consistent. It's also funny how 15 years after Saving Private Ryan, productions set in ww2 still insist on using that same colour palette. They all look the same.

Thargor

Oh God why does Shia LaBeouf have to be in this?

Looper007

pixelburp wrote: »

A lone tank crew goes up against the Germans you say? That's groovy, sounds familiar.:D



The film looks ok, I wasn't really sold on the previous films of Ayar's that I've seen; certainly looks like he's continuing his theme of brotherhood on the front lines. He's nothing if not consistent. It's also funny how 15 years after Saving Private Ryan, productions set in ww2 still insist on using that same colour palette. They all look the same.

Seen you mention Kelly Heroes, Ayer might be nodding to that by having Clint Eastwood's Son in Fury.

I'm liking the look of this, Pena and Pitt are excellent as is Logan Lerman who's turning in some fine performances. Yeah Shia LeNut isn't everyone's cup of tea but Ayer has made some good films and Pitt is always great if the material is right. One of the film's I'm looking forward too.

siblers

Trailer looks amazing. Really looking forward to this now.

Skerries

Thargor wrote: »

Oh God why does Shia LaBeouf have to be in this?

always with the negative waves

Thargor

Nah Im generally optimistic about forthcoming films as long as Micheal Bay wasnt involved and its not a remake but Shia LaBeouf is toxic, cant stand him and never pay money for his stuff, Ill probably make an exception for this one though.

Reading an interview with Ayer and he mentions that they are going to shoot additional action scenes.

From the man himself:

Yeah, it’s additional photography. I’m just banging away some more action stuff. Let’s put it this way. Sony loved the movie and they’re like, “What do you want?” I said, “More action!” They were like, “Here you go!” So I’m going to go blow some stuff up!

Hande hoche!

Thargor wrote: »

Oh God why does Shia LaBeouf have to be in this?

Well said, he's a bit off putting.

cloud493

Movie is out tomorrow, I have fairly high expectations of it.

Telecaster58

Watched this last night and was very unimpressed. It's a pity because I like Pitt. Ironically, Shia La Beouf comes across quite well in it. I found the film laboured, uninvolving, and lacking tension. The battle scenes have absolutely no realism about them and in some instances come across like a sci-fi engagement. The climax of the film is absurd and stretch credibility. Overall a poor effort.

Yarf Yarf

It looks like your typical 'America won the war singlehandedly' type of movie where there isn't so much as a mention of the allies and all the bad guys are just nameless, faceless Germans.

Thargor

Balls, was looking forward to this, haven't been in the cinema since Guardians of the Galaxy.

darkdubh

pixelburp wrote: »

A lone tank crew goes up against the Germans you say? That's groovy, sounds familiar.:D



The film looks ok, I wasn't really sold on the previous films of Ayar's that I've seen; certainly looks like he's continuing his theme of brotherhood on the front lines. He's nothing if not consistent. It's also funny how 15 years after Saving Private Ryan, productions set in ww2 still insist on using that same colour palette. They all look the same.

Don't hit me with the negatives this early in the morning Man!

cloud493

I liked it a lot. Some bits definitely work better than others though.

TrustedApple

Back from this just there found it extremely depressing but a very good film. Like i think it showed war very well with the over the top kills and so on as you will be going F.... at it.

Shia i was shocked how good he was in this and when he's not the lead he's quite a good actor and i think with a few more parts like this one he will be back to a lister again.

Oscars i am not really sure but with it being very USA army based it will get a few noms Maybe Brad for best actor if there is not many other A listers in the list. Like Ben "batman" Afflick i still think so far is in for a good chance to win it but i still need to see bird man and what i have been reading Michael Keaton is the shoe in for best actor as he seems to have had a recovery this year in film Robocop, need for speed and bird man. Also there is the steve carell Film witch i don't know as it won in Canns so i not sure the osscers will go with it they did with the artist is it was black and white and something different.

What other big osscer films are still to come ?

ktulu123

Fantastic movie!!

ancapailldorcha

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/oct/24/fury-movie-tank-veteran-sherman-verdict-realistic

Agricola

Enjoyable film. Earlier poster from last year said it looked like Band of Inglorious Basterds. Pretty much nailed it there. Heavy on the comrades at arms, heart string tugging stuff mixed up with lots of "Nazi killin" - which the characters absolutely love. Some talky scenes where the director is clearly trying to ape Tarantino, but doesnt have his panache for ratcheting up the tension, before a big climax. Well worth seeing in the cinema though. Tank battles were great!

cloud493

The movie was released in the cinema on Wednesday.

