View Full Version : Apocalypto review thread
RobertWood
12-05-06, 02:36 PM
The rotten tomater reviews are, not unexpectedly, all over the place.
From gushing with praise to this...
"Unpleasant, pointless, gruesome, and exploitative, Apocalypto is the worst movie of the year."
And of course the obligatory... "Mel Gibson is sick, but his new film profits from his weakness."
So what say you (god how I hate that phrase :D)?
The rotten tomater reviews are, not unexpectedly, all over the place.
From gushing with praise to this...
"Unpleasant, pointless, gruesome, and exploitative, Apocalypto is the worst movie of the year."
And of course the obligatory... "Mel Gibson is sick, but his new film profits from his weakness."
So what say you (god how I hate that phrase :D)?
If there is enough originality to it, I'm perhaps interested, but if it's a rehash of BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT, I'm not enthused.
Ron Temple
12-05-06, 03:00 PM
Not sure if I'm up for this one...anything I've ever read about the darker religous practices of the Central American city-state cultures has always fascinated, but repulsed me. I think repulsion is going to win out.
RobertWood
12-05-06, 03:18 PM
I'll be going into this with a complete vacuum in my head. I don't have a clue about the Mayans or their religious practices.
If you'd asked me "what is a Mayan?", my only response would have been "didn't they build some pyramids?". And then shortly after that I would have been scratching my head and saying to myself "I guess that was the Aztecs". And the only thing I know about the word Aztec is that it was the title of a Williams pinball machine made in the mid-70's.
RobertWood
12-05-06, 03:23 PM
By the way, what is the relationship of the word "apocalypse" to the Mayans?
Is that a reference to that stuff I've been picking up on Coast to Coast AM about those Mayans having whipped up some calendar that says the end of the world is coming soon?
Mac The Knife
12-05-06, 03:41 PM
Not sure if I'm up for this one...anything I've ever read about the darker religous practices of the Central American city-state cultures has always fascinated, but repulsed me. I think repulsion is going to win out.
The novel _Aztec_ by Gary Jennings is a great example of what you mentioned. Incest, ritual murder, etc., etc (but a really good book, I highly recommend it). I'm wondering if this movie was based on that book, since I haven't heard anything about where the script came from.
petergaryr
12-05-06, 04:22 PM
By the way, what is the relationship of the word "apocalypse" to the Mayans?
Is that a reference to that stuff I've been picking up on Coast to Coast AM about those Mayans having whipped up some calendar that says the end of the world is coming soon?
More information than you would care to know about December 21, 2012.
http://www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html
By the way, what is the relationship of the word "apocalypse" to the Mayans?
Is that a reference to that stuff I've been picking up on Coast to Coast AM about those Mayans having whipped up some calendar that says the end of the world is coming soon?
The way Gibson's been promoting the movie, he claims that the word "apocalypso" means "rebirth".
RobertWood
12-05-06, 05:23 PM
The way Gibson's been promoting the movie, he claims that the word "apocalypso" means "rebirth".
Interesting.
If so I don't understand what he's about, but it's peaking my curiosity to find out.
I may get suckered into buying theater tickets for this one.
RobertWood
12-05-06, 05:24 PM
But I see you just made the same fraudian slip I did. We just can't get Belafonte out of our minds, can we. :D
"Apocalypto" (or "apokalypto") is the Greek verb (present active indicative 1st-person singular) for "I reveal/unmask/unveil/disclose."
"Apocalypsis" is the noun form, and means "a revelation/unmasking/unveiling/disclosing."
Because the noun is the title of the last book in the New Testament, which contains images and details of last-days destruction and plagues on a massive scale, the term "apocalypse" - like "armageddon" (which is also mentioned in the same book) - has come to mean devastating end-time events.
I suppose a "rebirth" can come from a destruction and removal of all that is old, but the word does not mean "rebirth."
RobertWood
12-05-06, 05:37 PM
Thankyou Reverend Weiss. :D
(p.s. just kidding. as always you are a wealth of good info)
RobertWood
12-05-06, 05:42 PM
More information than you would care to know about December 21, 2012.
http://www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html
Holy fricking mackeral. That's more complicated than the General Theory of Relativity and the special one all put together!!
