Lots of Heart, but Not Enough Common Sense

Rating: 7/10 (18 November 2016)

Good versus evil is an old concept that makes for the best movies, and Nazis are the ultimate historical evil. From the forties onward Hollywood has created some seriously amazing narratives about American military forces braving the front lines to combat the Axis of Evil, but pacifism rarely enters the narrative. Some people really do believe that any violence, any killing, is absolutely unneeded. People like to forget that FDR waited until Europe had been fighting amongst themselves for three years before intervening, and only after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. (Even after that Canada actually declared war before we did, by one day.)
In the same vein as past war films by Gibson's, this is the real life story of Desmond Doss, a conscientious objector who served as a combat medic at Okinawa with the 77th in May 1945. He fought against his superiors and a court martial in order to serve without a weapon and went on to save between 50-100 lives during a particularly terrible siege of Hacksaw Ridge. The actual story end of Doss' story is much more spectacular, as Doss was eventually shot multiple times and yet gave up his stretcher to a more injured Marine. Then he was left in the field for three hours before a stretcher came for him, and went on to be the first conscientious objector to gain a Medal of Honor.
The film stars Andrew Garfield in the titular role, giving an uneven performance in an uneven film. The whole first of the film feels lazy, as it sways between clichéd moments, over-the-top nostalgic nationalism, and simple corny dialogue that falls flat compared to the obviously superior second half of the film. This section tries to set up why Doss is a conscientious objector, but it does so by giving little information about his life in lieu of a spittle faced performance from Hugo Weaving and a false start between him and his brother. Doss isn't even explained to be a 7th day Adventist until he's at basic training, and the reason he won't raise a rifle isn't explained until ¾ of the way in the film. This information is also prompted by one of several dream sequences, which comes across as purely lazy screen writing. This opinion does not stem from the fact that the film is religious in subtext. When the film dives into its fervor, especially during the battle scenes, it truly resonates on screen. The actual battle scenes are handled with so much care and dedication it's clear that Gibson put most of the effort, and the film's budget, into it. The blood and gore of these scenes truly hits home how gritty and horrifying war can be, but there's still a grand glory to the entire battle that prompts a feeling a patriotism. Everything about these scenes is astounding: the action, costuming, effects, and performances are all top notch in their scope, and they capture the real honesty of what it is to kill or be killed.
It's obvious why this film received a ten minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival: It's the true story of a man who was above and beyond a hero, even if he thwarted many attempts to turn his story into a film during his lifetime. Gibson returned to his roots in an unprecedented sweep of glory, and while I sincerely disbelieve his efforts will yield an Academy award nomination, he has put his foot in the right direction for a grand return to cinema.