colinjames850 Started off really well and I thought that it would be in Saving Private Ryan class but descended into farce with a badly damaged tank holding off heavily armed troops with hand held anti tank weapons. I was really looking forward to watching Fury and ended up disappointed with it.

cloeraspall April 1945 during World War II, 5 soldiers in the tank fighting against German in a very risky mission between violence and brotherhood. For me it's one of the best film I have seen, an excellent casting (Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Shia LaBeouf...) with amazing acting. This film is really moving, we can project us in the violence, the difficulty of living during WWII. Logan Lerman's role puts us in the place of a young soldier between joy of youth and horror of the war. Fury is really realistic it's like if we were here with them on the battlefield, we can feel tension because of the danger of their mission. I think we can't really imagine what soldiers lived and this film is not just about heroic soldiers, don't forget they are just humansI have no other arguments so please JUST WATCH FURY

Mccadoo I have a family member, in his 90's now, who was a tanker in WWII in Europe. He got through about half of this movie before he turned it off in disgust. The rest of us in the room agreed with him wholeheartedly and in fact, some of us had voted to stop it before then but he kept hoping it would get better.I remember the exact moment he, and the rest of us gave up on it; the scene were they're eating a meal with the German women in their apartment and acting like knuckle dragging Neanderthals, My Uncle told us, almost in tears, that no one he ever saw in the service acted like that toward Germans or anyone else, they never executed prisoners in cold blood, not that he ever saw although he admitted it may have happened he knew it wasn't common. Overall they were just trying to do their jobs, stay alive, and come out of the war alive with their sanity, their humanity and their minds intact. This movie disturbed him, and the few service friends he has left, greatly and I'm sorry he ever saw it.I wasn't expecting much going into this movie to begin with because Brad Pitt is a terrible actor and overall, his movies aren't that good. And as bad an actor as Pitt is, he looks like Lawrence Olivier compared to Shia LaBouf who's also in the movie and overacts in every single scene he's in, possibly in an attempt to conceal that fact that he can't act... If your anti-American and/or anti-military this is definitely the movie for you, enjoy! If you believe that all allied soldiers in WWII should be honored for doing an incredibly dangerous job as well as they could and helped keep the world free avoid this movie completely because it will make you ill.And if you know anything at all about history, you know...history? As in the actual recording of facts, occurrences and events as they actually happened, you'll know that this movie is nonsense from beginning to end. It seems a lot of reviewers here seem to think Hollywood's version of WWII is what really happened. In defense of this piece of trash they reference other Hollywood movies, not documentaries or history books...other movies. If that's the extent of your knowledge of history then I submit to you that you're opinion of this movie is worthless. And in reading through all those reviews I solved the mystery of how this terrible film could have such a high rating on IMDB; the positive reviews are repeated over and over and over again. I read some positive reviews four and five times...while the negative ones seemed to only appear once. I wonder what is happening there?It's just a shame that a clueless dolt like Brad Pitt and everyone else involved, got the green light to dis-respect WWII soldiers with this project, I wouldn't expect him to understand that, I doubt he has the sense got gave a donut and Hollywood is generally anti-military, and at times anti-American anyway, but somewhere along the way someone should have realized that this piece of drek was an insult to the men who served, and died, in World War II.

robertmaybeth Probably earns itself a spot in one of the top 10 war movies ever, if only for the great effort made at historical accuracy. The genuine Sherman tanks used in the movie, along with one of the only running Tiger tanks left in the world, really give this movie a fantastic historical feel. That, and the fact that they do not try to portray American troops as real "good guys" as they murder surrendered prisoners and do other things not so nice. I don't doubt these incidents occurred in World War 2, as they do in every war - but there are some genuinely ugly moments in this movie that taint the movie slightly - no doubt as intended, since real war is a million times uglier. Nevertheless, the story has enough scenes to give you something close to a feeling on what being an American tanker in WW2 was like. The movie moves along briskly from the beginning, and never slows down for long, especially not with excess character development - but enough is revealed about the main characters to show that the tank crew believes they are all more or less a collection of doomed men. The crew know they are probably going to die before the war ends - it's 1945 and the Germans are fighting harder then ever, now that they are on home ground - and their every word and action reflects this idea. So it's no surprise that we will take on the viewpoint of the newby of the group. Norman (Logan Lerman) is a GI that's ordered into Fury (the Sherman tank and the real star) as a radio operator when their last one is KIA. .. and it's Norman's eyes we see the movie through, since he is just as unprepared for what is going to happen as we in the audience are. Sent to stop German forces in a last minute defensive action, Fury and her fellow Sherman tanks face German army and SS troops in a virtual whirl-wind of crashing violence and furious attacks from a desperate enemy. There's nothing to say about this in a review without ruining the movie, but there were several glaring errors in the portrayal of wartime events...nothing bad enough to spoil the movie, but just enough to be annoying to WW2 history/weapons buffs. For instance, we are several times shown columns of marching German troops, who are heavily armed and are equipped with several Panzerfausts (German one shot bazookas) yet not once is one of them even fired at Fury! Moreover, "War daddy" (Brad Pitt) is shown popping out of the commander's hatch of Fury and firing a captured Sturmgewehr MP 44 (German assault rifle) at enemy. There is nothing truly wrong or unauthentic with this - all sides often used captured weapons, but an MP44 would be a very clumsy weapon to be used from the hatch of a Sherman tank (or any tank). This particular rifle was over 3 feet long, and using it from a tank hatch would be very impractical and would seem to involve quite a lot of fumbling. It would also be ridiculously slow to bring into action (tank crews were usually armed with .45 1911 pistols or M3 Grease gun submachine gun for this reason, NOT a full size rifle - even a carbine would really be too long).Despite the few (very few) silly aspects and historical inaccuracies that happen in this movie, overall this is one of the very best tank movies ever made (the only better one is "The beast of war"). "Fury" is a very good war film, and definitely worth a watch by any war movie fan.