Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

[aabattery]

I saw this last night and I really loved it. While it didn't really do anything new, it was still an excellent film. Desmond's story is truly amazing and Mel Gibson did it justice. I really didn't expect to laugh as much as I did. The boot camp scenes had me, and the rest of the theater, cracking up. The war scenes were brutal and definitely showed the horror of war. Overall, it was a poignant story that I really appreciated.

 

A

[The Panda]

Mel Gibson earned his right to direct back with this one.  Not a fan of the man, but the art he made with this was gorgeous.  It was very moving, the performances were solid, Andrew Garfield wasn't recognizable.  

 

The action was non-stop, shot brilliantly, and had a purpose.  The first act was fairly conventional (and felt a bit rushed, as if he had to cut some out to meet a time) but still well-done.  But when it hits the second act, it gets gut-wrenching, and then leaves you inspired.

 

It's sad the mediocre movie about man bragging about sniping people is going to be the war movie remembered from this decade and not the one about a medic who saved people and was humble about it.

 

A-

Edited November 24, 2016 by ThePanda A Star Wars Story

[Goffe]

Pro-war garbage worsened by an obnoxiously flawless central character, played by the always unlikable and mediocre Andrew Garfield, whose beliefs I had zero sympathy for. 

 

HR never offered a credible reason why he wouldn't even carry guns for demonstration purposes, even if that meant him going to jail.

 

First half was hell to sit through. 

 

35/100

Edited January 31, 2017 by Goffe

[Plain Old Tele]

7 hours ago, Goffe said:

Pro-war garbage worsened by an obnoxiously flawless central character, played by the always unlikable and mediocre Andrew Garfield, whose beliefs I had zero sympathy for. 

 

HR never offered a credible reason why he wouldn't even carry guns for demonstration purposes, even if that meant him going to jail.

 

First half was hell to sit through. 

 

35/100

 

1. What?

 

2. What? You have zero sympathy for pacifism or nonviolence? 

 

3. He did, repeatedly. He felt it was a morally bankrupt position he wasn't willing to take.

[filmlover]

8 hours ago, Goffe said:

Pro-war garbage worsened by an obnoxiously flawless central character, played by the always unlikable and mediocre Andrew Garfield, whose beliefs I had zero sympathy for. 

 

HR never offered a credible reason why he wouldn't even carry guns for demonstration purposes, even if that meant him going to jail.

 

First half was hell to sit through. 

 

35/100

[Goffe]

39 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

1. What?

Oh yes, it is very subtle but it's there. Did you notice how the only man who opposed the war was a scumbag & wife beater who redeems himself by helping his son to go to war? Or how the movie treats Teresa Palmer's reaction when she finds out her boyfriend is going to enlist "oh look how silly and emotional women are, man gotta do what a man gotta do, now there there". I'm not even mentioning the whole let's kill the savage Japs vibe to it and the heroic-inspirational murica fuck yeah music playing while the enemies ran scared for their lives at the end.

 

2. What? You have zero sympathy for pacifism or nonviolence? 

 

3. He did, repeatedly. He felt it was a morally bankrupt position he wasn't willing to take.

I'm referring to the I won't even touch a gun nonsense. Why wouldn't he take the gun for military training and demonstration purposes? He wouldn't be killing anybody. 

 

There are two moments in the movie that are supposed to show the reason why he doesn't touch guns, when he hits his brother with a brick and when he almost kills his father, neither do it for me.

[Jason]

Well, I wasn't planning on my first post here to be a reply to someone else's - so I guess I'll start off by admitting this was a very powerfully emotional film for me, that I thought did an excellent job of conveying both the horror of war and the heroism and conviction of Desmond Doss, conscientious objector. (I'm one of the "A" votes.)

 

9 hours ago, Goffe said:

Oh yes, it is very subtle but it's there. Did you notice how the only man who opposed the war was a scumbag & wife beater who redeems himself by helping his son to go to war? Or how the movie treats Teresa Palmer's reaction when she finds out her boyfriend is going to enlist "oh look how silly and emotional women are, man gotta do what a man gotta do, now there there". I'm not even mentioning the whole let's kill the savage Japs vibe to it and the heroic-inspirational murica fuck yeah music playing while the enemies ran scared for their lives at the end.

