This review does a good job of summarising the plot and the essential parts in the film, but there does seem to be a bias that derails this review from being completely honest. "Hacksaw Ridge" is a phenomenal film with a fantastic story and an even better message. The film is not glorifying war, but it is honest about the violence of war. Doss, the main character, does not want to hurt or kill anyone, he wants to heal and save, which is precisely hat he does. Yet, this review seems to dislike the message of the film, so it takes a passionate bias approach to this review, which is more negative than positive. Though there is bias in this review because the writer dislikes the film, there is still truth in this review. The review touches on how there is a lot of violence in this film, which is true, but then the review seems to say that the film is glorifying violence, which is not true. The violence in the film is honest with how violence in the war is. Doss' ability to keep from killing or taking up a gun even in the face if that violence is truly a testament to his courage and his respect for all human life. The review does bring up the balance of the film but seems to imply that it is mostly about violence. However, the scenes with the most violence are not in most of the movie, and there is a lot more to the plot then fighting in a war. The review is very well written and could be very convincing if the person watching the film did not read into Doss's character.
2
Part 2
The review also does a fantastic job of bringing in the author's own opinions and experiences when he was writing this review.
Though "Hacksaw Ridge" is a movie and people can have different opinions, I think this review is missing out on the most critical parts of this film and its profound message. Watching this film truly inspired me to try to be who I am to be a more courageous and giving version of myself. Anyone I have met who likes this film reminds me of Doss, aways giving, and true to themselves. No one who likes this film misses the more profound messages in it. I think that this film hs a much deeper meaning, which I have seen in it that this review does not touch on. The perseverance that Doss showed, even in the face of all the violence of war, is truly inspiring. I think there is much more that can be taken from "Hacksaw Ridge," then this review talks about. I believe if the author was to lay down his biases and he would see and understand the true purpose and message of this film.
2
Not one American plane flying air cover. Curious.
1
I call this review shocking in its political snootiness toward a powerful movie (which I also just screened via DVD). Guess it's easy for Mr. Scott to take pot-shots at the politically unpopular. Who's next: Celine, Woody Allen, Ezra Pound?
It's also a review that denigrates the long history of the war genre in movies. Apparently, introducing a variety of fellow soldiers is "corny even in the 1940's." (Now, when was "Full Metal Jacket" made?) Instead, we get from Mr. Scott wildly unwarranted praise of a lame, vague, super-patriotic "Dunkirk," a movie that can't hold a candle to this one in terms of characterization, action direction, ambivalent morality, etc.
And why does "Dunkirk" garner this praise? Because it violates the history of war films in an effort to create some kind of bogus symphony of action that leaves the audience cold. In fact, "Hacksaw Ridge" reminded me both of the great Raoul Walsh war films and of, get this Mr. Scott, Tolstoy who, in some of his later works, propounded a strongly held belief in the powerful native and religious behavior of various clans of the farflung Russian empire. "Dunkirk" reminded me only of a pretentious (and not really competent) Christopher Nolan, whose super cool idea of characterization is to "reveal" that Tom Hardy played one of the pilots whose face we never saw behind his oxygen mask until the very end. Oh, wow!
See "Hacksaw Ridge" when you can, but be warned it is violent--for a purpose. But for a good purpose.
It's also a review that denigrates the long history of the war genre in movies. Apparently, introducing a variety of fellow soldiers is "corny even in the 1940's." (Now, when was "Full Metal Jacket" made?) Instead, we get from Mr. Scott wildly unwarranted praise of a lame, vague, super-patriotic "Dunkirk," a movie that can't hold a candle to this one in terms of characterization, action direction, ambivalent morality, etc.
And why does "Dunkirk" garner this praise? Because it violates the history of war films in an effort to create some kind of bogus symphony of action that leaves the audience cold. In fact, "Hacksaw Ridge" reminded me both of the great Raoul Walsh war films and of, get this Mr. Scott, Tolstoy who, in some of his later works, propounded a strongly held belief in the powerful native and religious behavior of various clans of the farflung Russian empire. "Dunkirk" reminded me only of a pretentious (and not really competent) Christopher Nolan, whose super cool idea of characterization is to "reveal" that Tom Hardy played one of the pilots whose face we never saw behind his oxygen mask until the very end. Oh, wow!
See "Hacksaw Ridge" when you can, but be warned it is violent--for a purpose. But for a good purpose.
4
Just watched "Hacksaw Ridge" on DVD and I thought it was superb, and I can understand why the Academy thought so, too. Apparently the Academy doesn't dwell on Mr. Gibson's past like our reviewer does. The film industry made Mr. Gibson pay a steep price for his previous transgressions. But Hollywood has always love redemption stories. It seems that certain critics should do the same, too.
5
I loved this movie. The scene at the end where Desmond Doss is filmed just to give you the impression that he is going to God is heartbreaking.
Mel Gibson is witty and original as a director.
Mel Gibson is witty and original as a director.
1
anything associated with the repulsive Gibson i avoid at all costs.
the anger and guilt weeps from his soggy eyes at the oscars.
sad
the anger and guilt weeps from his soggy eyes at the oscars.
sad
3
'Hacksaw Ridge' was the most brutal film I have ever seen ... I left the theater deeply shaken long after the credits ended. Desmond Doss's incredible heroism was unfortunately far overwhelmed by needless screen violence.
War is not the answer. Heroism at all times is.
War is not the answer. Heroism at all times is.
2
Agree.
Well stated. I watched it on DVD and was left with the same feeling. Beautiful man (Doss), extreme violence (Gibson). Unnecessary to that degree.
1
I admire Mel Gibson as a director and, even, as an actor to a lesser degree. But I really don't understand the degree of violence he puts in. My analogy is a woman leaving nothing to imagination. Power of suggestion is better. We get it. It's a war. There is no dancing in war.
Despite all of the hyper-realistic battle scenes, one feature of the plot seemed utterly unrealistic to me: the American troops had to repeatedly climb a rope net to reach the war at the top. Wouldn't it have occurred to the Japanese to cut the net away or attack when the climbers were most vulnerable? I'm willing to suspend some disbelief for art's sake, but that was too much.
7
Even more unbelievable is the fact that while the military was allegedly using M-1 semi-automatic rifles with only 8 shells to a clip (standard issue for WWII and specifically noted in boot camp) the actual firing power during the fight scenes was overwhelming and automatic.
1
Just the usual tired Hollywood dross, chock full of cliches,poor acting,laughable dialogue and clumsy sentimentality.
3
While I'm no fan of Gibson, I saw the film without knowing he was the director. I thought that the gore and violence was over the top. I understand the horrors of war without being hit over the head repeatedly. The gore and violence was over the top, it distracted from the theme of the movie. (thats the point, you may say - I disagree). Now that I know the it was directed by Gibson, his motive is not an "anti war" movie as someone else stated, but more out of his love of violence and pro-Christian values.
