For me, this film is one of those who left their mark on me.
Such films are necessary in order to understand simple Truths, to see the reality that is not thought about.
The film tells not only about the reality of war, but also about the inner struggle of the protagonist, the clash of his expectations and reality.
Maybe the movie will seem predictable in many ways, I agree.
Clichéd characters: a kind and true to his principles, the main character, his faithful, beautiful companion, and the military, aggressively tuned to the poor guy.
But it makes sense to show what it really is. Describe everything in such detail as to be imbued with real stories of real people.
War
Indeed, we forget that during the Wars, the naive, young, like an unblossoming flower bud, the guys went to the service and faced a terrifying reality.
They only ceased to know various feelings, personal victories, aspirations, love. But reality spared no one.
I’m sure there were a lot of guys who were young and naive at heart like Desmond Doss, who didn’t expect such realities and left their lives on the battlefield.
How many women have not waited for their husbands and boyfriends.
The relationship between generations is well shown.
Desmond’s father also served and was in the war, he is already familiar with death personally.
His comrades and comrades-in-arms died before his eyes, he saw the horrors of war, when people kill each other without pity. And in opposition to his sons, gathered for service.
They do not know what nightmares await them.
The clash of “the world before” and “the world after”.
This film shows not only the generalized fate of people during hostilities, but also the unique, isolated story of Desmond Doss.
Doss is a man with a pure soul, naive, kind and trusting, looking at the world through rose-colored glasses.
He is so sincere that he instantly falls in love with a girl, and also almost immediately begins to build a relationship with her.
Everything is so sweet and joyful.
But for reasons of his conscience, Doss decides to go to war, and then there is a division of his world into before and after.
The army is constantly trying to break it, but the guy believes in his strength of spirit.
He is so faithful not only to his religion, faith, but primarily to himself.
No one believed in him as he believed in himself.
And he managed everything without failing his principles.
About the acting of Andrew Garfield.
I really liked the way Andrew Garfield played.
He has done his best in his role.
As Doss’s naivete has shown, it is a stupid sincere expression.
It is well demonstrated by Doss's trustworthiness.
What impressed me most was the way Desmond's emotions were conveyed after he came down from the battlefield. This is a terrible thing, after seeing it.
In general, I think the film showed everything it has to reveal and told us an amazing, unique story of one guy.
I love such films, before that I watched “War Horse”, “Saving Private Ryan” and it was the turn “For reasons of conscience”.
Speaking of the film, I think it’s beautiful. Desmond Doss was a committed pacifist and seven-day Adventist believer. He refused to carry weapons and engage in murderous acts, but still decides to go to the front as a medical worker to save lives (and not just his brothers) without engaging in violence. In general, we are shown how without weapons you can make a huge contribution to war and victory.
Actors. Not a little important – their performance in such films. The main character is Desmond Doss, played by Andrew Garfield. Perfect! He conveyed all the important aspects and aspects of his character, and the role is very pleasant. It was a pleasure to watch. Luke Bracey – I loved it too, but sometimes it felt like he was overdoing it. In general, it is not bad at all.
My verdict on the film is this: For reasons of conscience, one of the inspiring and important films that tells the extraordinary story of human kindness and courage, and how faith and conviction can inspire feats even in the most difficult conditions of war. And of course, that war is a senseless occupation, where many innocent people are killed.
9 out of 10
No miracle happened, history repeated itself. Mel Gibson once again made a film about the triumph of the spirit, and shot about the adventures of the flesh. The torment of the human body has always been the focus of his attention. Stones, chips and bones inlaid in noses, lips, ears, nipples and navels are all that remains in the memory of the “Apocalypse”. Nails, driven into the delicate palms, whip, cutting the skin on the back – these are the pages that the director considered central to the Gospel in “The Passion of the Christ”. In the last picture, M. Gibson was raging not in a joke. After all, in pre-Columbian America and in Judea, there were no firearms in biblical times. But by the Second World War, humanity had acquired so much deadly equipment that the director’s hands were completely untied. In "For reasons of conscience" human flesh is shot, cut, dismembered, twisted intestines, burned, gnawed. All this is detailed and close-up. Simple punches and kicks, both with fists and bricks, are also present, but against this background they look tender touches. The detailed naturalism goes far beyond the artistic task of showing the beastly grimness of war - all those sprawling intestines and severed legs become intrinsically valuable. Is Mad Max finally out of his mind, or is it just plain speculation? I suspect two. The director, like a burned-out cheater, does not even particularly mask his techniques. He is still trying to hide behind a humanistic message.
The film epic of Desmond Doss is based on the real story of a evader for religious reasons, who saved more than a dozen lives in one battle alone, while not touching his weapon. Moreover, the real hero - the holder of the Medal of Honor - himself will appear in the final of the picture in archival footage shot shortly before his death in 2006. The appearance of a real person in a playful picture should illuminate all this manic Maccabra dance with the light of truth and truth. But it only highlights the insanity of Gibson himself. The truth of fact does not become the truth of life. And here's why.
How did young Desmond, a resident of the American hinterland, come to the idea of Christian non-resistance to evil? After all, his father, a war veteran, fought on the fronts of the First World War. In addition, periodically so stuns his wife that one can only wonder how this woman managed to live to old age, not being shot and not hanged. So, the Seventh-day Advent family values soaked in with the milk of a battered mother are excluded. The epiphany of young Desmond is shown in the picture absolutely caricatured: a boyish fight with his brother ends with a blow to the head with a cobblestone. As his brother bleeds and his parents lament, “Open your eyes, tell us something,” young Desmond suddenly comes across a religious image hanging in a red corner instead of an icon. If the story took place in Russia, this creation could be called lubok, as this naive style is called in America, I do not know. Desmond’s attention is drawn to the episode “Cain Kills His Brother Abel”, drawn in the style of the Marwel comics, The Boy is shocked – he will no longer be aggressive and will not take up either a cobblestone or a rifle. Should I add that in this episode, the viewer is also shocked - for what kind of fool he is considered!
