**A really good movie, which only lacks in some details.**
This was not the first war film directed by Mel Gibson. He had previously made at least one military-themed film, “We Were Soldiers”, set in Vietnam. However, it is a film that addresses much more human and intimate themes, in my opinion, by following the Doss family, a family from rural Virginia, and the trajectory of one of their children, Desmond.
Son of an extraordinarily devout mother, raised an Adventist, Desmond learns as a child to deny violence (the film shows a fight between brothers that could have ended very badly, but in real life it was a fight between Desmond's father and his brother-in-law) and to strictly follow his faith and religion. When the US joins the Allies in World War II, the brothers decide to enlist, but Desmond insists on doing so on his own terms, that is, as a combat rescuer, exempt from the use and carrying of any weapon. Of course, the US military isn't going to take this in the best light.
The film exposes itself in a somewhat lengthy way and captures our sympathy very well, but despite many people complaining that the first part of the film is slow and tiring, I felt this more in the prolonged combat scenes, despite understanding what led Gibson to detail them so exhaustively. Still, it is necessary to be frank: they are excellent battle scenes, with rich details and a very accentuated degree of rawness. Unfortunately, the dialogues aren't very good, they sound a bit cliché, and it's annoying to see that in a movie with so many qualities. The film also makes efforts to create a romantic subplot around Desmond's first wife, but things don't go well, and the material is frankly poor.
In general, Gibson does a good job of directing, although that won't come as a surprise to the most attentive observer. He already has a number of hits in his filmography and, together with Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper, is one of the actors I most like to see in the director's chair. Until now, I never really considered the value of the actors involved in this project. Some I just don't know very well. Andrew Garfield is an example: I've seen him in other works, but the actor never completely convinced me, so I was very impressed with his work here. Sam Worthington also impressed me very well, although he's an actor I recognize more easily, and I've seen him work well in other films. Hugo Weaving is excellent, and Vince Vaughn also deserves praise. Only Teresa Palmer seems to have more difficulty to disentangling herself from the work at hand, perhaps due to the weak material received.
Technically, the film has a lot of good things to look at, starting with the reasonably rigorous way in which Gibson seeks to re-enact the combat and war environment, from the recruiting camp to the field. Unlike many films from his past, where the director trampled on historical truth, he seems to make sincere efforts to respect it here. The visual and special effects are really very good, and the CGI used is truly excellent and gives the film a remarkable realism, especially in the combat scenes. The sets are interesting and the costumes too. I especially liked the old uniform that Weaving wears in a brief scene, given the difference with the uniforms in use at the time. The cinematography takes advantage of all this and more, and the camera moves intelligently, putting us in the fight, making us suffer with those soldiers, and feel what they felt, what Gregson's soundtrack -Williams accentuates even more.
