It was a breath of fresh air in a year full of mediocre and bad films in that the true story was great, the inclusion of the love story and human side of a war movie was welcomed compared to many war movies that hardly show a woman at all, the action was well done, and it was emotionally touching to those inclined to feel the wide range of emotions the story and movie evoked. But I think the main reason people like it is the heroic true story of Doss, which was truly inspirational, and unlike superhero comic movies people are inundated with, real.

Its the story of a real hero, not some guy in a cape showing off his mad skillz but the kids seem to like that crap these days, rather than tales of real heroes.

@NotoriousRio said:

Its the story of a real hero, not some guy in a cape showing off his mad skillz but the kids seem to like that crap these days, rather than tales of real heroes.

What this dude said. Its a great story based on actual events, and no, not horror movies 'true events' but actual events. And it was very well acted as well.

@NotoriousRio said:

Its the story of a real hero, not some guy in a cape showing off his mad skillz but the kids seem to like that crap these days, rather than tales of real heroes.

Ok, yeah. I get that. The story itself is great. It is an inspiring and heroic story and I have great respect for the real people and events. But the way it was depicted? The way it was made? That's what I'm confused about. There are many, many other films about true, heroic people out there that are handled far more tastefully, with more respect for the audience. So I'm confused why it's particularly this one that is rated 8.1 on IMDB. I'm not criticizing people for liking it, just a bit baffled is all.

I found the drama here to be emotionally manipulative and patronizing. The dialogue was corny, contrived and unnatural. It felt like people were speaking as if they were in a film, not like they were real, breathing people with complexities and nuances. The music was constant, overbearing and controlling. Andrew Garfield came across like an in-bred serial killer. And, excellently edited battle scenes aside, i thought it generally seemed to have the aesthetics of a TV movie. Mel Gibson has always tended to have an unsubtle style, but never to this extent. It also seemed to have a lot of scenes almost directly lifted from other films. The barracks/drill sergeant sequence from Full Metal Jacket, for example.

Actually my favourite part of of the film was the last five minutes when we got to hear the real people speak. That I thought was fascinating.

Maybe the barracks/drill sergeant sequence was similar to Full Metal Jacket because that's what it was actually like?

I agree with you about Andrew Garfield in the beginning and how unbelievably corny it was; how he was just constantly staring and smiling at Teresa Palmer while giving blood was really creepy. I dunno, maybe that's how it was back in the day but he did seem "serial killer" -ish lol.

All in all I did enjoy this but it did feel like two different films; the first half being a family drama with the second half being a violent war film.

The war scenes were laughable and unrealistic, slapping grenades? Picking up a half torso, while firing a BAR with the other hand? Zombie like jump-scares for the kiddies, this movie is a joke.

IT WAS EXCELLENT.IPUT OFF WATCHING IT FOREVER.IM SO BORED WITH WAR FLICKS AND IVE NEVER BEEN A GARFIELD FAN...OH WELL..THIS MOVIE WAS RIVETING AND HIGH QUALITY.

Not my cup of tea personally. I thought the first passage of domestic life was unengaging, it was Doss's faith that was key to his actions, not his wife.

The barracks scenes were better but it took a frustrating age for Doss to make it clear his intention was to be a medic (and nobody appeared to explore that, we just spent ages with people seeming to think he was mad or taking the mick)

The court scene was hard to believe with the trial concluding as a result of the father's intervention just as judgement was about to be passed, there was simply no tension.

The battle scenes started with a living torso leaping to life and screaming in some kind of Evil Dead / Army of Darkness homage and scarcely became more tasteful or restrained from then on in.

This wouldn't make my top ten war movies despite the source material, and I don't even watch all that many war movies. Happy it gave lots of people enjoyment but yeah, I'm mystified.

5/10

So looking back at the reasons people gave here for their high regard of the film it seems the general explanation is that it's a true story about a real hero as opposed to the superhero films we get bombarded with. And it's something I hear spoken quite a lot. And while I certainly empathize about longing for something different, I do feel that this has become not only an overused argument for praise but is also setting quite a low bar for quality. Should a film really be lauded simply for what it isn't?

The assumption seems to be that in being a true story, Hacksaw Ridge is providing us with something that we've all long been deprived of. And while I do agree we have too many super hero films, I never really perceived this lack of other films (true story or not) that many often claim this overcrowded genre caused. But to satisfy my curiosity I scrolled down the IMDB film release list for 2016, the year HR was released, and compared the amount of super hero films to the amount of heroic true story films.

And yes there were a hell of a lot of super hero films. There were 6. But of the supposedly scarce heroic true story sub genre we had the following:

• Hidden Figures
• Miss Sloane
• Snowden
• Deepwater Horizon
• Sully
• The Infiltrator
• The Finest Hours
• Free State of Jones
• Hacksaw Ridge

If you expand that to encompass all true story movies you can also add War Dogs, The Founder, Lion, Jackie, Loving, Gold, Patriots Day and Denial.

And these are just the films that I'm aware are true stories. So we've got 9 vs 6 or 17 vs 6. Either way when you actually step back and look at things, while you might hear about super hero films a lot, it doesn't mean we don't have plenty of true stories to choose from. There is no gap in the market here.

@Heisenberg12 said:

It was a breath of fresh air in a year full of mediocre and bad films in that the true story was great

While looking back at that IMDB list I was reminded about just what an outstanding cinematic year 2016 was. This was a year we had the likes of Manchester By the Sea, Arrival, Moonlight, Captain Fantastic, Nocturnal Animals, The Handmaiden, Train To Busan, Silence and The Lost City of Z amongst many others. All evidence that we are neither deprived of choice due to the dominance of the super hero nor are we saved from a barren and substandard cinematic landscape by Hacksaw Ridge.