And then all psychology will be built on the principle of “as if”. As if he had seen war, as if it were love, as if he were a volunteer, as if he were a recruit training camp. The recruits are tough guys. Their commanders are even harsher. Their principles of non-resistance to evil, especially in conditions of war, are ridiculous. Which makes sense. But the ridicule, bullying and toothache in the film is also "as if". These episodes are needed by Gibson only for rhyming with the finale, when 3 (three!!!!) harsh military guys, wiping away a stingy man’s tear, say one after another: “How I was wrong about you, Desmond!” Here one could already suspect self-parody if these sentimental revelations were not preceded by the 40-minute bloody ballet “The Horrors of War”, for which the picture was created.
What is going on in the head of Gibson, I can even imagine. He really wants to look like a spiritual bearer of Christian ideas. Meanwhile, all his religiosity is just a series of ecstatic states. This method of ascent to the heights of spirituality has one very dangerous feature - the ecstatic state does not last long and leaves behind internal and external devastation. His hero carries the idea of giving up weapons in days, months and years - and to be such a long time in a constant state of revelation is simply impossible if the psyche is not damaged, and this state is explained not by spirituality, but by schizophrenia.
The theme of nonviolence amid the horrors of war in art is far from new. But for some reason, I don't think Gibson has read or watched anything. His gaze is always the gaze of an energized neophyte discovering for the first time what has long been discovered. Gibson hardly read Günter Grass’s novel Cats and Mouse, where the same situation was shown from the other side – there religion did not allow a German soldier to take arms. Needless to say, everything ended there tragically, only without thunder, lightning and revelations. It is unlikely that Gibson saw “Andrey Rublev”, in which the great icon painter committed murder. Murder a scoundrel, murder for protection. Not even yourself, but the blessed fool. And this murder led to a great vow of silence amid the horrors of the invasion. In Andrey Rublev, molten lead was poured down the throat, and human stumps were tied to the tails of Mongolian horses. But look at those horrors and feel the difference. How indelibly direct, but with what pain Tarkovsky shows the suffering and with what savor and pleasure shows the minced Gibson man.
The fact that Mad Max realized all his monstrous fantasies, it is not too surprising - to that all went. I wonder if the financial costs of creating this opus will be justified. Will many viewers taste raw human meat under the sauce of pseudo-spirituality?
Once upon a time, there was a kid. It so happened that he was not in the best family, where a veteran father with a clouded consciousness terrorized everyone. The boy developed a strong dislike of violence, so he swore to God not to take up arms. He fell in love with the nurse, she fell in love with him. Well, you know, those feelings, love, romance, awkwardness, um... But suddenly the boy played by Andrew Garfield was rushed to war and not just a soldier, but a medic without a rifle. And then it began: the girl is angry, the parents are crying, the command is angry, the comrades are beating. Hardly, but our cute, comfortable Garfield goes to war with everyone. Well, the boy was not simple, but golden. Watch more...
In fact, a good plot for a war drama based on real events. First of all, because the kid himself is not easy, he is not like a typical brute who mows the fascists left and right. He's terribly kind, honest. A kind of Prince Myshkin, though not so charming. It is also quite well worked out: the reasons for the formation of the character are explained, Garfield worked well with the role. This is a rarity for war dramas, especially when compared to a movie called Fury. I also found the main character and the nurse very nice. Everything is so romantic and sweet... I think they are one of the healthiest couples in the movie. Very touching are their sincere and immaculate feelings.
The film is quite intense. Everyone knows that the Japanese were very cruel and fearless. This adds to the sharpness and feelings, if not for the main character, then for his fellow soldiers. All the horrors of war are very realistically shown. Trucks, torn limbs, rotting bodies and heads separately, even head wounds are very natural, and the father’s story about a murdered comrade is generally horrifying. How can you go to war after that?
A great military film about an unusually cool and at the same time cute boy-hero.
8 out of 10
Without weapons, he saved more than those who were armed.
The film "For Conscience" leaves a deep impression and asks important questions about morality and faith in times of war. Directed by Mel Gibson, the real story of Desmond Doss, a man whose religious beliefs prevented him from holding a gun, yet he is an integral part of the American military, is brilliant.
The film tells how Desmond, despite all the obstacles and doubts of others, overcomes his fears and fundamentally refuses to kill. He becomes a nurse and happily saves the lives of his comrades on the battlefield. His courage and dedication to ideals are inspiring and deeply respected.
The cast, led by the talented Andrew Garfield, is simply chic on screen. Garfield recreates Doss with incredible emotional roughness. Secondary actors, including Vince Vaughn and Teresa Palmer, also make a lasting impression with their strong performances.
The work of Mel Gibson deserves special attention. He masterfully creates unsurpassed scenes full of tension and emotion. The visual stylization of the film perfectly conveys the atmosphere of wartime, and the musical accompaniment emphasizes the intensity of what is happening.
This is not just another war movie. It makes us think about the values and moral dilemmas that people face in extreme conditions. This is a story about the strength of the human spirit, about faith and about the fact that one person can do more than you can believe.
A military picture leaves a mark on the heart.
The film “For reasons of conscience” is one of the most important examples that in all colors and passions describe military life.
As you can see, I wanted to start with the theme of war, but in this masterpiece it is not so important. This work is the apogee of a variety of themes and metaphors. As much as anyone can afford to find problems and themes in it, so much will be found. But I'll only speak for myself. The ideological component of the film makes us plunge so deep into the abyss of our own soul, plunge into ourselves, find and catch those echoes that disturb us, do not allow us to pass by.
The basis of this picture for me was the theme of faith: belief in yourself, belief in your idea, in your life position. In the film, it is tied to a religious orientation, but everyone can interpret it in their own way: in their own way, respond to it and look for similarities with their own feelings. For me, there was no religious propaganda here, only a “ground for reflection.”