1
why gibsons fascination with gore.
his jesus story was unfit for kids or anyone.
adorned with excessive blood and guts
disgusting
his jesus story was unfit for kids or anyone.
adorned with excessive blood and guts
disgusting
2
I watched the film because I was curious about the story and I have encouraged friends to see it if they are willing view the violence in the film. It is a very fine film.
I think that Mr. Gibson directed a powerful film about Desmond Doss and his story is worth telling. I left the movie deeply moved by the courage and patriotic commitment of Desmond Doss.
I was curious about Mr. Doss and I looked him up on the internet.
I was surprised to find that the film only covered a small part of what Mr. Doss endured. He previously received the Bronze Star for his actions as a medic in battles in the Philippines, and the events in the film occurred over several weeks. He did, in fact, save the men portrayed in the film.
Even more poignant is that Mr. Doss also contracted tuberculosis while saving lives in the Philippines. Treatment after the war included removal of part of a lung and several diseased ribs. Later he received incorrect doses of antibiotics at the VA hospital resulting in full deafness. Years later a cochlear implant gave him back part of his hearing. He also lost the use of the arm that was shot in the HR battle. In the HR battle he insisted that another soldier be given his stretcher when Doss was so wounded he had to leave the battle. He then crawled 300 yards to receive treatment himself.
I think A. O. Scott should have been commenting why it was Mel Gibson who had to bring this incredible story to film and not another great Hollywood director.
I think that Mr. Gibson directed a powerful film about Desmond Doss and his story is worth telling. I left the movie deeply moved by the courage and patriotic commitment of Desmond Doss.
I was curious about Mr. Doss and I looked him up on the internet.
I was surprised to find that the film only covered a small part of what Mr. Doss endured. He previously received the Bronze Star for his actions as a medic in battles in the Philippines, and the events in the film occurred over several weeks. He did, in fact, save the men portrayed in the film.
Even more poignant is that Mr. Doss also contracted tuberculosis while saving lives in the Philippines. Treatment after the war included removal of part of a lung and several diseased ribs. Later he received incorrect doses of antibiotics at the VA hospital resulting in full deafness. Years later a cochlear implant gave him back part of his hearing. He also lost the use of the arm that was shot in the HR battle. In the HR battle he insisted that another soldier be given his stretcher when Doss was so wounded he had to leave the battle. He then crawled 300 yards to receive treatment himself.
I think A. O. Scott should have been commenting why it was Mel Gibson who had to bring this incredible story to film and not another great Hollywood director.
7
Thank you for the insight into this remarkable man. I wonder what Clint Eastwood or Steven Spielberg would have produced with this story.
2
The "thrills of battle" are often "celebrated" by those who have never experienced it. Filmmakers, stick to the reality and horror of past conflicts...no embellishment or fact-bending required to be compelling. Place emotive education above escapism, which might actually encourage more peace in this turbulent world. Some helpful truth here: http://thewaryouknowcurat.wixsite.com/the-war-you-know-
1
"Realism is less a principle than an excuse to concoct vivid fantasies of battle for the benefit of noncombatants, to rub our faces in details that our fathers and grandfathers were famously reluctant to discuss."
Your above observation is dishonoring and snarky. Ultimately, though, it is a sub-par review because your antipathy toward Gibson, or at least your uneasy acknowledgement of his directorial skill, leaves the reader unsure if you are basing your critique solely on the movie as a stand alone work, or as a judgment on Gibson.
The "squeamishness" you project comes across as not wishing to know too much; as if the "reluctance" of our fathers and grandfathers should prevent us from being able to see behind the curtain of their heroism.
Interesting that no such criticism is leveled against the ever increasing "realism" of the horrors of slavery. The more the "realistic" beatings in those films, the more the audience is entreated to finally understand the brutality of slavery and not to turn away. It is forbidden in that context to dwell in "Eden" or to perpetuate a "nostalgic" look backward to the days of the Ole South. And that is a good thing.
So it is in actual combat.
But I suppose it is the difference in refusing to publish ISIS snuff videos, or confronting their slaughter in all its horror.
Maybe if you do not turn away, you will understand why Doss was an unusual hero, but a hero nonetheless.
Your above observation is dishonoring and snarky. Ultimately, though, it is a sub-par review because your antipathy toward Gibson, or at least your uneasy acknowledgement of his directorial skill, leaves the reader unsure if you are basing your critique solely on the movie as a stand alone work, or as a judgment on Gibson.
The "squeamishness" you project comes across as not wishing to know too much; as if the "reluctance" of our fathers and grandfathers should prevent us from being able to see behind the curtain of their heroism.
Interesting that no such criticism is leveled against the ever increasing "realism" of the horrors of slavery. The more the "realistic" beatings in those films, the more the audience is entreated to finally understand the brutality of slavery and not to turn away. It is forbidden in that context to dwell in "Eden" or to perpetuate a "nostalgic" look backward to the days of the Ole South. And that is a good thing.
So it is in actual combat.
But I suppose it is the difference in refusing to publish ISIS snuff videos, or confronting their slaughter in all its horror.
Maybe if you do not turn away, you will understand why Doss was an unusual hero, but a hero nonetheless.
1
A.O. Scott, sorry but you sound very petty. A critic being a critic. This was a superb film. The film maker, the crew, the talent and the history that the film portrays deserve respect and applause at the very minimum. Well done. Thank you Mel, and thank you to all of our incredible soldiers past and present.
2
Is this a movie review or a polemic?
What Mr. Scott thinks about Gibson is completely irrelevant. That is entirely different "essay" for another day.
How many people actually watch a movie and continually think, "This is directed by Mel Gibson." "This is directed by Mel Gibson." "This is directed by Mel Gibson." (or Scorcese - etc.)
Anyway. Doss is God's man in the midst of chaos. The movie covers the bases in that regard. As for gore? War is a grim business. What do you expect in a war movie? It should absolutely be portrayed for what it is. A meat grinder for opposing policies and principles.
What Mr. Scott thinks about Gibson is completely irrelevant. That is entirely different "essay" for another day.
How many people actually watch a movie and continually think, "This is directed by Mel Gibson." "This is directed by Mel Gibson." "This is directed by Mel Gibson." (or Scorcese - etc.)
Anyway. Doss is God's man in the midst of chaos. The movie covers the bases in that regard. As for gore? War is a grim business. What do you expect in a war movie? It should absolutely be portrayed for what it is. A meat grinder for opposing policies and principles.
5
I'm surprised that (at least of the comments I've read), that a moral lesson is not much more taken from this story. The lesson of Donald Trump and his sick, perverted and despicable attacks on entire nations and religions. His vast generalizations and hatred for Mexico, Muslims and alternately his love for war criminals in Russia. Is the lesson of Desmond Doss to judge individuals lost on Americans?
