August
Tuesday 18 September 2018 photo 4/7
|
Fury Movie In Hindi Dubbed Download
-----------------------------------------
DOWNLOAD: http://urllio.com/r14yj
-----------------------------------------
April, 1945. As the Allies make their final push in the European Theatre, a battle-hardened Army sergeant named Wardaddy commands a Sherman tank and his five-man crew on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. Outnumbered, out-gunned, and with a rookie soldier thrust into their platoon, Wardaddy and his men face overwhelming odds in their heroic attempts to strike at the heart of Nazi Germany.
A grizzled tank commander makes tough decisions as he and his crew fight their way across Germany in April, 1945.
So when I first saw the trailer I thought... Eh.... But then my friends told me how great it was, and that I had to see it. What is wrong with them? The truth is this was nothing more than every hillbillies dream movie. Guns, Nazi's, and Murica. Let's start at the beginning with the whole shooting the Nazi thing. If you're trying to make is look like the bad guys making kids shoot people, you succeeded. Then, we have a shootout, which looks like the precursor to star wars. And from there on out every gun shot or tank round is a laser gun. The one part of this movie that gave it hope was when they invade the girls house and they have some romance. But not a second later, the rest of the team comes up acting all rape-ish, and they both end up dead. Now at this point I am routing for the Nazi's, because they seem like saints compared to the US troops we've come to know. Finally we have the end. The track is destroyed by the only mine in the movie, and instead of leaving to warn the others, or just escaping with their lives, they decide they can take on over 100 troops with 5 people. Now we have the last few minutes where everyone except the kid is dead, and again we are shown how kind the Nazi's are to our troops, by them letting him live. If you told me this was Nazi propaganda, I'd believe you.
There is a paradox in making an anti-war film. If you're telling the audience how awful war is, you don't want to show everything that you would expect out of a movie about a war. Things like protagonists who survive mission after mission, villains who need to be taken down and are finally defeated at the end of the hour-and-a-half running time, dramatic deaths where people get to give a short speech before life exits their bodies, cool sequences of combat and exciting moments with explosions. They're essential to a movie because movies are a visual medium and the moment you bring those images to the screen, you're glorifying combat. "Fury" is one of the rare instances where it can have its cake and eat it too. It is both an exciting war movie and a condemnation of the ugliness that is brought forth by armed conflict.
I want to talk about how brutal this movie is. This is an incredibly violent film. It's not gory, but it's violent and very disturbing in its violence. When people die in this film, and there are a lot of people that die, they die horrible deaths. People are set on fire by bombs, have their limbs blown off by high-speed projectiles, get reduced to red pulp by grenades or have chunks of their heads ripped out by shrapnel and bullets. The battlefield these soldiers are fighting on are covered in mud, the people that are fighting are covered with grime and the animosity between the two sides mean that for a lot of these people, a quick death is the best you can hope for. I found the violence to be shocking, sudden and very unsettling, even more so because it's often so casual. Someone gets shot in the head and crumples over like a rag doll but it's no big deal because these soldiers have seen it time and time again.
There were things that never dawned on me before I watched this movie. Things like the fact that tanks are more than bullet-proof cannons on wheels, they're also massive vehicles and if you don't get out of the way fast enough, you're going to get crushed. Reduced to paste underneath those treads. That's a frightening and horrible way to die and something that probably happened to a lot of soldiers. Let's say that you've got a scenario where you're in a dugout and you're shooting at some tanks. The tanks just keep advancing no matter how many bullets hit them and they fire back. Get out of that hole, and you're going to get shot. Stay inside and you're going to get crushed. Other things that I never really thought about that I saw during this movie included the way tanks must have operated in combat. The way not only bullets, but rockets easily bounce off of the armor, the way the people inside have to look through tiny slits and bombard opponents or the way that these armored fortresses becomes people's homes once they've been in there long enough fascinated me.
I found that all of the performances in the film were quite good. I thought the characters were deceptively complicated and it allowed the performers to really shine. Even some of the "bad guys" that at first I thought would just be one-dimensional jerks have moments where they show that they are real people. I thought "Fury" looked great not only because of the special effects, but also because of the accuracy of the sets, the costumes and the vehicles. I even liked some of the visual stylistic choices. There are some examples of great cinematography, a lot of images you've never seen before and some small decisions here and there that really help make some of the battle sequences easy to follow.
Some people are going to criticize the end of the movie because a large chunk of it is dedicated to a big, special effects-heavy and impressive sequence. For the majority of the film, we're seeing combat through the eyes of the newcomer to the crew. He is appalled, as we as regular civilians are, at what he sees. The carnage on the battlefield, the way that war changes good men into animals, the senseless death, the degradation of morals, the way people revel in killing each other. As it is explained it to him though, this is what war is. Even though that enemy soldier has a wife and a son, he is going to kill you unless you kill him first. So what can you do? To stop yourself from going crazy, just embrace your situation. It's really easy to say that shooting soldiers that are surrendering is wrong, but until you've been in that situation yourself, you don't know what it's like. That's what works about the end here. For the bulk of the movie, you're the civilian on the outside looking in. But this movie runs 2 hours and 15 minutes. The running time means that eventually you begin associating more with the people in the movie than you do with the "real" world. Like the men inside the war, your attitude changes and you don't think of enemy soldiers as people anymore, you see them as threats. The film is more than just a show you're watching, it's a way to get yourself into the head of the people on the battlefield. If only for that second half of the movie, the story changes you.
