“A True Story,” announces the opening title of Mel Gibson‘s viscerally affecting but ethically worrisome “Hacksaw Ridge.” Not “based on a true story” or “inspired by a true story” or the currently in vogue “inspired by real events,” but “a true story.” Like the treasured pocket Bible given to our hero by his best gal, this is Gospel. And there are many facts contained within, the most important being that Desmond Doss, a young, unarmed Seventh Day Adventist and conscientious objector serving as a medic during the Battle of Okinawa, singlehandedly rescued 75 wounded men in one night and was later awarded the Medal of Honor. He may have credited God, but surely we should credit Desmond Doss, because you do not have to be a Christian or even a believer to understand that his was a miraculous feat of grace and courage. But along with screenwriters Robert Schenkkan and Andrew Knight, Gibson, whose lack of directorial subtlety but skill with action both reach an apex here, is not content to tell the true story of Desmond Doss and his unshakeable, courage-giving faith. He wants to convince us that his faith was, in fact, the truth.
READ MORE: The 20 Most Anticipated Films Of The 2016 Venice Film Festival
That might seem like a semantic qualm, but the difference between those two impulses is the difference between the sober, bloody but uplifting war epic that “Hacksaw Ridge” could be, and the agenda-based allegory it turns into. It makes this starry, well-mounted, lavish period war film into essentially a grander-than-usual entry into the faith-based category, though with admittedly a sight more rat-nibbled corpses than “God’s Not Dead” gave us.
With that aim, perhaps it’s appropriate that so much of the film outside the battle scenes (which includes a prologue which does for burning soldiers cartwheeling in slow-motion agony what “Saving Private Ryan” did for helmet-piercing bullets) feels so traditionalist. We begin with Desmond as a young boy, roughhousing with his brother under the careless eye of his alcoholic, violent father (Hugo Weaving), who is afflicted with chronic survivor’s guilt and what we’d now call PTSD, following his service in World War I. The horseplay gets out of hand, and Desmond goes too far, hitting his brother with a brick, to the panic of his mother (Rachel Griffiths) and to the predictable belt-lashing of his father. His brother recovers but Desmond has learned his lesson and has taken the Sixth Commandment very much to heart: Thou shalt not kill.
Fifteen years later, Desmond (Andrew Garfield, lamblike) falls chastely and properly for nurse Dorothy (Teresa Palmer, dewy), but, as he says later, “when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor, I took it personal,” and, against the wishes of his parents, follows in the footsteps of his brother and decides to enlist. He can reconcile this with his devout observation of that pesky Sixth Commandment, not by altering the goalposts under the terms of war as most of his fellow serving Christians do, but by enlisting as a medic and vowing never to touch a rifle.
Predictably, this causes some consternation at boot camp amongst his company (who are introduced in one of those getting-to-know-you scenes in the barracks where each is given one single character trait or physical attribute by which we’ll be able to identify them later when they’re caked in blood). His Sergeant (played in the film’s wittiest role by a pretty good Vince Vaughn), his commanding officer (Sam Worthington), and fellow soldier Smitty (Luke Bracey) certainly don’t want a conscientious objector in their number, and do all they can to force him to quit. Doss doesn’t, nor does he compromise on his non-violence. All of this stuff is surprisingly talky and rather fustily mounted, not helped by an omnipresent, ploddingly literal score from Rupert Gregson-Williams that tells us exactly what to feel about everything, and in which the climactic motif is angelic choirs underpinned by rushing martial percussion. There’s even a point where the sunny, upbeat “going to meet my girl!” melody is interrupted for about two seconds by dark notes of foreboding as Desmond runs into a heavily scarred veteran leaving the hospital before the chirpiness resumes.
However, the filmmaking comes together much better during those grisly, thunderous battle scenes, when the soldiers are, so to speak, not in Kansas anymore — except for the hackneyed line of dialogue in which Vaughn actually says, “We’re not in Kansas anymore.” Explosions and injuries and bodies mercilessly pulverized by machine-gun fire seem so much where Gibson’s heart and talents obviously lie. But the uncompromisingly gruesome, and undoubtedly impressive, fighting sequences are also punctuated by mishandled, corny beats, like when a Japanese soldier and an American grapple with a primed grenade, and realizing neither will let go, stare into each others’ eyes and bellow until they both explode.
But the real problems run much deeper than these relatively surface criticisms. Doss is built into a quasi-Messianic figure, a point hammered home at one point when, although he’s being lowered on a stretcher, the camera wheels around underneath him to make it look like he’s being raised heavenward, as celestial sun flares bounce off the lens. This singleminded agenda also has the effect of flattening everything else out. It’s been a while since we’ve seen a war movie this one-sided, this unconcerned with acknowledging the humanity of the combatants on both sides. Indeed, the only two Japanese soldiers at all individualized are a wounded man whom Doss, with Christlike compassion, treats, and an officer who, in a single brief scene, commits a queasily fetishized slow-motion ritual seppuku.
Even more fundamentally, there’s the thorny question of what this “true story” leaves out, because no true story can ever be the whole truth. No matter how much one’s personal principles may line up with those of Doss, there are incredibly difficult moral quandaries his admirable stance sets up, but the film does not contend with any of those. Furthermore, there is something very uncomfortable about the suggestion that it was the purity of Doss’ faith that carried the day, because it implies that the dead and the defeated (like the company who were decimated the day before, their straggling remnants filing past catatonically with that “Full Metal Jacket” stare) were somehow not pure enough, and that does a pretty huge disservice to the many devout Christians who fell throughout the war.
The real Doss, who died in 2006, shows up in a brief, moving interview just before the credits roll, adding a further lick of truthiness to Gibson’s interpretation of events. And one of the most resonant things he says is that he still believes that “no one should be forced to act against their convictions.” But this tale of real-life heroism seems less a celebration of humanist convictions than a glorification of religious intransigence and a declaration of the moral superiority of the faithful over the faithless. And so, though its broad-based box office prospects are good, and though it certainly announces Gibson’s return to the fray as a director of grand, emotive spectacle, some of us might find the only response is to conscientiously object. [C]
Click here to see our full coverage from the 2016 Venice Film Festival.
A faithless who doesn’t like seeing people of faith on screen? How shocking.
