This has potential.
They actually brought a real Tiger I tank out of a museum to film duelling Brad Pitt's M4 Sherman. So it's either a really short movie or it has little bearing on reality.
Isn't this the movie where Shia Ladouche attempted to pull a Daniel Day Lewis and method act, effectively pissing off his costars to the point they kicked him off set? I remember hearing he went as far as to never shower and pulled out his own tooth in order to get a "feel" for what it was like in the proverbial trenches and instead came across as an asshole
Yea this is that movie, DDL he ain't
Brad Pitt and the quest for the Golden Man.
I'm all in on this. I have to wonder if the success of the World of Tanks game had any influence on this getting made.
I have a book written by a WW2 vet from one of my old armor battalions and the author mentions in it that they often had to do similar with M3/M5s as they would never have had a prayer in a nose-to-nose slugging match with most tanks. As a result they would have to try flanking German positions and using their maneuverability to gain favorable shots (with their woefully inadequate 37mm, mind you). Of course I don't think they ever went up against Tigers, prob more early Pnzr IIIs and IVs, but still.
The real killer though was the 88 gun either as a stand alone piece or mounted to shit like the Jagdpanzer, but it wouldn't be much of a movie if 5 seconds in an 88 shell went through the Sherman's armour, from over a mile away, and killed everyone on board.
The only way we can take a tiger is to pound in the ass - oddball from kelly's heroes
Mom was quite pissed when I relayed that information to her.
After the old man took me to a classic war movie marathon on the post one saturday .
I'd have to dig out some old books for the figures but there were definitely more than just a handful of Tigers on the Western Front. Aside from the British Firefly which used the 17lb gun the Allies had nothing that could penetrate the frontal armor from basically any distance in theatre so aside from the swarming tactics it was just bombers that killed the majority of German tanks. The US had a 90mm gun capable of working which was used on the M26 Pershing but the head of the US Tank Doctrine believed that Shermans shouldn't fight other tanks and that should just be left to the TDs so he prevented their release to the ETO. Getting assigned to a Sherman crew was basically a death sentance is the long and short of it.
The only piece of equipment the sherman crew ever really needed was called the Republic P47 thunderbolt. Historically, most panzer crews died without a single sherman or allied armor in sight. Sherman crews definitely dreaded getting within sight of Panthers and Tigers, but the sight panzer commanders feared the most was a sunny day. P47s could carry HALF the bombload of a B17(wtf!) and generally raped shit up down and sideways if the weather allowed for any visibility.
brad pitt with that 2014 hair cut rocking that WW2 tank.
looks like a military style haircut. dunno if its a 2014 style, but there is really only so many ways you can cut a man's hair without it being faggoty. movie looks good. character driven war drama centering around a ww2 tank, count me in.
Hmmmm.....If there was any campaign in WWII where conditions were perfect for airpower to demonstrate its ability to kill armour, it was in Normandy in the summer of 1944. The Allies had air supremacy (which is much more then just air superiority) and during daylight hours they could attack any target at will, with the single proviso of avoiding very nasty concentrated Flak guns. They had thousands of some of the best and most powerful ground attack aircraft available in WWII. They had virtually unlimited supplies of ammunition, fuel and huge amount of logistical ground support. Air bases were in easy range, targets were concentrated in a small front line area, and the weather could not realistically have been better.
According to the RAF, the Hawker Typhoon was the most effective ground attack and tank killing aircraft in the world in 1944, which may have been true. No fewer than 26 RAF Squadrons were equipped with Typhoons by mid 1944. These aircraft operated round the clock during the Normandy campaign operating in ‘cab rank’ formations, literately flying above the target area in circles, waiting their turn to attack. Official RAF and USAF records claim the destruction of thousands of AFVs in Normandy. There are many examples such as:
During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).(2)
During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.(3)
On a single day in August 1944, the RAF Typhoon pilots claimed no less than 135 tanks as destroyed.(4)
So what really happened? Unfortunately for air force pilots, there is a small unit usually entitled Research and Analysis which enters a combat area once it is secured. This is and was common in most armies, and the British Army was no different. The job of The Office of Research and Analysis was to look at the results of the tactics and weapons employed during the battle in order to determine their effectiveness (with the objective of improving future tactics and weapons).
They found that the air force’s claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed).(5) Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.(6) This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.(7) Thus on a single day in August 1944 the RAF claimed 35% more tanks destroyed than the total number of German tanks lost directly to air attack in the entire campaign!
