Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

[Silver Raven]

As much as I hate to give that douche Mel Gibson credit for anything, this is really a great movie.  One of the best war movies I've ever seen.  The first half is all pre-war, going into Desmond Doss's past and what makes him who he is (except for one scene that is revealed later on), but it's as interesting as the army and war scenes.  And when the battle begins, man, it's shattering.  Violent, and bloody and gory, and real.  And the movie only shows part of Desmond Doss's heroism.  I read the Medal of Honor citation and it talks about a lot more than what the movie shows.

Andrew Garfield and Hugo Weaving are excellent.  I hope they get Oscar nominations.  And I hope Mel Gibson gets zilch.

Except for British Andrew Garfield and American Vince Vaughn, every other actor in the film is Australian.  And yet, they do creditable accents, all of them.

I was shocked and pleased to see Philip Quast in this movie.  One of the greatest Broadway actors of his generation, and in my opinion, the best Inspector Javert ever.

[SeanC]

"Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but the son of a bitch knows story structure."

This is the film that Angelina Jolie's Unbroken wanted to be, but could not be because the director had no clue what to do with Louis Zamperini's religiosity -- leaving, as a result, a protagonist whose arc was little more than taking brutal amounts of punishment. Gibson, whose tumultuous personal life has included a very strong personal faith, is unafraid to place this at the centre of Desmond Doss' existence. It's not a subtle film, by any means, and I'm sure some will find it too broad; I admit, that was my initial reaction to hearing Andrew Garfield's cornpone accent (though from the clips of the real Doss, it's underplayed, if anything). Accent prejudice at work. As it turns out, Garfield gives a great, committed performance. The other actors in the film are fine, though at times Hugo Weaving perhaps does overdo it as Doss' abusive, PTSD-afflicted father.

The combat sequences at the titular Hacksaw Ridge are astoundingly brutal, some of the bloodiest I've ever seen put onscreen, and definitely convey the horrific experience of warfare. With its main character serving as a medic, there's logically a lot of emphasis on showing the grisly condition of the wounded, compared to many other films where those characters normally drop out as the protagonists keep driving forward.

[thuganomics85]

Yeah, this was probably my favorite war movie since Saving Private Ryan.  Whatever issues I have with Mel Gibson as a human being (and I have quite a lot of them), I can't deny his talent behind the camera, and I think he especially has a knack for showing brutal violence, but in a way where it doesn't feel like he is glorifying it in ways like, say, your average horror film does.  While it can be hard to watch, I feel like it serves a purpose in that war is hell, and I would never, ever want to be in that situation.  I can only imagine how Desmond and the real soldiers must have felt.  Even past the blood and limbs being blown off, just how unpredictable and sudden the shooting can be, the mist that made it hard to see, and enemy really seeming to come from any direction, was a lot to take in. 

I did think the beginning was a little bit slow, and romance between Desmond and Dorothy only felt like it came from a film in a different era.  The stuff with his parents was better, even if Hugo Weaving's accent was dodgy as hell.

Andrew Garfield was great, even if his accent made him come close to "Aww, shucks!  I'm just a good old boy!" territory, but judging from the actual Desmond clip, that is actually pretty accurate.  Teresa Palmer was fine, although I really do see the "Australian Kristen Stewart" comparisons, lookwise.  Accent issues aside, Hugo Weaving was great.  Great seeing Rachel Griffiths too.  Sam Worthington actually left an impression this time (still crazy that he's the lead in one of the highest grossing films of all time, and I can barely remember a thing about him in that film).  Vince Vaughn was better then expected, although I did find it funny that he was the lone American in a "True American Hero" story.  Those pesky Australians and their ability to do American accents with ease!  Also fun seeing Richard Roxenburgh and Matt Nable pop up in roles.

While I noticed that religion really does play huge parts in Mel Gibson-helmed films, I did like that the film didn't seem to preach to the audience too much, and just tried to show that this was how Desmond feels, and that it didn't make the rest of the solders any less for taking up arms, but just that wasn't something Desmond was willing to do, but he truly wanted to fight for his country all the same.

[Silver Raven]

17 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Andrew Garfield was great, even if his accent made him come close to "Aww, shucks!  I'm just a good old boy!" territory

He toned down the real Desmond Doss's accent.

[Raja]

I read the story of Private Doss when I was  ROTC Cadet. I am just not up to realistic battle scenes right now. I was getting a different vibe from the trailers so now I guess that this Ridge movie waits for home video.