This work teaches us to be true to ourselves, not to betray our ideals, not to succumb to temptation and to stand our way to the end, as Desmond Doss was.
Another problem in the film was friendship. From hate to friendship, one step is to describe the footage here. The most interesting thing is that at the time of a difficult life period, people appear around us, with whom we would like to keep away in normal times.
As I said, the film is full of metaphors and images. For example, I consider the most striking scene after the wound, there was a clear representation of the ascension of the hero to the saints, and it is worth noting, deserved.
If we depart from sentimentality, although it is difficult to do in this case, I still want to turn to the technical side of the work. First, I express my great respect to the film crew for such brilliant shots, which from any angles opened us such pictures by which one could judge a lot: about the environment, about relationships, and about the situation.
Secondly, the film is filled with such magnificent transitions that watching what is happening, you do not fly out of the circumstances, there is no sense of a visual pit, always one frame flowed into another, even brighter and more picturesque describing the picture.
I think Andrew Garfield has done his best. There was always work and work on his face. He was very deeply imbued with the image, his experiences and faith in the proposed circumstances were observed every second, because of this, you yourself begin to exist in his world, feel his pain, the bitterness of loss. What struck me most was his eyes, for "the eyes are the mirror of the soul." In the eyes of Andrew Garfield, I saw the faith that his character lived, which is worth a lot.
Mel Gibson – the director of this creation – thoroughly approached his work: he invested the maximum, gave all his energy to create this film, and it is clear.
In my opinion, this is a film that with absolute accuracy deserves fame.
For reasons of conscience is one of the best war films.
Desmond Doss joins the U.S. Army during World War II. But not everything is so simple, Doss’s religious beliefs do not allow him to take up arms. Yes, the guy volunteered, but not to kill, but to save lives.
The beginning of the film tells us about the life of a guy before he volunteered. About the father of a guy - a veteran of the First World War, on which he lost all his friends and, probably, because of it, drank. Due to the adverse post-war actions, the father is very aggressive towards his family, including the guy. The plot is very difficult to retell, because there are many details that cannot be described in words. You just have to watch it.
Before watching movies, I always look at who the director is when I saw Gibson – I knew right away that it was a worthy war movie. I wasn’t wrong, the movie is worth watching. Here captures not only the plot, but also the musical accompaniment, and of course, the actors. I agree, this is far from a star cast. Andrew Garfield – he is the main character, incredibly cool coped with his role. I really liked it. Now, Vince Vaughn, I've heard of him, but I haven't paid much attention. I liked it the most in Saving Private Ryan, but it’s even cooler here. Teresa Palmer, similarly, opened up at 101 percent. It was excellent without exaggeration. More, unfortunately, just to highlight someone I can not. But, there is one thing but, without these actors, the film would not be so spectacular and interesting, so this is the work of the entire cast and crew.
At the end of the day, I want to say it’s one of the best war movies I’ve ever seen. I sincerely want to thank the filmmakers for the wonderful war drama.
How can I live later if I do not remain faithful to what I believe in?
To be honest, I have always been skeptical of American war movies. Still, from the point of view of real history, the United States showed itself in world wars not from the best side. And directors can easily go into excessive "patriotism." No wonder many Americans now think that the victory over Nazi Germany was won by the United States. But let's not talk about the bad. Let’s remember the movie that surprised me.
"For Conscience" is a work by Mel Gibson based on a true story. The film takes place during the Second World War. Desmond Doss volunteered as an orderly. He made a very interesting oath to himself. He cannot take up arms and therefore kill. Desmond is not naive at all. He understands what war is and against whom it is being fought. But it is important for him to test his principles for strength, prove his strength of spirit and, of course, remain a person. I am inspired by people like Desmond Doss. They not only behave with dignity in the most difficult situations, but also do not betray their ideals, go to the end even to the most difficult goal. It is a pity that Andrew Garfield did not receive any award for the lead role. You have to try so hard to play such a complex character.
I'll write about directing. Mel Gibson is a very special person in his personal life. But he is very well versed in making films, is able to cause the viewer the right emotion. Some scenes are just breathtaking. Of course, there are a couple of not quite realistic moments, but otherwise the war itself is shown at the highest level. The deaths in this film are brutally demonstrated. We must show that the war spares no one. “For reasons of conscience” is one of my favorite movies. I will definitely review it from time to time. He gives faith in his own strength, perfectly showing the formation of a strong personality.
The world is clearly intent on tearing itself apart, and what's so bad about me wanting to patch it up a little?
"For reasons of conscience" - a work relevant for all times
Many people criticize the film for being fake and fake. My opinion is that Mel Gibson successfully recreates a sense of realism, but does not fully demonstrate it. And that's good. After all, wrap in the veil of the magic of cinema and make believe in what is happening is already realism. A vague focus on heroes is not a disadvantage. This is a reality in which war takes away in a matter of seconds all the moments of life embodied in people. "Renely and Henry were shot in the first 15 minutes, like this, on the move," one soldier said, sitting in a shell funnel. His future is also uncertain - maybe he will die in the same minute, or in a day, or a month, no matter: inside he is already dead.
“For reasons of conscience” has a heterogeneous effect, referring either to hope or to doom. Mel Gibson steers the course more positively. However, the infernal atrocity in the neighborhood shifts attention to itself more. The barbarity of contractions in one existence sows in my head the question: how did we come to this? While we watch Desmond Doss’ (Andrew Garfield) faith patch up a world tearing itself apart, the taste of hopelessness hovers in the clouds. In such a madness, the protagonist is saved by an unbreakable faith in humanity. The sixth commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ was in his heart. Therefore, he does not take up arms, for having done so, he will spiritually kill someone for himself.
