"FURY" [upcoming WW2 tank warfare film]

[ssparatrooper]

I didn't find it dark

I just asked my missus and she said no it was ok she picked her son out ok

People doing a **** job that is hard on their nerves and they muck about doing silly ****! Just like when I was a paratrooper we done **** like that

[NZMark]

infantry against tank! they were marching along in Germany going forward to fight and did not expect a tank to be there! but they still sent a zug forward to do a recce ! as there objective was further on (look up SS panzer brigade westfahlen) fury was a speed bump the blokes destroyed the tank and moved on.
Ummm....did that just give-away the ending??

[ssparatrooper]

please adjust your posts as per my edit

[kammo man]

Mark
There are trailers on line

[Scott A. Hess]

Disappointing...read why..

Just saw the film..first of all, I DID like the film and the story, however, its a bit of a stretch to see I really "saw" the movie, the whole thing was as many have reported extremely dark, and it was near impossible to make out any, and I mean any of the detail that went into the film in most of the battle scenes.

The trailer I "saw" on my large high def pc was great, I could see the print and action just fine, however, what I saw at the movie was night and day in comparison, the whole thing looked like someone messed with the camera, or post edit, only to leave a dark, blurry print in which ANY of the details of the SS uniforms/gear/smocks etc etc were really impossible to see. The shot of the SS men marching, they might as well have been wearing Japanese flight suits, the only thing I could make out was the sillouhete of some helmets and some NCO tresse and "uniforms" only because I knew what to look for.
The scene where the SS men are lined up against the wall (I assume SS) I could make out no detail whatsoever, I could see some sort of camo was involved, but again, it was out of focus, dark, and just plain hard to see.
The only time I really saw Dot camo was when the one girl, or guy, came out hands up out of the bank and looked like a dot set...but thats it.

In the first 10 minutes, Brad Pitt or one of the crew members pulls a photo off the inside of the tank, looking at it, couldn't make heads or tails at what he was looking at, could have been a rodeo clown on a horse for all I could see.

I know maybe it was attempt to show the "dark fog of war", but this was just way overdone. Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers which was also processed in this muted tone, was still done in such a way to allow the viewer to clearly make out the details of the environment, the terrain, vehicles, soldiers, uniforms and gear, whatever was done here was just plain wrong. I find it hard to believe that some people are seen a "clear" copy of the film and others not, its not the 1930s and I can't imagine such a clear screw up would occur. Maybe they will sort it out for the blu ray HD verision, not sure, but compare this film as many of us have complained to Das Boot, where despite being inside a cramped Uboot, the details of the crew and the environment are crisp, pleasing on the eyes, without being shot in a way that looked like "Saints in Soldiers", in which uniform looked brand spanking new, no dirt or grime, and not authentic at all.

All in all, ALL the fine work and detail that went into the filme IMO is lost due to this. I really would enjoy seeing it again just to support the film, hell, evena third time, but its just a strain on the eyes, and its annoying as hell, disappointing too. If I want to see some good shots of SS camo and such, much easier to open up my closet and play with things at home...sadly...I believe Kammo Man probably went to a lot of time and effort to get this done "right" and Im sure it was, however, what was shot just did not translate onto a clean visible print.

[Scott A. Hess]

Mark
There are trailers on line

Just rewatched the film trailers, they are quite clear, crisp and good looking, they are NOT a valid comparison to the movie which unfortunately I and many saw. I could watch the move as shown in the trailer start to finish if presented so and would give it a big thumbs up, however, the trailers are in no war representative as to what I saw at the theater in a 3 year old movie theater, which makes what I saw all the more disappointing, and frustrating. Clearly someone F*&*ED something up. I can't recommend seeing the film as it was shown...its just awful the more I look at the trailers. I imagine the big weekend draw at the box office was front end anticipation and that if a dozen or more of us are complaining here about the quality of the piece, others must be too. Pretty sad, hard to recommend a movie you cant really see on the screen.

[kammo man]

"FURY" [upcoming WW2 tank warfare film]

That's just weird as no professional reviews mentioned this al all.
What complex did you see it !
That's clearly where the problem lies it seems.

[NZMark]

Mark
There are trailers on line

Yes Owen,
Obviously I've seen them. These do not give details that would reduce the drama/tension of the story-line, though.
ssparatrooper - unfortunately I cannot edit my post due to the timed edit facility. If the moderator would kindly remove my posting I would be happy for him to do so
Regards,
Mark

[Scott A. Hess]

The really sad thing about this film is how the director managed to secure the millions necessary to get it made, contracted out some really talented and passionate people to help with the production of the uniforms, rented a ton of nicely restored German and American vehicles (most notably the Bovington Tiger I) and then completely blew it with a totally crap script, subpar cinematography, and just outright bad editing.