4
Another “R” rating and a review that convinces me to never see this movie.
My dad understood war as he was a WWII vet who served in the Pacific as a young corporal. He rarely mentioned the war. He was a pacifist the rest of his life.
I was in Vietnam in the 44th Medical Brigade and only wore a .45 as I needed to protect my patients. I have never shot a gun of any kind in my 70 years of living. But I chose a world of trauma medicine (It chose me?) and while focused on the patient(s) I only fell apart after the fact. Finally PTSD drove me from my occupation and I was happy to be a GP (which STILL has its horrific moments each day.)
So I don’t see ANY reason to see “war films” or R rated movies with violence.
Mel Gibson and most actors never served. I don’t think they could have served and then made such violent films. Perhaps those who have never seen trauma as a daily job can’t quite connect just how real this is...Clint Eastwood does the same thing-put on screen something he NEVER came close to doing in real life (Unless Camarillo, CA has drastically changed since the last time I was there.) Most men I have known in my life don’t behave as these actors do. Just read “Redeployment” by Philip Klay about Iraq and you see the toll that taking lives does to the souls of Marines caught up in useless combat.
I tried to watch “The American Sniper” actually stood up, cursed at the screen and walked out. We have NO CLUE what war on OUR turf is like...and hopefully won’t.
My dad understood war as he was a WWII vet who served in the Pacific as a young corporal. He rarely mentioned the war. He was a pacifist the rest of his life.
I was in Vietnam in the 44th Medical Brigade and only wore a .45 as I needed to protect my patients. I have never shot a gun of any kind in my 70 years of living. But I chose a world of trauma medicine (It chose me?) and while focused on the patient(s) I only fell apart after the fact. Finally PTSD drove me from my occupation and I was happy to be a GP (which STILL has its horrific moments each day.)
So I don’t see ANY reason to see “war films” or R rated movies with violence.
Mel Gibson and most actors never served. I don’t think they could have served and then made such violent films. Perhaps those who have never seen trauma as a daily job can’t quite connect just how real this is...Clint Eastwood does the same thing-put on screen something he NEVER came close to doing in real life (Unless Camarillo, CA has drastically changed since the last time I was there.) Most men I have known in my life don’t behave as these actors do. Just read “Redeployment” by Philip Klay about Iraq and you see the toll that taking lives does to the souls of Marines caught up in useless combat.
I tried to watch “The American Sniper” actually stood up, cursed at the screen and walked out. We have NO CLUE what war on OUR turf is like...and hopefully won’t.
15
A. O. Scott impeccably delivers the ultimate cheap shot in classic never-forgive, never-forget style:
"Desmond Doss was calm, humble and courageous, qualities Mr. Gibson honors but does not share. It is possible to be moved and inspired by Desmond’s exploits while still feeling that his convictions have been exploited, perhaps even betrayed."
"Desmond Doss was calm, humble and courageous, qualities Mr. Gibson honors but does not share. It is possible to be moved and inspired by Desmond’s exploits while still feeling that his convictions have been exploited, perhaps even betrayed."
5
There was nothing in the review to back up the final assertion. That line struck me from nowhere; Gibson's fascination with on-screen violence does not mean he condones or supports it. Please, Mr Scott, explain how a pacifist's values are betrayed here, and why your social commentary on Gibson is fitting for the film review.
2
I believe what Mr Scott means in that the movie feels like a glorification of violent battle while aspiring to honor the peaceful convictions of it's hero.
3
I saw this less as a cheap shot than a slam dunk. A writer's mic drop. That kind of thing. Beautiful writing.
Consider "Band of Brothers," a miniseries, a ten-hour movie and you have the finest war movie ever made. Having said that, I'll rank Hacksaw Ridge as my #2 or 3.
3
Awful movie. Did not finish it. Acting as bad as the gore.
4
I'd like to know if veterans ever saw half the stuff portrayed in movies like this. Amid clouds of smoke and terror, with heads down, etc. this may be going on all around, but do the people in the midst of it SEE it? Perhaps they do, perhaps this is what it looks like. But combat photography NEVER looks like this, does it?
1
I couldn't speak for an hour after seeing this film. It's an important work. IMO, the third best anti-war movie ever made after Apocalypse Now and Life is Beautiful. See it but be prepared for the horror of war.
6
@Irbarile
“See it but be prepared for the horror of war.”
No, this isn’t war. This is Gibson’s interpretation of war. You REALLY want to know the horror of war? Read Kevin Power’s “The Yellow Birds.” The actors and Mel Gibson have moved on with life. Those who actually lived in war zones don’t get to move on to the next fake movie or return to gated communities.
This Iraq vet Powers puts war on stage in all of its absolute horror and it SHOULD rip you apart. Said to be the “best” description of the unending horror of our wars in the Middle East. Equal to anything James Webb wrote about Vietnam or Norman Mailer (a cook (!) in WWII) in “The Naked and the Dead.”
I think it’s time that we had compulsory military service in this country and that includes anyone even with bone spurs in one foot, or anyone with the ability to attend college and get multiple deferments. Perhaps if Americans actually understood being in constant war with no front lines against an enemy not in an easily identifiable uniform or had their neighborhoods taken over by Spec Ops or had barrel bombs raining down each day blowing up one’s children and home we wouldn’t be so quick to budget for the largest military ever in the history of the world. That having a POTUS “mention” nuclear holocaust as if it’s just a fleeting thought without ANY ramifications wouldn’t seem so “normal.”
“See it but be prepared for the horror of war.”
No, this isn’t war. This is Gibson’s interpretation of war. You REALLY want to know the horror of war? Read Kevin Power’s “The Yellow Birds.” The actors and Mel Gibson have moved on with life. Those who actually lived in war zones don’t get to move on to the next fake movie or return to gated communities.
This Iraq vet Powers puts war on stage in all of its absolute horror and it SHOULD rip you apart. Said to be the “best” description of the unending horror of our wars in the Middle East. Equal to anything James Webb wrote about Vietnam or Norman Mailer (a cook (!) in WWII) in “The Naked and the Dead.”
I think it’s time that we had compulsory military service in this country and that includes anyone even with bone spurs in one foot, or anyone with the ability to attend college and get multiple deferments. Perhaps if Americans actually understood being in constant war with no front lines against an enemy not in an easily identifiable uniform or had their neighborhoods taken over by Spec Ops or had barrel bombs raining down each day blowing up one’s children and home we wouldn’t be so quick to budget for the largest military ever in the history of the world. That having a POTUS “mention” nuclear holocaust as if it’s just a fleeting thought without ANY ramifications wouldn’t seem so “normal.”
6
Saving Private Ryan?
Hacksaw Ridge is amazing, the best war film I've ever seen and by far the best movie of 2016. My Jewish friends say they won't vote or even see a Mel Gibson movie. But that is so unjust.
