Is this movie worth watching?

Is this movie worth watching?

Other urls found in this thread:

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BulletproofHumanShield
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's entertaining in its total disregard of realism and in a comic sort of way.

>directed by Mel Gibson
What do you think?

It's worth the watch but the action scenes are call of duty teir.
Don't take it too seriously.
I expected a little better from Mel

Whatever you do watch a couple episodes of the Pacific right before or after so you can realize what a heap of shit hacksaw is..

It’s really bad. I watched it on a plane and wanted the plane to crash.

Nice try Bane

The Pacific is Marveltier garbage.

Yes.

Of course.

Anyone got the webm of this?

Post the webm
>Sup Forums said this was better than Dunkino
Hahahah you guys never fail to crack me up

...

It is far better than I expected. I am sorry I doubted based Mel.

Anyone saying that is fishing (yous)
Works every time.

This actually happened in real life

Yeah. It's typical Gibson - no bearing on reality whatsoever, just pure cinematic cheese - but REALLY good cinematic cheese.

The dude makes masculine entertainment. And he does it really well.

Even Spike Lee had to put Apocalypto on his greatest of all time list.

It was. Dunkirk was very flat and didn't really have anything to say or display. It was decent. This was kino.

It's Gibson though - he's like Peckinpah or Samuel Fuller. It's high end pulp.

>tfw the raid boss doesn't drop the torso shield +1

Thought it was brilliant. The ending scenes were exhilerating. Lead actor was excellent.

Nothing cheese about apocalypto.
It's pure kino

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Memesaw Reddit*

You honestly have to wonder how Gibson's brain works. In all of his films he features the most tasteless, juvenile violence while being completely sincere about the subject. Like, you know he felt he was making a thoughtful and genuinely respectful movie. But then he's like;

>hmmmm. Stick a wide lens on the camera. This needs more Raimi

How can someone watch this and think "heh the rest of the movie makes up for it"? Like what the fuck is wrong with you people? This movie was one of the worst war movies ever, it looked like a Troma movie

I'm completely serious. Dunkirk was mediocre. Beautifully shot. But a film about nothing with absolutely nothing to say. It was a weak movie.

Hacksaw Ridge is ludicrous, but it's a real story with real vision behind it. Dunkirk was soulless.

watch the second half, or whenever the war starts, everything before it is shitty cliche and melodrama

I don't think the rest of the movie makes up for it. I thought that scene in and of itself was great.

>This movie was one of the worst war movies ever, it looked like a Troma movie

Looks nothing like Troma. Visually that was very similar to Peter Jackson/Sam Raimi.

All of the war stuff is shitty cliche and melodrama. Like everything Gibson makes.

>I thought that scene in and of itself was great.
Well then go on with your objectively shit taste and have a good day

watch Letters from Iwo Jima instead, made by an actual director and not a manlet glorified by jew hating kids

The Pacific is kind of bothering with its disconnected characters.

Apocalypto was good, fuck off.

>people complain about the grenade kick and the torso shield being unrealistic when they actually happened
>Gibson didn't even include some of the more outlandish stuff that actually happened, like Doss abandoning his stretcher when he was being evacuated to pull someone else onto it or when he had both his legs smashed by a sniper bullet and still dragged someone the whole way down the cliffside

Yes it is, it's one of those "so bad that's good" kind of movies. Piss poor acting, cheesy to the cringe, needless gore, literally The Room of WW2 movies

>The Pacific is Marveltier garbage

If you feel this way and you are OP then avoid hacksaw at all costs. SHit opinion though.

Agreed but they couldn't follow a single unit like in BoB because casualty rates were too high. I think they should have followed only Sledge.

>Objectively shit taste

Majority of people agree with me. Sorry, but if you could find any objective measure, it would indicate I'm right and you're in the minority.

Then again - you seem like the sort of juvenile, mentally stunted individual who equates muh realism with quality.

I imagine you sperg out in animated films that aren't expressly aimed at small children too.

It's hilariously bad.

Its alright. What blowed me away was that some madman irl actually pulled this off without the plot armor the movie uses.

>if you could find any objective measure
I can, the objective quality of this scene is below Troma levels. Sorry about your shit taste but there is no need to degrade yourself even furthjer with ad populum fallacies, my friend. Take care

>Majority of people agree with me

A majority of 12 year olds*

People laughed out loud at that scene in the theater I was in.

