Tu ne tueras point

Certains moments semblent simplistes et peu réfléchis, mais le film fonctionne sur le plan émotionnel. Ainsi, le travail pur avec un visuel doré d'Hollywood réjouira toujours. Le courageux cœur est allé plus loin dans le conflit des personnages, et la rébellion du protagoniste principal était plus passionnée. Comparé à lui, Hacksaw Ridge reste simplement un beau drame de guerre, durci par des viscères ensanglantées et des centaines de tirs brutaux. Garfield est bon, c'est son meilleur rôle jusqu'à présent. (30/11/2016)

If the child version of Andrew Garfield had been hit in the mouth with a brick at the beginning of Hacksaw Ridge instead of his movie brother, the whole film would have made a lot more sense. I wasn’t really sure how seriously I should take a young man with the face of a divine simpleton who isn’t overly familiar with how interpersonal relationships work, let alone international politics. In any case, the film takes him seriously enough to gradually lose all credibility. Instead, it offers an enormous dose of stupidity. It seems to me that the final Assumption scene wandered into the film from an unaired Monty Python sketch. The concept that forms the basis of the entire film is reminiscent of the theatre of the absurd. To make the hero of the biggest explosion of disembowelled guts and blown-off heads since Saving Private Ryan a very devout pacifist who rejects violence of any kind strikes me as a rather cruel irony. It doesn’t seem, however, that Mel Gibson is aware of that. He doesn’t use the scenes of slaughter (which soon become numbing rather than shocking) to lead Desmond to the realisation that war is a lot more hellish than he imagined it would be (in which case the contrast of the first and second halves of the film would have worked better), but to show how hard the boy will have it if he wants to survive longer than a split second without a rifle in his hand. The creation of a hero who rejects violence is thus paradoxically conditioned by pervasive violence. If his buddies had not been torn to pieces by the bullets and grenades of the savage Japanese (an ethnic stereotype that went out of fashion along with John Wayne), he could not have become a hero. I don’t doubt that someone else will find clear logic in what I myself see as an irreconcilable contradiction, but even if it didn’t seem to me that the film is ridiculous at its very core, I would have a hard time finding reasons to recommend it to anyone as an example of the best of what has been made in Hollywood this year. We have seen powerful and generally uncluttered depictions of the pandemonium of war many times before, and the clear narrative structure and textbook segmentation, thanks to which such films never even start to be boring, are qualities that have characterised American films for many decades. Hacksaw Ridge, however, is somewhat underdeveloped both intellectually and formalistically. 60% (03/12/2016)

Laughing in atheist Czechia at the Catholic Gibson going over the top in the story of a soldier who refuses a gun for religious reasons seems like a cheap pose to me. The truth is that just as Gibson does not discount his position as a devout Christian, he does not discount filmmaking compromises. The first hour might have deserved to be turned up a notch and let the viewer peek inside the heads of those for whom a gun is a certainty in war, but the second half is a Rambo-esque rendering plant that, with its refined camera, editing, and sound-chiseled aesthetics, turns a wartime hell into an almost hypnotically artistic experience. This was last done by Ridley Scott at the start of the new millennium. You can have whatever feelings you want about it throughout, but when Garfield's limited acting works at the end, it turns into an emotional waterfall that for once I didn’t feel awkward about. 4 ½. (15/07/2017)

I would divide this film into two parts like it is for instance with The Full Metal Jacket. However, as opposed to The Full Metal Jacket, the first half involving training is quite boring, but fortunately the latter half is saved by an absolute precise depiction of war that I haven’t seen in a long time. You see, war is depicted in a pretty brutal manner in this film, which is something I had expected to see in a movie directed by Mel Gibson. At times I was even remembering the brutality and efficiency of SavingPrivate Ryan. The only difference being that Hacksaw Ridge was made about twenty years later. It still is one of the best war movies of the past few years and I am glad that Mel Gibson was in charge of this one, who after all his escapades proved that he still has it in him to get famous again, which he actually managed to achieve due to the fact that he was nominated for an Oscar. By the way, try to find out something about the main character, who is portrayed here by Andrew Garfield. To be honest, I didn’t know what to think about him. I think Desmond Doss was pretty unstable psychologically, which was confirmed in the first hour of the movie. After all, the movie showed this on his despotic father and also on the fact that the entire family was part of some Adventist Church of Jesus’ Latter Days and the family really built who they were on their pacificsm. In any case, I appreciate the effort to help people. You could see that even despite his mental issues, Desmond really meant well and it’s nice that Mel Gibson made such a movie about him. The story is truly epic. (21/02/2017)

