HACKSAW RIDGE, Stanley Kubrick (1 Viewer)

Nah, there's just something odd and grotesque about the way that Gibson shoots some of his combat scenes and his depiction of soldiers being wounded. Recall the opening of Saving Private Ryan and how bloody it was? That was necessary, IMO, because I think that Spielberg was intent on communicating a sense of the horror that G.I.'s endured in the landings. Gibson's scenes are different. I see him using violence as entertainment in the movies that I cited, and it's reflected in his camera work. Rather than being moved by the sacrifice of the troops, I'm repelled by the gore that's too similar to graphic depictions that I'd expect to see in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, the kind of thing that adolescent boys get off on. The Hurt Locker and American Sniper are other examples of movies that deal with very intense violence, but do it in a way that's not vulgar or exploitive of such terrible suffering. That's all, just my opinion, and you know what people say about opinions.;)

-Moe
Moe,you might be interested to know that the movie review in the Washington Post on Friday had similar views on Gibson's use of violence, so you are not alone in how you feel. To each his own, as is said. Have you seen Gibson's Apocalypto? It is violent, with some particularly bloody sequences, but the violence seemed perfectly punctuated in that movie's setting. -- Al
 
Moe,you might be interested to know that the movie review in the Washington Post on Friday had similar views on Gibson's use of violence, so you are not alone in how you feel.

Al, it's a bad sign when The Post agrees with me!;) Truth be told, I was really hoping that Gibson had cleaned up his action. My query to Tom above was just that, me looking for feedback on the film. I've since read some reviews of the pic, and I'm gonna pass on this one. BTW, if some of those same reviewers like the movie, I suspect it's because "the good guy" is a pacifist (rather than the fellas with the weapons).

To each his own, as is said. Have you seen Gibson's Apocalypto? It is violent, with some particularly bloody sequences, but the violence seemed perfectly punctuated in that movie's setting. -- Al

I saw part of it on cable, I believe. I'm no expert on the subject, but it may not be possible to depict human-sacrifice in a non-controversial manner. When it comes to the portrayal of indigenous peoples, theres's no doing them justice with a knife in their hand...unless of course the guy on the receiving end is a European or Creole.:rolleyes: In its representation of a world where life was "nasty, poor, brutish and short" (Thomas Hobbes), however, my biggest complaint with Apocolypto was that it had a mercifully, if highly unlikely, HAPPY ENDING.:D

-Moe
 
Al, it's a bad sign when The Post agrees with me!;) Truth be told, I was really hoping that Gibson had cleaned up his action. My query to Tom above was just that, me looking for feedback on the film. I've since read some reviews of the pic, and I'm gonna pass on this one. BTW, if some of those same reviewers like the movie, I suspect it's because "the good guy" is a pacifist (rather than the fellas with the weapons).



I saw part of it on cable, I believe. I'm no expert on the subject, but it may not be possible to depict human-sacrifice in a non-controversial manner. When it comes to the portrayal of indigenous peoples, theres's no doing them justice with a knife in their hand...unless of course the guy on the receiving end is a European or Creole.:rolleyes: In its representation of a world where life was "nasty, poor, brutish and short" (Thomas Hobbes), however, my biggest complaint with Apocolypto was that it had a mercifully, if highly unlikely, HAPPY ENDING.:D

-Moe
With respect to Apocalypto, I personally don't think it has a happy ending per se. The end of the movie just depicts the beginning of the end (since we do know what happened next) for likely millions of native Mayans with the Conquistadors landing on that beach.
 
"BTW, if some of those same reviewers like the movie, I suspect it's because "the good guy" is a pacifist (rather than the fellas with the weapons)."

Some food for thought for those reviewers and others.

You are a battalion commander about to land on Okinawa and the General says you have the choice of two men :

Audie Murphy and guaranteed he will kill 75 Japanese.

Or

This other unknown guy called called Doss who won't kill anybody but he will save the lives of 75 of your guys.
 