Them Mayans was sure no dummies, was they.
The lesson from this movie is that the Mayans over extended their use of natural resources to the point of the downfall of their civilization. And that is exactly what some say mankind is doing to the rest of the planet right now.
RobertWood
12-05-06, 09:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization
Mind-boggling and mind-bending stuff. I can't understand why nobody ever told me about all this. No wonder Mel got interested in it.
May I ask one question. I ask this only because I'd like to know the answer without having to read the entire history.
Fact. The ancient Egyptians built pyramids.
Fact. The ancient Mayans built pyramids.
Fact. They didn't know anything about each other.
So do we know why they both built pyramids? Have we completely ruled out the possibility that flying saucer people talked to both of them?
The lesson from this movie is that the Mayans over extended their use of natural resources to the point of the downfall of their civilization. And that is exactly what some say mankind is doing to the rest of the planet right now.
And exactly the person to spread this message is a wealthy Hollywood movie star who spent $40 million to make a movie, in the process of which he no doubt chopped down a lot of trees and expended a lot of natural resources, including jet and helicopter fuel flying his equipment to and from the remote shooting locations.
Fact. The ancient Egyptians built pyramids.
Fact. The ancient Mayans built pyramids.
Fact. They didn't know anything about each other.
So do we know why they both built pyramids?
My guess? Triangles are pretty.
petergaryr
12-05-06, 11:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization
Mind-boggling and mind-bending stuff. I can't understand why nobody ever told me about all this. No wonder Mel got interested in it.
May I ask one question. I ask this only because I'd like to know the answer without having to read the entire history.
Fact. The ancient Egyptians built pyramids.
Fact. The ancient Mayans built pyramids.
Fact. They didn't know anything about each other.
So do we know why they both built pyramids? Have we completely ruled out the possibility that flying saucer people talked to both of them?
I don't know who these people are, but they've got the answer: Atlantis!
http://survive2012.com/forum2012/viewtopic.php?t=43
I haven't been able to get a good scientific answer on that either.
cymline
12-05-06, 11:21 PM
How can we know the "lesson" from a movie none of us has seen? Somehow I doubt this film is a message on the latest in a long list of massivly overblown "sky is falling" causes humans seem to come up with two or three time a generation.
Maybe it is just a movie. And I hope a good one.
Shane Martin
12-05-06, 11:31 PM
Robert,
Looks like a good one to me. Personally I think alot of folks will shoot it down because it's Gibson and what he's said in the past. I guess he's used to be snubbed as of late.
Either way, if it makes a ton of money, he can laugh to the bank like he did with Passion.
IIRC only one person in the film is actually an actor. The others are all newbs. If he pulls it off, I think he deserves a best director nod just for that.
sdurani
12-05-06, 11:51 PM
Fact. The ancient Egyptians built pyramids.
Fact. The ancient Mayans built pyramids.
Fact. They didn't know anything about each other.I thought you were about to go into one of those Lincoln/Kennedy things and name all the things they had in common.
Were there any other civilizations that built 4-sided pyramids, or were these the only two on record?
Sanjay
Sirius.
The Dog Star.
The Dogons.
Robert Temple.
http://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius-mystery.jpg
Check it out, RW. :D
And while you're at it, check out Zecharia Sitchin, too. :D :D
http://www.nomorehoaxes.com/shop/images/the_12th_planet_lg.jpg
Shane,
There is no frickin' way MG will get any awards from the Academy for a very long time.
Even if Apocalypto is the best movie ever done. ;)
RobertWood
12-06-06, 12:26 AM
I just wikied and googled all three, Eric.
I guess there's just so much stuff going on that it's impossible to even scratch the surface of it in one lifetime. Make that a thousand lifetimes.
And I think Cymline is right. My mind has wandered too far from the movie.
RobertWood
12-06-06, 12:29 AM
Wait a minute. You hadn't told me about Robert Temple.
Is he legit? Or is he Art Bell stuff?
[edit]and now somebody named Stitchin too.
RobertWood
12-06-06, 12:37 AM
I think we may have just passed the threshold of Mr. Scooper's patience.