Does Kiang simply hate seeing people of faith onscreen or does she hate being called morally inferior by people of faith onscreen?
Perhaps she FEELS inferior? It’s not easy to watch or witness someone who believes there’s objective things called right and wrong when your whole worldview dictates that such things are either illusions or meaningless. So instead of looking inward and examining her own beliefs thew reviewer lashes out. Not that surprising.
Why would she feel inferior – assuming, of course, she is “faithless”, as you put it? Atheists tend to not take the moral high horse religious people ride on seriously. She is simply reacting to a film which you haven’t seen and could very well be preachy and judgmental.
Umm…Not what she said.
Literally, the dumbest review I’ve ever read. There are no words. lol
No words because you can’t provide a counterpoint to her words?
Wow, you’ve thought of such a genius response…I can’t believe no one has thought of that before. Hint: the fact that it remains a proverbial expression is probably a hint that such an elementary response is totally ineffectual.
He was very religious in real life, that’s the counter point.
I don’t need to. Her words “But this tale of real-life heroism seems less a celebration of humanist convictions than a glorification of religious intransigence and a declaration of the moral superiority of the faithful over the faithless….” OMG, she is a complete idiot. I don’t have to say anything, her words take care of how illogical she is.
“I don’t have to say anything” = “I don’t have the intelligence to offer a counter argument”
Dolt
Are you blind, Adam?? Read above AGAIN, man, and don’t write bullshit… That has no intelligence!
90% of his comment paraphrased her, he then wrote; “I don’t have to say anything”.
Wow, how in depth.
And before you claim I’m doing the same thing, I have expressed my opinion on this review. Scroll down if you want to see it, I’m not writing it again for you.
She is criticizing the film for having a religious overtone, when the film is about a man who was deeply religious and it was a central motivation of his character. This discredits the entire review and her credibility as a film critic. Are you perhaps a sockpuppet account for the author of this review?
What could be the counterpoint to “hate speech”?
Hahahaha, “hate speech”
Don’t need to. Her words “But this tale of real-life heroism seems less a celebration of humanist
convictions than a glorification of religious intransigence and a
declaration of the moral superiority of the faithful over the faithless….” OMG, she is a complete idiot. I don’t have to say anything, her words take care of how illogical she is.
What a shame, I was really looking forward to this as the story of Desmond Doss is a fascinating one, but I don’t think I can sit through another faith-based film. There’s been so many over the last two years and they’ve all been terrible – they either come off as corny or really preachy. It’s sad to hear that they decided to focus more on religious aspects rather than telling a rousing story. It’s not like Gibson isn’t capable of it, Braveheart was amazing.
Yo do know that this film is based on a real guy, don’t you? A man who’s actions and behavior and motivations were intimately connected to his religious faith??
Yes, I’m well aware… Except I’m more interested in seeing how he did, not why he did it. I couldn’t care less about the religious aspects as those bore me.
Then you too apparently can be a movie reviewer. If it contains anything resembling faith, walk out and write a scathing review. It helps to be biased prior to walking in to see the movie. That way you can have 80% of your review written prior to the opening credits
Oh like you’ve never been biased before seeing a movie, please. And in this case I probably wouldn’t even review the movie, hell, I probably won’t really see it now since I’m no longer interested.
If you’ve watched the documentary that came out on his life, and I have, you will know that this film is definitely not a “faith-based film”. What sets this film apart from anything I’ve ever seen – at least as told in the documentary – is this no name little man’s convictions being so strong that he stood up to the entire US army in the most humble and brave way possible. The battle field heroics only confirmed his integrity. It would be like calling “Ali” a faith-based film. Yes, his Muslim convictions drive the narrative about Ali, but it is the man and his battles that are remarkable. Don’t let this reviewer rob you of seeing what I suspect will be a satisfying film to secular people.
A well done piece! But no matter how shallow and preachy, the film will appeal to many whose lip service to religion never rises beyond platitudes, provided the movies’ battle scenes are bloody enough.
Yes, devout men fought in battle, correctly reading the sixth commandment as “Thou shalt not murder.” Such people consider wartime killing as sanctioned by both God and man. It’s a tortuous but commonly accepted moral compromise.
As opposed to anti-theists whom have no reconciliation with killing others? I just love it when atheists pontificate on the beliefs of those they disagree with. Let me clarify it for you: there is no “compromise” in fighting evil. It doesn’t take a person of religious belief to understand that killing in war is not “murder” in the common sense use of the word.
What on earth are you talking about? The review discusses the role of Doss’ religion vs. That of other devout men in killing in battle. Hence, “the approval of God and man.” An ethical atheist determines for himself what is evil, and chooses his response to it, which may or may not include killing in war at the government’s behest.
But atheists were not used as a basis of comparison. Why bring them into it?
Why must this drum be beaten constantly? Why are you people always angry? If you’ve found your answer, be glad of it; leave others alone.
“you people,” Here we go.
The fact is that you attempted to bring up a dichotomy of people of faith in war, which the film in question is wholly about. What I take issue with is your attempt to make this dichotomy unique to people of faith in some way.
By making it a moral challenge unique to the ten commandments, what other interesting point are you trying to illustrate but that people of faith are hypocrites?
And how sweet the convenience of “an ethical atheist.” So, please educate us on what that means exactly? Hitler certainly found himself exactly that, an ethical atheist. The vast majority of atheists certainly are not as “evil” as Hitler.
But are you even willing to proclaim that Hitler was “evil.”
Hitler wasn’t an ethical ANYTHING. Do you really not understand that?
Hitler followed his own ethics perfectly. That what happens when each person makes up his or her own standard.
Actually an atheist has no basis to call anything evil. They only have things they don’t like.
Atheists have no basis for disagreeing. If no truth exists, then their opinion is simply their’s. If there is absolute truth, then there is a basis to make a point.
Killing in war for a just cause or in self defense or the defense of others is not a moral compromise. It is right and just. It is also not murder.
Well, that’s your view anyway. Others’ views and beliefs and opinions and feelings and thoughts about the matter vary, of course.
It’s God’s view but if you reject God, of course you will disagree.
The fact that others disagree is pretty much a non-statement because that applies virtually everything.
That’s right, and because everyone’s opinion varies, your opinion (and mine) are about as important as anyone else’s.
