What's The Latest Film You Have Seen?

**Yac** · 12-15-2014, 08:33 AM

Fury.
What a meh kind of movie it was ...
But maybe I was expecting too much ? As a war and history fan, as a tank fan, I was expecting something more .... real ? I don't know why really. All I got was yet another story about how war is hell (duh), how those "dangerous" Germans suddenly forget how to fight and of course how our heroes are more lucky than smart most of the time.
And the cherry on top were the green and red tracer bullets fired by both sides, making some battle scenes look like it was the next Star Wars movie or whatnot. Completely silly and completely unnecessary.
It had some nice visuals and Shia LeBouf didn't suck

Acting was ok, and the lack of serious character development is not the actors fault so I'll give them the credit for trying.
4/10. If you've never seen a war movie, you might like it.

The Batlord · 12-15-2014, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yac

Fury.
What a meh kind of movie it was ...
But maybe I was expecting too much ? As a war and history fan, as a tank fan, I was expecting something more .... real ? I don't know why really. All I got was yet another story about how war is hell (duh), how those "dangerous" Germans suddenly forget how to fight and of course how our heroes are more lucky than smart most of the time.
And the cherry on top were the green and red tracer bullets fired by both sides, making some battle scenes look like it was the next Star Wars movie or whatnot. Completely silly and completely unnecessary.
It had some nice visuals and Shia LeBouf didn't suck

Acting was ok, and the lack of serious character development is not the actors fault so I'll give them the credit for trying.
4/10. If you've never seen a war movie, you might like it.

I liked it better than that. I thought it was a highly competent Saving Private Ryan clone. And that tank battle between the Shermans and the Tiger was worth the price of admission alone. Why they didn't have more of that, I don't know.

**Exo** · 12-15-2014, 02:41 PM

The sound design in that film was price of admission. Shia was actually really great in it too.

Zhanteimi · 12-15-2014, 04:04 PM

Singin' in the Rain

**Yac** · 12-16-2014, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I liked it better than that. I thought it was a highly competent Saving Private Ryan clone. And that tank battle between the Shermans and the Tiger was worth the price of admission alone. Why they didn't have more of that, I don't know.

Ha, well maybe it's just me being an old man

I remember Saving Private Ryan was a truly shocking and awe inspiring movie, with memorable characters and less silly battles. Fury was ... if it was a clone, it was one of those Asylum clones, like "Snakes ona Train" or "The DaVinci Treasure"

Now I know all about keyboard cowboys that know everything better etc and believe me I'm not one of them when I say the Tiger/Sherman battle was simply stupid. I can't say it wasn't entertaining, but after reading several dozen books on tank battles (I really have), I just wish once our heroes won not because of pure luck but because of skill and tactical thinking. Band of brothers had some of that, Pacific had it too (about the only time in a movie I saw soldiers moving their MG to counter a flank attack), Fury had very little or none of that.
But like I said, it's probably me - expecting a silly Hollywood blockbuster to treat the matter seriously. How naive.
The sound was very good, on that I can agree.

The Batlord · 12-16-2014, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yac

the Tiger/Sherman battle was simply stupid. I can't say it wasn't entertaining, but after reading several dozen books on tank battles (I really have), I just wish once our heroes won not because of pure luck but because of skill and tactical thinking.

But they did use tactics. They used the Sherman's greater mobility to get around behind the Tiger to hit it where its armor was weakest.

**Yac** · 12-16-2014, 08:06 AM

A nobel prize in tactics for that one!

They can fight like they did in World of Tanks, in so called "real life" tiger's 88 mm KwK 36 L/5 (~8 rounds per minute rate of fire) didn't bounce off shermans or logs of wood, it went straight through shermans. At 2 km. The fighting took place on a distance of 500-1000 meters, at this distance Tigers gun had a 93% combat hit rate and would penetrate(assuming it's using the "regular" PzGr 39 ammo, not the more advanced shells that were introduced later on) 99mm (at 1000meters) to 110mm (at 500meters) of armor (sloped at 30 degrees), while the M4A3E8 "easy eight" sherman our heroes were driving had 73mm of armor in the thickest spot.
That Tiger wouldn't move, it would just take down these fools charing through the middle of the field in 4 shots.
So there. I'm a huge nerd. That's probably why I didn't enjoy Fury too much

Edit: they got one thing right though - penetrating tigers armor using the 76mm M1A2 gun on the E8 tiger would be very hard unless done at almost point blank range (if at all possible from the front)

Chula Vista · 12-16-2014, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exo_

The One I Love

I can't even say anything about this one. Seriously, not a thing. It's best to go to this totally blind and just let the film happen. One of the most unique films I've ever seen and features fantastic performances from Mark Duplass and Elizabeth Moss. One of my favorites of the year.