The rumors that Hacksaw Ridge is a cruel carnage have been confirmed. At least the scene when the protagonists enter the battlefield for the first time is really not for the faint of heart and will probably be talked about for a while. How the film will fare overall, though, I can't say, but I'm afraid a lot of viewers won't be able to stomach this. Mel Gibson is a great director and it shows here not only in the battle scenes, where he allows himself to do some really wild stuff from time to time, but audiovisually overall. The trouble, however, may be that Hacksaw Ridge looks like something from the last century, and not from the 1990s. The hero is more naive and passionate about a good cause than Forrest Gump, the characters are downright shallow at times, and everything here is either black (Dobbs, you're a naive idiot and you're going to get your ass kicked) or white (Dobbs, we'll follow you to hell). Gibson was probably trying to do just that, and if you accept the rules of the game, you get a very good hero story that you may question how much it has to do with reality, but you will enjoy it. But if you don't tune in to the director's wave, you can suffer through Hacksaw Ridge. So watch out! (15/05/2017)

Anachronous slag. The first third is a pure zero. Is the character demented? Does Mel like Forrest Gump, but does he not understand exaggeration? Is Vince Vaughn a perverted joke? Something so awkward belongs to the ideological enclosure of the 1990s. Fortunately, there is the second half and Call Of Duty: Holy Warfare, a dense war porn with slasher elements that constantly spoils the wild face of Garfield the cat and Mel's inclinations to burnt religious-patriotic symbolism (the verticals and ceilings, well, wow). But the naughty old man is still great at doing intestines and limbs. Everything around is nevertheless still one big loose stool. Despite the scheme, Ryan had some suitability. This is a biblical-patriotic drapery beyond the edge of endurance. That end is pure wtf. The good soldier Messi. Paraphrase of a platoon crossed with the Assumption? Give me a break. I'm not an Adventist. (09/11/2016)

Gibson probably didn't quite understand the meaning of the phrase "war is hell/horror" and took it literally, word for word. He thus stylizes war scenes as a pure horror genre movie from hell with everything from the fear of the unseen through spooky scenes to the ultimate gorefest that cinema has never experienced before. Which is basically (without irony or exaggeration) a brilliant idea. On paper. In this interpretation, however, it is only a monotonously stultifying patchwork of slow-motion shots of Japanese Palachas melancholy flare accompanied by raining limbs. And all this improved with WTF moments that are like from the Army of Darkness (yes, a congenial assault with a rotting body, football-grenade scissors or "I´ll move forward you have my back"). And I haven't even yet mentioned the excessive agitation "overlap" that the viewer is forced to watch, which is packed with undisguised pathos (no, it's not a scene "please, one more"), that it has absolutely nothing in common with serious (anti) war drama. This is a regular B-rate guild "holy gore" pleasure not a serious movie. Which is a pity, because the fate and the themes (and the resulting conflicts) are so stimulating that they deserved a better and, above all, more dignified adaptation. But it wouldn't be so much fun, although unintentional, but damn it. At the end of the day, the main drawback is not the silly script, ridiculous performances or disrespecting the memory of the victims on both sides, but the first forty minutes, which ... Well, it´s just as bad (if not worse) than the rest of the movie, but there are no scenes from the Army of Darkness. Which is an unforgivable sin that not a dozen prayers will undo. (28/01/2017)