You can find “god”being all over the place regarding violence in the Bible. Christ said, if struck, to turn the other cheek. Sounds pretty pacifist to me.
You act as if that matters. Right and wrong does not change by opinion.
Darrell says: “Right and wrong does not change by opinion.”
—
But opinions about what is right or wrong do.
War itself is already a horrible sin, committed by man against man himself! There is no “just war” in the eyes of Jesus, and therefore should not be considered as such in the eyes of any consistent and faithful Christian. “Do not resist the wicked, turn the other cheek when you are beaten, forgive and love your enemy, as God did with you … Love one another as I love you, and you will be children of God” are radical teachings and difficult to digest, even two thousand years later! But they are the ones that are in the Gospels, and those that Christ will claim from his own when he returns a second time, very soon. This was Desmond’s faith, and I fully understand it. We can not remove something that we are not able to restore: only God can decide about life or death, not us …
Actually it was Jesus who commanded the nation of Israel to make war and it was the death penalty for murderers was Jesus idea.
It is not a moral compromise. God said to not murder. Killing in self defense or in a just war is not murder.
God forbid a film that shows someone of faith in good light. What a pathetic little small-minded review. In other words, this critique is incapable of giving a positive review to any film in which the protagonist is a person of faith.
Here’s a little hint to the critique: EVERYONE believes their personal morality to superior, otherwise it wouldn’t be their morality. The only difference is that atheists have the temerity to define it all their own.
Nope, atheists challenge the assumption that morality derives exclusively from religious faith. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
Wrong. Agnostics “challenge” the assumption, atheists out-right don’t believe it. And the vast majority of people (including myself) in freedom loving countries have no issue with that.
The problem with people like yourself is not that you don’t believe in morality derived from faith…it’s that instead of being willing to discuss the societal value of a particular morality, you’d rather use ad-hominem to disqualify it simply because of the source.
Well said. I came to read a thoughtful, nuanced view of a film and found myself treated to an examination of the author’s bias instead. I’m nearly as weary of this sort of approach as the author appears to be of the underpinning faith that drives the narrative.
Depends on the atheist. There is no official platform for atheism.
Gustavo it’s not an assumption. It’s a logical truth. For morality to be anything more than an opinion, it eould have to be a universal truth. And for it to be an objective truth, I eould have to come from something that has universal authority. And tjat authority would have to be all-knowing and all-good. Hence, an entity such as God.
Philosophers have understood this for centuries. It’s not even up for dispute.
Not necessarily. The contesting idea is of natural law rather than divine law and goes back to at least Plato. According to him you become miserable if you do the wrong thing, and that was his equivalent of hell. The more wrong you do the further you remove yourself from wisdom and transcendence. Conversely the more good you do the happier and wiser you become. It’s obviously similar to Hinduism and Buddhism, but it is nevertheless a secular morality based on reason rather than faith. I’d argue that it works exactly the same too.
Not that the oblivious person who wrote this review/personal attack of Mel Gibson would know that.
In the model you put forth, though, you’re assuming that there is a definitive right and wrong. There’s also the assumption that doing these things will certainly lead to misery. Problem is that without an authority defining right and wrong, it becomes entirely subjective, something Aristotle and just about everything philosopher since him agrees with.
Your model doesn’t objectively define right and wrong. It essentially boils down to action vs. Consequence, which isn’t a moral issue at all.
No but I think that’s the point. Right and wrong are automatically subjective categories, unless anchored by some authority principle. Yet some people pretend they are not, and hate anyone with a differing opinion on what is right and wrong. Whoever wrote this hideous review is such a person in my opinion, and clearly has not understood that her opinions and moralities are completely subjective as well, no less than those of a religious person. There is nothing fact-based about postmodern ideologies, which can be just as irrational as any others. And can kill and oppress just as many people, if not more.
Plato tried to base his moral system on reason, which in his mind led to wisdom and therefore to doing the right thing. So logic and mathematics would be the authority principles from which right and wrong are derived according to him. To some people this might seem like a poor substitute for God, which is perhaps why Plato also tried to develop an escatology and a concept of God. And that is where the Christian Trinity came from originally. To Plato it was goodness, truth and wisdom, each reinforcing the other as a sort of driving mechanism of spiritual and intellectual life. Together these three ideas were God. Still not deliberate or particularly conscious, but God nonetheless.
Supposedly living according to this would inevitably make you do the right thing. Because the truth would have made you wise, right? And clearly a wise person would do the right thing at least more often than a fool, or so one would think. And in reverse, a fool would do wrong (Evil if you’re religious. Plato considered evil simply an absence of good though.) all the time and become less and less conscious/wise/good as a result.
Not saying this is necessarily how I think. It’s just my interpretation of Platonic morality. And it’s really not very different from Christian morality I think. It’s just more intellectual than emotional; more reasonable than mystical.
Personally I always prefer to write the word “authorities” in quotation marks. We make them and nurture them to our own detriment most of the time. I do not believe that freedom is a viable concept if people can have authorities imposed on them. If people choose God as an authority to escape the arbitrations of other people I have no problem with that. If they choose governments and other secular powers as their authority I don’t have a problem with that either. Just don’t force any of them on me. I’ll define my own authorities. More people should do the same I think.
Ha ha ha!! This “review” mainly objects to the film because the protagonist, a real WW2 battlefield hero and Medal of Honor recepient and also a Christian, was motivated by religion and not “humanism”??!!
Jessica Kiang’s future review of The Poorest Among Us: The Story Of Mother Teresa:
“Although Sally Field gives a fine performance as the diminutive Albanian nun…I was unnerved by the scene of her reading a psalm to the street children. The moment would have had far more resonance if she read from the Secular Humanist Manifesto…”
“This movie offended me religiously, therefore it is a bad movie” Maybe you should be a poltiical commentator and not a critic.
[Full.film] Hacksaw Ridge 2016 Full Online putlocker Movie
http://imgur.com/kKXks7X
.
I find it hard to believe this is “ethically worrisome” when movies like Sgt York, in which a pacifist is worn down and peer pressured into being a wartime killing machine for which he’s finally celebrated and accepted by everyone, are treated like all time classics with no troubling aspects whatsoever. Or all the movies that are basically commercials for the military and portray special forces as cool action heroes. Good luck finding any reviewers that go above the bare minimum in criticizing america’s war fetish. but this movie of course get’s an indepth criticism of it’s troubling ethical issues. lmao. And even if it is, how would that even begin to tip the scales compared to every other war movie?
