A brutal film with an important subject matter, but also it feels like a dated war melodrama with poor dramatization

Rating: 5/10 (10 December 2016)

Hacksaw Ridge shows the brutal and sorrowful side of war, it is a must see especially for the audience who loves the genre, but it falls too short, because it works like a dated war melodrama with some brutal and bloody battle scenes which has only shocking effect. Hacksaw Ridge is like "We Were Soldiers" with a better quality, better theme and higher budget.
I believe that a war movie doesn't have to be "anti- war" to be great. For example, Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down is not an anti war movie, it is a military operation movie, but I think it is a masterpiece. I have the same opinions for some other movies such as Saving Private Ryan, Enemy at the Gates and I enjoyed movies such as Fury, The Lone Survivor (flawed, but a solid survival action) However, Hacksaw Ridge fails too short.
I didn't find the first half compelling or a great story introduction. You don't care about the main protagonist as you did for William Wallace for example. Honestly, I didn't enjoy what most people did for the prologue, so I did find it little boring. Maybe, because I'd expected a movie like The Fury. An intense war drama with some great moments and set pieces with an interesting character gallery. Many people praise what Gibson did for the movie, especially visual effects, set pieces and battle scenes, but I think it was not point of the film, also it was not that impressive or special. There is not such a rule that more brutal it becomes, greater it gets.
I was not at the edge of my seat during the battle scenes most of the time as I didn't really feel the despair of the characters and their dilemmas when they face with it. For example, in the movie Papillon, you feel every kind of pain as you are there with them or you are one of them! so the storytelling in this movie was not powerful enough to carry its subject matter.
Many people praise Andrew Garfield, I am in the minority again, but I think it was a mistake. He has some haters maybe, but I think Shia Labeouf would play the character better. Maybe, Garfield has a talent of his own, but he is not that gifted to play such a character. The real star of the movie was Vince Vaughn as the commander, nobody else!
The battle scenes has some shocking effects, but no more than that. The dramatic tension and humanism factor are poor. Some parts in the army before going to war are not realistic as it should be. As for Mel Gibson, I don't care about what other people think or say about him, but I am a fan of his movies. He is one of the best stars of his time like Bruce Willis. Hacksaw Ridge is his weakest movie so far as director. Maybe, he tried to make an old school and romantic, also gritty war drama, but there was nothing new and the movie itself was dated.
This is not a subject which I am sensitive in movies, but the depiction and portrayal of Japans in this movie made me little annoyed. In the movie, Japanese soldiers are like evil forces, different from Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima. Why?
What makes this film worthy is its subject and conflict. Hacksaw Ridge lacks the tragic nature of Braveheart. Mel Gibson's masterpiece is still Braveheart. If you look for an epic anti war movie like Platoon, you'll get disappointed. If you look for a stylish war/action drama like Fury, you'll get disappointed. If you look for an artistic journey like The Hurt Locker, you'll be disappointed anyway. However, what you want is to learn about history by watching the revival of the events or watching a technically good war drama with some matters, this film is a good choice for you.