I guess we better just go see the movie.
[edit]and now somebody named Stitchin too.
S-I-T-C-H-I-N. Only one "t".
http://www.muza-usa.net/2006_11/Images/11_3_Sitchin1.jpg
[url]
Fact. The ancient Egyptians built pyramids.
Fact. The ancient Mayans built pyramids.
Fact. They didn't know anything about each other.
So do we know why they both built pyramids? Have we completely ruled out the possibility that flying saucer people talked to both of them?
No scientist subscribes to the ALIEN origin.
People today (the uneducated) are easily seduced into believing that kind of foolishness.
They want to believe that their ancestors were ignorant savages incapable of such things.
After all, they didn't have computers, cars, planes, ipods, and every other "advanced" gizmo we have today.
Everything we have today was built on previous technology.
The plain simple fact is that people built pyramids (and every other thing known from antiquity).
Why Pyramids?
Go out in your backyard and grab bucket of dry dirt or sand.
Spread it on the ground.
Using your hands, gather it into a the tallest pile you can (hint: think hourglass here).
Stand back and look at it.
Yeah, it resembles a rough pyramid (as do many mountains or hills BTW).
This is the most stable shape for building something to great height.
The Egyptians realized this, the Mayans realized this, and many other cultures around the world did too.
The Egyptians, Mayans, and the Teotihuacanos merely built the biggest, most spectacular.
Pyramids, at their most basic level, are/were expressions of power.
And humans have always been concerned with that. ;)
RobertWood
12-06-06, 01:42 AM
Dangit, oink. Next time have a heart and tell me there's at least a teensy weensy itsy bitsy little ray of hope about the aliens. Even if you have to lie to me. :)
Dangit, oink. Next time have a heart and tell me there's at least a teensy weensy itsy bitsy little ray of hope about the aliens. Even if you have to lie to me. :)
Sorry, didn't mean to dash your hopes. :p
In fact, I think anyone that believes we are alone in the universe is a moron.
Whether or not intelligent alien life-forms are here now on or around this planet...heck, I don't know.
Possible?
You bet.
Bob, take comfort in the thought that science hasn't ruled it out. ;)
Okay, we're up to thirty now - how far will this thread go before a single person actually posts a review of the film?
*sigh*
RobertWood
12-06-06, 07:54 AM
I'm with you, khyron. I hereby propose that this thread be voluntarily turned off until Friday when the movie is released.
Besides, I'm tired of promoting his movie for him when Gibson didn't even see fit to screen it for me. I know the readership here is not as big as what Ebert has. But come on now I know it's as big as some of those half-arsed tomato reviewers and he let them see it.
p.s. By the way, the tomato "cream of the crop" all of a sudden aint looking too good.
No scientist subscribes to the ALIEN origin.
People today (the uneducated) are easily seduced into believing that kind of foolishness.
Stop pikin on usins. We does has enteligense. Them smart cientist jus changd thu nam of uh planut to uh moon after al them years. They be humun two. Theys gots lots tu lurn. They be changin ‘nown fax’ all thu tyme. One day somethins a fakt, thu nex day it aint. I be respectin um, but they be big flip flopers. They gives me uh hedake.
No scientist subscribes to the ALIEN origin.
People today (the uneducated) are easily seduced into believing that kind of foolishness.
They want to believe that their ancestors were ignorant savages incapable of such things.
After all, they didn't have computers, cars, planes, ipods, and every other "advanced" gizmo we have today.
Everything we have today was built on previous technology.
The plain simple fact is that people built pyramids (and every other thing known from antiquity).
Why Pyramids?
Go out in your backyard and grab bucket of dry dirt or sand.
Spread it on the ground.
Using your hands, gather it into a the tallest pile you can (hint: think hourglass here).
Stand back and look at it.
Yeah, it resembles a rough pyramid (as do many mountains or hills BTW).
This is the most stable shape for building something to great height.
The Egyptians realized this, the Mayans realized this, and many other cultures around the world did too.
The Egyptians, Mayans, and the Teotihuacanos merely built the biggest, most spectacular.
