When I heard that there would be a WWII action film coming out featuring Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf and Logan Lerman, I was stoked. Part of me wanted to see Pitt reprise his role as a tough but suave Lieutenant from “Inglorious Basterds.” He basically did, but unfortunately that was the only thing that met my expectations with “Fury.”

The story takes place in April, 1945 when the allies are closing in on the center of Nazi Germany. It focuses on the Sherman Tank Fury and its platoon, including Pitt and LaBeouf, as well as Michael Pena and John Bernthal. The storyline begins with when a young postal clerk for the army is sent to the base to be Fury’s new assistant driver after the previous one was lost in battle. The men in the platoon are obviously beaten down and desensitized due to the war, and the last thing they want to deal with is a rookie with morals which they have lost.

I know that the losses soldiers went through were unimaginable, but from the first to the last minute of the movie it is disturbingly bleak. The first scene shows Pitt sneaking up on a German soldier and stabbing him in the face; the camera never shies away from the violent actions. I can handle violence in movies relatively well, but I sure can’t handle watching a snuff film with little plot for over two hours.

Despite the fact I closed my eyes for half the movie, it was wonderfully shot, and the monochromatic grey matched the tone of “Fury.” The characters were also weirdly likeable, with Pitt playing a rugged sergeant nicknamed Wardaddy, LaBeouf playing a Christian nicknamed Bible, and Lerman playing a naive young man you rooted for but also stayed annoyed with throughout the film.

I hate to hate on “Fury” because I’m sure it’s an accurate depiction of what the war was like, but I have to give it a C. It was too gross, and the plot was too lackluster save it. “Fury” is not for the faint of heart.