than the husband at the end of the story.

Were we supposed to see from the beginning that he was in his own way as sick as the wife?

If so Affleck's acting was terrible.

Even my therapist liked it.

All in all, it was pretty good. As horrifically graphic as war films have become, at least the upside is that glorifying war through film is getting more and more difficult. I would imagine anyone out there having ludicrous Rambo daydreams about being a war hero doesn't include the parts where, even if you're on the winning side, you're going to be cold, or unbearably hot, tired, frightened, frustrated, confused, hungry, dirty, covered with blood and other assorted bodily filth, and have experiences that never would have found their way into your fantasies.

One issue that 'Fury' didn't address was the fact that Eisenhower ordered his troops to treat all German prisoners humanely, with an eye toward getting them to surrender much sooner and more quickly than if the Germans thought they were in a fight to the death.

I know individual American commanders told their troops to take no prisoners in SS uniform, in retribution for the Malmedy massacre during the Battle of the Bulge. I wish the film had at least addressed the fact that atrocity was not official US Army policy.