Overrated. Prequel to Silence? Andrew Garfield plays EXACT religious role

Rating: 5/10 (23 February 2017)

It's really odd Andrew Garfield stars in this film playing a passionate religious guy (and it also happens to be against the Japanese) - the same exact character/circumstance for him starring, and released the same time, as Martin Scorsese's "Silence" film.
In the film "Silence", he refuses to step on the cross of Jesus. In "Hacksaw Ridge", he refuses to hold a rifle because he does not believe in killing/ten commandment. In both films, he faces a dilemma on what he passionately believes can also cost the lives of others.
The true story is inspiring, but the film, when it comes to the production/presentation, it is more of a video game comedy, cliché, typical Hollywood making all over it.
This is definitely no "Saving Private Ryan" or "Letters from Iwo Jima". "Letters from Iwo Jima", directed by Clint Eastwood, is a much more powerful production (his other film, "American Sniper" was horrible, though). I don't really care for war movies but "Letters from Iwo Jima" really was engaging.
"Hacksaw Ridge" is really on the same level as "American Sniper" - the ending presentation is even the same. The battle scenes are shot more like video games and it is overly dragging. They're both overrated films, honestly.
The CG effects are just plain awful. It seems like they hired a really poor special effects team or didn't have the budget for the Battleship Navy firing the missiles - it just looks like a video game CG and it looks so horrible/out-of- place. It would look so much better if they just go back to the old school life- like miniature models and fire actual explosives on it; that would honestly would look better and more believable... CG totally takes you out of the film.
I'm sure kids these days playing Call of Duty or whatever war game is out would watch this and think the battle scenes are "cool" and give the movie an immediate 10 rating.....
Personally, ever since "Saving Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down", there hasn't really been a revolutionary cinematography of a war zone.
This film just doesn't have that authentic realism feel but more over-the-top (Vince Vaughn as a Sergeant) Hollywood presentation and just video-game cliché scenarios (kicking grenades/using dead body as a shield while machine gunning everyone).
It has a current rating of 8.3/10. This film is definitely not a 10. It's a 6 at best (I'm giving it a 5), only because the true story is rather touching.
The film is really cliché (show flashback of being a kid, meets girl/wife, starts out training in camp, go to battle.) and it really doesn't add anything new to war movies production wise or storytelling, other than that single plot point being a medic who doesn't want to fire a gun.
The whole camp scene in the beginning is a rather drag, that's been done better in "Full Metal Jacket". I know Vince Vaughn is added as a comedic element humor to the film, but it really takes away the seriousness of the film.
The whole subplot of his drunken father, the wife, it feels more like a TV episode that feels incomplete... the film just feels like not much really happened and feels rushed. The battle scenes drag on too long as well.
It's an OK war movie, but definitely not Oscar-worthy or to be considered one of the greatest war movies of all- time.