 

The film also makes it explicitly clear the reason why he was so against war and why he turned into a "scumbag" was because the aftereffects of his experiences in the First World War turned him that way. There's a line where Doss's mother explains that to him.

 

Also, the film shows how awful war is in a way a lot of war films avoid, and has as its protagonist someone who is absolutely committed to the belief that killing is wrong. The hero of the film is shown saving the lives of some of the Japanese when the opportunity arises. As for everyone else, I'm not expecting a World War II film from any participating country to be show anything other than determination to kill the enemy in general. I don't see how that basic reality glorifies war, by itself.

 

I didn't get feeling that the music at the end was meant to be "murica fuck yeah" music glorifying war, either. Just that the battle was over, and Doss had done his part.

 

Everyone else I know who has seen this film has gotten a strong anti-war, pacifist sense from it. It's also the position taken by quite a few critics, although I'll admit I haven't read all the reviews. If the film's intention was to be pro-war, it's doing a terrible job of it.

 

9 hours ago, Goffe said:

I'm referring to the I won't even touch a gun nonsense. Why wouldn't he take the gun for military training and demonstration purposes? He wouldn't be killing anybody. 

 

There are two moments in the movie that are supposed to show the reason why he doesn't touch guns, when he hits his brother with a brick and when he almost kills his father, neither do it for me.

 

I thought this was obvious. What's the point of training with a weapon you're absolutely committed to not using? Once you've compromised to carry a weapon during training and demonstration, you can compromise to carry it into a battle too. ("Well, you don't have to kill anyone with it if you don't want to.") Best to make clear the strength of your conviction from the start.

 

I felt like the scenes you mention were there more to help show the roots of his conviction that killing was wrong and that guns were a temptation rather than why he wouldn't specifically touch them.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Jason
typo

[Plain Old Tele]

1 hour ago, Goffe said:

I'm not even mentioning the whole let's kill the savage Japs vibe to it...

 

This was the mentality of the time and the men there. Is this supposed to be white-washed or ignored? What do you think war is?

 

I feel like Jason did a solid response to your other points. But one more thing about Hugo Weaving: he was a living symbol of how even survivors are destroyed by war. A living embodiment of what used to be called shell shock and now gets termed PTSD.

[baumer]

19 hours ago, Goffe said:

Pro-war garbage worsened by an obnoxiously flawless central character, played by the always unlikable and mediocre Andrew Garfield, whose beliefs I had zero sympathy for. 

 

HR never offered a credible reason why he wouldn't even carry guns for demonstration purposes, even if that meant him going to jail.

 

First half was hell to sit through. 

 

35/100

 

I try to respect everyone's opinion on film, but this is ridiculous.

 

I'll just re-itterate what Tele said.

 

What?

 

What

 

And WTF are you talking about?

[CoolioD1]

the pacific had better battle scenes. i thought this was a real goof-fest (but a fun goof-fest, would be lying if i said i didn't have a good time with it) but still goffe's interpretation makes me think he just doesn't understand movies maybe?

[baumer]

I always get amused when people take the side of the enemy in war movies.

 

I honestly have no idea where you are from Goffe but where I'm from, war has sides.  The object of war is to kill the other side.  I'm sure Japan had their reasons for being there and that's fine.  But that's not what this movie is about.  If you want to see the other side of WW2, go watch Letter From Iwo Jima.  Film makers are not obligated to show both sides of the story, that creates an entirely different movie.  This one was about Desmond Doss and his steadfast convictions to save people during war, and not kill them.  If you can't get behind his motivations or understand why he feels the way he does, then you aren't allowing yourself to see the movie the way it has been written and directed.  For the rest of us, it's pretty clear.

[Goffe]

7 hours ago, Telemachos said:

 

This was the mentality of the time and the men there. Is this supposed to be white-washed or ignored? What do you think war is?

 

No, I don't think it should have been ignored, and I was not asking for the other side to be shown in equal measure or anything like that. Problem was that I thought the movie supported those views. When Doss saves the Japanese soldier it's more of a statement of his nobility and compassion than a humanization of the enemy. When the truck loaded with dead bodies passed by the soldiers I though it was more of an indictment that those "savages" were killing Americans than the horrors of war. It approached propaganda levels when the Japanese soldiers waved the white flag only to try to kill Americans and the shot where the enemies run from an explosion with triumphant music playing in the background.