5
MEB - I'm Jewish - and I will definitely see a Gibson film if it's good. I think it is the best film of 2016 that I've seen all year - and, agree, the best WWII film I've seen in a long time.
5
I suspect your friends see Mel Gibson through the lens of a questioning comment he made several years ago when roughly treated by a traffic cop in CA. His comment, as I recall, was "What is it with you people?"
It was an honest question that received nationwide attention.
Why is one ethnicity singled out from so many others for special attention and abuse? [11 Million died in the holocaust. 5 Million forgotten?]
Jimmy Carter received similar personal abuse from people who strongly condemned him for raising an uncomfortable question -- and never read what the former President had to say in his book - Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid.
The movie is about real-life commitment to our most basic values as lived by a person who repeatedly considered them more important than life itself.
Attributes undeniably admired by all except, perhaps the most depraved.
But even Nazi concentration camp officers respected the integrity of those who lived by the Bible (NT) and wore the purple triangle.
Nazi officers were amused by the experience of being shaved by a man with a straight razor who they knew wanted to kill them but refused to do so for reasons of moral & religious integrity.
It was an honest question that received nationwide attention.
Why is one ethnicity singled out from so many others for special attention and abuse? [11 Million died in the holocaust. 5 Million forgotten?]
Jimmy Carter received similar personal abuse from people who strongly condemned him for raising an uncomfortable question -- and never read what the former President had to say in his book - Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid.
The movie is about real-life commitment to our most basic values as lived by a person who repeatedly considered them more important than life itself.
Attributes undeniably admired by all except, perhaps the most depraved.
But even Nazi concentration camp officers respected the integrity of those who lived by the Bible (NT) and wore the purple triangle.
Nazi officers were amused by the experience of being shaved by a man with a straight razor who they knew wanted to kill them but refused to do so for reasons of moral & religious integrity.
As I read the analytical comments on this exceptional piece of history, my eyes clouded with tears. The complete ignorance of some comments tell the story of just how little is known about the individuals who fought, bled and died for their right to post. My father was one of those men. He left home as an innocent, God fearing man, just married with a baby (ME) on the way. He shipped out in what must have been unbearable fear to places he never knew existed. My mother worked to sew uniforms for pennies, he did not know of my birth for months. This is WAR people. Get over your selves and find gratitude. Thank you Mel for forcing this nation to remember.
20
Superlatives can't express the wonder of this film. In a Hollywood dominated by 'negative', 'dark and dumber' ; and special effects 'drivel' - driven by vested interests determined to undermine any remaining nano-spec of decency and laudable standards in the Western world, Mel's latest resurrects 'all that is fine and noble and good'.
11
Because the director is Australian, I suppose. I'd suggest you watch the "Band of Brothers" miniseries. To put it another way, Hollywood has given way to American television A-list in terms of quality. It all started with The Sopranos in 1999.
I think that Mel Gibson did an excellent job with this movie. I know if Mel is associated with a production, it will be a quality product. My highlight of this movie was actually at the end of it... when some of the actual participants gave a brief testimony on the event in Okinawa, including Desmond. Desmond, even in his old age, struck me as a sincere man of compassion. Hearing his description of one of the scenes was like placing whip cream on a piece of pumpkin pie. It made the movie experience complete. This is an amazing story.
11
While the acting is persuasive, much of the film is a cartoon and unconvincing. The story line is brief, the gore long and too overwhelming. Those who like Saving Private Ryan don't have to worry about having their favorite film displaced by Hacksaw Ridge.
4
Did anyone figure out where the commandment of not to carry a gun came from ? Do not kill is not the same thing. As a child spawned by WWII passions I know lots about that war. I've seen all the movies and this one was at or near top of the list.
1
There is no commandment that says that. The commandment is -thou shalt not kill. However, he said in the movie, the part where he almost shot his father, that he would never touch a gun, which then he promised God that.
2
all so ironic as im sure mr gibson is a card carrying member of the bloody NRA
1
'Flags of our Fathers' was another pretty good WWII movie.
This is the best film I have seen in a long time.
If you thought the first 30 minutes of 'Saving Private Ryan' was realistic, this takes it to another level. I was checking myself for bayonet wounds.
This is the best film I have seen in a long time.
If you thought the first 30 minutes of 'Saving Private Ryan' was realistic, this takes it to another level. I was checking myself for bayonet wounds.
6
Mr. Gibson is primarily a pornographer. A pornographer of violence, but a pornographer none the less. Fascinated to the point of obsession by the heady mix of religion and brutality - the more blood and pain the better - he is like a little boy just learning about the ecstatic pleasures of sex and the even greater satisfaction of ensuing guilt. "Hacksaw" is not quite as nauseating as "Passion of Christ" - what could be? - but it is very much in the same sick tradition.
18
I can hardly wait for Mel's next movie about the liberties taken with the USS Liberty during 1967 gulf war -- and why LBJ refused to accept a second term.
A friend was on it.
A friend was on it.
I wanted to see this movie from the day I saw its trailer. I just returned to my desk after watching it.
I would have never known the story of Mr. Desmond Doss had it not been told through the Movie (or perhaps by a prize winning book).
The story of Mr. Doss is the story of a remarkable and courageous person, a true American hero. I shall go ahead with saying that he portrays a true World hero.
For people around the world, a movie version is essential, since reaching out to the World through books is not (always) possible. I would refer the movie to my family back in India.
I would have never known the story of Mr. Desmond Doss had it not been told through the Movie (or perhaps by a prize winning book).
The story of Mr. Doss is the story of a remarkable and courageous person, a true American hero. I shall go ahead with saying that he portrays a true World hero.
For people around the world, a movie version is essential, since reaching out to the World through books is not (always) possible. I would refer the movie to my family back in India.
9
One of my best high school friends, Terry Kelly, was a conscientious objector who served as a medic during the Vietnam War, while I went off to college and protested against that war. I heard of Terry's death in Vietnam, but none of the details of it. I assumed he was killed in a firefight. But I never forgot Terry, as he was whip-smart, a state champion debater, funny, and possessed a heart of gold. Whenever I was in D.C., I visited the Vietnam Memorial and traced his name on the Wall with my finger--my wholly inadequate way of honoring him.
In 1989 I decided to to try to learn more about his service in Vietnam and his death. I tracked down, inter alia, the sergeant of his platoon. He and others told me how recklessly brave "Red" (for his carrot top, not his politics) was. Like the heroic Desmond Doss, nothing deterred Terry from running to aid of his fellow wounded soldiers in the midst of firefights. But his fearlessness of death, I was sad to learn, was more likely the product of a broken heart after being jilted by his high school sweetheart. For he treated his "pain" with heroin, which was readily available there.
Terry's death, I learned, was in keeping with the absurdity of that war: while riding as a passenger on a scooter in the R&R town of Vung Tao, he was struck in the head by a rock thrown by a kid, fell off and died.