[AliShibaz]

On 2016-11-06 at 5:40 PM, Silver Raven said:

As much as I hate to give that douche Mel Gibson credit for anything, this is really a great movie.  One of the best war movies I've ever seen.  The first half is all pre-war, going into Desmond Doss's past and what makes him who he is (except for one scene that is revealed later on), but it's as interesting as the army and war scenes.  And when the battle begins, man, it's shattering.  Violent, and bloody and gory, and real.  And the movie only shows part of Desmond Doss's heroism.  I read the Medal of Honor citation and it talks about a lot more than what the movie shows.

Andrew Garfield and Hugo Weaving are excellent.  I hope they get Oscar nominations.  And I hope Mel Gibson gets zilch.

Except for British Andrew Garfield and American Vince Vaughn, every other actor in the film is Australian.  And yet, they do creditable accents, all of them.

I was shocked and pleased to see Philip Quast in this movie.  One of the greatest Broadway actors of his generation, and in my opinion, the best Inspector Javert ever.

I must agree with you and I share your feelings when you call him a "douche".

However, after reading many of the reviews of this film, I have to wonder if maybe people are being a little too hasty to keep on denying any forgiveness towards Mel and maybe it just might be appropriate to try and find some forgiveness in our hearts and admit that we have given him a real bad time for the past ten years or so. Could it not be possible that maybe it just might be time to give him some forgiveness and let him have another chance?

Of course he has behaved very badly in the past with all of his horrible racist B.S. about many people. But can't it be fair to give him another chance now? At least a chance to repent and a chance to seek forgiveness?

I'm very torn about this and if your answer is "NO!", I will definitely understand why. Many Jewish friends were terribly hurt by his remarks and I don't think that any of them have ever been able to forgive Mel for his hate-speech. But ... where do we go from there? Do you really want to hate on him forever more?

I don't know. I'm feeling very confused about this and I sincerely hope that there just may be an opportunity here to forgive the dope and allow him to have another chance. Is there no way you could see your way clear to doing this?

I heard this film is truly excellent and shows a depth of understanding that surpasses most anything he has done in the past. I just don't know what to do or how to feel about this guy at this point. But I do know that I'd truly love to hear him offer a heart felt apology and a promise to try and mend his ways and find a way to get along with all the other races in this world.

Any chance you might be able to feel the same way?

Edited November 14, 2016 by AliShibaz

[Silver Raven]

Quote

Any chance you might be able to feel the same way?

Seeing is believing.

[AliShibaz]

Well, I went to see Hacksaw Ridge tonight and I'm sorry to say I was kind of disappointed. Why? It was about the timing.

It seems to me (just my guess really) that a good war movie should spend the first one-third of the movie telling the back story. The next one-third should be leading up to the climax. The final one-third should be the climax and the aftermath.

I didn't measure the time in this film. But it seemed to me that Gibson spend the first 40% of the movie telling the back story. The next 40 percent was the lead up to the climax.  Then the next ten percent was the climax and the final ten percent was the aftermath.

That just made the first two parts seem to drag and the climax - which is often the most enjoyable part of a movie - seemed to be over in just a blink of the eye.

I expect many people might disagree. But I strongly disagree with whoever claimed this is the best WW2 movie since Saving Private Ryan.

Edited November 19, 2016 by AliShibaz

[Schweedie]

On 7 november 2016 at 2:36 AM, SeanC said:

I admit, that was my initial reaction to hearing Andrew Garfield's cornpone accent (though from the clips of the real Doss, it's underplayed, if anything). Accent prejudice at work.

Heh, I had the same reaction. A brief "Oh no" when I heard him at the start, and then with the clips of the real Doss I got it.

 

On 14 november 2016 at 11:01 PM, AliShibaz said:

I didn't measure the time in this film. But it seemed to me that Gibson spend the first 40% of the movie telling the back story. The next 40 percent was the lead up to the climax.  Then the next ten percent was the climax and the final ten percent was the aftermath.

That just made the first two parts seem to drag and the climax - which is often the most enjoyable part of a movie - seemed to be over in just a blink of the eye.

Nailed my feelings exactly. I had the same problem with this movie - the pacing. It felt off throughout. I could've done without so much of the backstory and spent more time on the actual war and Doss' non-climactic heroics there. Andrew Garfield was brilliant and there was so much good acting throughout the cast, but for me the writing/pacing took away from what could have been a really fantastic WW2 movie.

[vavera4ka]

I don't remember crying as much during the movie as I just did during this one. Started at the camp and went on and off pretty much for the duration of the whole 2  hours. 

War movies is not my cuppa though. War itself is one of my worst nightmares. I don't dream of it often but when I do I'm emotionally messed up for days. So I try not to fascilitate it by watching war movies. So with this in mind: too graphic and gory.