 

I don't think the movie ever made clear Hugo Weaving character was that way because of the war. In the scene @Jason mentioned, Doss's mother says "I wish you knew him before the war" (plus "he hates himself"), but that's it. None of the crying, the mourning, the drinking, the volatile mood seemed to add up to.

 

Jason "What's the point (of compromising)?" he wouldn't have faced hell for basically nothing. If he can't carry a rifle into battle for fear of using it, then how strong was his conviction was to begin with?

[baumer]

So when a truckload of dead soldiers drives by a pacifist who won't pick up a gun the reason for that particular scene is to show how to demented and deranged the enemy is? Buddy that seriously makes no sense. There were plenty of shots on the battlefield of dead Japanese people as well. In this day and age I don't think many people really glorify war unless you're a sixteen-year-old kid playing a video game in your basement killing people on screen with no repercussions. When you get to be an adult like we are people.....especially in this case Mel Gibson, is not glorifying war at all whatsoever.

[Jason]

10 hours ago, Goffe said:

When Doss saves the Japanese soldier it's more of a statement of his nobility and compassion than a humanization of the enemy.

 

That scene doesn't directly humanize the Japanese generally. But it shows that the hero of the film recognizes the humanity of the enemy. That's hard to reconcile with the film being pro-war. 

 

10 hours ago, Goffe said:

When the truck loaded with dead bodies passed by the soldiers I though it was more of an indictment that those "savages" were killing Americans than the horrors of war.

 

I don't even know what to say to this - so you do think that the film would have been less pro-war if it had sanitized the number of casualties? I think it's understood and expected that everyone else is there to kill each other, Americans and the Japanese alike, with the single exception of Desmond Doss. I don't see how showing that makes the film pro-war.

 

10 hours ago, Goffe said:

It approached propaganda levels when the Japanese soldiers waved the white flag only to try to kill Americans and the shot where the enemies run from an explosion with triumphant music playing in the background.

 

The former scene is more easily read as anti-Japanese rather than pro-war. It's not showing anything that a Canadian audience wouldn't familiar with from history class though, and I presume the same would be true in America. The latter scene is part of a film whose broad strokes are clearly anti-war and pacifist for most people. I think you're focusing on the wrong things.

 

10 hours ago, Goffe said:

I don't think the movie ever made clear Hugo Weaving character was that way because of the war. In the scene @Jason mentioned, Doss's mother says "I wish you knew him before the war" (plus "he hates himself"), but that's it. None of the crying, the mourning, the drinking, the volatile mood seemed to add up to.

 

Before that scene, I already thought it was clear he had been screwed up by the war. Crying, mourning, drinking, and a volatile mood/outbursts of anger all seemed pretty intuitively a result of the war, and the line "I wish you knew him before the war" essentially states that he was different before the war. That can't imply anything else other than the war damaging him, unless you think it's normal for people to say things without intending any meaning.

 

10 hours ago, Goffe said:

Jason "What's the point (of compromising)?" he wouldn't have faced hell for basically nothing. If he can't carry a rifle into battle for fear of using it, then how strong was his conviction was to begin with?

 

No, he didn't face hell for nothing. He faced hell to make sure everyone understood that he absolutely wouldn't use one. That was the point.

 

The problem isn't that he'd be afraid he might use it during battle. It's that if he's carrying a rifle he's been trained to use, and everyone else knows he's been trained to use it, and they're under enemy fire, everyone else could have the reasonable expectation that he would use it, and behave accordingly - relying on him to return fire. Only by not carrying it all from day one can he make it explicitly clear he absolutely will not use it.

 

Again, I thought this was all obvious.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Jason
typo

[Goffe]

28 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

I concede you the gun point. I was wrong, and what you are saying makes sense. I feel dumb.

 

But I still stand by my pro-war argument.

 

Maybe Coolio is right and I don't understand movies? 

[CoolioD1]

desmond doss definitely wouldn't have apostatized. would be more likely to pull an adam driver.