Considering the Germans lost around 1 500 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 7% were lost directly to air attack.(8) The greatest contributor to the great myth regarding the ability of WWII aircraft to kill tanks was, and still is, directly the result of the pilot’s massively exaggerated kill claims. The Hawker Typhoon with its cannon and up to eight rockets was (and still is in much literature) hailed as the best weapon to stop the German Tiger I tank, and has been credited with destroying dozens of these tanks in the Normandy campaign. According to the most current definitive work only 13 Tiger tanks were destroyed by direct air attack in the entire campaign.(9) Of these, seven Tigers were lost on 18th July 1944 to massive carpet bombing by high altitude heavy bombers, preceding Operation Goodwood. Thus at most only six Tigers were actually destroyed by fighter bombers in the entire campaign. It turns out the best Tiger stopper was easily the British Army’s 17pdr AT gun, with the Typhoon well down on the list.
Indeed it appears that air attacks on tank formations protected by Flak were more dangerous for the aircraft than the tanks. The 2nd Tactical Air Force lost 829 aircraft in Normandy while the 9th USAAF lost 897.(10) These losses, which ironically exceed total German tank losses in the Normandy campaign, would be almost all fighter-bombers. Altogether 4 101 Allied aircraft and 16 714 aircrew were lost over the battlefield or in support of the Normandy campaign.(11)
German tanks were not impervious, but they did typically have to be outflanked, confronted by tank destroyers or become so far separated from supply lines that abandonment was the only option for the crew. While the Tiger was very nimble (despite misconceptions due to its size), the turret traverse on them made them very vulnerable to proper tactics employed by American tank commanders.
Realistically, aircraft and artillery are both far overplayed at their role in the actual destruction of German tanks. What they did do flawlessly, however, was cause the Germans to slow down. About ~135 Tigers were sent to rebuff the Normandy landings, but only ~35 made it in time since they could only move at night. Keep in mind most battle tanks are not meant to travel over open country, they are meant to be transported to the conflict area and maneuver. You can't do that without rail service in 1944. By the time a lot of tanks engaged the allies throughout the Western front, they had so much wear on their complicated interleaved torsion bar suspensions that the majority of tanks were not battle worthy at any given time.
More generally, German tanks could not risk being out in the open. Massed artillery could immobilize or destroy an entire tank column rather easily if they allowed themselves to be caught in the open. Keep in mind that a huge HE shell may do no damage to a tank (or may miss entirely), but it will create a track-throwing crater underneath it.
I should note that the primary combat for any tank is tank vs infantry. Tank vs tank combat is very rare all things considered. Besides the certain periods on the Eastern front and the Ardennes, they didn't connect as often as portrayed in popular culture.
Last edited by Palum; 06-27-2014 at 02:02 AM.
As a former tanker, I have no doubt that this is going to kick ass. Especially if it ends up with some of the feel of 'The Beast'. 'Why can't we go home in the helicopter?' 'Because you're tankers!'
That trailer debuted at the E3 World of Tanks panel, the director was even there... they're doing some kinda tie-in with the game too apparently. There was some kinda diorama of the tank with the brad pitt and the rest of the cast too.
Of course the Tiger wasn't the big worry, the Panther was. US Army intelligence woefully under-appreciated the role of the Panther. They thought it was a new Tiger, specialized and so few that its presence wouldn't matter. What they really didn't count on (and why the M-26 was so late into theater) was that the Panther was really the world's first main battle tank. It was fast, well armored and well armed with the long 7,5. The only good thing (for the allies) was simply that it was a very complicated vehicle to use well in battle and there were almost no experienced German tankers left by the point they started making them. Plus the normal logistical issues, IE shitty steel because foundries were all bombed out, no gas, etc.
apparently La Douche had some kind of freak out yesterday and got himself arrested for being a cockholster during a broadway play.
Cops: Erratic Shia LaBeouf Spit At Officer, Asked | The Smoking Gun
As an NYPD patrolman escorted Shia LaBeouf from a New York City theater--where he had just disrupted a performance of "Cabaret”--the 28-year-old actor screamed at the officer:
* “Fuck you.”
* “This is fucking bullshit.”
* “Do you know my life?”
The “Transformers” star then wondered:
* ”Do you know who the fuck I am?”
* “Do you know who I am?”
As LaBeouf was melting down, a cluster of pedestrians outside the West 54th Street theater gawked as the star berated Officer Joseph Pecora. A theater security guard told cops that LaBeouf stood up during the middle of last night's performance of the musical and yelled loudly at the actors onstage.