Wars have no distinction: they are all imbued with torment and a sense of meaninglessness. Veterans are the living face of this. Tom Doss (Hugo Weaving) was a wonderful young man on the assurances of Desmond's mother. But that face is lost forever. In the present, it is a man who curses himself for surviving. This is only the outer veil of tragedy shown by the director. As we delve deeper, we see unjustified cruelty on the part of comrades in the military unit. Everyone laughs at Desmond for his ideas, levels his determination and tries to break him. The transport of the wounded becomes a burned bridge - crushed views illuminate the new fighters, leading to the peak of imminent death. Finally, the fight itself in terrifying forms: flying limbs of bodies, rotting corpses with rats and worms pervading, the ceaseless whistle of bullets, stench and fog.
What's the movie about?
Driven by the call of debt, Desmond Doss (Garfield) enlists in the U.S. Army during World War II to contribute to the Pacific Campaign as a medic. But here's the bad luck. His religious beliefs prevent him from taking up arms.
Why watch?
There is a moderately sugary and non-sugar romantic subplot in which Doss falls in love with a nurse (Palmer). There is a subplot in the recruit camp, where Doss endures bullying and insults (everything classic, from "All Metal Shell" to "Marines"). And there's the main dish - combat episodes, blazing and roaring like the first scenes of Saving Private Ryan.
Director Mel Gibson has not lost his skill of entertainment, as well as the ability of pathosity. The hero is sometimes portrayed as an almost Christ-like figure - some shots could be called "The Passion of Doss" (the reference to another Mad Mel movie, if anyone has managed to forget), but he still remains grounded and believable. And the main, in my opinion, the feat of Doss lies in the ability to be consistent in their convictions and remain faithful to their principles (not everyone is capable of this, sitting on a civilian or in peacetime, and the hero of Garfield did not “overwear” even while in the hell of war).
As a result, this movie is sometimes too melodramatic, but fierce and violent when it comes to action.
7 out of 10
When I heard that Gibson was the director of the film, I knew immediately that the film was at least 8. And I'm not wrong.
Deep drama based on real military events immediately claims high marks and awards. Ignoring the real story of these events (and I’m sure that for the sake of drama and cinematicism, many things have been changed), this film is able to touch many.
The whole drama is fed not only by the plot part, but also by good (but not memorable) music, camera techniques and, of course, actors. The cast here is not the most star-studded, but Garfield and a couple of his workmates have done well. Surprisingly successful for me was played by Vince Vaughn, whom I remember from a couple of such comedies. For three hours of timekeeping (and this is only a plus), all the supporting actors show themselves to the fullest, even the third plan tried to reveal a little.
The beginning of the film was a bit delayed. Yes, it was necessary to show the past of the characters, but the fighting scenes began only closer to the middle of the film, and this is about an hour and a half of viewing.
Aside from drama, it's an action movie. Bloody-meat, with explosions and machine guns, everything is made spectacularly and partially large-scale. In some places even intimidating.
This is a real movie, heavy, shot on a grand scale, maybe even shot not quite according to a true script in relation to real events, but this is the movie. For truthfulness, it is better to watch documentary films, although even there everything is not so clear and smooth in terms of the truth.
If it’s in the top 250, I think it’s worth watching for anyone interested in heavy drama and/or war movies. Few people will regret what they saw.
The pacifist hero may not be such a rare example of courage, honor and dignity throughout human history. However, the radically unyielding pacifist hero on the battlefield without any doubt deserves close attention from historians of military affairs, followers of Christian religious teachings and ordinary people, for whom the fate of such a person can become a huge motivation for making the right choice in the process of his life.
The director of the film Mel Gibson, who has a fairly strong directorial filmography (Braveheart, Passion of the Christ and Apocalypse), was able to perfectly reveal the character of a spiritually rich young man who is ready to help wounded soldiers of either side in the fierce battle between the United States and Japan on the Maeda Ridge in 1945.
The main character is a military orderly. He is not willing to take up arms because of his religious beliefs. "Thou shalt not kill" says the New Testament. This is a good-natured man and follows literally and irrevocably this commandment of God. Instead of taking lives in the bloody battlefields of a suicidal war, the hero will save them. And as the result showed, he made a huge contribution to the salvation of dozens of seriously wounded servicemen, earning a medal of honor for services to his native Fatherland.
This story, of course, is based on real events. Desmond Doss lived a long and bright life, always claiming that the true heroes of War were those who died fighting for the peace and freedom of this vast planet. They gave their lives so that their descendants could bravely walk on a land cleansed of Nazism, misanthropy and anger. It doesn't matter what nation the soldiers are. All that matters is that he is a human being. He knows what is right, fair and fair. And faith in life is the only right way to heal a world lost in the dark, cold steppe.
Thus, “For reasons of conscience” is a courageous military drama, telling the real story of a unique orderly from the Second World War, who saved a huge number of wounded colleagues, becoming the first conscious objector to military service, who received the highest military award of his country – the Medal of Honor.
That’s how I would describe this movie if I were asked to do it in a nutshell. I cannot boast that I am any expert in the field of military chronicles, fighting scenes, weapons and other spheres in one way or another related to the war, but “to say that the soup is oversalted you do not need to be a cook.”
And that's what I want to say, the soup really oversalted, especially strongly forced me to cough from excessive brackishness scene, where a fighter in a fit of courage grabs a combatant and at a head with him runs on the enemy, defending, moreover, like some police shield. It looked very hilarious, despite the considerable seriousness of what was happening on the screen, I got a wild laugh.
About the slender ranks of brave soldiers, I generally remain silent, I repeat, I am not an expert in the field of combat, but, in my opinion, it is very stupid: to run in a dense structure, when a machine gun is aimed at you.
One gets the impression that everything that happens on the screen, there is a game of a small child who decided to deploy a military battle with plastic soldiers on his carpet: he has a couple of favorite soldiers who do not die under any circumstances, no matter how absurd they are, and there is a “mass” that packs lie down on the ground.
