Hacksaw Ridge

Some moments Hacksaw Ridge come across as simple and half-baked, but the film works at the emotional level. And it displays perfect work with eye-pleasing visual reminiscent of the Golden Age of Hollywood. But Braveheart went deeper into the character conflict, and the hero’s rebellion was more passionate. Hacksaw Ridge, on the other hand, remains “just” a well-rendered war drama, made more brutal by blood and guts and a hundred violent firefights. Andrew Garfield is good in his best role so far. (11/30/2016)

The rumors that Hacksaw Ridge is a cruel carnage have been confirmed. At least the scene when the protagonists enter the battlefield for the first time is really not for the faint of heart and will probably be talked about for a while. How the film will fare overall, though, I can't say, but I'm afraid a lot of viewers won't be able to stomach this. Mel Gibson is a great director and it shows here not only in the battle scenes, where he allows himself to do some really wild stuff from time to time, but audiovisually overall. The trouble, however, may be that Hacksaw Ridge looks like something from the last century, and not from the 1990s. The hero is more naive and passionate about a good cause than Forrest Gump, the characters are downright shallow at times, and everything here is either black (Dobbs, you're a naive idiot and you're going to get your ass kicked) or white (Dobbs, we'll follow you to hell). Gibson was probably trying to do just that, and if you accept the rules of the game, you get a very good hero story that you may question how much it has to do with reality, but you will enjoy it. But if you don't tune in to the director's wave, you can suffer through Hacksaw Ridge. So watch out! (05/15/2017)

Gibson will cut you into pieces. It starts as romantic fairytale about human values and then switches over to hell. Doss’s story begins with a very fond view of the past, growing up, a fundamental faith in God all mixed with a complicated relationship with his father (the fantastic Hugo Weaving), a veteran of the First World War and a drunk. The romantic interest is dealt with precisely, somewhere between Forrest Gump and Braveheart, which is exactly what this story needs. The training centre section was a little confused, but as soon as the platoon sets foot on Okinawa, you no longer care. No pussyfooting from Gibson, he serves us reality in its fiercest form. He presents war in a terrifying, raw and very realistic way, but the sensitivity with which it was filmed gives it a stamp of beauty. The image composition is so fantastic it’s almost unbelievable, the same as the story. Heroic transfer of Doss’s wounded comrades, saving lives¬… sometimes even Japanese, hiding in tunnels and bloodbaths. Excellent casting, dominated by Garfield (a great balance between simple farmer and an ardent believer-hero). He does the work expected from him. This movie might never have been made if it wasn’t for Gibson’s Hollywood repentance, and that would have been a great shame. Now we want him back, ready for combat, and I hope that he dusts off that Viking bloodbath that he was meant to make with DiCaprio. (11/14/2016)

I would divide this film into two parts like it is for instance with The Full Metal Jacket. However, as opposed to The Full Metal Jacket, the first half involving training is quite boring, but fortunately the latter half is saved by an absolute precise depiction of war that I haven’t seen in a long time. You see, war is depicted in a pretty brutal manner in this film, which is something I had expected to see in a movie directed by Mel Gibson. At times I was even remembering the brutality and efficiency of SavingPrivate Ryan. The only difference being that Hacksaw Ridge was made about twenty years later. It still is one of the best war movies of the past few years and I am glad that Mel Gibson was in charge of this one, who after all his escapades proved that he still has it in him to get famous again, which he actually managed to achieve due to the fact that he was nominated for an Oscar. By the way, try to find out something about the main character, who is portrayed here by Andrew Garfield. To be honest, I didn’t know what to think about him. I think Desmond Doss was pretty unstable psychologically, which was confirmed in the first hour of the movie. After all, the movie showed this on his despotic father and also on the fact that the entire family was part of some Adventist Church of Jesus’ Latter Days and the family really built who they were on their pacificsm. In any case, I appreciate the effort to help people. You could see that even despite his mental issues, Desmond really meant well and it’s nice that Mel Gibson made such a movie about him. The story is truly epic. (02/21/2017)

Nothing has changed in all these years, Mel Gibson is still a very good storyteller of romantic and personal stories and relationship lines, but only mediocre at working with war themes. We Were Soldiers (where he left the direction to his mate Randall Wallace) had identical ills and became a mere semi-cult classic for loyal fans rather than a benchmark of the genre. Not even Mel's appetite for blood and blown limbs can make up for it. All he had to do was invite Spielberg or Stallone in for a consultation to show him what the meaning of the word dynamic and imaginative action/war scenes is. Everything is topped off by the traditionally idiotic slow-motion shots of the first line running out (again, as if copied from an earlier film), which subliminally scream "pathos" at the top of their lungs. The performances are fine, the Palmer-Garfield duo is ideal. (11/13/2016)