>they actually happened
according to the false reports of of american soldiers

>>had both his legs smashed by a sniper bullet and still dragged someone the whole way down the cliffside
What do these religious cult kids eat?
jesus christ

I really, really wish they did the stretcher scene instead of pretending that rifle rounds can't penetrate a shredded torso.

Best war movie in a decade, easy.

You've proven yourself to be wrong.

Objectively speaking, on sheer technical production quality alone, that scene is of higher quality than anything produced by Troma. By the metric of how well received it is by both critics and film industrial professionals, it's also held in higher regard than anything by Troma.

You have to accept that your young and you have unsophisticated taste - you're still in that stage of your life where you equate seriousness and realism with "quality".

You'll grow out of it.

>Things that totally, really happened

It has multiple Oscar nominations, is held in high regard by industrial professionals, general audiences and film critics.

Are these people 12?

These are facts - your special unique snowflake feelings? Not so much.

It's like Pacific episode made by Asylum studios. Really bad but in a fun way

>It has multiple Oscar nominations, is held in high regard by industrial professionals, general audiences and film critics.

Because nobody in their right mind criticizes anything WW2 related in America.

I keep hearing that it's a fact but not one person can ever come up with any proof or source whatsoever. If you can ,please share. If not I'll go ahead and continue thinking you're full of shit.

>unsophisticated taste
>some guy using a human torso as a shield while he runs towards a trench in which all enemies die magically is sophisticated taste
You got me good, I didn't notice you were baiting till now. 10/10 well done

>Best war movie in a decade
Tuntematon Sotilas would like a word with you.

>Is this movie worth watching?
Fuck no

It looks like a pile of shit. It took me completely out of the movie. You can forgive going a little over the top. But this is insanity. The whole action sequences I would say maybe not troma. But they are certainly on the level of a Grindhouse flick. The blood and gore becomes comical and set in an atmosphere that is anything but. Making it fucking absurd.

no it didn't

This is objectively false.

I can name five WW2 movies off of the top of my head that were held in poor regard.

>Windtalkers
>Miracle At St. Anna (and that was about negro soldiers no less)
>Jakob The Liar
>Pearl Harbor
>Hart's War

Things that happened are often embellished and the mind of someone that has been through hell might not be the best source for accuracy.

Subscribing to Virtue and Deontological ethics myself, I greatly related to the main character. So I naturally liked it.

>but not one person can ever come up with any proof or source whatsoever.

Oh. Okay.

>6 Oscar nominations
Nominated by industry professionals.
Check

>Cinemascore
A
>175 million dollar box office. Nearly a 4.5 times multiplier on it's budget
General audiences? Check.

>86% RT
Critical consensus? Check.

You can verify every single one of those objective facts via google if you'd like.

Now...how do you verify anecdotal stories about audiences laughing during the movie?

This should be interesting.

it wasn't a 10/10 like braveheart, passion and apocalypto, but it was still a strong 8/10. great and inspiring film. don't listen to cynical Sup Forums losers and memers

I actually thought "pearl harbor..." right after I posted that...

But that doesn't excuse movie. It's nearly as bad as Pearl Harbor.

Just watch the good episodes of the Pacific for nip-slaying fun.

I meant about the torso my man. Don't be thick.

I'll say it again, and keep making you look dumb.

>If it's not realistic it's bad!

This is unsophisticated taste of simple, juvenile individual. Art is not necessarily a realistic depiction of events. You don't understand this because you are 16/17 and trying to rebel against your previous childish tastes by equating realism, "grittiness" and seriousness with "quality", rather than juddging the quailty of the material on it's own merits as art.

Like I said, you'll grow out of it and cringe at yourself later. You are typically fedora core right now.

Mate, you are being baited.

>But they are certainly on the level of a Grindhouse flick.

Except no. The technical quality is too high.

It IS however pulp. Which is what Mel Gibson makes. All of his films are like this except for his debut which was plenty cheesy and hammy in it's own way. If you can't get onboard with this, you will never enjoy his movies, since your complaints apply to everything he has directed.

I liked it but wouldn't count it as a war movie

It's more about religion imo

I'm cringing at the webm right now and at the thought that people like you defend that objective piece of shit

Meant....what about the torso...?

Tell me what in my post was b8?

I'll wait.

Bonus round - explain to me what the fuck a "torso" has to do with anything I've said.

Again, I'll wait.

Tämä

>Braveheart
>Apocalypto
>The Passion of the Christ

I would say, hell yeah!!