I'm not going to be that stuffy commentator who does nothing but say, 'NRIALISTIC-A-A-A', the film is a film that shows all the events in high language, a palette that paints the pictures here a little brighter than the one we draw our own, is there any problem? Have you ever witnessed something that might seem impossible? Perhaps somewhere on the battlefield, indeed, the wounded soldier, sitting on improvised transport, shot off the Japanese with automatic weapons while he was taken to the checkpoint.
All I want to say is that the main thing is to observe the middle ground and properly present some artistic technique so that it is correctly read, then even the most worn-out cliché will not be a mottle in the eye of the viewer.
A historical film about the Second World War, based on the amazing true story of a guy - a convinced pacifist who volunteered for war in order to save, not kill. An amazing film about an amazing man and about extraordinary events and fate. Also, this film is about being human no matter what.
At the beginning of the film, we are shown several episodes of his life before he volunteered. And we see a drunken aggressive father, a veteran of the previous war, who lost all his friends in it. The father clearly did not cope with the consequences of his mental wounds inflicted on him in the war, and behaves very cruelly towards his children and wife. This is Desmond’s first and most important encounter with aggression and the shadow of war.
Then, in the heat of a fight with his brother, we see Desmond stab him in the head with a brick. The brother survives, but for little Desmond it was a serious shock and the first encounter with his shadow part and with what consequences his own aggression can have.
At the end of the film, we are shown another episode of Desmond’s confrontation with his own aggression and aggression of his father, after which Desmond vows never to take up arms again and remains faithful to this vow, despite any vicissitudes and pressure from society.
This is the rare case where trauma fueled great accomplishments and sustained Desmond’s own spirit and faith. And this movie was an ode to trauma.
The strength of spirit and depth of faith of the protagonist is impressive, but it is still important to understand that from scratch such elections are not made. Desmond’s strength of spirit is the result of his deep motivation based on the psychological trauma he suffered as a child. As a result of this trauma, he becomes not like everyone else, a special person who lives by his own rules and norms, who has his own values and, most importantly, his indomitable attitude to these values. For him to transgress his vow is the act of death. This is his way of coping with and suppressing his inner demons and his fears. He knows them, and he sees them in the face.
And then the question arises: his strength of spirit and depth of faith is a conscious choice or escape from his skeletons in the closet. And if this is a flight, how free is he in his choices and actions?
I am always impressed and admired by people who know how to believe in their Ideas and go for them to the end, even at the cost of their lives. One very important condition is that their ideas and intentions are good and do not harm anyone around them. But in history there are countless examples when good ideas in the hands of fanatics led to the destruction of entire civilizations!!
And here it is important to remember that in any idea, in any Faith, there must be freedom! Freedom of choice and flexibility to circumstances. That's what we don't see in Desmond. He is willing to go to court for the sake of his idea and faith. How reasonable and appropriate is this?
This is the difference between fanaticism and faith. Faith is a more flexible concept, but fanaticism requires strict adherence to principles and rules, regardless of circumstances. And yes, it is only from such strict adherence that the Power of the Spirit is born, which delights the minds of mankind. But it is usually very expensive for its owners and is caused by internal lack of freedom. This is a double-edged sword.
In support of Desmond, I would like to say a few words about the course of action he has chosen for himself. He did not convince anyone of anything, did not force anyone to anything, did not reproach anyone with anything and did not involve anyone anywhere. He just walked his way and did what he thought was right for himself. Edaky Ivanushka is a fool who modeled his reality and lives in it. If he had been at war with the system, had proved himself right with the foam at his mouth and all the inner strength he had, he would hardly have succeeded. The system would have grinded it and not even choked. But the way of a fool is special because even the System is powerless against him.
This man simply served Life, and what nationality this life was, he didn’t care. I think for all of us this is a good example of how one can remain human even in inhuman conditions.
Such personalities are very important to society. And it is important to understand that their units are not born and do not become such people. But we look up to them, we reach out to them. Maybe we don't always succeed, and if we do, it's not like they do. Their role in history is difficult to overestimate. It is a city-forming film, and the film “For reasons of conscience” about it.
Desmond’s strategy is what in psychology is called ANTI SCENARIES. He saw the cruelty of his father, faced his cruelty a couple of times and without looking back went into the topic of anti-script. This happens to children of alcoholics and psychopaths. Seeing how their parents live, children decide never to drink or raise a hand against another person.
And all would be well, but we know that anti-scripts work very poorly. Because it is a permanent total internal tension. And, as you know, sooner or later the spring from overload bursts, and a person is carried away, and he goes to all serious. And those who do not explode, go into deaf psychosomatics.
And the only "salvation" is to invest in something opposite and compensating. Which is exactly what our main character did. Such people, of course, have to prove to themselves that they are “well done”, and keep themselves under control all their lives. But the psychic energy that is allocated to this containment and confrontation, just makes it possible to stand out from the crowd and do what “normal” people do not have enough strength and energy – they do not have this additional gas tank that traumatics have.
Desmond is not ready to look at his demons and denies them. And even touching a weapon in his imagination can probably awaken these demons. The sadness is that denying the inner demons cannot win. How can you defeat what you don’t want to see? This is the difference between free choice and anti-scenario. In the anti-scenario, there is only flight and denial. And in free choice - the recognition and adequate use of this demon for its intended purpose.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the filmmakers for the opportunity to touch an amazing example of resilience and faith in the best.
I saw this movie about five years ago. I was a teenager at the time and this movie impressed me. After reviewing it at a more conscious age, my opinion did not change at all, but only strengthened. In short, I believe that this is the best war film made and an example of real cinema.
First of all, the significance of the tape betrays the fact that it is filmed based on real events. The story tells about a real man who performed feats during the Second World War. In addition, the picture touches on the themes of who a person is. What makes us human and how important it is to be true to ourselves. It shows the strength of human character and principles and what we can do when we believe in the right things. The director managed to convey this message perfectly. But the main actor Andrew Garfield also played a big role in this. For me, it was a discovery in this film. He managed to fit into the role perfectly and he proved that he is an excellent dramatic actor of the highest level.