[Cmasterclay]

I actually can see Goffe's point about the anti-Japan stuff (there's literally a scene where Japanese soldiers are depicted like vermin coming from under tunnels, with no faces- just an endless mass), but I admit that's probably fully just my hate for Mel Gibson talking. I think this movie is VERY anti-war though. Just by how plainly it depicts the horror of combat, it made war seem as terrifying and brutal as it ever has on screen. I specifically made a mental note to go AWOL or dodge the draft if Trump ever forced us into a war with China or Iran and started drafting us because of this movie. Fuck THAT.

 

Anyway, I'm with Coolio. I didn't think this was the transcendent "best movie ever" that the board seemed to think it was, but I enjoyed myself and it does certainly get the job done. 

[Plain Old Tele]

49 minutes ago, Cmasterclay said:

I actually can see Goffe's point about the anti-Japan stuff (there's literally a scene where Japanese soldiers are depicted like vermin coming from under tunnels, with no faces- just an endless mass), but I admit that's probably fully just my hate for Mel Gibson talking.

 

How would you suggest these things be shot? The scenes are from the perspective of the opposing side (the Americans) and the Japanese literally dug a network of tunnels throughout the island and used them to great effect. Far from being a direct reference to vermin, those were the strategies and tactics used.

[Cmasterclay]

4 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

How would you suggest these things be shot? The scenes are from the perspective of the opposing side (the Americans) and the Japanese literally dug a network of tunnels throughout the island and used them to great effect. Far from being a direct reference to vermin, those were the strategies and tactics used.

I mean, true. Like I said, I hate Mel Gibson and am predisposed to chalk certain things up to him being a racist, given that he is an avowed racist and all. But hey, dude sure as shit knows how to shoot a battle scene. He made a darn good movie here. I do think the Japanese were depicted as faceless and savage, but I get why he did that and I agree with your points completely. Fuck Mel Gibson, though. 

[Mrstickball]

I think a lot of it has to do with the potential cultural disconnect of audiences with the Pacific Theater of War during World War 2. The Brazilians, in their limited engagements of WW2, were focused entirely in Italy and the European region.

 

Inversely, its why Hacksaw Ridge has done really, really well with audiences in countries where Japanese atrocities were known.. Most notably, its the highest rated live action movie in China... Ever. 

 

If you didn't know about the war and what actions were like against the Japanese, then I am sure it would come off as bitterly pro-war, trying to demonize the Japanese as mercy-less killers.

 

However, for those that study the Pacific War, or, in some cases, had family that were involved in direct actions against the Japanese know that the portrayals are mostly correct... Historically, during the Philippine campaign (which was just before Okinawa, where HSR took place), the Japanese employed horrific strategies against the American and Philippine Army that assisted them. The Japanese were infamous for fighting to the last man, or using their capture as a strategy for suicide bombing.. The American forces killed ~400,000 Japanese during the entire action, while only 10,000 or so were captured. If you study war, those numbers are insane... A similar action against (even) the ruthless Nazis would probably find maybe 400,000 killed and as many or more captured/surrendered, but the Japanese code made them fight, kill, and use deception in some terrible ways. 

 

On Desmond's dad, and how he was a drunk/ect - I fully expected Hugo Weaving's character to act that way.. He was a soldier in the trenches during WW1. Many, MANY soldiers came back from that war with unfathomable levels of PTSD - probably beyond that of what most experienced in World War 2. Its a very bitter thing that can make good men evil.. My dad still has some vestiges of PTSD from his experiences in Vietnam (he survived an NVA rocket/RPG/mortar attack on his base, and was nearly killed during it, and was also a medic during it in '70)... And that is probably a light case by comparison of what Desmond's father had. So to me, as a kid of someone that was in a war, I sympathize with Desmond and his bitter relationship with his dad, and why he's a crazed pacifist. To a Brazilian - it probably is understandable how his actions seem less understandable.

 

Back to the movie ratings - it was very good. CGI took me out a few times, and the Garfield's accent was just... Strange. I know it's close to the real accent of IRL Desmond Doss, but its just so strange, even as an American. 

 

I'd give it a B or B+. My dad would give it an A though.. 2nd favorite war movie next to Saving Private Ryan.