I achieved closure re Terry by bribing my way into Vietnam in Dec. 1989, going to Vung Tao, and planting a tree for him overlooking the sea.
In 1989 I decided to to try to learn more about his service in Vietnam and his death. I tracked down, inter alia, the sergeant of his platoon. He and others told me how recklessly brave "Red" (for his carrot top, not his politics) was. Like the heroic Desmond Doss, nothing deterred Terry from running to aid of his fellow wounded soldiers in the midst of firefights. But his fearlessness of death, I was sad to learn, was more likely the product of a broken heart after being jilted by his high school sweetheart. For he treated his "pain" with heroin, which was readily available there.
Terry's death, I learned, was in keeping with the absurdity of that war: while riding as a passenger on a scooter in the R&R town of Vung Tao, he was struck in the head by a rock thrown by a kid, fell off and died.
I achieved closure re Terry by bribing my way into Vietnam in Dec. 1989, going to Vung Tao, and planting a tree for him overlooking the sea.
59
Thank you for sharing your story.
1
Doss was truly a remarkable person, that rare man who not only held to his principles even in the face of a rampaging enemy, but also applied them to heroically serve his fellow soldiers. It's worth reading about his life.
I don't doubt that Doss relied on his faith in determining how he should behave during the maelstrom that was the battle of Okinawa, the bloodiest of the Pacific campaign in World War II.
But Gibson's movie—which is too pat, glossy and simple-minded, but nonetheless entertaining—ignores the fact that while Doss himself refused to sully his hands with a weapon, he benefited mightily from weapons borne by others. There is an almost indescribable courage in what he did, but to suggest some kind of moral purity is absurd.
What's more, while Doss steeled himself for his indisputably valorous actions by asking God for strength to save "just one more," Gibson's film completely skates on the glaringly obvious question: What sort of deity would stand by while men savage each other so brutally, then intervene to give strength to a single man to save many who had not perished? Such a deity would be, at best, erratic, at worst, a monster.
More likely, it simply doesn't exist—a proposition that does not diminish Doss's reliance on his *beliefs* for courage. Men find their way to valor for countless reasons, from faith to a sense of duty and love to one's brothers (a critical aspect of military training) and sometimes even delusions of invincibility.
I don't doubt that Doss relied on his faith in determining how he should behave during the maelstrom that was the battle of Okinawa, the bloodiest of the Pacific campaign in World War II.
But Gibson's movie—which is too pat, glossy and simple-minded, but nonetheless entertaining—ignores the fact that while Doss himself refused to sully his hands with a weapon, he benefited mightily from weapons borne by others. There is an almost indescribable courage in what he did, but to suggest some kind of moral purity is absurd.
What's more, while Doss steeled himself for his indisputably valorous actions by asking God for strength to save "just one more," Gibson's film completely skates on the glaringly obvious question: What sort of deity would stand by while men savage each other so brutally, then intervene to give strength to a single man to save many who had not perished? Such a deity would be, at best, erratic, at worst, a monster.
More likely, it simply doesn't exist—a proposition that does not diminish Doss's reliance on his *beliefs* for courage. Men find their way to valor for countless reasons, from faith to a sense of duty and love to one's brothers (a critical aspect of military training) and sometimes even delusions of invincibility.
8
Although I do not dispute the super human courage displayed by the main protagonist of this film (and salute any and all efforts to commemorate them), I am dismayed by the cheap, gratuitous and cloyingly sentimental fashion in which Mel Gibson told this story. He is capable of much better as evidenced by some of his prior films. At the same time, again in reference to prior work, he has gone off the rails with wild inaccuracies and needless melodrama. While some scenes depicted in the film are accurate to the smallest detail, others are wildly off the mark. It is a pity that he and his writing team could not have put in a greater effort in portraying the terrible events on Okinawa in a fashion more in keeping with what actually happened rather trying to milk them for both shock and teary-eyed introspection. For those who would like to view a much more balanced account, I would suggest viewing the documentary mentioned in the review as well as the HBO series, THE PACIFIC (as well as reading WITH THE OLD BREED upon which it was based).
3
"The Pacific" is excellent, I agree.
It was in fact based on not one, but two excellent books: E.L. Sledge's "With the Old Breed" and Robert Leckie's "Helmet for My Pillow," as well as the story of Medal of Honor recipient John Basilone.
It was in fact based on not one, but two excellent books: E.L. Sledge's "With the Old Breed" and Robert Leckie's "Helmet for My Pillow," as well as the story of Medal of Honor recipient John Basilone.
3
Well said until the last sentence. Blood isn't given gratuitously....
Desmond Doss' story is one of the greatest true Christian witnesses in modern history. While there was excessive graphic violence in the movie, it is a great docudrama. The studios turned it down for decades before a few brave souls had the courage to make Hacksaw Ridge in the spirit that his faith required.
6
Excellent review. I wish I'd read it before going. If I'd know it was directed by Mel Gibson I'd have declined to go. It was filled with gratuitous and unrealistic blood and gore and completely without subtlety. When I was a kid I saw most of the WWII war movies, and I don't remember anything like this one. I would have walked out if I hadn't been with friends who suggested the film.
6
if you were actually to read 'the old breed' you would know that the actual horror these men endured was even worse than was depicted. the movie might not be perfect but the inhumane brutality should not be forgotten.
Ralph, thanks, and why would you have declined to go with Mel as the director; and why " . . . would have walked out if I hadn't been with friends who suggested the film."
Why, why, Ralph?
Actual war is filled with "gratuitous and unrealistic blood and gore". The John Wayne WWII movies of your youth were idealistic, sanitized representations which masked the brutal realities of the actual events. Anyone who has been in combat will tell you that if anything, real life is worse.
Your review is dead center on target, and please excuse the pun. I just returned from seeing the movie. I'm not a man who easily cries, but I did throughout the film and afterward. I had to compose myself before leaving the theater. I am a conscientious objector whose grandfather fought in World War I and father in World War II. Though I'm no fan of Gibson, I thought he wove the story extremely well. I could personally identify with Doss. To walk the line of both devotion to faith and country truly takes a courageous individual. He was all of that and more. The graphic and gruesome details played hard against this man's soul and cemented further my choice for nonviolence as a Mennonite. As you pointed out so well, the subtly of the music helped me move from scene to scene. Andrew Garfield and Hugo Weaving gave superb performances. I highly recommend this movie and thank you for a marvelous, spot on review.
7
The movie was a fine portrait of a man who did not carry a gun into war. Perhaps because of that same bravery, he was able to save many men. Okinawa was a scene of terrible conflict. I was very aware of all the suffering on Okinawa (relatives), but not of the bravery of Desmond Doss. Mr. Gibson, meh, but the story is worth telling, no matter who tells it.