According to a criminal complaint, when the troubled actor arrived at the Midtown North Precinct he spit in Pecora’s direction. The cop noted that he “observed the spit land at my feet.”
Charged with criminal trespass, harassment, and disorderly conduct, LaBeouf pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor counts this morning during a Criminal Court appearance. He was subsequently released on his own recognizance
Damn crazy Irishmen...
James Baron, who has died aged 87, was awarded an immediate Military Medal for charging and ramming a German King Tiger tank in Normandy in 1944 while serving with Armoured Irish Guards.
On July 18 the 2nd Armoured Battalion of the Irish Guards was taking part in a powerful armoured thrust near Cagny in Operation Goodwood, which aimed to isolate Caen from the east and free the Allied forces to the west for the forthcoming breakout of Normandy.
The Irish Guards were equipped with Sherman tanks, which had proved to be a reliable fighting vehicle, but were outclassed by the German Tiger and Panther tanks. On the Western Front, the Allies had no answer to Hitler's latest weapon, the King Tiger, armed with an 88 mm gun, originally designed as an anti-aircraft gun. Intelligence reports that it was about to make its appearance in Normandy were received with considerable apprehension.
"What do we do if we meet a King Tiger?" Lance-Corporal Baron had asked his troop commander, Lieutenant John Gorman, at a briefing a few days earlier. "The only thing we can do," Gorman told his driver, "is to use naval tactics. If the 88 mm gun is pointing away from us, we shall have to use the speed of the Sherman and ram it."
On the afternoon of July 18, as Gorman came round the corner of a hedge in his Sherman, he saw four German tanks 300 yards away in the middle of a field. There was an old-fashioned Tiger, a Panther, an old Mark IV and a King Tiger - the first seen in battle on the Western Front.
The King Tiger's devastating 88 mm gun was pointing at one of Gorman's troop on the rise behind him. The Sherman's 75 mm gun was little more use than a pea-shooter against the King Tiger's armour - armour piercing shells would bounce off it. "Driver, ram!" shouted Gorman.
The Sherman crashed through a thin hedge and careered down the slope at 40 mph towards the King Tiger. With 75 yards to go before impact, the Sherman's gunner, Guardsman Scholes, fired a high-explosive shell at the King Tiger. Although it did not penetrate the armour, he felt that it would give the Germans something to worry about.
The British tank slid down beside the long barrel and struck the King Tiger hard at the rear of its right track. With the Sherman's turret only a few inches from the 88 mm weapon, Gorman's crew were like birds sitting on a sportsman's gun. On impact, both crews baled out and went in opposite directions - except one man, Guardsman Agnew, the front gunner, who, finding his exit blocked and having to scramble back to the turret, was the last out of the tank.
As Agnew dropped to the ground, he saw four men running for a ditch and promptly joined them. They were the German crew. After an exchange of cold stares, being a punctilious sort of man, he saluted smartly and disappeared into a cornfield to rejoin his comrades.
Gorman ordered Baron and the others to stay where they were; he set off on a zig-zag run through the orchards, where he found a Firefly tank. Gorman returned with the Firefly and completed the destruction of the King Tiger and the Sherman with the 17-pounder gun.
Meanwhile, the crew had been caught in an artillery barrage. When two guardsmen were wounded, Baron made a rough bed for them and stayed with his friends until they were picked up by a passing tank.
For their parts in this action, Corporal Baron received the MM and Lt Gorman the MC.
Ugh that just makes me wanna fire up the old panzer general campaign... I remember barely being able to upgrade one of my waffen ss veteran units into king tigers just in time for normandy and barely stopping D-day with them. That game was such a jew with prestige points---you basically had to play a perfect campaign all the way back from Poland onwards to even attempt to land on British soil.
I know there's an ipad clone of the classic panzer general game but I'm not sure if they cloned the rolling campaign metagame where your units gained veterancy after each scenario and how you did would unlock ahistorical events like operation Sea Lion or preventing the invasion of italy by shutting down the allies in north africa.
Panzer General was awesome.
Nah all you need is Major Victory in France and Norway and you will basically curbstomb GB in the earliest operation Sea Lion with 4 Panzer squads in the north once air superiority is established.
On the movie, wouldve been a better movie with Pitt in a Tiger panzer rampaging through allied forces for 90 minutes and getting sniped in the last scene outta nowhere private ryan style, imho.
yeah it really doesnt help you worth a shit if your uber badass tank can only defend a small bit of land while everyone else just drives around it and/or later just bombs the shit out of it from above. our shermans were not very thick or very reliable and the guns on them were not very powerful, but there was a motherfucking shitload of them always crawling your way, never stopping.
