Hacksaw Ridge
dok0zhivago
Member Posts: 82
Just got back from the cinema.
The movie blew me away.
Probably the best war movie since Saving private Ryan.
A must see.
The movie blew me away.
Probably the best war movie since Saving private Ryan.
A must see.
4
Comments
Really?
And one can't argue about Gibsons skills or talent when it comes to making movies. And this is movie is really worrh seeing
Braveheart?
Passion?
Apocalypto?
The man is a great director
If you like war movies go see this. Regardless of the director.
Also great performances from the cast, Sam Worhtington really surprised me here
And his solidly entertaing movies are modern classics.
You should look for Tarantinos or Scorseses opinion on Apocalypto. You'd be surprised.
It was never my intention to start a discussion about Gibsons personality or to judge him as a human being. And I frankly couldn't care less about his personal life.
All I wanted to do is recommend what I consider a really great movie.
So, as a story from amore modern era, how does Hacksaw Ridge measure up in terms of historical accuracy? I'm particularly interested in his portrayal of the Japanese, and how close it is to reality.
And no, I don't care about his political views. What I care about is his shameless destruction of history.
I really don't care about historical accuracy, as long as the movie is good.
And Braveheart is a great movie with great performances and lines. Same goes for Gladiator. Not exactly historically accurate but a great movie with badass scenes nevertheless. Original Ben Hur as well
As far as Hacksaw ridge goes the focus is mostly on the marines, and telling anything else would go into spoiler territory. But there is a poetic scene near the end with the Japanese commander.
I don't know if the battle was presented historically accurate but the depiction of wounds and general carnage is.
The movie really hits you hard.
And when it comes to history accuarcy, I do agree that movies that keep that up is good, but sometimes movies made on ones own ideas and not inspired by historical events can be fun as well. Modern movies that present future can't be based on history, obviously. One should be able to make movies representing historical wars such as the second or first world war, as well as the Cold war, without having to be 100% accurate according to history.
If you have seen American Sniper and know about Chris's life in the military, you know that he lied about his amount of confirmed kills in the movie. As well as his amounts of medals optained.
Chris Kyle, who died in 2013 and was portrayed by Bradley Cooper in Clint Eastwood’s 2014 film, wrote in his autobiography that he received two silver stars and five bronze stars for valour during his service with the Navy Seals during the Iraq war.
But The Intercept states the US Navy’s official record for Kyle, known as the deadliest sniper in US military history, confirms he in fact received one silver star and three bronze stars for valour. The website obtained the information through a data request application."
Source
But hell, the movie is still great. The movie is outstanding, in my own opinions. This doesn't bother me a single bit. Of course this was a minor "error", I know some movies differs way further from reality than this movie.
Anyway, I'm not saying Mel Gibson shouldn't be allowed to make films. I was merely pointing out that I don't trust him to get the facts right.
I love war movies, they usually make me cry. I loved we were soldiers, which had Mel Gibson.
I will check it out. The name looks like a horror flick, which I despise. So I didn't even know that it was one I might like.
Thanks again!!!
1) King Edward I a pagan? I don't think so.
2) England's invasion of Scotland was a recent thing. They hadn't been oppressed for decades, as implied in the film.
3) The Scottish rebellion wasn't about freedom, it was about having the country run by Scottish feudal lords, and not English feudal lords. The peasants wouldn't have known the difference, they still had to work for, and fight for, their feudal lord.
4) Prima Noctis was never a thing.
5) The Battle of Stirling Bridge wasn't a big open field battle (they seem to have forgotten the "bridge" part) - that's exactly the kind of battle the English, who were used to fighting in this way because they'd been fighting the French for years, would have won. The Scottish won that battle by being clever, and using the bridge to their advantage.
6) William Wallace was a lowlander, not a highlander. He wouldn't have been wearing tartan.
7) Speaking of which, he was the son of a knight, not a peasant living in a hovel wearing a poorly stitched burlap sack.
8) There's no way he'd paint himself with woad either, because that's a thing the evil pagan picts did many years ago. The Scottish were catholic at that time, they'd consider something like that to be blasphemous.
9) There was no great betrayal of the Scottish nobles. They weren't bought off, they simply considered the battle lost and fled the field. The film made it look like they left at a pivotal moment at which they could have won the battle (because we must never show the English winning a battle by fair methods).
10) Apparently Robert de Brus never switched sides either. In fact I've heard it suggested that the two never even met.
11) Speaking of which, it's unlikely he'd have bombarded his own men with arrows. That's the kind of act that'd get all the nobles rebelling against a king - feudal politics, and the Magna Carta, means the king has to keep his nobles happy.
12) Princess Isabella was about 10 at the time.
Honestly, the odd inaccuracy doesn't generally bother me, but this film is so anti-English that it might as well be a work of propaganda. It's still an entertaining film, but just remember to take the story with a pinch of salt, because it bears very little resemblence to the actual events on which it was based.
In general, I find historical dramas to be boring--if I want to know about an event I will watch a documentary about it and/or research the event myself.