7
I wonder if those who are so aggressive about Mr. Gibson's political stance are also boycotting ALL of Clint Eastwood's movies?
2
This comment is beyond belief and EVERYTHING that is wrong with liberalism in this country. Mr Gibson has made RACIST and ANTI SEMITIC comments. I can understand why people might shun his work in protest. Exactly why should people boycott Mr Eastwoods movies? Because he is a political conservative who opposed President Obama?
The lefts attempt to stifle political discussion in this country is a truly frightening trend. They yell and scream about fascism and it is people like Jhanzel who exhibit fascistic tendencies.
The lefts attempt to stifle political discussion in this country is a truly frightening trend. They yell and scream about fascism and it is people like Jhanzel who exhibit fascistic tendencies.
1
Though I would add that Eastwood HAS acted in ugly and unforgivable ways against the rights of disabled people (read the book Make Them Go Away). Whatever his party affiliations, that is sufficient for me to censure him.
1
I don't see, at all, where you are getting liberalism or leftism out of the comment to which you responded. I can't identify the commenter's politics, really, but if I tried to guess I would conclude s/he leans right. After all, s/he is implicitly criticizing people who dislike Gibson for his politics and yet accept Eastwood's.
1
It's sad that "patriotic duty" and "religious devotion" are now viewed as something to ridicule, and that so many of us are more offended by words than they are the horrors of war. Gibson should be celebrated for the realistic depiction of the brutal nature of of battlefield conflict, not castigated for it. I don't recall Spielberg being denigrated for its honest and terrifying portrayal in "Saving Private Ryan". We should all indeed be offended by the horrifying reality of war and its brutal representation serves to aid in that purpose for those who have never experienced it firsthand.
The celebration of the human spirit as embodied in a simple man, Desmond Doss, is on display here. His extraordinary courage and decency are overshadowed by the author's contempt for Gibson who is obviously grateful for the opportunity to share his disdain for not only Gibson but for men like Doss who possess contemptible character traits like patriotism and religious devotion.
The celebration of the human spirit as embodied in a simple man, Desmond Doss, is on display here. His extraordinary courage and decency are overshadowed by the author's contempt for Gibson who is obviously grateful for the opportunity to share his disdain for not only Gibson but for men like Doss who possess contemptible character traits like patriotism and religious devotion.
10
Right on Ed!
Hollywood revisits WWII as part of their patriotic propaganda mission to convince us--as we enter unjustified and indefensible war after war after war--that war is somehow noble, thrilling and American to its core.
Good for Mel Gibson to show it is absolutely monstrous, even if the individual human beings caught in it can rise to extraordinary levels of grace.
Good for Mel Gibson to show it is absolutely monstrous, even if the individual human beings caught in it can rise to extraordinary levels of grace.
3
That the Mel Gibson machine has resurrected itself from the flames of a blaze he set himself with a torrent of bigoted hate speech is a testament to the avarice of the agents, studio execs and publicists that has fueled innumerable attempts (The Beaver, Edge of Darkness etc.) to once again make this vocal anti-Semite palatable to movie audiences. I not only will continue to boycott Gibson's work but also artists who have favored profit over principle and have chosen to work with this hate filled man.
8
A torrent? He made one remark while drunk; the overreaction was incredible. Why Gibson? Schwarzeneggar reputedly collected Nazi memorabilia until the Kennedys insisted he get rid of it. Hardy Kruger, a German actor who worked in Hollywood from the 50's to the 80's, began in Hitler Youth and finished the war as a member of the Waffen SS. Difficult to believe Kruger never uttered an anti-Semitic remark.
It's been a decade. Let's move on.
It's been a decade. Let's move on.
9
This is what I is what I hate about the left today. You get some drunk running his mouth saying stupid offense and hateful things years ago and now they self righteous want to destroy that person. I think that we have to judge a person on the totality of there life not some point in time and we to listen to all there words and not just what you want to hear. I for one have come to like Gibson work far more because of the protests NOT because I approve of what he said when he was drunk but because of the the over the top response and the selective outrage we have seen.
1
Malick's The Thin Red Line should be added to the list of truly great war movies. I agree with these comments whih is included in the WIkipedia item on the film: " Martin Scorsese ranked it as his second favorite film of the 1990s on At the Movies. Gene Siskel called it "the greatest contemporary war film I've seen".
13
Wow! Is this a review of the movie, or of Mr. Gibson? Writer's obvious bias against Gibson runs throughout the review. He can't help himself ...... even when he grudgingly admits the film's achievements.
36
I've noticed this in a few other reviews. Enough. Discuss the film; that's what audiences are interested in, not another rehash of a remark a drunken Gibson made 10 years ago.
4
I concur
1
From
Texas, of course.
Texas, of course.
The best war movie i've ever seen was All Quite on the Western Front, from 1930.
13
Mine is Kubrick's Paths of Glory.
5
Sam Pekinpah's "Cross of Iron" with James Coburn about German troops on the Russian Front is a favorite of mine. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Iron
It gets across its lessons without using quite so much gore as "Hacksaw" uses to shock the audience or as the article puts it "to rub or faces in details", as a substitute for a mediocre screen play. Without minimizing Doss's bravery it is a easily forgettable movie.
It gets across its lessons without using quite so much gore as "Hacksaw" uses to shock the audience or as the article puts it "to rub or faces in details", as a substitute for a mediocre screen play. Without minimizing Doss's bravery it is a easily forgettable movie.
1
In the commentary to "The Fall of the Roman Empire" dvd, the narrator says that war scenes don't necessarily have to be horrible sequences of blood and mangled bodies. They can be used as a part of the drama (as one extended battle scene in the movie, for example) or the struggle to preserve the last decades of an empire. Keeping this in mind, many older war movies from the 60's still have something to offer. I recall a scene in "Men in War" where Nehemiah Persoff panics and runs across a minefield (with a predictable outcome) that is absolutely chilling. In his commentary to "Battle of the Bulge" in "Trailers from Hell", Brian Trenchard Smith actually has some good things to say about this much condemned 1965 movie--particularly Robert Shaw as the German commander who apparently lives only to fight the next war. Steve McQueen portrayed a similar character in "The War Lover."
7
" It is possible to be moved and inspired by Desmond’s exploits while still feeling that his convictions have been exploited, perhaps even betrayed.".. thank you for this thoughtful review. I also saw an interview with Mr. Gibson, purporting to "redeem" him from his past indiscretions.. hah! .. he admits he HAD a drinking problem.. claims that he's past that.. but to me, he comes off as a dry drunk. No remorse, gratitude and no attitude of personal responsibility for his past actions. Do not be misled by this man.. he is still toxic!
20
A.O. Scott is a great writer.
16
Gibson never saw a torture scene that he didn't like. There's been at least one in almost every movie he's made or been in. That tells you what you need to know about his artistic vision. And it may make you wonder if his depiction on South Park wasn't close to the mark.
