amazon-171-436558

I enjoyed watching the film. The gritty realism of how it was filmed was spot on. The actors performances are all great. You really got absorbed into the story.

For these aspects i'ts on a par with 'Saving Private Ryan'.

Where it looses points (with me any way) are the absurdities.

Private Ryan and his little band of infantry, ends at a bridge that must be held because it's the only bridge for the Germans to cross. OK fair do's , logical.

Tanks are sent to hold a key crossroads. However, only fury get's there and is disabled by a mine (so a sitting duck).

Brad Pitts character, the veteran of many battles, a combat realist. Knows lots of German infantry are coming and not just any infantry either, but elite SS.

However, brave Brad decides to stay with the stranded tank. (Why?) Oh, because it's "his home". (Is he deranged? A few tankers aren't going to do much with a broken tank. Why not just withdraw ?) It's not like the allies are short of tanks anyway.

His crew, presumably suffering from similar mental health issues, decide to stay too. FFS

Fortunately the Germans are equally mentally impaired. Deciding to do suicidal infantry charges on a disabled tank.

Why did the main body of Germans, not just 'go round'?

Leave a few guys hidden to shoot any one getting out the tank?

After all the tank is not going anywhere, it's broke!. Even send for an anti tank gun while they wait?. The tanks not going any where, it's broke!

It seemed to me the film makers were looking for a similar great finale as in 'Saving Private Ryan'

But, Private Ryans decision to stay and fight made sense, staying with 'the only brothers he still had left'. To help them hold a vital bridge.

However, in Fury, the heroes decision to stand just came across as lunacy.

It made no sense and rather spoilt what was otherwise a great film.

The film was interesting, particularly the first half, but, as it went on and on, it began to get tedious.

The acting is all excellent as is filming etc. I think the problem is that it obviously depicts real life people and real life events.

As so often with real life, there isn't a 'happy ending' or any 'triumph over adversity'or feel good factor. People just endure, learn to cope and 'go on'.

Prof. Hawking obviously did 'triumph' in so many ways, just living for one, his scientific triumphs, having a family etc.

But making this into a film is obviously difficult. I'm glad I watched it. However, I don't share the opinions of the rave reviewers, i would only give it a 7/10 for entertainment.

I enjoyed the previous film with Daniel Radcliff. I expected this to be, perhaps not as good, but hopefully entertaining. I was disappointed, it is just nonsense. Where to start:

There is no real plot, certainly nothing that ties the characters together in any believable way.

The film relies on the horror genre stereotypical making the audience 'jump' moment. Over and over again. It gets so over done it becomes tedious.

The actors do their best but the lack of any real plot and a poor script and so many illogical aspects make it hard work with so many absurdities e.g.

One man, a former pilot demoted for cowardice, is apparently in charge of an entire local dummy airfield. It has fake aeroplanes and he can electrically ignite fire bombs to simulate 'hits' and make the enemy think they have hit something. He has a motorbike and a jeep for transport. He manages this 'dummy' airfield entirely on his own. No guards, no maintenance people, nobody, just him.

A school class of evacuees and 2 teachers are 'evacuated' to the ghostly derelict house. More classes are arriving in a week. There is 'no where else'. It's absurd to believe they would put kids (even in time of war) in a derelict house with holes in the roof and great holes in the floors etc. But somebody has installed beds for a dormitory. Installed desks/tables for classrooms but they can't sweep up and clean out the other rooms ? Let alone do any basic repairs.

A doctor drives a bus for them but won't put on the headlights in the marshes because of the 'blackout'. However, He is quite happy to walk around with a very big torch shining and he is quite happy to stand at the house door open at night with the lights on.

There is some raving blind man wandering about for no apparent reason.

I felt sorry for the actors, they did a good job with so little to work with.

This was a great true story but the film has numerous irritations where they dumb down and patronize the audience. Why do film makers so often assume audience are too stupid to notice things that make no sense ? E.g. Our intrepid code breakers can just ring someone and quickly divert a convoy with 30 minutes to spare on their first successful decoded message. Sitting in a tea room discussing how important it is that the enemy has no idea codes have been broken. To emphasize this to the stupid audience, they have wounded soldiers being unloaded outside the window. No explanation where they came from? or why hurt! The acting is generally good. It is a great true story and I would have suggested they could have made a better film by being more historically accurate. Instead they have dumbed it down which spoiled much of the film for me.