Gibson will cut you into pieces. It starts as romantic fairytale about human values and then switches over to hell. Doss’s story begins with a very fond view of the past, growing up, a fundamental faith in God all mixed with a complicated relationship with his father (the fantastic Hugo Weaving), a veteran of the First World War and a drunk. The romantic interest is dealt with precisely, somewhere between Forrest Gump and Braveheart, which is exactly what this story needs. The training centre section was a little confused, but as soon as the platoon sets foot on Okinawa, you no longer care. No pussyfooting from Gibson, he serves us reality in its fiercest form. He presents war in a terrifying, raw and very realistic way, but the sensitivity with which it was filmed gives it a stamp of beauty. The image composition is so fantastic it’s almost unbelievable, the same as the story. Heroic transfer of Doss’s wounded comrades, saving lives¬… sometimes even Japanese, hiding in tunnels and bloodbaths. Excellent casting, dominated by Garfield (a great balance between simple farmer and an ardent believer-hero). He does the work expected from him. This movie might never have been made if it wasn’t for Gibson’s Hollywood repentance, and that would have been a great shame. Now we want him back, ready for combat, and I hope that he dusts off that Viking bloodbath that he was meant to make with DiCaprio. (14/11/2016)

Nothing has changed in all these years, Mel Gibson is still a very good storyteller of romantic and personal stories and relationship lines, but only mediocre at working with war themes. We Were Soldiers (where he left the direction to his mate Randall Wallace) had identical ills and became a mere semi-cult classic for loyal fans rather than a benchmark of the genre. Not even Mel's appetite for blood and blown limbs can make up for it. All he had to do was invite Spielberg or Stallone in for a consultation to show him what the meaning of the word dynamic and imaginative action/war scenes is. Everything is topped off by the traditionally idiotic slow-motion shots of the first line running out (again, as if copied from an earlier film), which subliminally scream "pathos" at the top of their lungs. The performances are fine, the Palmer-Garfield duo is ideal. (14/11/2016)

In the hands of Mel Gibson, the already fascinating story of Desmond Doss is transformed into a one hundred percent impressive anti-war film, which from beginning to end flows very naturally and without a single hiccup, or even cliché, and literally does whatever it wants with the viewer. In the first half, we follow Desmond's determination to enlist and wish him well in spite of everything and everyone. In the second half, we experience an extremely suggestive war hell with him and we don't understand what can make a man willingly throw himself into it (by the way, whoever says that the first half is for women and the second for men must have a really simple life). All the actors are great, the direction is imaginative, the script is not a quickie and I really liked the music. However, the Czech subtitle of the film "Zrození hrdiny" (The Birth of a Hero) is misleading, because heroism, which has many forms, is not so much at stake here. It's about conviction, courage, and belief that good things won't stop happening even in the worst place on earth. (12/11/2016)

Mel has not fully wised-up. A visual and acoustic barrage with some over the top sequences of cinematic warfare (during the first battle scene you want to crouch in the cinema to avoid being hit by flying shrapnel or splashing blood); narratively this controversial filmmaker is absolutely precise, but visibly lacks any stylistic creativity in the form of the overall system of the work. The film kind of feels like an amalgamation of more notorious ones based on similar themes and motifs, and while everything that happens in it is correct given the classic modes of storytelling, we don't find a single signature, a single authorial added value except for the litres of blood and guts spilling out. Thumbs up for most of the actors (I repeat actors, not Garfield), the thorough psychology, and the disgustingly depressing atmosphere that the nature of direct combat manages to evoke in the stomach and mind. Thumbs down, on the other hand, for the overblown patriotism and ridiculous iconisation of the main character, which at times sends the whole philosophical message somewhere on the mental level of Forrest Gump and Bubba. (21/11/2016)

Voici enfin, après une longue période, un excellent métrage, qui plus est dans le genre film de guerre. Je suis assez allergique aux productions américaines sur le thème de la guerre sorties ces dernières années et Tu ne tueras point change agréablement la donne. Pour être sarcastique, je dirai que c’est peut-être grâce à Gibson et aux Australiens qu’on a évité une connerie américaine glorifiante de plus. Mel Gibson a déjà gagné ma sympathie par le passé, donc je fermerai les yeux sur les quelques scènes aux relents amerloques. C’est que je lui fais confiance pour ne pas se laisser aller à la jubilation de la perfection et de l’infaillibilité de sa nation. Andrew Garfield a vécu une année très difficile, car assurer le rôle de Desmond Doss à côté de sa participation à Silence a dû lui demander énormément de travail. Pour cette raison, je trouve que sa nomination aux Oscars est méritée. Quand je regardais le film d’horreur de série B Dans le noir, j’étais loin d’imaginer que l’actrice principale apparaîtrait de sitôt dans un film de série A ! Et que dire à propos de mon chouchou des comédies, Vince Vaughn ? Que je ne peux pas m’empêcher de rire, même quand il joue un rôle sérieux ! (23/02/2017)