The good news with this review is that Gibson has already left a drunken message on Kiang’s voicemail reminding the see you next Tuesday (Gibson’s words not mine) that she accomplished her goal of making sure this movie doesn’t have a chance at 100 percent on RT. A rather transparent motivation of this reviewer. Thereby resulting in Gibson’s aforementioned voicemail being spot on. So says the atheist posting this note and still eager to see the film.
Are you reviewing the movie, Mel Gibson, the actual story or faith? It reads like you’re reviewing everything but the movie.
Mel Gibson is the director. Reviewers should be looking at the choices he made in this film while they’re reviewing.
She’s clearly not reviewing the true story. VERY clearly. But it’s fair criticism to look at using “A True Story” in relation to what follows. This is also not sure critique on faith itself. It’s fair to look at the choices made in the portrayal though.
Reviewing the film for its merits as a piece of cinematic art is one thing. She seemed to be more preoccupied with the director’s reputation and his religious ideology, which she clearly takes exception to. Next time stick to the actual movie.
I agree. Not only did she really seem hung up on a purely positive example of a guy’s pretty hardcore religious belief, that was only kind spirited, but she misread a lot of parts of the movie that she quoted, big time.
https://theplaylist.net/viscerally-affecting-ethically-worrisome-hacksaw-ridge-venice-review-20160904/
Ethically worrisome? What does that even mean in the context of a film? Would you say something like that if this was directed by anyone other than Gibson?
This is all coming across as a review of Mel Gibson, not Hacksaw Ridge.
This is clearly a review of Mel Gibson *past*. God I hate reviewers like this. Almost makes me wish film reviews had a licensing and regulatory system similar to lawyers and doctors. Get their license revoked for being obvious about reviewing a director’s personal character flaws instead of his body of work.
Non-theist here, I’m personally not bothered by a story about a theist whose positive life choices and heroism were driven by his religious beliefs. I recognize that for some people, religion is critical to their survival and their achievements. As for having no focus on the Japanese, I have no issue with not showing “both sides” because it seems that isn’t what this film is about. It is about one man attempting to live by his own belief system, even when despised by most others, and still managing to accomplish amazing things for his fellowman. This is in important way to live, whether one is religious or not. We should all attempt to be more, be better, care for others. As I understand it, this movie’s primary goal is to tell the story of one person who tried to live this way. As a role model. I’m ready to see it even more now.
Shorter version of Kiang’s review: “Ewwww, this movie’s all religious and stuff. It’s yucky and I hate it. Boooooo!”
This review does not help me decide whether or not I should see the film. I am not a Christian, but I am not offended by the faith of those who are. From what I can learn about Doss, his faith was a very large part of his motivation in life. It would be absurd to make a film about his experiences without showing that motivation.
What I do know something about, is war. Both from academic and archaeological study of the Pacific Campaign, and as a combat veteran. I can assure you that however grisly the portrayal of the Battle of Okinawa was in the film, the real experience was exponentially more so.
What would be nice, is a review that evaluates the quality of the cinematography and sound editing, and whether the story is engaging. Maybe something about the actor’s ability to effectively portray the characters. I am personally interested in historical accuracy, but I understand that most film critics are not qualified to comment on that aspect.
“Ethically worrisome” means different things to different people. Once again, this pronouncement does not tell me anything about the film.
Hope you saw it…I have many of the same feelings you expressed, but was greatly moved by this man’s adherence to his moral compass; his faith, to which he attributed his outstanding feat of bravery and heroism, which then swayed his battalion’s attitude re: the man’s, said cowardice!!! I am glad I saw this movie!!
I did see it. I think the representation of religion was appropriate considering the subject of the film. I thought the combat sequences were pretty well done, with a few off bits that probably would not be noticed by most people. It was not a film about Jesus, it was a film about bravery and patriotism, and the horror of war.
I’m really thankful for this review. Now I know not to bother with it. Gibson’s Apocalypto was great and I probably would have seen this but I can’t stand preachy religious films. Even if the action scenes are well-done I’d be too annoyed to enjoy the film as a whole.
I’ve not read one review that said it was preachy. It IS Doss’ life experience, so no matter what he thought, it what HIS thoughts. No one is trying to make you believe anything…just enjoy his heroism at the greatest level.
Well this review does. And I don’t have a problem with his motivations being faith-driven and the film showing that, obviously. What I do have a problem with is this.
“Furthermore, there is something very uncomfortable about the suggestion that it was the purity of Doss’ faith that carried the day, because it implies that the dead and the defeated (like the company who were decimated the day before, their straggling remnants filing past catatonically with that “Full Metal Jacket” stare) were somehow not pure enough, and that does a pretty huge disservice to the many devout Christians who fell throughout the war.”
And this
“But this tale of real-life heroism seems less a celebration of humanist convictions than a glorification of religious intransigence and a declaration of the moral superiority of the faithful over the faithless.”
You can have a movie about a religious person without actually being a religious film. I don’t like that Gibson has seemingly chosen to give him a superiority over others due to his faith.
Such babies….sigh
I do find it funny so many religious commenters here complain about people being biased against religious films but you can’t tell me you wouldn’t be biased against an Atheist-leaning film. It works both ways. I saw many religious people complaining about Sausage Party being anti-religion and saying they wouldn’t support it due to that. And I don’t even blame them. The film is anti-religion, which is one thing I really liked about it. But obviously religious people wouldn’t want to sit through it. And I don’t think Atheists will want to sit through this and be preached to. It’s pretty much a deal-breaker for me.
I am a libertarian atheist and I think her dislike of the film being based on a central motivation of the protagonist (and therefore impossible to leave out of the film) is really silly and completely discredits her as a film critic. There are other non-religious commenters here saying essentially the same thing, but people like you put your blinders on an assume everyone who disagrees with her must be a devout christian. Ludicrous.
I believe in god and I’d have no issue with atheist leaning films. Watch anything with Seth Rogan and you’re bound to get some kind of attack on religion. She is entitled to review the movie her way; we are entitled to critique her review.