Mickeroo

Enjoyed it for what it was, entertaining enough film. The tank battle in the middle was very well staged in particular. Really didn't find myself rooting for the characters all that much though and

the decision to stay by the tank in the end seemed stupid rather than honourable to me.

shalalala

Class film, really enjoyed it. Very brutal so not for the faint hearted.

I loved the characters and just the feel of the film, the script was well written and the acting was great.

I did find it a bit too much gore but probably because I was in Germany last week so it felt very close to home.


It is definitely worth a watch and probably oscar material for Pitt.

Looper007

Brilliant stuff but far more hard hitting and anti war then the trailer had you believing.

Great performances all round especially Logan Lerman and Brad Pitt special mention to Shia LeBeouf

His characters death was probably the most hard hitting as it came out of nowhere and really knocked the stuffing out of you.

. I loved that everything wasn't so black and white when it came to either side

Brad Pitt's WarDaddy holding the Gun in Lerman's Norman and making him shoot the unarmed German Solider

. Some of the violence is pretty hard hitting

The young tank commander burned alive by teenage/young German solider's then shooting himself was a toughie

.

I felt it dragged a little when they reached the town and Pitt and Lerman meet the German women, it slowed the film down. But the film it remind me of most was Sam Peckinpah's Classic Cross of Iron, it's brutal and hard hitting but also about brotherhood. It's going to fit well in with the classic war films of the past. Seen it on the big screen.

Lamper.sffc

Just a good quality movie. Enjoyed it from start to finish.

errlloyd

Was disappointed if I am honest. I guess I wanted Saving Private Ryan, what I got was somewhere between Inglorious Basterds and Rambo...

The film was going okay until the ending.

I just thought the image of Brad Pitt standing on a tank that was completely surrounded shooting from the machine gun was completely ridiculous. It also annoyed me slightly that when Norman initially spots the enemy column every second one of them was carrying a Panzerfaust, but they seemed to struggle to take out a completely immobile tank. The final scene as it zooms out over the tank surrounded by bodies was just tacky

The scene with the women in the house was good, it humanised Pitt's character and gave him some development.

Looper007

errlloyd wrote: »

Was disappointed if I am honest. I guess I wanted Saving Private Ryan, what I got was somewhere between Inglorious Basterds and Rambo...

Thank god it wasn't Saving Private Ryan, a hugely mawkish movie (check out Band of Brothers for Speilbergs true war classic). Fury certainly was glorifying violence like Rambo or Inglorious Basterds, it gave a tough no hold bar view on what it must have been like to be a solider in WW2. Sorry to hear you were disappointed but I had to say you are wrong by placing the movie in that bracket, its a far more Anti-war movie.

MICKEYG

Interested in seeing it but not if it portrays the Germans as incompetent soldiers who can't shoot straight.

Mickeroo

MICKEYG wrote: »

Interested in seeing it but not if it portrays the Germans as incompetent soldiers who can't shoot straight.

The finale does in a big way, it lets the rest of the film down a fair bit as the other battle scenes felt very authentic.

LuckyLloyd

First off, this was a great idea. Tanks have forever featured in WW2 movies as an enemy inconvenience eventually taken out with a couple of grenades into the can. As such, I was very much looking forward to it especially considering the strong casting.

There are some strong sections and brilliant individual scenes. The dinner scene is deliciously tense and some of the initial battle scenes are gripping.

So why was I ultimately disappointed? First off, the score is absolutely terrible. Really, really dreadful. The best example is probably during the execution of the SS officer, but at numerous points we get loud overpowering scoring where silence would be far more appropriate and impactful. Secondly, the Germans are displayed as being utterly incompetent. Lastly and most importantly, the finale is annoyingly unrealistic. It is impossible to believe that gritty, hard travelled soldiers on the obvious final strait of a long war suddenly embrace fatalism and juvenile honour. Moreover, the presentation of time allied to the ever more grating German incompetence completely spoils the battle scene in terms of authenticity and tension.

And these things are a shame, because there is a great war movie screaming to escape these fatal flaws. Pitt chews the scenery well and some of the dialogue during the first two thirds is brilliant.

Disappointing.

LuckyLloyd

Looper007 wrote: »

Thank god it wasn't Saving Private Ryan, a hugely mawkish movie (check out Band of Brothers for Speilbergs true war classic). Fury certainly was glorifying violence like Rambo or Inglorious Basterds, it gave a tough no hold bar view on what it must have been like to be a solider in WW2. Sorry to hear you were disappointed but I had to say you are wrong by placing the movie in that bracket, its a far more Anti-war movie.

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

ollaetta

Enjoyed it a lot but like others I have two serious issues with the ending.

