What do critics think of Brad Pitt's 'Fury'?

The verdict is out, and Brad Pitt's Fury (the promotion of which has created a "dysfunctional honeymoon" for the star) looks like a pretty solid bet this weekend for those interested in throwback WWII fare. Here's what critics had to say about the tank-driven tale, which co-stars Michael Pena, Logan Lerman and Shia LaBeouf and is currently sitting at a 76% critics' score over at RottenTomatoes.

From Paste BN's Claudia Puig:
It's a solidly acted, engrossing drama about the hellishness of combat, though it doesn't measure up to the indelible Saving Private Ryan (1998) or Letters from Iwo Jima (2006).
From the L.A. Times' Kenneth Turan:
If memorable war movies mean something to you, open that book to a new page and add "Fury" to the list. It belongs there.
From Rolling Stone'sPeter Travers:
Pitt is tremendous in the role...Fury means to grab us hard from the first scene and never let go. Mission accomplished.
From the New York Times's A. O. Scott:
Within this gore-spattered, superficially nihilistic carapace is an old-fashioned platoon picture, a sensitive and superbly acted tale of male bonding under duress.

Though not everyone loved it.

From The A. V. Club's Ignativ Vishnevetsky:
When it all comes down to it, “History is violent” isn’t much of a foundation for a movie—unless, of course, a filmmaker’s primary goal is to provide cheap shocks, which Fury delivers in spades.
From Variety'sPeter Debruge:
Not only did the standoff depicted in Fury never happen, but it will likely be long gone from moviegoers’ memories six months from now, after Sony’s marketing blows over and people go back to watching Inglourious Basterds.
From The Hollywood Reporter's Todd McCarthy:
Though Pitt is "terrific," he writes Fury is simply "a modern version of the sort of movie Hollywood turned out practically every week back in the 1940s and 1950s."