Solid Snake

I don't mind a Sam Jackson Nick Fury but I also love the work that white Fury has been in. I love the old SHIELD comics. Those were way awesome for me as a little kid. For some reason that era really attracted me as a kid.

Solid Snake

Just saw Fury.

My first reaction is that... this is a very very beautiful looking movie. Fucking GORGEOUS imagery in even its ugly nature. I'd seriously get a photo book of this film if there was/is one. I can't say I've seen a period film shot in digital aside from Public Enemies but this one looked fucking great. None of the issues that Mann had in that period, IMO. I was wowed by the picture. Probably the best looking WWII film for me. All its beauty and ugliness was in the frame. Great great imagery.

The film? Pretty badass. Doesn't bullshit around really. The men have a mission and they keep going as shit keeps piling up. Emotions realistically hit their stressed ups and downs. It treads certain narrative beats as WWII team of guys films do at times but it also makes more earnest and blunt about it too. Which is nice for me.

The action itself is pretty damn cool. The tank battle bit was awesome. It really attracted me in learning how such tactics in an actual live environment goes. Nice bit of info. The Tiger used is an actual Tiger tank. The only one that's operational, a first for a film. Externally it's period accurate but the inner workings are not... supposedly.

Pitt is fine as he usually is. Did justice to that type of guy. I must bring up though that the supporting cast, major or minor, were fucking awesome. They all had a certain nuance that adds so much to a film like this. Solid acting all around.

Everything was pretty damn good for this. One of my favorites of the year. It was just pretty damn cool.

arminius

The Bovington Tiger I,131, is all real except the engine is from a Tiger II and it has had a modern fire-suppressant system installed.

http://www.tiger-tank.com/

Dr. DVD

Saw it. It was good, but very hardcore. Jon Bernthal seems to specialize in playing assholes. My only question is

Solid Snake

It was the latter.

hanshotfirst1138

Thought this was decent, the tank angle was at least somewhat novel for an American war flick, but ultimately it doesn't bring a lot that's new, but a decent war flick. Knockout cinematography though, was this the DP's first American feature? I'd never heard of him. Was this shot digitally? I thought it was film?

Tabletopjoe

Speaking of Tank films. Anyone remember the tank film, The Beast? It made the rounds on cable in the 90's. I remember liking it quite a bit when I was a kid. Haven't seen it in ages. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094716/...nm_flmg_act_35

hanshotfirst1138

There was an Israeli tank movie a few years ago which showed war entirely from the perspective of inside the tank called Lebanon. I didn't see it, but it was quite controversial and won a number of awards.

K&AJones

Tigers were no joke in WWII. One thing the Germans knew was build stuff right and about better than anyone else. The Tiger Tanks were ahead of their time and with the weight, armor and guns was the perfect Tank back then. I was reading the wiki on the "88" Gun and the sights used and found this just amazing....

In British wartime firing trials, five successive hits were scored on a 410 by 460 mm (16 by 18 in) target at a range of 1,100 metres (3,600 ft).[9] Tigers were reported to have knocked out enemy tanks at ranges greater than 4.0 kilometres (2.5 mi), although most World War II engagements were fought at much shorter ranges.

Solid Snake

jesus.

The tank fight was fucking awesome. I'd watch it again just for that.

dhmac

Nazi Germany's tank improvements that lead to the Tiger Tank and the Panther Tank were highly driven by the main competing Soviet tank, the T-34, which was far superior to the earlier German Panzer III and IV tanks. The American M4 Sherman tank was so far behind technologically by 1944 that it was basically a piece of junk compared to the Tiger, Panther, or T-34 tank.

UngersPride

Here is a documentary doing a battle comparison of a Tiger Tank vs a Sherman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj0AzL95Weg

dhmac

I liked the movie overall, but hated the reasoning for the final battle.

Why?

Solid Snake

made sense to me.

dhmac

Wow! What a great comparison that's then marred by a fucked-up final analysis.

So... just 1 Tiger tank takes out 3 Shermans before being taken out by a 4th Sherman tank. The Tiger is clearly superior to the Sherman, correct? Nope, not according to this show because the Shermans were manufactured in much higher numbers, hence they were determined to be superior overall.

Huh?

What about all the Sherman tank crews who died because their tank was easily blown up by a Tiger tank? Were they easily replaced too?

And the fact that U.S. and its un-bombed-out factories could have manufactured any tank in high volumes, so the high number of Shermans could have been replaced by a high number of tanks capable of taking on the Tiger tank... not even considered by the show.

(At least the surviving Sherman tank crew members were factual - every one said they would pick being in a Tiger over being in a Sherman.)

dhmac

Not to me.

Once...

Solid Snake

Sometimes it's best to lose a few guys in taking out a shit ton....

devilshalo

I liked everything except the SS guy letting Machine live.

hanshotfirst1138

Found this solid but kind of unremarkable. The tank angle was somewhat novel, I haven't seen tons of war films which have followed that particular perspective, but I mostly found the storyline itself a little too familiar. The hardened leader, the religious guy, the new guy, the pretty girl who dies, the platoon's last stand, I just felt like it was all stuff I'd seen before. The cinematography was wonderfully bleak and I love Ayers' choice to shoot 35mm, thought the grain and texture were wonderful, and performances were solid, I just felt like I'd seen a lot of this before. Apparently LeBouf went nuts on set to get into character, yanked out one of this teeth, cut up his face, and wouldn't take a show, I guess it was contentious between him and the rest of the cast. His off-camera behavior lately has been utterly bizarre. Maybe he's attempting to do penance for starring Michael Bay films . I though his performance itself was solid though.

Osiris3657

^You're aware that you posted your thoughts on this back on 10/19, right? It's almost word for word. See above.

I liked it but it was nothing spectacular. Agreed that it was odd seeing the German soldier not give up Norman.

Good action sequences, good acting, but the characters weren't memorable and just stereotypes. The story was also lacking, I wasn't invested in it. I didn't really care what was happening or why they were doing it.

I'd grade the film something like: Action-A, Acting-A, Cinematography-B, Characters-C, Story-C

RichC2

That's about par for the course with Ayers.

EddieMoney

You're probably thinking of the Jason Patric movie from 1988.

Jazzbutcher

Saw it last night. Good, but not great. The action scenes were pretty amazing though. Agree with the comments about the supporting cast. As much as I hate to admit it, Shia LaBeouf gave the best performance IMHO.

hanshotfirst1138

No, I wasn't. It was late at night, wasn't thinking.

Why So Blu?

I'm seeing this tomorrow afternoon, so can't read the comments or spoilers, but if y'all want to see a really fucking cool tan movie then rent "Lebanon." It takes place in the cramped quarters of a tank and almost plays like one of those video game simulators. It's the film that inspired David Cronenberg when he was making Cosmopolis.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/D-_kE5QD_W4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>