Hacksaw Ridge

Gibson probably didn't quite understand the meaning of the phrase "war is hell/horror" and took it literally, word for word. He thus stylizes war scenes as a pure horror genre movie from hell with everything from the fear of the unseen through spooky scenes to the ultimate gorefest that cinema has never experienced before. Which is basically (without irony or exaggeration) a brilliant idea. On paper. In this interpretation, however, it is only a monotonously stultifying patchwork of slow-motion shots of Japanese Palachas melancholy flare accompanied by raining limbs. And all this improved with WTF moments that are like from the Army of Darkness (yes, a congenial assault with a rotting body, football-grenade scissors or "I´ll move forward you have my back"). And I haven't even yet mentioned the excessive agitation "overlap" that the viewer is forced to watch, which is packed with undisguised pathos (no, it's not a scene "please, one more"), that it has absolutely nothing in common with serious (anti) war drama. This is a regular B-rate guild "holy gore" pleasure not a serious movie. Which is a pity, because the fate and the themes (and the resulting conflicts) are so stimulating that they deserved a better and, above all, more dignified adaptation. But it wouldn't be so much fun, although unintentional, but damn it. At the end of the day, the main drawback is not the silly script, ridiculous performances or disrespecting the memory of the victims on both sides, but the first forty minutes, which ... Well, it´s just as bad (if not worse) than the rest of the movie, but there are no scenes from the Army of Darkness. Which is an unforgivable sin that not a dozen prayers will undo. (01/28/2017)

Laughing in atheist Czechia at the Catholic Gibson going over the top in the story of a soldier who refuses a gun for religious reasons seems like a cheap pose to me. The truth is that just as Gibson does not discount his position as a devout Christian, he does not discount filmmaking compromises. The first hour might have deserved to be turned up a notch and let the viewer peek inside the heads of those for whom a gun is a certainty in war, but the second half is a Rambo-esque rendering plant that, with its refined camera, editing, and sound-chiseled aesthetics, turns a wartime hell into an almost hypnotically artistic experience. This was last done by Ridley Scott at the start of the new millennium. You can have whatever feelings you want about it throughout, but when Garfield's limited acting works at the end, it turns into an emotional waterfall that for once I didn’t feel awkward about. 4 ½. (07/15/2017)

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. (11/14/2016)

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. (11/15/2016)

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)