I appreciated the literacy with which the creators approached the script. They did not focus on pathos, some unnecessary things and follow the pattern. They were not afraid to spend almost half of the timekeeping to reveal the hero. Perhaps someone will say that it is too wasteful for war movies. In response, I can say that because of this, we can really penetrate the character and become attached to it. Each scene reveals the details of his life and worldview. And all this work done bears fruit in the second half of the tape.
But if you are a fan of mass fighting scenes, then this is also a paradise for you. The military action is incredibly realistic and frighteningly exciting. You can’t take your eyes off this show, the production deserves applause.
Over. This is a perfect example of war cinema and drama film in general. After watching, there is a feeling that you have discovered something special that you need to think about. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who has never seen it. I hope you share your opinion with me.
The film is definitely good, I recommend watching. The characters are psychologically reliable, the actors are professional. The brutal scenes of battles, horrors and follies of war, in my opinion, are given in excessive numbers, too much stress on the psyche, even tiresome.
“For reasons of conscience” is a film by Mel Gibson, which tells the story of a religious guy who went to war to pay a debt to his homeland. He refused to take a rifle and kill the Japanese. His goal was to save people, not kill them. Desmond Doss became a war hero without firing a shot. During the retreat from the wall, which was stormed by the Americans, came down from it only 32 people, the rest remained on the battlefield either wounded or killed. Private Doss remained at high altitude to get as many wounded as possible out of there. He alone, without weapons, dragged his comrades and brought them down. After each rescue, Doss prayed to God to let him save another man. That night, Private Doss saved 75 soldiers, his hands were wiped in blood from a rope, but he did not give up and lowered one by one, without committing murder or sinning before God.
Honestly, when I went to see this movie, I expected to see a military action movie like "Fury." I thought it was a movie where the American flag was constantly flickering and the atmosphere that the United States had won the war reigned. That was a huge mistake. What I saw was a story about a brave guy who wanted to serve his country. Yes, maybe the story is a little embellished somewhere, but it is still amazing, and most importantly real. It wasn’t that America won, but there was a story about a war hero who took risks, who was willing to give his life for his country and his comrades.
Mel Gibson clearly and clearly conveyed and showed everything ' the charm ' war. The film is very heavy at least because there are scattered intestines, body parts on the battlefield, and rats run over decaying corpses. Also during the battle, bullets arrive at the fighters, which tear the bodies and faces of soldiers. These details bring the war on screen closer to reality. Every viewer should know that war is not just a place for feats. War is not a romantic time worth waiting for. War is the worst thing that can happen to the world. Shootings, cries of the fighting, the cries of the wounded, and death at the head of all this.
Sometimes the picture is so hard to watch that at some point the director gives us a break from everything together with the soldiers. The film presses psychologically and keeps in suspense constantly, and this does not want to sit still.
You believe everything that happens on the screen. The actors are very convincing. I’m not going to single out one person, because each of them gave everything to immerse themselves in the atmosphere of the film. Fear was read in the eyes, courage burned in the hearts, and everyone hoped to survive the battle and return to his family. The film is very realistic.
The music that accompanies everything harmonized with every moment in the film and made it goosebumps. And the sound of the picture is in order.
The film is clearly worth the time. It is so dramatic and real that after watching there is material for reflection, and everything you see before discussing, you need to digest.
Mel Gibson didn’t want to praise America and say it won the war. He showed the audience the price of victory, as well as the story of a simple religious guy whose conscience is clear both before God and before his country.
One of the best dramas of the five years, from Mel Gibson, author of The Passion of the Christ and Braveheart
Quite exaggerated, but still powerful and very emotional anti-war film.
Strictly 18+.
Plot. Based on a true story.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, young Desmond Doss enlists as a volunteer in the US Army.
But the thing is, he's a very religious person. According to his faith, he cannot take up arms, kill or even work on Saturdays. In spite of this, he becomes a war hero.
Notes on the Fields.
One of the reasons Mel Gibson took up the project was that it was about a real unsuited superhero.
Mel Gibson, who we know better as an actor, is a great director. His “Braveheart” won the Oscar for best film of the year and for directing.
The story of a fighter for Scottish independence, as well as “The Passion of the Christ” and “Apocalypto” are incredibly tough (in places – cruel) films about incredibly strong people.
After 10 years of lull, he returned with another exceptionally strong-willed character.
“For reasons of conscience” is a film about the war, and very bloody, with a detailed recreation of battles, so watch people with strong nerves.
For all the exclusivity of the real story, the film in some places is too picturesque, and in others - too diligently copying the classics of American military cinema.
There's "Saving Private Ryan" and "All Metal Shell." Gibson doesn't seem at all shy about borrowing.
Strangely, but the film is very good, because it gives the opportunity to brightly reveal the main message and altruistic hero. If in what movie I accept stamps, it is a rare representative.
Andrew Garfield ("The Social Network", "The New Spider-Man") seven-mile steps turns into one of the best actors of the generation.
His company consists of Luke Bracey from the restart of “On the crest of the wave” and surprisingly convincing Vince Vaughn.
P.S.: At the Venice Film Festival in September 2016, after showing the picture, the audience applauded standing for 10 minutes.
“Our beliefs are our essence” or how to go the hard way, remaining to the end with your faith.
Desmond Doss, the main character of the film, while still a young boy, commits an act that changes both his worldview and himself.
I need to step back a little bit from this story by talking about the actress who played her mother. At the beginning of the film, in one of the scenes in which a loved one almost dies, she was unable to portray any special emotions. A terrible, terrible event almost happened, but not a single drop of fear or panic was distorted on her face. She spoke to Daesh afterward as if her speech had been programmed or she was delivering the text for the first time. Well, let's leave that out.
Then we see some scenes with the main character's parents. The family undoubtedly plays one of the most important roles in the education of a person. And it is after one very serious and rough scene that Daes’s view of some things changes, which undoubtedly affects his future fate.