Another thing which was just so damn annoying was how dark the film was. The trailer for the film looks nice and bright but the final film was some how darkened to the point that it looked like I was watching it with a pair of dark sun glasses on. I thought perhaps there might have been a problem with the digital projection at the theater but I later called another friend who saw the film last night as well and he said the film was dark also so now I know this was done by the director in post production during editing. But why??? All of the detail with the uniforms and equipment was completely lost with this dark overcast look.

This film was just bad, bad, bad. And I so wanted it to be good, good, good!
Which is why it is so heartbreaking to have to tell you this movie failed on every level.
The one thing I can speak positive about was the sound design. The sound effects for all the weapons firing and the artillery shells flying overhead was really impressive.

It will be interesting to see how well the film does at the box office. Maybe this film will appeal to teenage boys who only know WWII from playing hours of the video game Call of Duty. But the WWII portrayed in this movie is one that I am not familiar with at all. After seeing this awful film I now appreciate even more Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan and HBO's Band of Brothers series. One is a made up story that kept you interested and the other was great because it was totally based on real life stories from the veterans. But the screenplay for FURY is just outright ridiculous and an insult to the veterans who fought in the conflict.

I'll be interested to hear what other members think of the film after they see it.

Ditto, Remy is 100% spot on, it was like watching a movie with sunglasses on, no better way to describe it, thanks to SS Paratrooper for posting all the photos of the movie in production, at least I got an idea of what I missed!

[Mike Davis]

I finally saw it last night as well. It was a bit strange seeing the film on the big screen and to compare the finished product with memories from observing actual filming on the set. Anyway, I viewed it with a group of 'normal' people, both male and female - and ALL were favorably impressed. There was no talking in the theatre during the screening but a certainly lots of discussion afterwards!

I can only imagine the challenges the director must have faced in creating a film of this kind. Consider the constituents that had to be served. First and foremost there was The Budget which ultimately had to drive key decisions about cast, plot and dialogue. Stars had to be selected for their potential box office draw and the storyline had to have the widest commercial appeal. Considerations of historical accuracy, although important, most likely were secondary.

So the makers of the film probably had to balance their ideals for the film with the real world dictates of studio decision makers and, ultimately, prevailing political correctness. Therefore a bit of a balancing act was necessary. A wise director spending the studio's money would make a film that would resonate with a mass audience of millions rather than with just a few thousand collectors.

Considering all of this I think Fury rather remarkable. It gives collectors something to pore over for years to come while delivering an entertainment vehicle (and an anti war statement) to a mass audience. To my mind it is a welcome diversion to the idiotic superhero flicks that seemed to be favored by so many 'adults' nowadays. I am looking forward to seeing it again.

By the way, I did not notice any particular problems with darkness but then we selected a high quality cinema in The ATL.

[Killerbee]

That's just weird as no professional reviews mentioned this al all.
What complex did you see it !
That's clearly where the problem lies it seems.

Owen, "professional" reviews mean nothing... who even reads or listen to any of them? No one I know do because most are hacks and are always wrong or biased. If I listen to any of them, I'd never see a movie.

The Grumpy Guy

[Scott A. Hess]

That's just weird as no professional reviews mentioned this al all.
What complex did you see it !
That's clearly where the problem lies it seems.

Owen..Im not sitting here making this stuff up...I'm telling you exactly what I saw with my own eyes, however bad they may be, I can clearly discern that something is wrong with the film I saw. I didn't see the movie at an old shopping mall theater from the 70's, saw it at the Palladio Theater in Folsom CA, its 3 years old, and certainly as high tech as they get. There is an older theater four miles from me, I could see it again tomorrow, but what assurance if any do I have that I wont need night vision goggles to see it in that theater? Im not trying to slam the film, I really really want to see it as I saw it in the trailers, however, its seems there are others who are complaining about the same problem, so its not some completely isolated case of a person griping. Never had any issues with any movies I've seen at that complex..its high end. I'll wait for it to come on HD...wish I could see all the action on big screen, but it just is not happening here.
AS to the problem lying with the theater again I dont imagine it takes a rocket scientist to run those projectors (do they evern use reels anymore? dont know) but the place is like any theater staffed by 17 year olds...its got to be a pretty bullet proof way to "show" a movie so that even they dont screw it up.

[Scott A. Hess]

I finally saw it last night as well.................

By the way, I did not notice any particular problems with darkness but then we selected a high quality cinema in The ATL.

Mike, I didnt drive down to the hood to watch the film, would that even matter?...most of the houses surrounding this theater are in the low 500k to 1.5+ mil range. Its quite a high quality area, probably a reason I can afford to buy high quality things.

[kammo man]

Scott
You made your point.
I just asked for the theater name not an essay
O

[Scott A. Hess]

Scott
You made your point.
I just asked for the theater name not an essay
O

I'll reply how I desire, you as you desire, you don't want to read my post/reply, dont read them. I get the feeling those who say we are mistaken in what we saw are making this stuff up, or dont know what we are seeing. I dont think what theater we saw the movie at means anything...you think there are high end professionals up there in the booth with Doctorates?