Critique is one thing but there are a lot of people that are throwing out insults rather than critiquing. Debate is one thing – though would be better saved for when people have seen the film.
No one can say the film is amazing just because Mel Gibson directed it.
This is the reviewer’s opinion. They shouldn’t be bashed for that. She was just stating her grievances with the film. This was clearly a big issue she had with it. It’s impossible not to let your opinions play a part in what you think of a film.
I guess my issue is that it sounds like a great movie even from her perspective. Attributes of a movie that should have given it a fresh rating. The only reason why she ‘marred’ the perfect tomato rating is because she objects to the religious aspect of it. That’s pretty shallow. That’s like me giving American History X a bad rating because of the ‘excessive racism’ in it.
It’s not that she objects to the religious aspect of it but how they chose to portray it with is a legitimate film criticism. outside of religion she did peg the ilm for a few cheesy moments and lazy character work. That would also influence a lower rating as well.
Yeah, scum like this woman is the reason you shouldn’t go to RT anymore, this kind of “review” goes to the general consensus of the film and it actually helps some people decide whether to watch it or not, this kind of garbage ladies and gentlemen.
What a witless, rambling, basement blogger mess. I may just be one of the faithless that Gibson may feel superior over – but please just review the film and save your Starbucks-level commentary for, well… Starbucks. Artists used to analyse art – now we have celebrity bloggers dribbling out opinions for film fans to click on. Is film criticism dead? Or just on this site?
Imagine being angry a faith movie is a fairy movie. I bet you’re not steamed at Hollywood flicks with liberal agenda.
I love how angry people are getting over this review. None of you have actually seen the film so at the moment you’re just annoyed at the fact that someone has issues with a film you’re looking forward to. This is only review I’ve seen so far that has really made an effort to try and delve into the themes and message of the film. Maybe I will end up disagreeing with it, but at least it gives something to think about.
A bunch of you are seriously only a couple of steps away from the people that sent death threats to those who gave The Dark Knight Rises less than perfect reviews. Get a life.
Because her reasoning is ludicrous.
What about her reasoning is ludicrous?
Everyone’s saying that she had issues with this film because the main character was religious. It’s nonsense. These comments are indicative of so many people on the internet, they read a bit of something and immediately jump to assumptions and accusations and express their outrage.
She feels as though the film suggested that the reason this character was strong was because HOW religious he was. If that is the case, then I would have an issue with it as well. As she says; “But this tale of real-life heroism seems less a celebration of humanist convictions than a glorification of religious intransigence and a declaration of the moral superiority of the faithful over the faithless.”
She even goes as far to say; “Furthermore, there is something very uncomfortable about the suggestion that it was the purity of Doss’ faith that carried the day, because it implies that the dead and the defeated (like the company who were decimated the day before, their straggling remnants filing past catatonically with that “Full Metal Jacket” stare) were somehow not pure enough, and that does a pretty huge disservice to the many devout Christians who fell throughout the war.”
I would go as far as to say that this is a defence of religious people.
Maybe what she has said is true, maybe this is just the way she interpreted it and I’ll end up disagreeing with it. But I’m glad that I’ve read a review which touches upon the subject in some sort of depth. Despite my atheist beliefs, I have no issue at all with faith being shown in a good light. But there is a difference between a character’s drawing strength from their faith and portraying a character as strong because they’re religious. If anything, reading this review has made me even more curious to see the film.
This is about the only review that takes issue with the religious nature of the movie, from an obvious atheist. Plenty of people are strong because of their faith. No need to see it as some kind of slight to the non-religious.
I know plenty of people are strong because of their faith, that’s no problem. The review is saying the film suggests that it was the devoutness Doss had for his faith that enabled him to do the things he did. Basically; “he was strong because he was more Christian than everyone else”. You don’t see an issue with that? I also don’t see how this review is a slight to the religious because she suggests that this message does a disservice to many Christians who did serve and die during the war.
She sees the message that confirms her bias. His faith gave him the strength to do something extraordinary. The holy competition and intimation is her own invention, part of a well articulated, but ultimately circular argument.
It doesn’t read as though she takes issue with the religious nature of the film but certain choices in portrayal. That’s a fair criticism to make. Directorial choices, choices in the score, etc. The review is far from an attack on religion or faithful people.
I respect your view, but come on – didn’t you think she was just dying to write that last line?
There is no need to see that particular movie. One should just know movies in general to understand that this article is not a movie review, but a “stone throwing” from a person that by my estimate should be the first to hate stone throwing.
No stones were thrown. Her words are neither aggressive not personal. You’re overreacting.
People aren’t annoyed with the substance of her review of the film itself, but her parenthetical journey into her pop philosophy ideas about morality and religion. She can hate the movie if she wishes, and tell us why. But we just don’t need to read why she herself personally dislikes do gooders.
She did sate reasons why she didn’t like the film. It doesn’t come across that she has an issue with “do gooders” at all but that she disagrees with choices made in this film. Creative choices. it seems like like a lot of people posting here are seeing something this review that isn’t there. IT’S a shame that people are making personal assumptions and being insulting to others because of that but I digress.
94% positive on RT at the moment, and not just good–raves. One bad review, and it’s this one.
Moreover, while the write chases the movies themes, she is fundamentally off-base in her criticism of them. She is seeing the film through her own personal worldview and not a universal one, and fails to recognize or acknowledge how her solipsistic viewpoint is even more damming than that which she criticizes because it takes out both the filmmaker AND his subject.
The review is well-written, but fundamentally wrong-headed. It’s just bad film criticism and social criticism.
sorry to spoil it for you, ms kiang, but humanism is a late middle-ages catholic artistic and philosophical movement. do you wanna blindly hate on that for its religious association, too?
My guess is, you’re felt a bit micro-aggressed and just can not stand that someone’s faith might be what carries them through. I know a close personal friend of Doss and he says that’s what got him through it all. It might do you well to just stick to rating the cinematography rather than rate someones’ religious convictions.
Tell your friend Doss sounds like a he was a great guy and I can’t wait to see his movie.