19
The "torture scene"(s) are warranted, just as the gruesome depictions in Martin Scorsese's "Goodfella's" are...study history.
4
There have been so many war-themed movies in recent years (Fury, Lone Survivor, Unbroken, American Sniper, Zero Dark Thirty, Hurt Locker, et al). A few have been truly memorable, most are forgettable when you leave the theater.
I think the genre has been overplayed. I'm sure Gibson's movie is well-crafted, but the trailers appear cloying and manipulative, so I'll skip it.
I think the genre has been overplayed. I'm sure Gibson's movie is well-crafted, but the trailers appear cloying and manipulative, so I'll skip it.
1
This is not a manipulative movie, but a depiction of the horror of an actual battle that took place where many American young men lost their lives. And it was memorable when you leave the movie theater.
3
Mel Gibson is a hateful, bigoted and despicable human being. No one should ever pay to see any movie associated with this man. He is analogous to an enemy combatant against humanity, based on his blind propensity to discriminate against anyone, simply based on their religion. You describe his seeming obsession with portraying violence don the screen like no other. There appears to be enough evidence to suggest he needs to be mentally evaluated.
17
ABSOLUTELY TRUE
4
"Judge not, lest ye be......" Well, you know.
6
What evidence is there of discrimination? Where are all the Jewish people in the entertainment industry saying, "Mel Gibson discriminated against me: he refused to hire me, he was abusive to my Jewish identity, he uttered slurs about Jews on the set?" There hasn't been a single such claim that I've read. Have you?
4
Anyone who knows the first thing about Okinawa knows that it was a singular hellhole, unlike any other in World War II. To portray it as anything less to assuage the sensibilities of those who were not there is an insult to those who were.
59
The best WW2 movie i've seen was a Walk in the Sun.
7
A. O Scott's review is excellent as I am certain is the film. I disagree with the words "he is not a political thinker" A very poor choice of words from a superb journalist. Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite and who has never disavowed his fathers denial of the Holocaust. In his drunken state when arrested for drunk driving he spoke his true views. No pass from me.
41
A.O. Scott did not write, in reference to Mel Gibson, "he is not a political thinker." Rather, Mr. Scott was distinguishing his criticism of Mr. Gibson as a filmmaker as opposed to a political thinker. He said, "Even at his worst -- I mean as a filmmaker, not a political thinker..."
5
That's a misreading of the sentence. Scott is saying he is reviewing Gibson as a filmmaker, not as a political thinker. I'm sure Scott's review of Gibson's political position would agree with yours.
7
It's good that Mr. Scott mentions the movie's "mostly Australian and British cast"; now can he give us an example of a British or Australian movie with a mostly American cast? No such luck. Without bad-mouthing the often superb movie actors who arrive here from those two specific English-speaking nations, don't we have some pretty darn good actors of our own who can portray Americans in American movies? Mel Gibson was one of the first Aussie actors to make it big in American cinema (technically, he was born in the U.S. but anyway...). He was something of a welcome novelty at that time but these days he's just one face in the crowd. No, I'm not suggesting that we send Cate Blanchett back to Australia or Daniel Day-Lewis back to the U.K. but- for heaven's sake- can't someone give Mary-Louise Parker a break or hand a plum movie role to any member of the current cast of "Hamilton"?
37
Dear Stu Freeman,
Interesting point, but Mel Gibson was actually born in upstate New York, Peekskill. He moved to Australia when he was 12, and thus was the most understandable actor in Mad Max due to his ability to return to his native accent.
Apparently Brit and Aussie films do have a batch of American and others show up too, but I think we're not as familiar with their more local movies
Interesting point, but Mel Gibson was actually born in upstate New York, Peekskill. He moved to Australia when he was 12, and thus was the most understandable actor in Mad Max due to his ability to return to his native accent.
Apparently Brit and Aussie films do have a batch of American and others show up too, but I think we're not as familiar with their more local movies
3
"Hacksaw Ridge" was shot in Australia. Your complaint would carry more weight if a director had imported a bunch of Australian actors for a movie filmed in California.
15
I totally agree Stu, and was about to post something similar. Garfield, Weaving, Griffiths... all the leads in an American movie about American experience in war. Many American actors could have played these roles, some would have had relatives who might have given them their direct experience. But this has been going on for years, this betrayal of American actors for the glorification of English and Australian actors. Greed, I suppose. I'm surprised more talk isn't heard about this.
' Realism is less a principle than an excuse to concoct vivid fantasies of battle for the benefit of noncombatants, to rub our faces in details that our fathers and grandfathers were famously reluctant to discuss.'
This is an intelligent and overdue insight into war movies post Saving Private Ryan. I saw the movie 'Fury' about a WW2 tank crew on TV the other night and the battle scenes struck me knock off Private Ryan. Equally, WW2 movie dialogue is well passed the point of cliche now. It does seem that war movies have entered the realm of science fiction gore presented as the ultimate in realism and that, as survivors of WW2 pass away, few of us are in a position to challenge realism as gore for gore's sake. Some years back, there was a fascinating documentary about the evolution of war movies since WW2. In the immediate aftermath of the war, directors knew that many in the audience had been through the real thing. As such, the old black and white movies, especially British WW2 war movies made in the 1950s, were deemed to be more realistic, in terms of language used, how the military really worked etc, than more recent WW2 movies, despite advances in battlefield special effects. As for Mel Gibson, he was good in 'Gallipoli.'
This is an intelligent and overdue insight into war movies post Saving Private Ryan. I saw the movie 'Fury' about a WW2 tank crew on TV the other night and the battle scenes struck me knock off Private Ryan. Equally, WW2 movie dialogue is well passed the point of cliche now. It does seem that war movies have entered the realm of science fiction gore presented as the ultimate in realism and that, as survivors of WW2 pass away, few of us are in a position to challenge realism as gore for gore's sake. Some years back, there was a fascinating documentary about the evolution of war movies since WW2. In the immediate aftermath of the war, directors knew that many in the audience had been through the real thing. As such, the old black and white movies, especially British WW2 war movies made in the 1950s, were deemed to be more realistic, in terms of language used, how the military really worked etc, than more recent WW2 movies, despite advances in battlefield special effects. As for Mel Gibson, he was good in 'Gallipoli.'
21
Speaking of sci-fi special effects, I noticed that tracer rounds in "Fury" traveled in absolutely straight lines. That made them look cool but of course it violates the laws of physics because bullets will fall vertically due to gravity. I think the first movie I ever saw with my dad was "All the Young Men" with Alan Ladd. This 1959 movie is one cliche after another but it does make the viewer feel like --we just won WW2 so what are we doing in this frozen wasteland. In that sense the movie is pretty close to reality.
