I didn't see a single weapon reloaded.

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:
I didn't see a single weapon reloaded.

I just saw it tonight and this really stuck out with me. Not a single reload. Not a single characteristic "ping" of a Garand discharging its last round. The realism of the battle scenes simply wasn't there for me like it was in Saving Private Ryan or even Fury...except for the brutality of war. That was certainly on full display.

The story itself though was incredible, and I did love the movie; I just wish some of the details were more prevalent.

Vaughn not only never reloaded his M3, he never aimed it either. And those BARs didn't recoil? It was an ok story but the technical aspects just sucked.

Tell you right now, there was a Garand ping. One for sure. That's all I got.

I've shot the BAR Full Auto. And it's done in about 0 seconds. So yeah, I get what's being said and it annoys my OCD side too.

Still a good flick once you get past the love story.

How bout that cargo net? Had one to the top of the gym in elementary school. Loved it. But damn, see it in a whole new light now.

I just saw this today. Two things came to mind:

1: Why wouldn't the Japanese cut the anchors to the net, making it more difficult for the Americans to assault their position?

2: Concerning the production value, it seems to me Gibson is better at the interpersonal stuff than action. Thinking back to Braveheart, all the scenes outside of the fighting are more memorable and impactful than the actual fighting. Same with this film. I found it much more interesting to see Doss' home life and his budding relationship with the nurse than anything shown of his time on Okinawa.

I think Vaughan did a really good job. He wasn't trying to be Ermey.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:
I didn't see a single weapon reloaded.

Not a single characteristic "ping" of a Garand discharging its last round.

quote:

Originally posted by Slippery Pete:
Tell you right now, there was a Garand ping. One for sure. That's all I got.

Agreed, I even commented on the sound to my wife. We rented it Saturday night. Enjoyed the movie, but I too noticed the bottomless magazines a few times.

Here's a shot of the real-life Urasoe-Mura Escarpment, aka "Hacksaw Ridge". The man at the top of the ridge is Doss himself.



Here's a shot of other members of Doss' division (77th) assaulting a similar cliff via cargo net during the later fighting on the Shuri Line:

I did not care for the movie.

It is a great story, and could have been a fine movie.

The movie, and Gibson's direction, is heavy-handed, predictable, and full of cliches. (Doss' worst enemy in training becomes his best buddy - really?) A fake surrender. If there was a Pacific island war movie trope that Gibson missed, I'll be damned if I know what it is. Subtlety is not in Gibson's palette.

As others noted, the technical errors are egregious - mustaches on recruits; Recruits who are all well into their twenties, if not their thirties? Vince Vaughan is 46, for Pete's sake. The firearms errors other mentioned are numerous.

And Gibson's fascination with having peoples' guts outside their bodies is just plain weird. I know it is war, but Gibson would find a reason to work a disembowelment into a Disney film.

I couldn't enjoy it, and I wanted this movie to be good. I really did. It seems like it would be hard to screw this story up. But it wasn't.

I wish a good director had worked on this project. Speilberg did his war movie, but surely someone with real talent needs to make a traditional war movie for his resume.

quote:

Originally posted by Orguss:
I just saw this today. Two things came to mind:

1: Why wouldn't the Japanese cut the anchors to the net, making it more difficult for the Americans to assault their position?

When I saw the movie I asked myself the same question. It didn't make any sense and it sent me scouring the internet for the history of the actual battle. For whatever the reason, the Japanese didn't show any interest in holding that part of the battlefield. It doesn't seem to make sense, but that's the way it happened in real life.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

Recruits who are all well into their twenties, if not their thirties? Vince Vaughan is 46, for Pete's sake.

My great Uncle Ray was like 37 years old when he found himself in Marine boot camp during WWII.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

Recruits who are all well into their twenties, if not their thirties? Vince Vaughan is 46, for Pete's sake.

Keep in mind that during WW2, all able-bodied American men aged 18 to 44 were eligible for military conscription.