9/10

Watched this last night. 10/10. What a freaking trip of a movie.

The Batlord · 12-16-2014, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yac

A nobel prize in tactics for that one!

They can fight like they did in World of Tanks, in so called "real life" tiger's 88 mm KwK 36 L/5 (~8 rounds per minute rate of fire) didn't bounce off shermans or logs of wood, it went straight through shermans. At 2 km. The fighting took place on a distance of 500-1000 meters, at this distance Tigers gun had a 93% combat hit rate and would penetrate(assuming it's using the "regular" PzGr 39 ammo, not the more advanced shells that were introduced later on) 99mm (at 1000meters) to 110mm (at 500meters) of armor (sloped at 30 degrees), while the M4A3E8 "easy eight" sherman our heroes were driving had 73mm of armor in the thickest spot.
That Tiger wouldn't move, it would just take down these fools charing through the middle of the field in 4 shots.
So there. I'm a huge nerd. That's probably why I didn't enjoy Fury too much

Edit: they got one thing right though - penetrating tigers armor using the 76mm M1A2 gun on the E8 tiger would be very hard unless done at almost point blank range (if at all possible from the front)

Oh god I love it when you talk dirty. What would be some good English language books on WWII tank stuff anyway?

**Exo** · 12-16-2014, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

We should get a wee film club going on here. Who'd be interested? This is how the Nouvelle Vague got started.

We still doing this?

12-15-2014, 02:41 PM	#14733 (permalink)
Exo All day jazz and biscuits Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NJ Posts: 7,354	The sound design in that film was price of admission. Shia was actually really great in it too. __________________ LastFM SUPREME POO BAH MODERATOR EXTRAORDINAIRE

12-15-2014, 08:33 AM	#14731 (permalink)
Yac Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: It's a secret too. Posts: 1,363	Fury. What a meh kind of movie it was ... But maybe I was expecting too much ? As a war and history fan, as a tank fan, I was expecting something more .... real ? I don't know why really. All I got was yet another story about how war is hell (duh), how those "dangerous" Germans suddenly forget how to fight and of course how our heroes are more lucky than smart most of the time. And the cherry on top were the green and red tracer bullets fired by both sides, making some battle scenes look like it was the next Star Wars movie or whatnot. Completely silly and completely unnecessary. It had some nice visuals and Shia LeBouf didn't suck Acting was ok, and the lack of serious character development is not the actors fault so I'll give them the credit for trying. 4/10. If you've never seen a war movie, you might like it.

12-15-2014, 04:04 PM	#14734 (permalink)
Zhanteimi Mord Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Tokyo Posts: 4,873	Singin' in the Rain

12-16-2014, 08:06 AM	#14737 (permalink)
Yac Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: It's a secret too. Posts: 1,363	A nobel prize in tactics for that one! They can fight like they did in World of Tanks, in so called "real life" tiger's 88 mm KwK 36 L/5 (~8 rounds per minute rate of fire) didn't bounce off shermans or logs of wood, it went straight through shermans. At 2 km. The fighting took place on a distance of 500-1000 meters, at this distance Tigers gun had a 93% combat hit rate and would penetrate(assuming it's using the "regular" PzGr 39 ammo, not the more advanced shells that were introduced later on) 99mm (at 1000meters) to 110mm (at 500meters) of armor (sloped at 30 degrees), while the M4A3E8 "easy eight" sherman our heroes were driving had 73mm of armor in the thickest spot. That Tiger wouldn't move, it would just take down these fools charing through the middle of the field in 4 shots. So there. I'm a huge nerd. That's probably why I didn't enjoy Fury too much Edit: they got one thing right though - penetrating tigers armor using the 76mm M1A2 gun on the E8 tiger would be very hard unless done at almost point blank range (if at all possible from the front)