I'm not sure the Washington Post is exactly objective in their analysis of an anti war film. That publication like most has ulterior motives. Last I noticed they are still selling advertising on their pages. I will gladly plop a few coins down and go see the film, make up my own mind. As for Gibson he is a talented man yes he is tormented by alcohol and drug issues plus a myriad of emotional and behavioral demons but I admire artists who express and interpret history in cinema. That task in and of itself is very challenging to cram into a 90 to 180 minute production. I am comfortable with depictions of violence as we are all somewhat de sensitized to it anyways. It is the degree of what a person can rationalize and stomach based on past life experiences. Try and reverse engineer Gibson's rationale: Perhaps what would his interpretation of "All Quiet on the Western Front" be like? Could he shame Mike Nichols adaptation of "Catch 22"? How about if he did a remake of George Roy Hill's "Slaughterhouse 5"? Could he outdo Robert Altman's "MASH"? The anti war film genre is vast and subject to great scorn, praise, ridicule and discussion. Film is art it is not real life. Movies are made to entertain, to provoke thought, to raise awareness, to create dialogue. Kubrick crafted a masterpiece with "Paths of Glory". "Dr Strangelove" is one of the true great satires of the last few generations. Gibson's second wind is worth seeing. Time will tell if the film is on par with his epic achievement "Braveheart".
 
I'm not sure the Washington Post is exactly objective in their analysis of an anti war film. That publication like most has ulterior motives. Last I noticed they are still selling advertising on their pages. I will gladly plop a few coins down and go see the film, make up my own mind. As for Gibson he is a talented man yes he is tormented by alcohol and drug issues plus a myriad of emotional and behavioral demons but I admire artists who express and interpret history in cinema. That task in and of itself is very challenging to cram into a 90 to 180 minute production. I am comfortable with depictions of violence as we are all somewhat de sensitized to it anyways. It is the degree of what a person can rationalize and stomach based on past life experiences. Try and reverse engineer Gibson's rationale: Perhaps what would his interpretation of "All Quiet on the Western Front" be like? Could he shame Mike Nichols adaptation of "Catch 22"? How about if he did a remake of George Roy Hill's "Slaughterhouse 5"? Could he outdo Robert Altman's "MASH"? The anti war film genre is vast and subject to great scorn, praise, ridicule and discussion. Film is art it is not real life. Movies are made to entertain, to provoke thought, to raise awareness, to create dialogue. Kubrick crafted a masterpiece with "Paths of Glory". "Dr Strangelove" is one of the true great satires of the last few generations. Gibson's second wind is worth seeing. Time will tell if the film is on par with his epic achievement "Braveheart".

Finally a post that is noteworthy. Thanks for taking the time. I suspect that most Reviewers are concerned that Hacksaw Ridge will be an Academy Award Nominee and sell out in theaters and disc. They are still reeling from American Sniper. They did their best (and still are trying) on that film.
 
Just saw it tonight and thought it was pretty well done. Graphic and disturbing yes, but war is. I would definitely watch it again.

Brendan
 
Finally a post that is noteworthy. Thanks for taking the time. I suspect that most Reviewers are concerned that Hacksaw Ridge will be an Academy Award Nominee and sell out in theaters and disc. They are still reeling from American Sniper. They did their best (and still are trying) on that film.

There is always that, the social engineering never stops, pauses or takes a break. My biggest issue is with realism, when I see 50 or 100 marines packed together like a Napoleonic square ready to "charge" the enemy I think oh no, here we go again....
Ray
 
There is always that, the social engineering never stops, pauses or takes a break. My biggest issue is with realism, when I see 50 or 100 marines packed together like a Napoleonic square ready to "charge" the enemy I think oh no, here we go again....
Ray

Ray,This movie deals with ersatz opposite theater Nazi hunters..The US.Army Vs.Japs(oh,yes they did).
The Army 77th I.D.had the honors this time around.Have yet to see this as yet but here you will see occurences
very seldom ever seen or necessary getting Nazis to surrender.....fixed bayonets/hand -to- hand combat and until
Okinawa was certainly secured,Japs finally surrendering en masse.
Just for fun ,check out the 4000 Jap- packed sardine Banzai attack at Saipan.
The combat in the PTO was waaaaaay more intense than the ETO (for us,not the Russkies).
Most of our KIA/WIA/MIAs were caused by indirect fire in the ETO...direct fire more prevalent in the Pacific.
Take care,Sir.

