Order by:

Add your comment

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Comments 1 - 15 of 27

RockHopper92's avatar


An amazing true story of bravery and conviction told through a cliche ridden, eye-roll inducing movie.
2 years 2 months ago
balaclava's avatar


War is horrible, Andrew Garfield runs like Naruto
1 year 12 months ago
God's avatar


i rolled my eyes so many times during this movie i thought at one point they were gonna pop out
2 years ago
Slylingual24's avatar


Touching story. However, the movie only truly succeeds in its most violent scenes, and even then I don't know if it was successful because its excessiveness or worse for it. The first half was forced and without passion; the middle, or rather the first battle scene, was one of the most intense moments of a war movie that I've ever seen; and the final act mirrored that of the first half more or less. A lot of weird casting choices. Like Vince Vaughn wrf??? Andrew Garfield was decent, but fit the part rather well.
2 years 2 months ago
thekure23's avatar


I agree with most of the critical comments here, and was by no means blown away by this movie, but reading what you guys are saying, I feel I need to jump in and defend ol' Vince here.

He gets a lot of shit every time he's in something serious, but I personally haven't seen him fail yet. True Detectives second season, while certainly bad, didn't fall apart because of Vince. On the contrary. Same with Hacksaw. One of the few things it managed to pull of really well was humor. Vince Vaughn introduced some genuinely fun moments from an otherwise stern character. I think it was very well balanced.

Generally I dislike it when audiences have difficulty disassociating actors from previous roles. It's the same with Jim Carrey. I get why it can be hard, but I definitely wouldn't say poor casting. Vince worked in this role, and if you felt that his previous roles worked against him, I believe thats on you as an audience, not on the casting director.

This is of course assuming that's what didn't work.
1 year 8 months ago
ynrozturk's avatar


What's with all the Christian propaganda? Absolutely destroyed the movie for me. Tone it down a little, holy shit.
1 year 10 months ago
Jashezilla's avatar


Completely immerses you in the insane madness and violence of war, but delivers it with an incredibly moving story. Andrew Garfield, you are amazing.
2 years 2 months ago
MrOnorato's avatar


Filled to the brim with clichés, but still completely amazing. It reminds us why clichés worked so well when they weren't the norm.
Andrew Garfield gives the performance of his life, and Vaughn and all of the other casting choices work perfectly, despite what you might think when you first hear about them. Great, great, great.
Also, one man's source of convictions isn't christian propaganda, it's character motive. Calm down people, I see where you're getting at, and you have a point, but geez, chill.

8 months 4 weeks ago
chunkylefunga's avatar


It was ok but will never compete with the classic war movies that we all know and love.

Vince Vaughn was poor casting,
1 year 12 months ago
der Zorn Gottes's avatar

der Zorn Gottes

It sure seems near impossible to make neutral war movies. Not to say that Mel Gibson ever even thought of making one, but this one in all of its absurdity has to be one of the worst war movies I've ever seen.

Oh joy, give me all the cliches, immediately as we enter the war zone, we are treated with the classic injured/dead soldiers passing the new patch of soldiers so I kinda figured it's going to be a shitshow from that moment on and, lo and behold, once again the enemy (in this case the glorious IJA) are depicted as a mindless horde of evil, until that one forced cliche moment where we are reminded that; "They are humans after all." This is how you tell a moving story People, take notes, Uncle Mel is in town!

But at least the battle scenes are realistic and gritty, right... RIGHT?!!?!?! Sure thing, nothing more realistic than a man picking up half a torso and using it as a shield while wielding BAR in one hand and mowing down them orcs, I mean Japs. I'm so happy, thanks again Gibsy!! :):):):)

But let's get to the BEST of the BEST. The wonderful Christian propaganda. I guess this was made as the spiritual successor to Passion of the Christ, because I can't explain all the bullshit any other way. Only thing missing were the filthy Jews spitting on the main character. There are scenes upon scenes of pure cancer, whether it's the scene where he washes away his sins after his heroics or the ending where he is almost literally hoisted to the heavens as a saint, there's no subtlety to be found in this movie, just cancer, pure unadulterated cancer.

If only I could go back in time to the days of Lethal Weapons and casual bigotry, Mel-Mels two strong points.
2 years 1 month ago
dajmasta94's avatar


This movie is worth watching once for the first battle sequence...But overall it's borderline laughable. It's a shame Gibson was behind the camera here, his inability to draw sincere emotions from his actors and his dependence on dated, on the nose storytelling techniques left me feeling I would have enjoyed an hour long special on tv about Doss rather than this film. It's right on the cusp of being a complete mess.
1 year 6 months ago
kottonen's avatar


The film leaves a mixed impression: some of the battle scenes are intense and powerful, but the narrative seems lopsided. For a story about Andrew Garfield's character, it only follows that plotline when convenient, eagerly abandoning Private Doss for the aforementioned battle moments (in which, of course, he could not quite participate, refusing to use weapons).

The best-written arc is that of protagonist's father, played by Hugo Weaving. Acting pretty much starts and ends with him.

Vince Vaughn as Sergeant Howell is weird casting. I don't think it's bad, but it's Vince Vaughn and yet you are supposed to take him seriously, and that works about as well as an evil Charlie Chaplin.

Hacksaw Ridge is told as a story of simple people in difficult circumstances. No one grows, no one changes. Desmond Doss never doubts his faith, despite going through a slice of hell. He seems to be okay when attributing the 'Do not kill' commandment exclusively to himself. I wish we knew how he reconciled the war going around him and what the difference was, in his eyes, between the Americans killing the Japanese, and the Japanese killing the Americans.

Altogether, the film left me with a number of questions. As in, did the rats appear on battlefields so quickly? How come we (the American army) are the good guys, throwing napalm around? If the story is historically accurate, how come the troops were forced to take Hacksaw Ridge 8 (sic!) times? We saw them succeed on the 7th attempt, and then abandon the location again, not getting reinforcements. Surely that is some general somewhere being bad at their job. Were there really no women or people of colour in the American army? What did they do with them then?

2 years ago
demagogo's avatar


the american mafia does it again
9 months 2 weeks ago
CYF's avatar


Ok, then I'll be the first to say it: why didn't the Japs cut the ropes?
10 months 1 week ago
KaramAkerfeldt's avatar


Maybe the worst war film I've seen. Cliche-ridden and full of stereotypical characters. I wish I could give it two 'dislikes'.
10 months 2 weeks ago

Showing items 1 – 15 of 27

View comments