"Fury" does not glorify war, but it isn't a sappy drama on the subject either. It's an exciting action movie and a moving drama too. There are some images and some ideas brought forth by this film that I will never forget. I have a lot of admiration for "Fury" and I strongly encourage you to go see it on the big screen, where the explosions are going to be loud and shocking. (Theatrical version on the big screen, November 13, 2014)
Though colorfully embellished with authentic detail and logistically complex to bring to the screen, Ayer’s script is bland at the most basic story level, undermined by cardboard characterizations and a stirring yet transparently silly climactic showdown.
His tank was the first one destroyed in the battle with the Tiger tank. These are not laser beams, they are "tracer rounds". They are typically loaded in machine guns and tank shells as a way to determine where the rounds are actually firing. Should they miss, you can adjust your aim accordingly by watching the direction the round is firing. The average lifespan can't really be confirmed. But it is a generalization that Allied tank crews suffered heavy losses at the hands of the superior German armour, which is true. The Sherman tank was used by the Allies in every theatre of World War 2 and was famed for its speed, maneuverability, reliability, ease of mass production and ease of repair/maintenance. However, its' initial 75mm, and later on 76mm gun, was generally incapable of penetrating the main armour of its' German counterparts, the Panther, Tiger 1E, and later King Tiger. The Panther's high-velocity 75mm gun, and the Tiger and King Tiger's 88mm gun (initially designed for anti-aircraft roles) could easily defeat the Sherman's armoured protection, as could German infantry anti-tank weapons. The Sherman's high profile also made it comparatively easy to spot, and its' use of a petrol (gasoline) engine gave it an unfortunate propensity to burst into flames when hit. British and Canadian troops nicknamed them 'Ronsons' due to this fact in reference to a brand of cigarette lighters that are guaranteed to 'Light every time'. The Germans rather more bluntly referred to them as 'Tommy cookers'. The German tanks also used petrol engines, but one model of the Sherman, the M4A2, did use a diesel engine, but most of its production went to the US Marines in the Pacific, and the Russians.
You can find the armor stats for almost any armored fighting vehicle in history online. Look up the Tiger I, King Tiger, and the Panther; both later models had sloped armor which greatly added to deflecting armor piercing rounds, compared that with the Sherman. It was simply pitiful for the General in charge of Ground Forces, Lesley McNair, to be allowed to send so many soldiers into battle in such an inferior weapon, that was practically obsolescent after the introduction of the Tiger. But the Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank, not a tank-vs-tank unit, like its German opponents (and most modern-day 'main battle' tanks).
Generally, German tanks were technically superior to Allied tanks. The problem the Germans had was that with a war on two fronts, and heavy Allied bombing, they simply couldn't produce the tanks quick enough. Their tanks were also over-engineered, and units produced towards the end of the war tended to break down too easily. Additionally, on the last year, they also ran out of manpower to crew the tanks. The Tiger tank was a heavy tank at 54 tonnes, versus the Sherman at 30-33.5 tonnes but (as shown by the film) it could only be knocked out by the Sherman's cannon at close quarters, from the side or behind where the armor was thinner. The Sherman could also do it with the specialized 76mm High-Velocity Armor-Piercing ammunition (type M93 HVAP) but this was in very limited supply, and priority went to the M36 'Jackson' and other tank destroyers. Battlefield comments from Normandy onwards showed that on average it took the loss of 7 Shermans to knock out one Tiger tank. The US did, however, have a lot more tanks than the Germans. The German antitank weapon called the Panzerfaust (seen in the film, being pulled from its packing crates in the darkness) was also greatly feared by Allied tank crews. The one-shot LAW-type device had a hollow charge and could knock out any Allied tank at close range (the Panzerschreck was a heavier reloadable bazooka-like weapon). During the last months of the war in Europe, the Allies also had greatly superior air power as well and this helped to negate the tank advantage on the ground that the Germans had. The film showcases the Sherman's main strengths in combat - bristling with machine guns (including the powerful .50 M2HB, nicknamed the 'Fifty' or 'Ma Deuce') and its maneuverability, which made it an excellent infantry support weapon.
Its interesting to note that the tanks shown in the movie were a mixed bag: 'Fury' was an M4A2E8 (76)W HVSS Sherman tank, and 'Lucy Sue' an M4A2 Sherman, but as you don't see the engine decks, so for sake of the story, they could be mistaken for petrol-fueled units (the A2's carried a diesel powerplant. 'Matador' is an M4E8 (76)W HVSS Sherman, 'Murder, Inc.' an M4A4 Sherman, and 'Old Phyllis' an M4A1 (76)W Sherman. All but Lucy Sue were later 'W' or wet-stowage ammunition types, and only Matador and Fury had the main gun capable of doing serious damage to the Tiger, and the later HVSS wide suspension track system. They carefully did not use the up-gunned British Shermans, which got a powerful 17-pounder QF gun of equivalent calibre to the 76mm, but with considerably more penetration - this Sherman was called the Firefly. a5c7b9f00b
http://sourmala.yolasite.com/resources/PunchOut-movie-download-in-mp4.pdf http://helgoyamodellflyklubb.ning.com/profiles/blogs/and-justice-for-all-full-movie-in-hindi-free-download http://clulcamanca.guildwork.com/forum/threads/5ba0cc20002aa82e15ab4846-romantik-movie-download-hd https://www.causes.com/posts/4942884 http://lydlabs.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tamil-movie-japoteurs-free-download https://www.causes.com/posts/4942945 https://www.causes.com/posts/4942962 http://www.nookl.com/article/330336/batman-returns-full-movie-download-1080p-hd http://derdesogolfrext.wapka.mobi/forum2_theme_112963425.xhtml?tema=238 http://werpvistevicart.wap-ka.com/forum2_theme_112974830.xhtml?tema=156
Annons
Visa toppen
Show footer