So we can’t conclude this better without saying that the actions of the past, like the past itself, determine our future. Dez, after realizing that he had committed such a terrible act, was never again “cruel” as he was called before. After, in the army, he differed from others in his special attitude to certain things.
Watching the scenes of the war, I want to note the following. Even in the bloodiest moments, the uniform of many soldiers remained almost perfectly neat. The ring that Dez wore sparkled with purity, as did the helmets, on the heads of the same soldiers. The explosions shown during the battles seemed to me very unrealistic. When they showed the moment with blood spilled into the camera, it felt like playing a computer game of some kind of war, and not watching a movie about the war. I’m not talking about the atmosphere when it feels like you’re a part of the movie. This in this case and speech can not be with all these obvious too bright and unnatural animated explosions, unlike the real.
Since the film is military, we can say about the moment of the attack of the detachment on the enemy, you do not know to cry or laugh. Not a tactic that would be used in war. Who goes all over the enemy when he kills you with ease, like cracking peanuts? It would seem that the need for reconnaissance to begin, or at least to attack, is not obvious when you are completely open to the enemy? For the filmmaker, it seems, these things are not obvious and unknown, as before the discoverer a new country.
Let's forget that and talk about another bigger moment in the movie. War is inhuman, I think everyone understands this, but even at a seemingly devastating moment for the hero, when his faith is in doubt, he does not reject it.
In the following scenes, the wounded are put in bed, and guess what? That's right.
They're clean again. And in the next shot of the helmet on Desmond without a speck of dust, when literally a couple of scenes ago, we saw smoke and dirt and flames flashing nearby fire. Well, here again we will have to omit such “faults”.
In further episodes, our main character to perform the most heroic and famous to all those who are even slightly familiar with the biography of Desmond, the idea of saving several dozen people comes to mind. And it helps him in this, a skill acquired in preparation for the war, which Daes, although not mastered correctly and at which everyone laughed, but now did him and others such a great service.
Another point I cannot pass by is a moment in the war. Without any spoilers, I can only say he looked pretty stupid. Before the Japanese enemy has time to retreat, Desmond immediately reveals himself. Isn't that funny? The enemy takes a step away from you, and you immediately open yourself to him. Will we close our eyes again?
Further, Dez commits many actions that really deserve great respect. He does this at the risk of his own life. Will anyone say "Truciha Doss" about him now?
A particularly spectacular scene for me, the one where the soldiers themselves begin to believe what Daz believes. He was laughed at and ridiculed for his faith.
The ending of the film, to me, is the most important and magnificent. The sky with mighty clouds around the hero-savior is just like paradise. You feel the greatness of this moment and everything that happens. It is as if Dez is getting closer to the Lord himself, and his unbreakable faith in him is rewarded.
The film also features a love line. Love in spite of everything we see. The beloved protagonist, even when he does not appear at a significant ceremony, it does not occur to her that her beloved could come to his senses and escape, although she is just hinted at, and I would even say, they say in direct text, but she does not believe. She knows he's not like that.
“I prayed constantly. Just begged the Lord to let me save another one, says Desmond Doss.
“I would say it is deeply wrong to try to condemn others’ beliefs about the army or anything. Our beliefs are not jokes, they are our essence.” All this, I am sure, speaks of a strong spirit, unbending will, unbreakable faith of the protagonist, as well as his very kind heart.
But then, as time passed, I became convinced that I had a rare brave man in front of me. With these words about Desmond, I think no one will argue.
Well, that's just my opinion, and it's up to you to decide whether or not to watch this movie.
I am always afraid to watch the films of Mel Gibson, a master at reproducing the naturalness of terrible, bloody and painful events. Powerful, spectacular, touching, but every time snotty, tearfully, red-faced ... And so much blood. And the most terrible moments are not those when loud screams, explosions, fights, but those when the quiet but certainly deadly whistle of a bullet is heard. .
To date, countless films about the war have been filmed, and a significant part is occupied by stories about brave Americans who are ready to give their lives to defeat ' Aliens'. One of these is Mel Gibson's extreme artistic epic, titled 'For reasons of conscience'. In fact, this is another ' patriotic' film about those brave Americans, but, surprisingly, the film for this does not want to scold.
To begin with, it is worthwhile to understand who is the director of this meat grinder. This is Mel Gibson. For most, he is known as an alcoholic who has been drunk driving many times and nearly killed himself. As a homophobe who, while speaking unflatteringly about sexual minorities, was subjected to multiple accusations from the newspapers. He also believed that the Holocaust was a Zionist invention. Anyway, he's quite a cheerful uncle. But despite the rather dubious behavior, I admire this crazy man in every possible way, because the way he shoots large-scale historical canvases, it is simply impossible to put into words. He filmed the crusade for Scottish freedom in the 13th century. About the life of the Maya civilization, before the Spanish conquistadors came to their land. He even made a movie about the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life. Now, it's time to sit down for World War II, and even then, he decided to be original.
The film tells the true story of a doctor of the American army - Desmond Doss. His time of service coincided with one of the last battles of the United States during World War II, the Battle of Okinawa. But, in fact, it is not so simple, because Desmond was quite a religious man, he was a Seventh-day Adventist. His religion did not allow him to take up arms, but he desperately wanted to defend his country, so he became the first ideological evader to be awarded the Medal of Honor.
The first half of the film tells us about the main character. What a kind, good boy he is, who radiates unrequited help and benefactor. It also shows how he admires God and despises violence. In general, maximum 'good' character.
But here's the second half of the movie, and it reveals all the cards. After all, our 'good' boy, falls completely into 'bad' environment. This part of the film consists almost entirely of bombings, terrifying screams, gunshots. True 'bloodbath'. And Gibson, shows it not as a place where completely unprepared boys who do not understand what they are fighting for, fall dead under the whistles of bullets, for example, as in ' All-metal shell' Stanley Kubrick. And, not as idolizing their homeland peasants, ready to kill their enemies in packs, for the sake of a good fatherland, for example, as in ' David Eyre.