Firstly, we are expected to believe that a disabled tank could successfully repel hundreds of Waffen SS armed with tank destroying Panzerfaust bazookas? Come on, these are not bog standard soldiers but the elite fighting men of the Nazi regime.

Secondly, it is very hard to believe that a member of the Waffen SS who had just lost dozens of his comrades would pretend he hadn't seen the last surviving member that crew under the tank.

J Mysterio

Just got back. Really enjoyed it.

I agree with others in that there is a contrast in realism from the main body of the film and the finale. That is a little jarring but I don't think it detracts too massively from the film overall or, in other words, I still think it was really good. It is true that

* It didn't seem consistent with their determination to survive the war and thereby avoid stupid confrontations

* The SS troop did seem to have plenty of Panzerfausts while marching which weren't used much in the ambush

* The SS troop did fight in a nonsensical fashion and, in reality, would likely have made shorter work of a demobilised and exposed Sherman.

* The SS soldier spotting Lehrman under the tank was rubbish as pointed out by another poster. That should have been scrapped. I guess it was supposed to be a 'respect dude' moment.

The finale aside, I liked the brutal realism, portraying war for what it is. I don't think the Germans came across as particularly incompetent aside from the finale. The Tiger tank battle was awesome.

Characters were great. LeBouef and Bernthal were outstanding, both seeming to exhibit opposite forms of what would be PTSD: one wild and aggressive, the other haunted and somber. Pitt was great too. Lehrman for me was really just the innocent to a) contrast what war had done to the others and b) to show how war hits a person progressively. He did a decent job.

Off the top of my head I have to say this goes right to the top as one of the best WWII film i've seen.

BlitzKrieg

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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

oh god what fairy tale universe do you live in? There are so many better war films out there.


As for Fury i enjoyed it, I dont agree with some of the faults others brought up but I can understand why people feel that way, issues such as

the ending battle could seem off if you are thinking it's a crack SS battalion, but the film had spent it's entire running time insisting that they were no longer facing soldiers, but instead pure fanaticism, the crack SS soldiers are mostly dead or captured by this point. Course this message is muddled in the film itself by bad continuity (as someone pointed out the shot showing columns of panzershrek carrying soldiers and then contradicting it later by having them announce they only have these few in boxes) and strange choices to have a what they seemed to be pushing as a sniper ace taking part.

There are things that bug me from a military accuracy point, but those are issues that frankly are impossible to work around in a movie without either a lot of exposition explaining them away or a potentially dull movie if they were filled in. Chief among which is what the hell was the role of this Sherman group? It makes sense in the first half, they are infantry support tank and that's what they do, but then they are suddenly sent on this tangent that you wouldnt send just a group of shermans to do and on top of that american tank destroyers divisions oddly dont seem to exist in this world? That bugged me but I suspended my disbelief and enjoyed the movie. I very much enjoyed an actual tank duel in a movie which is so damn rare, the last one I remember was the ridiculously OTT russian movie White Tiger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5DIgMWYOlY

which is a very silly movie.


but aside from that from a movie goer perspective I enjoyed myself, I found it a technically impressive movie with some wonderful images. Particularly the one of the american bomber formation which was so tangent from the plot but it stuck in my head. I enjoyed the acting, the reoccurring joke that shia lebeef didnt make me angry is actually quite true and frankly the only thing holding it back was it's muddled script that knew what it wanted to say about the people losing the war and what they become but wasnt sure what to say about those winning the war.

LuckyLloyd

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

oh god what fairy tale universe do you live in? There are so many better war films out there.

If you want to list off all of the war movies with better battle sequences than the start and end of Saving Private Ryan I promise to read the post.

Telecaster58

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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

You have obviously never seen the Russian film Come and See.

errlloyd

Thank god it wasn't Saving Private Ryan, a hugely mawkish movie (check out Band of Brothers for Speilbergs true war classic). Fury certainly was glorifying violence like Rambo or Inglorious Basterds, it gave a tough no hold bar view on what it must have been like to be a solider in WW2. Sorry to hear you were disappointed but I had to say you are wrong by placing the movie in that bracket, its a far more Anti-war movie.

I agree with you about Band of Brothers, though it is unfair for me to compare 10 hours of content with 2 hours of content. Obviously Band of Brothers had much more scope for character development. Indeed I think Fury in some ways lacked the context of what the original tank crew had been through, and while there were some throwbacks to their Africa campaign these weren't developed. I think a series which followed a tank crew from Africa to Berlin would be an incredible lens to view war through and an excellent opportunity for character development.