Randy
 
Watched the movie last night. Wow! If indeed the battlefield depictions were historically accurate then Okinawa lives up to its historical name: "The Last Battle". It was a tough, gruesome and costly fight. Perhaps when the US political and military establishment assessed this battle and considered the impending early 1946 invasion of the Japanese mainland (strategists surmised over a million American lives could be lost in that operation) then the option to drop the atomic bombs was rationalized as the next preferred option. To the context of the film the exploits of Doss, a conscientious objector, who gained his medal of honor through his medical participation and his compassion for treating the wounded consider the plights of fellow medal of honor recipients like Audie Murphy and Alvin York. Both of their stories were also made into motion pictures. York like Doss was also a conscientious objector. Murphy was to become a symbol of PTSD a term that evolved from terms like "soldiers heart" , "battle fatigue" and "shell shock". Militaries train and develop people to go into combat, do their job and then to return home to resume a normal productive life. Not so fast, not so easy. When the stories get told on film they are often sanitized and glorified. No sense depicting the subject matter in too graphic or realistic terms. To borrow Jack Nicholson's line from "A Few Good Men"... "you can't handle the truth"! Indeed this film is intense, it is graphic and it is to the point. You want to appreciate your visit to the voting booth this Tuesday you can't help but think of issues like PTSD and conscientious objecting and all of the other cases in point the film brings out. Consider this Friday: Veterans Day the tribute to lives lost in World War 1 ...the war to end all wars only to see the globe engulfed into a world wide conflict 21 years later. War is complicated. It gets taught in books and through means like films and yes toy soldier production. Imagine if a toy soldier manufacturer depicted the violence of battle like what Gibson does in "Hacksaw Ridge" Should they be critically attacked? Praised? Told to cease production? Is that social engineering or is it rational thought?
 
I hope my two previous posts were not taken out of context. I was drawn to this thread by the impending production of Marc Forster's "The Downslope" an adaptation of Stanley Kubrick's screenplay on his interpretation of the revengeful efforts of Union General George Custer against Confederate Colonel John Mosby's partisan cavalry in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia during the American Civil War. I have been a lifelong student of the ACW cavalry. However I wanted to weigh in on this thread as the dialogue was quite stimulating and spirited. I appreciate the various opinions and thoughts.
 
Ray,This movie deals with ersatz opposite theater Nazi hunters..The US.Army Vs.Japs(oh,yes they did).
The Army 77th I.D.had the honors this time around.Have yet to see this as yet but here you will see occurences
very seldom ever seen or necessary getting Nazis to surrender.....fixed bayonets/hand -to- hand combat and until
Okinawa was certainly secured,Japs finally surrendering en masse.
Just for fun ,check out the 4000 Jap- packed sardine Banzai attack at Saipan.
The combat in the PTO was waaaaaay more intense than the ETO (for us,not the Russkies).
Most of our KIA/WIA/MIAs were caused by indirect fire in the ETO...direct fire more prevalent in the Pacific.
Take care,Sir.

Randy

11/11/16..Saw this flic today.Mel should have borrowed a few more bux to equip the Doggies with bayonets.
Japs had em.Typical Hollywood had bunched up targets all through this baby.Noise and light discipline (talking,smoking
lamp lit in a shellhole..at night!? ***?..over).Retrievable bodies(WIAs) after Naval ordnance shellacked that AO.
C'mon kids..really? No rifle grenades?Did Army Air (Or Navy/Marine Air for that matter)leave these guys out to dry?
Musta been flying CAP over them to keep the Kamikazes' from changing targets.

I will NEVER denigrate this movie for it's basic premise in telling CPL.Doss' MOH achievements.In this respect,this movie
reflects his heroism justly.Still bewildered why the Army ,in their infinite wisdom put him in the PTO?C/O medics,most
if not all, were relegated to the ETO where that MOS was given more slack by the much more compassionate NAZIs.
 
11/11/16..Saw this flic today.Mel should have borrowed a few more bux to equip the Doggies with bayonets.
Japs had em.Typical Hollywood had bunched up targets all through this baby.Noise and light discipline (talking,smoking
lamp lit in a shellhole..at night!? ***?..over).Retrievable bodies(WIAs) after Naval ordnance shellacked that AO.
C'mon kids..really? No rifle grenades?Did Army Air (Or Navy/Marine Air for that matter)leave these guys out to dry?
Musta been flying CAP over them to keep the Kamikazes' from changing targets.