In Gibson, war is where already ' Grey' boys, trying to protect their homeland, not necessarily the country, but their relatives and friends. Yes, they are insanely afraid, but motivation does its own.
Also, I want to note the striking staging of combat scenes, all this mess to watch insanely interesting and frightening. You can see how Gibson very smoothly balances between how to make everything more appropriate, and not turn everything into a hellish slaughter, as in ' Saving Private Ryan'.
Summary
In general, after reading the synopsis for the film, without watching it, you might think that this is some kind of secondary ' American propaganda'. But I don't really see anything wrong with that. It's really a very well-made movie, with a very, very transparent moral. Therefore, if you make films about how the brave Yankees exterminate the Japs, then only such.
7 out of 10
From the whole film, only the final frames of the documentary chronicle and the character of Hugo Weaving could be left.
Because everything else is so secondary, that oh.
Okay, maybe it's my misguided expectations. Because when I saw that the film was about an ideological evader, I expected that the main topic would be to find an answer to the question: is it morally justified during a defensive war to give a person the opportunity to decide whether to die standing, live on his knees or safely leave for Australia? I have no firm position on this issue.
But you can calm down, 'For reasons of conscience' not that. I don’t know what Gibson wanted to say with this film, but I think it’s a message ': Even if you’re a religious pacifist, you can still serve in the military and help kill people. Uncle Sam is waiting for you!' great read.
But, in general, it’s not even about sending the film, in fact, I have nothing against patriotic films about the war and heroes, and I love some of them. There is always a place in life and all that.
Problem ' For reasons of conscience' as I said, in secondary. To be honest, I almost turned the film off when the village pastoral with template dummies started in the beginning (except Weaving’s character, again). Then suddenly the pastoral was replaced by a parody of a typical American sergeant and ' All-metal shell' as a result, the director remembered that he had a film about the war, added to the frame of the frogs with rats and poorly done fights with faceless and clearly not very smart Japanese. I wonder, people who are not particularly versed in the history of the Second World War, it was generally clear what was happening?
As a result, the feat of a real person was buried under a bunch of stamps. Sad.
Perhaps this is the question people often ask when they hear about the exploits of soldiers. It seemed that this had a very unambiguous answer – when it comes to the lives of your friends and loved ones, you should not hesitate for a second to attack the enemy. But Mel Gibson's "For Conscience" digs deeper into the subject.
By the way, the picture is based on real events and it tells about the life of Desmond Doss. This man is remarkable for the fact that in the war he completely abandoned small arms, motivated by the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, which prompted him to several very important events in his life. And that's where the fun starts. The film does not become a typical war film about turning a man into a weapon to kill in war. There is no such thing as “This is war!” Either you’re them or they’re you, as in The Fury with Brad Pitt. On the contrary, the thesis of the main character is tested for strength, and he tries to prove to everyone that you can be a hero without killing anyone. That is the most important thing in war: the test of your moral principles.
Desmond not only copes with it, he becomes a hero, saving many of his comrades. Not only did he never kill anyone, he never touched a gun. These are the people who deserve the most respect. In the midst of events, he not only saved others, he remained who he is – a man of his own opinion and conviction. You can argue as much as you like – how expedient is the thesis “do not kill” and how it is correct in such an unpredictable situation as military action and each person will be right in his own way. The film is created, it does not answer the question unequivocally - it only shows us the hero and we ourselves judge where the truth is in war.
This truly brilliant idea was embodied by Mel Gibson, who does not please his fans as a director, but if it pleases, it is full (Braveheart, Passion of Christ, Apocalypse). Nor would it have been without Andrew Garfield’s incredible performance (I didn’t know he was capable of it). The Oscar nomination is more than deserved and the incredible level of staging battle scenes for a film with a budget of $ 40 million (for comparison, Dunkirk and 1917 cost twice as much).
The verdict – this film was supposed to receive an Oscar in 2017 for a completely fresh and different view of the concept of war. But what movie did he end up with? When you find out, you will be disappointed in the Oscar Academy.
I don't even know what to say... It is very difficult to write a review for this film. I consider it a must-see. I haven't seen anything better in years.
What’s stuck in most people’s minds? You can be a hero in war if you kill as many enemy soldiers as possible. What about saving other people's lives? We all know this, but few people take the words about the importance of each life in the context of war seriously. For reasons of conscience somewhat changes our usual ideas.
The end of World War II. America is still at war with Japan. The army continues to call for volunteers. One of them is the young man Desmond. It is different from the image of an ordinary soldier. He refuses to take up arms, even in exercises. And, in my opinion, the reason for this is not so much his religious upbringing as his own principles. He was seriously influenced by his father’s story, or rather, the aggression he could show towards even his loved ones. Desmond didn’t want to think he would ever be like that. Therefore, he deliberately abandoned all dangerous glands, focusing on saving lives.
Of course, to go against society is to challenge everyone around you. Only for this you need to have a strong will, and only to endure this test - units are capable. After all, in the opinion of society, you are going against your colleagues, against the command, almost against the state foundations. However, it must be admitted that without a certain degree of luck, the guy would definitely have failed.
It’s very subjective, but I can’t imagine anyone else who would be as good for the role of Desmond, except Andrew Garfield. And his external data and character almost completely coincide with the way that Mel Gibson created. It is worth noting that Gibson as a director managed to completely rehabilitate himself. Of course, you can not call the Passion of Christ and the Apocalypse completely failed films, but they came out slightly, so to speak, specific.
'For reasons of conscience ' - in many ways a unique movie. It is about war, but the main character completely denies weapons. Here, the Americans show the Second World War, but still do not cross the line, after crossing which the picture turns into an absolutely propaganda jingoistic two-hour video. A good, kind film that is worth watching and finally understand that we definitely do not need a repeat of such atrocities.
9.5 out of 10