Incredible. Someone issues not only a completely valid opinion, but an informative, intelligent and properly argued review of a film that none of the commenters has seen and most of the comments are either ad hominem attacks or barely coherent ramblings about how some atheist bashed a religious movie. What is it that offends you so? It certainly won’t keep you away from the cinema, that much is clear from all the angry reactions. So what is it? Are you really that bothered by one review, one opinion, that you just have to engage and go full attack mode. It’s just weird, you know? Jessica Kiang writes the best reviews in this site, her words and composition is clever and her thoughts are insightful and always interesting. And this review certainly makes a point that I haven’t read anywhere else.
I only read your review because it was the only one on RottonTomatoes to pan this flick. I followed the link here so that I could read the entire thing–since the short part of the review that opened on the Tomatoes page, seemed more like a slam against religion than a review of the film. As I read the entire ‘review’ I saw that it was in fact nothing more than an atheist slamming the values of religion. It is clear from reading the real story of this man that it his faith in God, and nothing to do with faith in himself, that got him through Hacksaw Ridge. For this reviewer to attempt to twist it into something else made the review fail. Don’t forget, a film like this stands to get a lot of Oscar nods, and people like this reviewer would not like that. That is why he only tried to put the dirty on the film. Perhaps we need more films that show honesty as a value.
This is one of the worst, most agenda-biased reviews of a film I have ever read. And I am a libertarian atheist who regularly shits on self-righteous Christians. Listen – if you want to be taken seriously as a reviewer, you really can’t let your personal opinions on religion be so obvious in a review of a film about a *religious person*. Desmond Doss was a conscientious objector because he was deeply religious. Not depicting that side of the story and making it a central motivation of his character would not be doing Doss any justice. A real film reviewer would have known that. I gather that this is one of your first real film reviews.
So Jessica Kiang’ hates God. She will meet Him face to face. She is offended by a true story.
Unless you have personal knowledge of God that is not merely imaginary (and many people might consider it imaginary even if you insist it is not), then you don’t know that and there is no compelling reason for others to believe you.
Thank God the commentors here are smarter and more honest than this ridiculously silly reviewer.
This is one of the oddest movie reviews I’ve ever read. It seems the critic is so concerned about a positive portrayal of faith that they aren’t able to give a simple review. There’s a long tradition of the celebration of faith in movies that are, at the end of the day, an appreciation for people who live in a way that is true to their beliefs. So much of us fail in this regard that we appreciate others that are successful. Even somebody without faith, like me, can be moved by this. So I’m just dumbfounded by this review.
When you write the review before you see the movie this is what you get.
The movie was screened for the press at the Venice Film Festival on the morning of September 4, the same day this review came out.
“Ethically worrisome?”
This was a terribly biased and narrow-minded. I guess it’s more
proof that atheists cannot fairly critique films that feature the
subject of faith in a positive light. Perhaps a disclaimer at the
beginning that you are anti-Christian would be a helpful qualifier?
This review seems more about how uncomfortable you felt that there was a strong through-line of Christian faith in this true story.
SJW film reviewer..who can stand all things but the “Christian Religion”. What a scum bag…F her. “Humanist Convictions”…
1. There is no truth but the truth that there is no Truth…Humanist Convictions are a “Truth” apparently to her.
Why are idiots allowed to “Type Things”?
*Tips Fedora* good review m’lady, atheism is the best amirite guys?
It’s a true story and the guy WAS this religious. It’s what led everything he did. I’m agnostic as all get out and even I don’t see the problem. This sort of hangup is usually reserved for right wingers being offended by a film featuring a heroic gay character or something. You need to re-evaluate your thinking because you sound like, dare I say it, a conservative. I didn’t realize liberal conservatism was a thing but apparently it may well be…
“It’s a good movie, but it offers a challenge to movie-goers to consider a POV outside of atheistic humanism, therefore it is bad.”
Review.
Peoples heads.
I’d love to blow off this review, but I think the problem here is just how incredibly far left Progressive this site has become. So much so that a review can’t be a review without some politicized spin to it. And I thought Jessica Kiang was one of the more moderate reviewers on this site.
Listen, I’m not Republican and I’m not a hardcore Bible thumper either. But it doesn’t take a genius to recognize a pattern to the reviews and commentary being put out by The Playlist. Go back and read the Clint Eastwood retrospective. Seriously. It’s a list of dumping on Clint because he’s a conservative. Or look at the Social Justice Warrior reporting on the new female-led Ghostbusters that started the minute the movie was announced to long after it tanked in theaters and nobody gave a damn anymore.
Any critic is going to funnel a movie through their own worldview, but damn Playlist, let’s reel it in a bit or at least try to be a little more subtle. You really are one of the best sites for breaking film news, which is why I primarily visit throughout the day.
Well, duh. Of course it’s a declaration of the moral superiority of the faithful over the faithless. Is that wrong? No. It’s true, that’s what it is.
I wonder if this lady will use the same attitude had been this movie about homosexuality or some other politically correct issue? The whole read sounded like a propaganda complains about a “propaganda”. Bigotry raised to a new level. 🙂
As a christian, I think that consider only the faithful people capable of good a problematic point of view too. As a christian, I don’t believe in the inherent good in mankind either… We, for nature, are selfish.
But my point is: when we see the fanatic religious people in Stephen King’s adaptations, for example, and I feel a bit of a generalization in them, we have the same critics?
I didn’t watch the movie, but I read 6 or 8 sources about the real story. And as I’m an adventist-christian, I can understand some things about the story that can explain some points about the movie:
a- Doss really lived his principles. And his case, it’s impossible to separate his faith from his acts. He did what he did because his character is founded in christian principles. Of course there is good people in other religions and good people can be atheist or agnostic. I don’t know how each one become mature, but Doss was a christian and his faith was his moral compass. If you could ask him 100 times if God gave him his capabilities, he would answer you 100 times that ‘yes, I did just because God gave me force’.
b. I don’t undestand whay the movie is “Ethically Worrisome”. Why he is classified as a fanatic? Why what he did was by a religious intransigence? The world needs people that live what they believe. People that not disown its beliefs. And if it’s a good belief, as in his case, why to not say it?
c. Europe and America are forgetting a fact: our moral basis is not ‘humanist’. It’s a Judeo-Christian basis. Modern ‘Humanist convictions’ is almost the same that Judeo-Christian basis, but without God or divinity. You can be a wonderful person and dont’ believe in God, but the fact is that values like mercy, pardon, equality, human rights and solidarity found in west countries come from Christianity.
d. As a christian I don’t believe that he was better than me because he survived. If the christian dead men in this battle could speak, they would say who lives or who die is not a prize for the better. 11 of the 12 disciples were killed by enemies. But I have to confess that I probably never would be so strong and so brave as him, and that I don’t live the love principle so intensive as him did it. And the problem is not him, but me. I must be a better person and almost all christian soldiers think the same.