I disagree with anyone who says Saving Private Ryan glamorises war any more that Fury. So when you say Fury is anti-war I think you imply SPR is "pro war". I think SPR is pretty anti-war. I think the deaths of some characters are pretty hard hitting, the FUBAR scene where they discuss the glider, the beach scene in general demonstrates huge waste of life but in particular I think the desertion scene shows their frustration with the pointlessness of their mission is all fairly anti-war. Nevermind the fact the innocent corporal who comes along as a translator is pretty much the exact same character the typist in Fury!

When I said I wanted a movie of that sort, I meant in tone, historical accuracy and pacing. Fury was a weirdly paced movie, with violence that was almost humorous and no real semblance of historical accuracy or fairness. For example, in Saving Private Ryan at no point on the beach scene did I think "this is ridiculous to the point where it is almost laughable" as characters died. I spent the entire final scene of fury

as Pitt was standing exposed on the side of a tank with German soldiers literally all around him shooting randomly into the smoke

thinking "this is ridiculous". The lack of realism prevented me from engaging with any larger concept of war. I don't know if Fury glamorises war or not, because I didn't really feel what I was watching was an actual war.

There are a couple of scenes that are quite similar in the two films. For example

both SPV and Fury have scenes were burning Nazi soldiers emerge from cover. In SPV it is at the end of the beach assault, and I feel you can hear the frustration and bitterness in a soldier who shouts "don't shoot, let them burn", in Fury after the Norman shoots them Garcia says "you should have let them burn". To me it just doesn't work as well for a number of reasons, one is because it is not instant, so it doesn't show the same level of frustration, the second is because the scene leading up to it isn't as intense as the beach scene in Ryan and finally it just doesn't seem like something you would say to a guy like Norman, who has literally only just come around to the idea of killing in the first place.

Things in Fury like

driving the tank over corpses in the road and seeing the bodies hung by the SS

certainly hit me on an emotive level. They weren't as crude as other demonstrations of violence in the film.

I actually think what I am saying mostly comes down to the ending. I didn't buy it. I think there were three motivations for the ending,

1: They wanted to complete their mission, 2: They didn't want to run away, 3: The tank was like a home to them, and they weren't going to abandon it. I think all three of those could have been explored much better. 1: Could have stemmed from a sense of duty, but at no point in the film did I feel the crew had a sense of duty, in contrast with Tom Hanks in SPR following through with his mission because it was his way home. 2. The reason I don't buy the never give up lets not run away aspect is because I don't feel the men had much honour left, the film depicts them mostly as guys who had given up on honour / dignity / respect (which is fine, I have no issue with that portrayal). 3 I would have loved if they had developed the tank as a character almost. Their tank had little personalisation or whatever. I mean it was the grave yard of one of their comrades, I think I could have bought that more.

Anyway, some assorted thoughts.

LuckyLloyd

Telecaster58 wrote: »

You have obviously never seen the Russian film Come and See.

I have seen Come and See and it is utterly brilliant. I think to be more specific Saving Private Ryan is the best depiction of combat committed to screen. Come and See is more in the line of Apocalypse Now for me, i.e. it is focussed on the hellish, callous and psychological aspects of war outside of the conventional battle theatre.

Slimseamie

Seen this today, entertaining film with some good acting, girlfriend was horrified by the violence, I did warn her! (and it is a war movie, ha) did anybody else think

the bullets flying during battles looked like Star Wars, green and red flashes?! I presume to differentiate between allies and nazi's, quite silly!

ktulu123

Slimseamie wrote: »

the bullets flying during battles looked like Star Wars, green and red flashes?! I presume to differentiate between allies and nazi's, quite silly!

They were presumably firing HE/APC-T (High Explosive/Armored Piercing Capped - Tracer) rounds. Thought it looked awesome in the film. Here are some M1A1 Abrams tanks firing tracer rounds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQulTI-wcjI

Slimseamie

ktulu123 wrote: »

They were presumably firing HE/APC-T (High Explosive/Armored Piercing Capped - Tracer) rounds. Thought it looked awesome in the film. Here are some M1A1 Abrams tanks firing tracer rounds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQulTI-wcjI

Ha my bad, you have showed up my lack of ammunition knowledge!

siblers

errlloyd wrote: »

I agree with you about Band of Brothers, though it is unfair for me to compare 10 hours of content with 2 hours of content. Obviously Band of Brothers had much more scope for character development. Indeed I think Fury in some ways lacked the context of what the original tank crew had been through, and while there were some throwbacks to their Africa campaign these weren't developed. I think a series which followed a tank crew from Africa to Berlin would be an incredible lens to view war through and an excellent opportunity for character development.