I hope I dream of flowers and rainbows tonight lol

[Traveller519]

Snuck Hacksaw in last night as part of my pre-Oscars watch, and....I'm conflicted. There were some great shots, and I liked Garfield's performance during the battle scenes, but there was some really weird stuff too.

The first battle scene was set up well with the slow approach, and the quiet, but then got really disjointed, and felt more like scenes from The Longest Day than a modern World War II film. Next to none of the supporting characters outside of Vince Vaughn and Sam Worthington's were well developed enough to carry any emotional weight when they were killed or injured. There were just too many guys in the company that the film wanted us to try and keep track of, who were all introduced with a half second nod from the beginning. And the final battle scene felt like it carried no consequence. Doss had earned the respect of the company but after one pep talk from the Captain they get back into a quick battle, which save the great grenade scene is over as quickly as it starts.

The comparison to Unbroken is apt. There's a lot to unpack with the backstory that I'm not sure works so well in a feature film biopic. If I think back to Fury or Saving Private Ryan, we unpack those characters through the frame of the war, already in the midst of it. Going through training really breaks up the film. But it's still so important to Doss' character. Ahhh! This movie!

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Okay, Andrew Garfield, you got me. You made me tear up.

The scene where Doss comes down from the ridge, having gotten the last man he could to safety before the Japanese closed in on him, where he twitches away from his fellow soldiers who had given him such a difficult time, is reminiscent of Garfield's role in Never Let Me Go just before his character has a screaming breakdown, and I was halfway expecting for it to go there as what he'd just gone through sank in. And again, whatever kind of asshole Mel Gibson may be, he did full justice to the bloody horror of battle. That the camera gives us Doss' point of view as he stumbles to a tent to be checked by the other medics was a particularly nice touch; walking past the men who had derided his faith as they look at him with new respect and admiration made me get choked up, which I didn't think would happen. Excellent job, Garfield.

[JustaPerson]

That one scene where Doss pauses for a bit and "speaks" to God before going back to find more men and it's just Andrew Garfield by himself face acting I was like damn you, Andrew Garfield! He earned that Oscar nom. 

[voiceover]

Many of the reviews of this film scorned the bloody, grisly battle scenes.  Even before I saw it, I thought calling it "war porn" was one of the dumbest fucking things ever.  What do these people think war is?  

During those same battle scenes, I was reminded of Alan Alda's Hawkeye, railing at Radar: "I'm here to pull bodies out of a sausage grinder! If possible, without going crazy!"  It was a thing they referenced on M*A*S*H, but never revealed (it was TV, so -- of course).  Gibson never flinched from showing it here.

As far as Andrew Garfield: a tough role to balance, but he does.  His Doss clings to Grace, despite everything else.  And I believed him.

[revbfc]

He may have problems with half my family, but credit where due:  Mel Gibson knows how to make a movie.

[2727]

10 hours ago, voiceover said:

Many of the reviews of this film scorned the bloody, grisly battle scenes. Even before I saw it, I thought calling it "war porn" was one of the dumbest fucking things ever. What do these people think war is?  

Perhaps the term has lost all meaning, but I think the idea of battle scenes being beautifully (some might even say lovingly) shot and lit, with hyper realistic gore, and perhaps with slo-mo images, is still a valid point. House porn, torture porn, food porn, weather porn, car porn, rape porn -- it's common nomenclature these days to indicate a certain glossy, over-the-top focus that entices and compels (or intentionally repels) viewers in some way.

[voiceover]

Yes.  I know that it's "common nomenclature".  It's also a "mileage varies".  

To accuse a director of "lovingly" shooting scenes where men are being torn to shreds is to make a judgement that probably reflects more on the viewer.  Who doesn't, after all, have that brain-access thing going.

Here's a perspective: gore is shot in slow-motion in part because that's how tragedies are often perceived -- as if the mind knows the heart can't take it in all at once.  

And in part to force the audience to *really look* -- and if they don't see it, it's because they've looked away, and who could blame them; guilty of it myself.

The only part of Private Ryan that I found compelling & original was that opening D-Day sequence.  That was your Oscar-winner.  The rest was a nicely done 40s war flick with every soldier ticking a box on the "ethnicities/neighborhoods coming together" list.

I am not saying Hacksaw was better. I side with those who'd like the backstory cut way down.  But it did remind me, structurally, of The Big Parade, All Quiet on the Western Front, and Sergeant York.  All great war films built around a young man with character, and all taking time to explain what his character was before it was battle-tested.