P.s: About the movie, we must to remember that Mel Gibson needs more thant almost everyone a redemption. It’s not coincidence this movie. He’s chistian, but not in the common sense that he thinks that is better than others. But in the sense that he knows how bad he is and how many terrible things he did. It’s not just a hollywood redemption. It’s a personal redemption. Then, maybe his spiritual state must be seem in the movie.
Ps2: We, seventh day adventist can use weapons in war. But our church recommend that we work in activities that save lives, no t tkill. He was awsome because he was most loyal thant the most part of the loyals.
Ps3: Excuse-me my terrible english. I’m from Brazil and I write in English few times.
Your English is very good. My parents and grandparents were SDA, and I was raised in the church. Your comments are exactly what I’ve learned of Doss’s story in my 60 years. By all accounts this is a man who was very deserving of the Medal of Honor. He spoke once at our church 15 years ago or so. You couldn’t have met anyone humbler, less bragadocious of his acts that earned him that honor. He didn’t impress me as being a strong academic type. He probably wouldn’t have even understood what the reviewer above was saying. My guess is he’d be embarrassed there even was a movie made about his heroism. He himself wasn’t preachy and didn’t try to tell anyone how they should live their lives, only what had carried him through some of the most terrible acts a man can witness. I’m definitely looking forward to the movie.
Sounds like he is reviewing Mel Gibson, FU
Considering that Doss was, in fact, a Christian, your willingness to dismiss his faith, and, by extension, the faith of all Christians, falls flat. He was not a humanist, and therefore, any honest portrayal should not be “a celebration of humanist convictions”, but a clear message honoring his adherence to his Christian faith against all comers (a strength of character you treat contemptuously as “religious intransigence”). Oh, by the way, the Sixth Commandment says “Thou shalt not murder”, not “Thou shalt not kill”. Not all killing is murder, just as not all food is pizza.
I think the reviewer and people here are forgetting what the word “humanist” means…from what I’ve read throughout history Christians have put tredmendous value and care for humans. Desmond Doss would not have helped anyone in the war if that weren’t the case. So, in part, Christians are humanists
Precisely. But what the neo-communists mean by the word is totalitarianism, where government and other “authorities” replace God. That’s why they hate religious people so much, because there is something they put above the almighty government. And I’m not even religious. But I know that there’s no talking to people like this about anything. Never mind that Christian Europe was the first major culture in human history to ban slavery; or human sacrifice for that matter. It somehow isn’t true because it conflicts with their programming. It’s all very depressing..
At least the writer’s pejorative views were transparent. Clearly she is offended by religious people. But so what. I suppose if she were a restaurant critic and had to write on some kosher Jewish dish, we’d hear an earful about how idiotic not mixing cheese with meat is. She should have recused herself and let someone else report on this film.
Now that we know your life is a pathetic meaningless waste of time…what did you think of the movie?
Jessica Kiang, man you’re bitter. Must be really sad to live life with such bitterness in your heart.
Your review is terrible. Can you not include your moral insecurity in your decisions when reviewing films?
Thanks for the review. i was skeptic about this movie. i’ll be sure to skip this crap
Unfortunately, it seems the reviewer is simply not content with a war film that’s not filtered through ten layers of irony, cynicism, and moral ambiguity. I think my detached generation could use a few more films in the “earnest” department.
She might disagree with the premise but it’s true! Those who have more faith in God are blessed more, especially in times of war. God is the one who does the fighting and can make a single man take on 1000 if they have faith in God’s ability to deliver them.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Heb 11:6
One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you. Josh 23:10
Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Deut 31:6
On another note, brothers and sisters who profess the name of the Saviour, Jesus Christ, what’s with the foul mouths and personal attacks on the critic? We are called to be at peace with all (Rom 12:18) and that with meekness we are to instruct those in oppositions, so that God per chance may grant them knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 2:25). But when some of you act like I mentioned above, it probably will further give her a bad taste of Christianity, and validate her point. And the Lord has strong warnings against causing offense to others and being a stumbling block to others (Mat 18:7). Instead we are called to be the light of the world so that when others especially unbelievers observe our conducts, they might glorify and thank God for our good works (see: Mat 5:16, 1 Pet 2:12, Phil 2:15).
You are absolutely clueless as a critic. Quit pushing your liberal bs
Man, talk about a chip on ones shoulder.
Interesting review. The subtext seems to be: “I’m an atheist! Quit preaching!”
If this movie had come out in the mid-1950s, it’s religiosity wouldn’t have excited much comment.
Hell, if it’d come out in the mid-1980s, it wouldn’t have excited much comment, either.
But it’s 2016, gang. A new century. With a new generation — Millennials — who are, according to Pew research, less formally religious than any generation in U.S. history, They are very like Western Europe in that regard, and as any traveler will tell you, churches in Europe have been empty for years.
(To which most of my friends would say, “Good for them!” One Conservative line about Liberals is this: “Liberals believe there’s nothing wrong with America that being more like Europe wouldn’t cure.” I’ll leave it to others to determine the accuracy of this.)
Anyway, that’s where America’s heading now, folks. Like it or not.
So what will things be like for the “Doss’s” of this country in 2046?
Think Okinawa.
(All right I’m exaggerating, but not by much)
As of 10/26/16 we have 16 reviews out 15 positive this being so far the only bad one. This review reads like a angry hit piece against Christians. No other reviewer had any complaints about his faith…..But you. Roger Ebert was a militant atheist. You would have never guessed this by any of his reviews. Take a lesson from Ebert and keep your personal feelings out of your reviews next time.
This isn’t a piece of film criticism.
..
The film “seems less a celebration of humanist convictions than a glorification of religious intransigence”? Maybe that’s because Doss wasn’t motivated by humanist convictions but was motivated by his religion. Is pacifism exclusively the purview of humanism?