Shermans were highly reliable, but they weren't designed to confront the kind of tank Panthers and Tigers basically inaugurated: main battle tanks. The shermans were designed to fight ww2 whereas the Tiger2 was designed for the sort of modern armored combat that everyone expected to see in the Fulda Gap during the cold war (but didn't really happen until Medina Ridge).
The Allies had figured out solid manufacturing techniques and were advancing the MBT theory, while Germany had simply said 'oh fuck' and decided to redesign it's fantastic early-mid war designs to be easier to mass produce.
Most of their late war armored vehicle design ran parallel to each other. The Tiger was improved upon with the Tiger 2, Panzer III/IV with the Panther (and later intended to see the improved Panther designs), and you also saw that with a move from the Jagdpanzer IV towards the Jagdpanthers/Jagdtigers. It's undeniable that the Panther was one of the precursors of MBT design, but I don't think anyone really put all of the pieces together until after the war ended. Both the Russians and the Germans spent no small effort in trying to outdo each other in regards to tonnage, armor and firepower but the Russians were the ones that could afford to simply throw massively overweight/overgunned AFVs into the mix in large numbers w/o hurting their overall production. Sure, the Germans could have made more numerous lighter vehicles along the lines of the Panther, but the Panther wasn't invincible and the Germans had a hard time in the late war period even being able to field enough crews to man the tanks they had anyways (nevermind being able to supply enough ammo and fuel for that many tanks).
Will see. Opening weekend, if it gets at least a 60% on RT's.
looks like there is a Upham 2.0 in this movie that will make my blood boil all over again.
I grabbed Panzer Corps on the ipad after bringing it up earlier... it's actually incredibly rich with a massive metagame development above and beyond the original PG (it's got the bridgelayer variant of the panzer2 wtf) and tons of performance-based scenario trees. It's basically everything you could ask for for a modernized panzer general and the touch interface is pretty much perfect.
But the whole package including all campaigns (allies, pacific) costs sixty bucks total... base game is 20 bucks which is the most expensive I've seen on the ipad (xcom was 15 iirc). I bought the $40 package and I've already burnt through 30+ hours on it just redoing Norway over and over again to get my veteran stukas as buffed as possible for sealion.
Made the mistake of playing it on my exercise bike, next thing I know it's two hours later and I couldnt feel my legs.
i think the article got confused by saying he was method acting. i think they meant Meth Head acting
The one I miss the most is TOAW, some of the scenarios on that were just fucking awesome. Think I played the Fulda Gap and Russians attack Patton's 3rd Army in the Czech more than I can count.
The Centurion had a lifespan measured in decades not years, and while it wasn't originally envisioned as a MBT or deployed as such, it definitely developed into one after the war. We just have the benefit of hindsight and can see from our vantage point that the Centurion embodied a blend of design elements that would later come to define the MBT concept, just as we can also look back and judge that maybe Germany could have focused more on designs similar to Panthers instead of still designing various dead-end heavy tanks, which is what it sounded like you were arguing.
The movie looks like it could be good.
Re: the discussion here. I just hope in the movie that they use reality in the depiction of the Sherman vs Tiger mis-match. And to have Brad Pitt and crew know that they have the odds greatly against them if they encounter a Tiger. And voice their fears, build up tension / audience expectation.
We see in the trailer that they do ( A tank movie will need to have tank vs tank I figure )
That should be the embodiment of their fears. The movie should play it that way and use that as a major plot and character drive. Which could work really well.
It'd be silly to dump that and try to paint the US tank as a capable 'Tiger fighter'. Older WW2 movies I've seen that were made shortly after WW2 made it seem that way, just not wanting to admit reality.
World of Tanks is worth a try if you like tank combat, and as usual these days the first taste is free.
If it saw action then it saw action as a pillbox, not as an actual moving tank.
They only finished two Maus prototypes and only one had a turret. Neither saw action.
Can we get a Rocketeer remake/sequel with Brad Pitt talking about killing Germans for 3 hours?
If those tanks were so useless against other tanks, why did they deploy them against other tanks?
If the Numedian cavalry is going to decimate your Etruscans, and you know it beforehand, wouldn't you try to get some better use out of your horses?
Its an honest enough question. I didn't mean it in a smartass way. One obvious answer is, "because you have to meet them with something, and the tanks you have are the tanks you have". And maybe that's just all there is to it.
