Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Lots of judgement here but not one of you have actually seen the movie. Maybe you all are right but I'll wait to see the movie and judge for myself.
|
Done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowly
That's my point. Does it have to be historically accurate? Saving Private Ryan wasnt, but I think most of us here liked it.
Geez, it's a movie, not a Disc-.. Histor-... well.. documentary.
|
I went for the real tanks. The only thing I didn't really like about it was the fact the tiger didn't get much face time.
The plot didn't go how I though it would go and the ending didn't happen how I thought it would.
There were aspects of the film I didn't like, but it wasn't a deal breaker for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kptlt. Hellmut Neuerburg
I think the difference here is that "The Eagle Has Landed" is based off of a novel by Jack Higgins so it's already is "historically inaccurate" in a way, whereas "Fury" is supposed to be based off a true story and Hollywood manages to get the historical aspects wrong. If I do decide to see "Fury" it's going to be after some reviews are out.
|
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fury...id=home_list1a
WoT is milking this for all it's worth. I wonder how many "Fury" tank packages they sold today?