What an immature and unprofessional review. The line about the humanist vs faithful says it all. She would apparently have no problem with the film if it was secular.
The childish writing doesn’t help much. This is like reading a high school girl’s diary entry after a fit. Embarrassing, really.
Oh, poor baby hates Christians and bashes the movie as a result. I am never amazed at the sickening hatred of elitist snobs.
All I see here is a woman with a grudge against Gibson who also happens to be the worst kind of atheist. Please stop. You’re giving us all a bad name with your bullshit.
Wow! Thank you. I’ll give this movie a miss then. I thought it would a stinker.
As a former soldier and medic, a big thumbs up to Doss, but a big middle finger to Gibson. Gotta admit, Gibson is getting craftier with his evangelism, you big Jew-hating hard-right Catholic you.
So now that you’ve outed yourself as a being a half-step shy of philosophical radical atheism (http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=16169), why don’t you just tell us about how good the movie was?
Mrs. Kiang, you are one bitter and resentful atheist. This is supposed to be a movie review, not an indoctrination of Christianity. God forbid anyone makes a movie that explores the idea of pacifism and faith!
You can feel the bias seeping from every word of this review. It’s palpably obvious the ‘critic’ is giving more insight into her own personal political agenda than the movie. Typical smug leftist.
[Full.film] Hacksaw Ridge 2016 Full Online putlocker Movie
http://imgur.com/kKXks7X
I know I shouldn’t leave anymore stalker-y comments but I really liked this review, Jess Xxxxx
After reading all of these nasty, misinformed comments, thought I’d offer up some positivity. Yes, you do come across as a bit cynical of religion in all its forms, but you succeed in constructing a very valid, beautifully written piece. I’m pretty spiritual/quasi-religious and I ain’t offended. Guess that’s what you get for growing up in a household full of atheists. I’m the only one in my family who’s like, not.
Looks like Hacksaw Ridge intruded upon Ms. Kiang’s safe space. Someone please get her some Play Doh and some coloring books. In the meantime, I will seek out some reviews of this movie that aren’t driven by the personal ideologies of their reviewers. What a waste of bandwidth this “review” is.
Behold, the reason Donald Trump won the presidency, in one single movie review. Because Americans are sick and tired of having so-called “journalists” shove their personal ideologies down our throats 24/7. You are supposed to be reviewing the movie, not its theology.
I despise Trump, but American journalism is dead.
The brutality of this movie put a smile on my face. My five dollars spent on a matinee showing made me quite satisfied. In comparison to ‘Apocalypse Now’ or ‘Full Metal Jacket’ or ‘Saving Private Ryan’, this movie hit American cinematic gold, for a two hour adventure/drama, that blended the sheer hell of war, with a strong essence of hope.
American cinema/film/movies….so censored and held back. When Django was released, people ‘felt’ the scene in which our heroes love interest is whipped and lashed, and were moved by her pain and torture (yet, of course, the slaves of this grand country suffered far greater atrocities then such a simple lashing). I do not agree with violence or hatred, but am disgusted simply by how we live, each day, here, in this country, and ignore the sufferings of others. I proudly applaud anyone who shoves in our face, the truths that this smartphone and technological world has allowed us to easily ignore.
Please read about Aleppo. Please support our Vets. Please help recondition our mentally disabled homeless population. Please give our criminals a chance, and attempt to rehabilitate them, as well.
This was not ‘the greatest war film ever made’. That, to me, so far, has to go to Apocalpse Now, but everyone has their own opinions. I was interested at the mixture of responses after this film, whilst leaving the theatre. People simply were moved. Crying. In awe. It took me around ten minutea and a bit of looking to find this review, which is spot on about Vaughns poorly written script. I do like the attempt, though. It screams to me much like how Sally Field made a part for herself in the movie ‘Lincoln’ (obviously, Vaughn wanted to channel his inner Full Metal Jacket into this film). Hugo Weaving was a bit dry, as well. I thought the court marshal scene could have played out to something of the likes of Path To Glory, with Martin Sheen, but these times in cinema are not necessarily open to such monologues, such as given in the Kubrick or even Henry Fonda days (ode to 12 Angry Men).
This movie, to me, deserves enormous praise and hopefully will remind people of the brutality of this world.
I have a good news for you, if you are a movie buff, I have been getting a link that could turn the feature length movies, for it please visit here >>>SQUADMOVIE.HOTFREEHD.COM<<<
Now I watched the movie. Just yesterday we in Brazil coud see in the cinemas.
I think the movie has some problemas AS a movie. Just this. from 1 to 5, I Think is a 3,5.
But the story… Wow! What history!
But not ‘ethical’ problems. I didn’t see the “religious intransigence”. I saw a man that really do what he must to do. He just want to do what he thinks is the right.
And he is a religious man? Yes, he is. And why is it a problem? If he believes in Gaia, The Force, Dead people or in the ‘man power’ it would be all right?
Sadly it was not a movie critic.
I do not see things as you do, Ms. Kiang. What I saw was one the very best films of 2016. I see your take on the film–and more so, certain elements encapsulated within it–as philosophically self reverential and a demonstration of current modern angst toward what you like to term traditionalism. Filmmakers like Oliver Stone and James Cameron bludgeon one over the head. Mel Gibson is not of the same cloth. While in Hacksaw Ridge he was clearly acknowledging that what Desmond Doss did was miraculous in and of itself, he was also allowing for the the view that Mr. Doss himself had toward prayer, faith and divinity. The viewer may take from it what the viewer will.
But then, what do I know? You write for The Playlist; I’m just a an everyday ordinary Joe.
Are you reviewing movies or spouting your politics and religion, or lack thereof, on this site? Gibson’s movies are all allegorical because he’s not trying to make documentaries. It’s always power against the individual and people should understand that going in. I even give him credit for making the message behind his movies human rather than proselytizing his religious beliefs, which you do far more than him.
The question he is grappling with is in all his movies is how does a man stay just and good in the face of evil, both his own and that of others. Empire against humanity, rich against poor, strong against weak, the unjust against the innocent. That’s all he’s ever talked about and all I expect he’ll talk about until he dies. How can you review his movies when you don’t even understand what he’s saying?
Who on earth wrote this pile of illegible drivel ? Perhaps Jessica Kiang could go direct a better movie.