The short answer is that US Army tactics at the time called for the M4 to avoid where possible tank vs. tank battle and to leave the tank killing to the AT assets such as the M10, M18 and the towed 57mm AT gun. There's thousands of pages written on the use of the M4 and US Army doctrine that could better explain than I could in regards to the rights and wrongs of this strategy. Suffice to say it was unrealistic as tanks ultimately had to destroy other tanks. At the time the M4 was designed it was more than a match for the PzIII/IV then in use by the Wehrmacht. What's harder to understand in hindsight is the complete lack response by the Army to the greater than expected use of the Panther and Tigers in the Normandy battlefield and beyond. The British as a stop gap put their excellent 17lb gun into the Sherman to create the Firefly and at least give their tanks the ability to knock out heavier German armor without being in suicidal range of it. The US had a similar gun in the 90mm which was eventually put into the M36 and the Pershing but refused to use it as the British and Germans did with the 88mm in a ground support and anti-tank role. Until early '45 most M4's still carried the short barreled 75mm with only a few 76mm armed Shermans per unit which itself couldn't attack a Tiger or Panther frontally from range. Up until his death in Normany the head of the Army Ground Forces, McNair, refused to release the available Pershings to the European Theatre as he thought it unnecessary, most didn't show up until almost '45 when it didn't matter by then anyway.
Araysar confirmed Commie:
Originally Posted by Araysar
Generally tanks would go through all their HE rounds and need resupply without even firing any or few AP, APCR or HEAT rounds. Hence the short 105mm was the best gun for the Sherman that the US had for the best combat effectiveness, despite all the glory given to the Brits putting a 17 pdr in the Firefly. That's not to say tank combat never took place for the US, it certainly did in many places including the Ardennes and while the US could have used more than 4 operational M26s in theater they were never going to universally replace the 105mm with its huge HE rounds for infantry support with an HVAP gun like the 76 or 90mm guns.
Also, as stated, the US thought was that they could not beat the Germans with the weight of armor. The TD doctrine was designed to keep mobility at a maximum. TDs sacrificed a lot of armor for a tank-ending gun. The Mediums were designed to exploit holes in lines and murder the shit out of infantry and light vehicles. Obviously that didn't quite pan out - but keep in mind the entire US thought process was always being on the defensive due to the German's aggressive tactics- even in the microcosm of a single battle. Blitzkrieg literally scared the shit out of people thinking they would land in NY and break straight through to DC while slow ponderous heavy US tanks would be hundreds of miles behind like a Maginot line with significant transmission troubles.
Last edited by Palum; 10-05-2014 at 07:45 PM.
Considering the fact that accepted Allied, specifically US, strategy contradicts everything you stated in your last paragraph I'd like to know what you're referencing to state such bullshit.
Araysar confirmed Commie:
Originally Posted by Araysar
Very simply - German, British, Russian TDs - casements and heavily armored fronts. American TDs- roadsters with turrets.U.S. Army and counterpart British designs were very different in conception. U.S. doctrine was based, in light of the fall of France, on the perceived need to defeat German blitzkrieg tactics, and U.S. units expected to be faced with large numbers of German tanks attacking on relatively narrow fronts. These were expected to break through a thin screen of anti-tank guns, hence the decision that the main anti-tank units – the Tank Destroyer (TD) battalions – should be concentrated and very mobile.
Keep in mind most of these doctrines are being designed at the time of the fall of France, with Dunkirk and the pending BoB... Until Pearl Harbor, mainland invasion by the NAZIs was a possibility. Hell we had battle plans to invade Canada in case GB came after us before the NAZI party showed its hand.
We're in this thread about a movie in regards to a tank in France or Northwest Europe during 1944, right? There are voluminous source material available and while Wiki is good for a general idea if that's the best you can do then I suggest starting with the Green Books and moving on from there.
Please source this.Originally Posted by Palum
Araysar confirmed Commie:
Originally Posted by Araysar
Tanks push, TDs are in reserve to smash the Blitz, hence 'always on the defensive', even when attacking.“Tank destroyer groups are intended for action against massed tank forces. As part of the mobile reserve of the high command, they are initially so disposed as to facilitate their rapid entry into action against large armored forces.
a. Tank destroyer groups which are attached to units engaged in offensive combat assist the attack by furnishing protection against large scale counterattacks by hostile tanks. They follow the attack closely, moving by bounds from one position in readiness to another. In enveloping attacks, they are usually echeloned toward the interior behind the enveloping flank.
b. Tank destroyer groups attached to units whose action is defensive are usually held in mobile reserve until the enemy's main effort is indicated and then engaged in mass against the hostile armored force. Depending on the situation, this may be prior to or after the launching of the hostile armored attack. “
Last edited by Palum; 10-06-2014 at 04:20 AM.