I disagree with anyone who says Saving Private Ryan glamorises war any more that Fury. So when you say Fury is anti-war I think you imply SPR is "pro war". I think SPR is pretty anti-war. I think the deaths of some characters are pretty hard hitting, the FUBAR scene where they discuss the glider, the beach scene in general demonstrates huge waste of life but in particular I think the desertion scene shows their frustration with the pointlessness of their mission is all fairly anti-war. Nevermind the fact the innocent corporal who comes along as a translator is pretty much the exact same character the typist in Fury!

When I said I wanted a movie of that sort, I meant in tone, historical accuracy and pacing. Fury was a weirdly paced movie, with violence that was almost humorous and no real semblance of historical accuracy or fairness. For example, in Saving Private Ryan at no point on the beach scene did I think "this is ridiculous to the point where it is almost laughable" as characters died. I spent the entire final scene of fury

as Pitt was standing exposed on the side of a tank with German soldiers literally all around him shooting randomly into the smoke

thinking "this is ridiculous". The lack of realism prevented me from engaging with any larger concept of war. I don't know if Fury glamorises war or not, because I didn't really feel what I was watching was an actual war.

There are a couple of scenes that are quite similar in the two films. For example

both SPV and Fury have scenes were burning Nazi soldiers emerge from cover. In SPV it is at the end of the beach assault, and I feel you can hear the frustration and bitterness in a soldier who shouts "don't shoot, let them burn", in Fury after the Norman shoots them Garcia says "you should have let them burn". To me it just doesn't work as well for a number of reasons, one is because it is not instant, so it doesn't show the same level of frustration, the second is because the scene leading up to it isn't as intense as the beach scene in Ryan and finally it just doesn't seem like something you would say to a guy like Norman, who has literally only just come around to the idea of killing in the first place.

Things in Fury like

driving the tank over corpses in the road and seeing the bodies hung by the SS

certainly hit me on an emotive level. They weren't as crude as other demonstrations of violence in the film.

I actually think what I am saying mostly comes down to the ending. I didn't buy it. I think there were three motivations for the ending,

1: They wanted to complete their mission, 2: They didn't want to run away, 3: The tank was like a home to them, and they weren't going to abandon it. I think all three of those could have been explored much better. 1: Could have stemmed from a sense of duty, but at no point in the film did I feel the crew had a sense of duty, in contrast with Tom Hanks in SPR following through with his mission because it was his way home. 2. The reason I don't buy the never give up lets not run away aspect is because I don't feel the men had much honour left, the film depicts them mostly as guys who had given up on honour / dignity / respect (which is fine, I have no issue with that portrayal). 3 I would have loved if they had developed the tank as a character almost. Their tank had little personalisation or whatever. I mean it was the grave yard of one of their comrades, I think I could have bought that more.

Anyway, some assorted thoughts.

I thought the reasons for them wanting to stay and fight at the end was reasonable enough, It was pretty clear how much they hated members of the SS, plus the fact that the tank was the last line of defence between the SS and a town full of medical staff and chefs so for them to stay and fight seemed like the right thing to do.

Apart from the somewhat absurdity of the final battle my biggest problem with the film was the way in which it was edited. The scene where

where Shia left the tank to get a weapon and then Norman randomly appeared and saved his life, they asked him why he took so long, so it seemed like he was looking for something in particular but it was never made clear, plus other stuff like how when they first engaged the SS it was day and then it suddenly switched to night time, large chunks of the film seemed left on the editing room floor

Theboinkmaster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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

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

Platoon for one.

Looper007

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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

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

Looper007

Telecaster58 wrote: »

You have obviously never seen the Russian film Come and See.

Great movie but very unsettling which war is especially watching the lad aging as he is put through hell (the scene when he and the young girl return to his village and he finds no one about as he runs off the girl turns around to see the whole village has been massacred a pile of bodies are behind a house, that scene is frightening), unlike Private Ryan which is flag waving and mawkish which is Steven Spielberg's biggest fault. Far too many overlook this cause of the awesome opening 20 minutes.

cloud493

Looper007 wrote: »

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

Not a movie though, tv series. And BOB is far from perfect, though its very good.

fxotoole

Watched this movie the other day. Very grim, brutal movie. Don't go into it expecting an action movie.

Looper007

cloud493 wrote: »

Not a movie though, tv series. And BOB is far from perfect, though its very good.

Far from perfect :eek: sorry you know you are wrong don't you Cloud :pac:
True its a TV show but still Speilberg's best War movie/show to date as it withholds from his over reliance of mawkish and flag waving.