It didn’t bother me in the least that the first half of the film was slow-paced, as I spent the whole time worrying about how deep a cesspool of pathos the director would make me sink into. Surprisingly enough, it didn't happen in the end. At least I expected much worse. Sadly, Mel Gibson obviously doesn't make films for atheists, so I had to sit through a lot of claptrap from those who believe in the immaculate conception of the greatest of carpenters. What put me in a better mood was how realistically the Battle of Okinawa was portrayed. The main character's philosophy was really interesting. If all Allied soldiers had followed it, everyone would probably be speaking German or Japanese today, and the Golan Heights would be one of the most peaceful places on Earth, much to Mel Gibson’s satisfaction. 4*- (16/04/2017)

I had mixed feelings about this movie. On one hand, there's the great Mel Gibson, whom I respect even more as a director than as an actor, and on the other hand, there's the story of a man who is essentially a fanatic. But Mel once again showed that he can direct a film that amazes the audience, especially in the war scenes, which haven't captivated me like this since Saving Private Ryan, although I've seen more by this point. I was still just staring in awe. (14/11/2016)

A year ago it was Spielberg, this year it’s Gibson. Once again, we get a film from the last century, where the director of Braveheart definitely does not disappoint. By the time you land on Okinawa, you're thinking, "Yeah, I've seen this many times before." But then comes the carnage... ugly, harsh, repulsive for some, but for others it's amazingly technical and detailed. On a small battlefield, all hell breaks loose, surpassing in its realism the vast majority of what has ever been seen on the screen. You'll be glad for a master who has a few more miracles up his sleeve, because Hacksaw Ridge is mainly a film about heroism. (13/11/2016)

It's a great pity that most of the plot is mired in pathos, because the passage when Andrew Garfield as Private Doss rescues his wounded comrades armed only with a first aid kit is basically flawless. It seems to me that it couldn't have been filmed any better. Anyway, the real Desmond Doss deserves our boundless respect and admiration for his heroic actions. It's only right that this movie was made: it has brought him to the attention of the wider public. (65%) (23/01/2023)

Mel Gibson est de retour et c’est une bonne chose. J’ai aimé la transition douce et lente entre le début drôle et digne d’un conte de fées, l’entraînement plus sérieux mais, grâce à Vaughn, à l’humour toujours présent, et les combats rudes et sanglants de la seconde moitié du film. J’ai également apprécié que les combats ne tournent pas uniquement autour du protagoniste : dans la première partie, on ne le voit pas beaucoup et on observe surtout le sort des autres soldats. Gibson n’a pas forcé le trait ici, et il a bien fait. Il aurait peut-être juste pu omettre l’explosion de la grenade vers la fin. Mais là où Gibson a forcé le trait, et dans le bon sens du terme, c’est lors des scènes de combat. À ce propos, j’ai beaucoup aimé le commentaire d’un autre utilisateur et la façon dont il imagine Gibson, avec son visage de fou, criant : « Plus de sang, putain ! » :D Mais moi, au contraire, ça m’a plu. Alors non, je n’ai jamais participé à un combat, je n’ai jamais vu de mes propres yeux d’explosions, de tripes ou de combat à mort, mais c’est exactement comme ça que je me l’imagine. Tout m’a semblé incroyablement réel, tous les effets étaient honnêtes, et ça, je l’apprécie. Tu ne tueras point est pour moi l’un de ces grands films de guerre que je reverrai volontiers. En conclusion, je dirai simplement : « Je veux plus de Mel Gibson, putain ! » :D (28/02/2017)