2
War is not something that people who have been there boast about. War is the deepest depravity of human behavior, behavior often granted asylum by religion. Civility is not one of humanity's historic character traits. It is the wars, genocide, and mass murder that coagulate on the page and screen. If some work of art can work to save one life, it would seem to be worthwhile. Are humanity and its beings listening? That may be something we may never know.
13
I'd love to see that documentary—anyone know the title?
I'll never forget the opening of Orwell's "1984", in which Winston Smith goes to the movies. There the audience cheers and thrills as they watch a lifeboat full of innocents strafed to pieces by helicopters. The audience revels in the gore, blissed out on violence. Yes, I know, it's an old saw, to acknowledge that war movies make partners of the audience while simultaneously indicting them; pretend to be revulsed, secretly indulge the visceral euphoria of violence. But we're about to have an election in which one of the candidates incites violence, encourages his followers to hurt those who oppose them, and speaks in the forked tongue of armed sedition. So what do war movies, even war movies allegedly with a conscience, really accomplish? Do they actually desensitize us so that we, too, can get our unholy thrills? So that we, too, can sit there in the dark, cheer like animals at human dismemberment, and then turn it outward, towards those we believe to be heretics? Is that really what these kinds of movies do? And what use is the critical justification for this sort of cinema, when the result is dishonorable?
33
Dear David,
I'd hope that that's what the worse type of war movies do, particularly the propaganda ones. The ones I listed below, as well as "The Hurt Locker", "Jarhead", "Black Hawk Down", "Lone Survivor", "Rescue Dawn", and even Gibson's earlier "We Were Soldiers", all hit me with the sense that war was incredibly awful, destroying the lives of the survivors and filled with senseless slaughter.
But most of these, the better types of war movies in my opinion, are recent. Our films from the 50's and 60's were much more propagandistic, and they were, I think, meant to evoke the emotions you mentioned.
I'd hope that that's what the worse type of war movies do, particularly the propaganda ones. The ones I listed below, as well as "The Hurt Locker", "Jarhead", "Black Hawk Down", "Lone Survivor", "Rescue Dawn", and even Gibson's earlier "We Were Soldiers", all hit me with the sense that war was incredibly awful, destroying the lives of the survivors and filled with senseless slaughter.
But most of these, the better types of war movies in my opinion, are recent. Our films from the 50's and 60's were much more propagandistic, and they were, I think, meant to evoke the emotions you mentioned.
2
Thanks, great review overall, though I wish it didn't dwell on Mel so much. Sure, as a person, he's got some very negative qualities, including being raised as a hardcore Traditionalist Catholic, every bit as fundamentalist as the 7th Day Adventist he's portraying.
But whatever, Picasso was an abuser of women but his art is magnificent and his misogyny not apparent in it. Likewise I'm sure this movie doesn't espouse that WWII was started, like all wars, by the Jews, or any of Mel's other drunken rambling ideas.
Anyway the movie sounds interesting but the key point to me is this line, "The film pretends to be a grim reckoning with the horrors of war, but it is also, true to its genre, a rousing celebration of the thrills of battle". No thanks, not worth seeing until it comes out on TV.
Might I add too that the celebration of battle is NOT true to the genre. The best war movies are films like, "Saving Pvt. Ryan", "A Thin Red Line", "American Sniper", "Platoon", "Full Metal Jacket", "War Horse", "Letters From Iwo Jima", "The Deer Hunter", "Cold Mountain", "Empire of the Sun", and so forth.
I contend every single one of those highlights the horrors of war and its terrible impact, not a one glorifies the combat. That "Hacksaw Ridge" apparently does so, makes it an uninteresting war movie.
But whatever, Picasso was an abuser of women but his art is magnificent and his misogyny not apparent in it. Likewise I'm sure this movie doesn't espouse that WWII was started, like all wars, by the Jews, or any of Mel's other drunken rambling ideas.
Anyway the movie sounds interesting but the key point to me is this line, "The film pretends to be a grim reckoning with the horrors of war, but it is also, true to its genre, a rousing celebration of the thrills of battle". No thanks, not worth seeing until it comes out on TV.
Might I add too that the celebration of battle is NOT true to the genre. The best war movies are films like, "Saving Pvt. Ryan", "A Thin Red Line", "American Sniper", "Platoon", "Full Metal Jacket", "War Horse", "Letters From Iwo Jima", "The Deer Hunter", "Cold Mountain", "Empire of the Sun", and so forth.
I contend every single one of those highlights the horrors of war and its terrible impact, not a one glorifies the combat. That "Hacksaw Ridge" apparently does so, makes it an uninteresting war movie.
16
A war film that doesnt at least touch on the glorification of war pretty much completely misses one of the most important reasons why men fight. When I joined the army I gave the recruitment guys the usual blather, which, incidentally, I learned from various war movies - the type you would probably approve of (How many 17 and 18 years old have told recruiter they "want to serve their country and give something back"? I mean, c'mon, I was 17. The 48 year old me couldnt listen to a 17 year old say that today and keep a straight face. What I told the recruiters wasnt the truth. Not the full truth, anyway. Like it or not Id say that applies to everyone who puts on a military uniform and joins a combat unit, Desmond Doss as well.
19
I would also like to point out that Roman Polanski is still making acclaimed movies, having been convicted in a court of law of raping a child. But people in Hollywood still want to work with him because he is a "great artist" and makes good movies. Most of the reviews of his movies no longer even mention anything about his past. Not that Mel Gibson seems to be a great guy or anything, but the hypocrisy of Hollywood in this case is pretty astounding.
49
Dear Dave,
Sorry but it's an importantly stupid reason to fight. There is no actual glory in war, and while some wars must be fought, war is always horrible. Lots of patriotic propaganda films don't acknowledge this, but they fail their viewers by misrepresenting what war actually is.
Dear Durham MD,
There's an important difference with Polanski, as you say he was convicted of rape. Massively worse than either Picasso or Mel Gibson.
What people lose sight of with Mel is that while he may be anti-Semitic and a bit of a loon, he's never acted on those sentiments. He has hurt nobody, hasn't acted noticeably discriminatory, and is thus a far better man than somebody like Trump. He's no hero or anything, but he comes up with good movies, and hasn't really done any harm.
Sorry but it's an importantly stupid reason to fight. There is no actual glory in war, and while some wars must be fought, war is always horrible. Lots of patriotic propaganda films don't acknowledge this, but they fail their viewers by misrepresenting what war actually is.
Dear Durham MD,
There's an important difference with Polanski, as you say he was convicted of rape. Massively worse than either Picasso or Mel Gibson.
What people lose sight of with Mel is that while he may be anti-Semitic and a bit of a loon, he's never acted on those sentiments. He has hurt nobody, hasn't acted noticeably discriminatory, and is thus a far better man than somebody like Trump. He's no hero or anything, but he comes up with good movies, and hasn't really done any harm.
3