I will NEVER denigrate this movie for it's basic premise in telling CPL.Doss' MOH achievements.In this respect,this movie
reflects his heroism justly.Still bewildered why the Army ,in their infinite wisdom put him in the PTO?C/O medics,most
if not all, were relegated to the ETO where that MOS was given more slack by the much more compassionate NAZIs.



MDJC
( my decoder just crashed ):)
 
Yep well made film. Plenty of action, makes you wonder how anyone would want to go to war. Graphic, but bearable, certainly glad I only collect the Japanese series and not be a part of the real thing. Robin.
 
Just watched it with a few other forum members. Not one I knew my wife would like.

Whilst it seems strange to say it, when it was a fairly tough movie to watch (due to the realistic action sequences), it is a very good movie.

The first part is spent explaining why he was a conscientious objector and his treatment by his officers and company. The fact he even got to the Pacific was difficult enough in itself.

I note from Wikipedia that he did have prior combat experience in Guam and Leyte. Probably could have been a bit of text to explain that as you got the feeling Okinawa was the first time his unit was in action.

Good to see Vince Vaughan in a different kind of role as the Sergeant. The sequence in the barracks when he walks in is very good and got a lot of laughs.

From an Australian perspective it was interesting to see so many Australian actors doing American accents. I was surprised to find even Doss's wife was played by an Australian actress. Does seem all were Australian except for Garfield and Vaughan. A point of interest is that former Commando Damien Thomlinson, an Australian Afghanistan veteran who lost his legs to an IED, played the role of the one of the Marines who lost his legs but was saved by Doss.

The action sequences were very brutal to say the least. There was a brief bit which reminded me of the final charge in We Were Soldiers when they were bunched up.

The special effects were well done, especially the flame thrower scenes.

Had never heard of Medal of Honor winner Desmond Doss before started to hear about this movie. However at the end of the movie you are left with the feeling of awe for what he did. I dont know the story of many MOH winners but what he did has got to be at the very pinnacle of those who have received it.

Hopefully it picks up some Oscar nominations. Will be interesting to see if Mel Gibson gets a nod for Best Director or movie.
 
I saw it with Brett's group last night and it is the best film I have seen for a couple of years. It really got me in. It had an excellent blend of human relationships, humour and both the horror and heroics of war. It was more graphic than The Pacific but I thought it showed the awfull reality of war injuries. The combat scenes were stunning but chilling. The Japanese counter-attack was overwhelming and frankly you could get a sense of what the Marines on Guadalcanal and Saipan must've faced (though those were night attacks). Here, in the broad daylight, hundreds of charging Japanese was frightening!

It was silly how Doss faced the problems he did. The army had measures in place for men like him but it is also the army, which almost specialises in putting round pegs into square holes. It seems Doss did face a tough time from his 'comrades', though I wonder whether this had more to do with him being a bit of an odd-ball? Soldiers are not good at accepting difference....

None-the-less, it was great to see a film that showed the infantry for a change (not paras, rangers or marines) and the perspective of a man of faith. Well done that man. And very well done Gibson!
 
Interesting to see from History v Hollywood web page (link below) some of the parts which were not included or did not happen as shown. Please note posting this for interest and does not in any way detract from my views on what is a great movie.

Covers such things as

Did fellow soldiers really accuse Desmond of being a coward and pick on him?

Did Desmond Doss really stay on the ridge while most of his fellow soldiers retreated back down?

Did Desmond's father contact his own former commanding officer to help prevent Desmond from being court-martialed?

Why did Desmond T. Doss refuse to bear arms during WWII?

Did the army really want to send Desmond Doss to a conscientious objectors camp?

Did they climb a rope like that ?

www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/hacksaw-ridge
 
Saw it today with my Dad, caught the first show at 11:50am; the theatre was just about sold out, I was amazed at the crowd on a Wednesday.

I guess I read too many reviews on line as I was expecting loads and loads of gore, there were a few scenes, but the landing on Omaha Beach in SPR was much more gory IMO. There was loads of action once all Hell broke loose during the initial combat on the ridge and maybe when I see it again I'll see more nasty stuff, but to me it wasn't as over the top as some reviewers claimed.

I enjoyed the movie, so did my Dad, nice story, you felt for that kid, he stuck to his beliefs, have to give him credit. I wouldn't run out to see it again tomorrow, but I will catch it one more time before it leaves the theatres as it is a movie that needs to be seen on the big screen.

Well done Mel.....................
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top