Depiction is not endorsement is such a lazy and flawed argument in this context. This is film, where how things are framed (and I mean literally framed) and directorial decisions can have a huge impact on what you're communicating. This isn't a CCTV capture of real life events. You'd have to missed a lot to think Kubrick was merely depicting violence without any commentary in A Clockwork Orange or that Fincher had no design in his depiction of violence in Fight Club. It's more accurate to say depiction is not necessarily endorsement.
That's not to say this film may not have any intelligent commentary on violence, it might but we don't know until we watch it.
I'm not at all advocating for censorship of such works nor am I implying it creates any disruption in society but it's silly to say films are exempt from any assessment or criticism for their moral position. Is Birth of a Nation merely depiction?