The TD doctrine was there because the Army was mainly run by infantry officers so the tank had to be an infantry support vehicle and it proved a failure as was quickly seen in the ETO. Palum is claiming tactically this was because we were defensive by nature in response to German tactics which is patently false. As Erronious is linking above the Germans were tactically defensive and why is that? Because in every fucking theatre we invaded with the purpose of crushing the Nazi scum.
Araysar confirmed Commie:
Originally Posted by Araysar
You, on the other hand, just keep repeating that it's false. You Misting?
Last edited by Palum; 10-06-2014 at 06:03 AM.
All these fucking block text arguments. Anyways, Movie looks good. A movie focusing on a tank is a new thing for me, and I see the potential.
You provided a field manual from 1942 for a weapon that is defensive by nature whereas a tank is offensive. Does the use of TD's mean US tactics were defensive in nature? I'd like you to find one instance were this is actually the case in practice as you are claiming unless I'm completely misunderstanding your point which started as the US was so afraid of Blitzkrieg tactics. Here is the Green Book section for Arracourt, I don't see a single instance of what you are saying:
The year 1942 is interesting as well as in that Torch started and every theatre there after the Allies were on the offensive to get the grips with the German army in the West and destroy it. I guess we were so afraid of German tactics that we just sat around and waiting for the Russians to win the war as Araysar is so fond to state.
Araysar confirmed Commie:
Originally Posted by Araysar
This movie looks like it has so much potential. PLEASE DON'T SUCK!
Not just an article, but a wiki page. I am expert!
Araysar confirmed Commie:
Originally Posted by Araysar
Saw it tonight, pretty amazing/brutal.
Originally Posted by Dr. Mario Speedwagon
God, as someone who plays World of Tanks and WarThunder time to time, it never ceases to amaze me how much people will argue on those boards about some of the most stupid shit possible known to man.
Details the people who built the tanks probably don't even recall. Didn't expect it here.
Hope movie is good, think I will pass on the theater though. It is sad I have a bunch of free tickets that expire in 2099 ( ya no shit ) but Regal seats suck so bad in my city I have to get up and walk around to make it through a movie.
Someone give a hard review of it. I want to take my dad and I last went to movie about 15 years ago, with him.
Just saw it, I did like it but was not without its flaws. I think a story where a named King Tiger tank is the nemesis throughout with one final show down in the end would be awesome, corny yes but would be entertaining
Imma go watch me some Brad Pitt blow some shit up soon.
Hope it's good!
I'd say its a 7.5/10
Last edited by Needless; 10-18-2014 at 05:00 AM.
Certainly not going down as one of the best WW2 movies of all time but I had fun. Any movie that ends with a pile of dead nazis is ok in my book. 7/10.
Boy, did that young guy just erked me though out the whole thing. I get sick of the "I didn't sign up for this!" cliche real fast.
Pretty much that exactly. Solid war flick with some good acting, great scenes and tons of cliché.
Waaaaaaaay too much cliche. Shia and Shane from the Walking Dead just really shit the movie up beyond repair. The characters were 'caricatures' and only Brad Pitt had any soul or believability to his performance... but even his shit went too far over the top two or three different times in the movie.
The movies biggest failing was that it felt it needed to beat the "tragedy of war" drum so hard. That message has been sent, loud and clear, but many, many movies that have come before it. Movies like Platoon, Thin Red Line, and Saving Private Ryan just did it so much better and brought some originality to the presentation as well. I will be generous and give it a 6/10, crediting the action scenes and the suspense they were able to build throughout (mostly by just being brutally graphic, which is a cheap trick).
The battle scenes were top notch. The rest of the movie was kind of eh. But if you want to see some awesome scenes full of tracer fire, go.
The scene where they fought the tiger tank was fucking awesome. If this movie was 2 hours of that it would be literally one of the best war movies ever. Unfortunately, it was 5 minutes of that and the rest was some strange attempt to be a Quentin tarantino movie, especially toward the end. That said, there was enough action and explosions to look over the mediocre parts of the movies for me. They balance out and bring this right into the 7/10 range. Nothing great, but fun enough to fill your typical war movie/nazi killing cravings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)