(Starting in 1942, men aged 45-64 still had to register for the draft as well, but were exempt from military service. If needed, they could have been drafted for non-military national service stateside, though none actually were.)

Over 10 million men between 18 and 44 were drafted from November 1940 through October 1946, plus another 6 million men of those ages who volunteered (like Doss).

So there were plenty of 20-, 30-, and even 40-somethings entering boot camp during WW2.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

Recruits who are all well into their twenties, if not their thirties? Vince Vaughan is 46, for Pete's sake.

My great Uncle Ray was like 37 years old when he found himself in Marine boot camp during WWII.

I don't doubt it, and I know they were eligible. But most recruits were 18 to their early 20s. There would have been a few older guys in every bunch, but the vast majority were quite young.

If we want to talk in anecdotes, recall all the 28-year-old soldiers called "Pops."

Even if it was mainly 18-20ish year olds serving during WW2, we're still talking millions of 30ish and 40ish year olds who served.

Because the WW2 US military was so large, and the draft was so extensive as far as age range goes, the WW2 military skewed older than other draft military compositions during our history. 26 was the average age of an American serviceman during WW2. Compare to Vietnam, where the average age was 22, or WW1, where the average age was 23.

Currently, under an all-volunteer force with a large cadre of career servicemembers, it's ~29 in the Army/Navy/Air Force/Coast Guard and ~25 in the Marines.

I watched it with my wife last weekend and she thought it was good, and she does not like gory movies! She appreciated the storyline. I had not heard of this story until this movie. Last intense war movie for me was Saving Private Ryan. To me, that was more intense. These movies hit home, as I had relatives in WW2 that did not come back.

This aired last night on HBO, so I decided to give it a look. I cannot, however, render an opinion because I turned it off after about 90 seconds.

I assume that the narrator in the opening scene is the film's protagonist. It's one thing for a film to pay homage to another, but copycatting is something else. Terence Malick already did this, almost twenty years ago in The Thin Red Line- the philosophical musings in a soft Southern accent, overlaying graphic scenes of battle in slow motion. (One might even count Sissy Spacek's voiceover in Malick's Badlands)

And what's this? A Taste of Woo- John Woo, that is. In the few seconds I watched this thing, how many bodies did I see, airborne, and perfectly, entirely enrobed in flames? John Woo's interpretation of Americans in battle, in Windtalkers.

At least Woo has the excuse of not understanding us because he grew up in a radically different culture. What's your excuse, Mel? Was what I saw just you showing off, or trying too hard, perhaps?

In a nutshell, the very small taste I had was cheesy, derivative, and not IMO a reflection of real conditions in that campaign. There may very well be an excellent film on the other side of that silly ballet, and maybe someday I'll get around to taking another run at this film, but Mel Gibson knows better, or at least I thought he did.

There are a few war films I've turned off in the first scene, due to their depiction of battle, or the intrusion of the director's politics; Red Tails, because of the way White American fighter pilots were portrayed as seeking personal glory at the expense of the bomber crews they were protecting, while the noble Black man stepped in to do the right thing and save the day. Also because of the almost as unrealistic portrayal of German fighter pilots. I swear, that guy was sporting a monocle and a scar.

Lincoln, because Steven Spielberg's view of battle in the Civil War had an unreal quality to it that was permeated with his personal views. Yes, I actually got all that from watching about two minutes of the film.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

Recruits who are all well into their twenties, if not their thirties? Vince Vaughan is 46, for Pete's sake.

My great Uncle Ray was like 37 years old when he found himself in Marine boot camp during WWII.

I had a great uncle in his early forties went into the Army.

I caught it last night on HBO.

It sucked.

A truly shitty portrayal of a pretty amazing real life story.

What? Y'all don't like movies where a guy uses a dead man's torso as a bullet-proof shield? WTF!

Yeah, I, uh, didn't see that part.