Do you want a medal or something...?

>objective

reddit pls.

>stuntmen doing cartwheels in background
>fake as fuck hollywood explosions
>cgi blood
>unsophisticated taste
10/10, have a (you)

I sat through that shit so I kind of deserve one, yes. Last (you) for (you) Mel, make another movie as good as Apocalypto and we'll forget about this embarrassing episode of your career

there is literally nothing wrong with this scene you faggot cocksucker

I like it, but I’m a veteran so I don’t know that my opinion counts for much. Basically they got what it was like to fight the japs right. It was slaughter 24/7 no surrender. The only scene I thought was over the top was when they shelled the ridge with home boy still on it.

Well a rifle round will go through a torso like butter and kill the other person holding it. I think that is what he meant.

With its pretty rare nowadays considering how, anti-christian Hollywood has become. Mel is pretty much the only one with the balls and resorces to keep doing movies like this.

You are not a Veteran faggot.

It's not b8.

None of those things you listed are bad (with the exception of CG blood, but it's become pointless objecting to it because it's so prevelant now).

>fake as fuck hollywood explosions

It's like autism with you.

>IT'S NOT REALISTIC

I mean, why watch movies at all? Just watch news reels.

Its awesome, also, anyone who said that this movie has an anti-war or anti-gun message should be slapped across his face.

>Make another movie as good as a Apocalypto

>Literally all the complaints leveled at Hacksaw Ridge are exactly the same as those in Apocalypto

You're a contradictory fellow.

So what?

Again;

>Muh realism.

>fake as fuck hollywood explosions

AS long as isn't made of CGI... who fucking cares? Its an explosion, its just needs to be an explosion.

I doesn't have to be realistic, it can't be ridiculous though. Sorry Mel, you made a really REALLY bad movie, but don't worry if Nolan could make a great war movie so can you, keep on trying

Oh vey

>it can't be ridiculous though

Sure it can. Just like all of Mel's other films. He makes ridiculous, over the top, pulpy, broad melodrama that plays to the cheap seats. He does it really well too.

>Dunkirk
>Great

kek.

>It's not b8
Nah, I don't believe people are this retarded. I mean you got this down to a T, even doing a ironic reddit and all.

Whatever you say soy boy.

I'm always surprised tvtropes isn't practically a sister site to Sup Forums...

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BulletproofHumanShield

>they were real in my mind

Jesus fucking Christ! Get over with, already. I have never see one single scene tear so many perma-virgin assholes like this one

>false reports

[citation needed]

My asshole is virgin, true. But the scene is still embarrassing shit

>He makes ridiculous, over the top, pulpy, broad melodrama
Just say "shit movies" man, we get it

>>It has multiple Oscar nominations, is held in high regard by industrial professionals, general audiences and film critics.
I like when people on this board appeal to authority when it suits them.

>Sup Forums hates fun action
SAD Sup Forums cant appreciate Melkino

>Someone points you're wrong

>LE B8

You even threw in a "reddit" for good measure. Thanks for really raising the level of discourse here.

inb4
>ha! I don't respond to posts I deem b8
>*tips fedora*

>who fucking cares?
t. Hacksaw Ridge fanboy. No wonder you like this movie.
Stephen Shekeslberg managed to do a great
explosion at the beginning of SPR, the one that sends a few soldiers flying and one of them lands on the ground without a leg. That one looks real and horrifying, the ones in HR looks just cheap and laughable.

>Just say "shit movies" man, we get it

>It's not realistic or dour and serious

But you realize a movie doesn't have to be realistic, dour, serious or restrained to be good right?

I mean, I take it you've seen a few musicals in your time, yeah?

What about comedies? Or do you not watch comedies if the subject matter *should* be taken seriously?

You seem to be really stuck on the fact that someone made a World War 2 movie that was pulpy and melodramatic. As if that is inherently bad. As if you somehow MUST make WW2 films in a realistic manner?

Yeah man some people think that considering "sophisticated" a Lloyd Kaufman tier scene about a guy using a human torso as a shield while he guns down half of the japanese imperial army is bait, but I know you're just retarded or Mel Gibson himself

I like when people appeal to unverifiable anecdotes and claims of b8 and reddit instead of discussing the actual film and offering opinions of why or why they did not think the film worked, and spam reaction images and claims of cringeing.

I like when they make claims regarding the broader appeal of a movie and then dismiss proof of these broader opinions as appeals to authority too.

That's a good trick.