Pyramids, at their most basic level, are/were expressions of power.
And humans have always been concerned with that. ;)
I suppose it's natural to orient things with respect to East and West (i.e., the sun's rising and setting), and then it's just as easy/logical to bisect that line with a perpendicular line, which leads to N-E-S-W sides for building steps to ascend such structures, or if the corners are N-E-S-W, the sides would be NW, NE, SE, SW. So ... are the pyramids oriented in either of these ways?
JohnR_IN_LA
12-06-06, 08:58 AM
You guys are taking this self-regulation thing a bit too far, nobody has been offended yet, except one alien!
JohnR_IN_LA
12-06-06, 09:13 AM
Bob, take comfort in the thought that science hasn't ruled it out. ;)
And also, that Science will figure it out, most likely sooner rather than later...
Heck they found yet another self-aware species this year, Elephants. Yup they caught some dang elephant preening herself in a mirror, and decided to run some experiments :)
And also, that Science will figure it out, most likely sooner rather than later...
Heck they found yet another self-aware species this year, Elephants. Yup they caught some dang elephant preening herself in a mirror, and decided to run some experiments :)
You need to read WHEN ELEPHANTS WEEP (1995/ paperback 1996):
http://www.amazon.com/When-Elephants-Weep-Emotional-Animals/dp/0385314280/
JohnR_IN_LA
12-06-06, 10:11 AM
Thanks Eric, but ten-year-old pseudo-science?
Thanks Eric, but ten-year-old pseudo-science?
On what basis or by what criteria do you claim that this book is "pseudoscience"?
And ... I mentioned the date to show that these animal awareness things are not just a this-year discovery.
RobertWood
12-06-06, 11:05 AM
Boys boys.
I take the blame for this thread. It was a huge mistake and just another way for me to try to get attention. I apologize to all for it having happened.
And the last thing for me to want to happen now is for my friends to get to fighting with each other over silliness.
We need to take a deep breath and wait for the movie and then it will be fair to tear Mel Gibbons a new one.
Until then, I beg you to let sleeping dogs lie.
I promise I won't post to this thread any more till Saturday if ya'll can see fit to do the same.
JohnR_IN_LA
12-06-06, 11:17 AM
Correct, theres 3 species so far that have at least some tests supporting awareness: Chimps, porpoises, and now elephants. Thats way different than emotions though, awareness=intelligence.
I think they are trying to figure out how to test some of the smarter species of whales.
My point was, why look to the stars, when we have intelligent species here that need to be studied.
JohnR_IN_LA
12-06-06, 11:19 AM
Boys boys.
I take the blame for this thread. It was a huge mistake and just another way for me to try to get attention. I apologize to all for it having happened.
And the last thing for me to want to happen now is for my friends to get to fighting with each other over silliness.
We need to take a deep breath and wait for the movie and then it will be fair to tear Mel Gibbons a new one.
Until then, I beg you to let sleeping dogs lie.
I promise I won't post to this thread any more till Saturday if ya'll can see fit to do the same.
Stiffler!!
wow I just made up a word. :D
Ktulu_1
12-06-06, 11:36 AM
May I ask one question. I ask this only because I'd like to know the answer without having to read the entire history.
Fact. The ancient Egyptians built pyramids.
Fact. The ancient Mayans built pyramids.
Fact. They didn't know anything about each other.
So do we know why they both built pyramids? Have we completely ruled out the possibility that flying saucer people talked to both of them?
oink's tha man!
If you wanted to build up in the ancient world, you end up with a structure with a wide base and a narrow top. They simply did not have the technology (steel, concrete, etc.) to build tall structures without having a broad base.
BTW there are Chinese pyramids, Cambodian pyramids, middle eastern pyramids (ziggurats), etc.
No need for aliens, demons, ghosts, gods, etc. the natural world is far more fascinating.
RobertWood
12-06-06, 12:34 PM
Thank goodness you're here, Jeff. Maybe a paying AVS member being here will make the thread seem a little less in need of moderating. :D
If it'll keep me from suffering the embarrasment of another thread closure then I hereby recant all belief in flying saucers. ;)
My point was, why look to the stars, when we have intelligent species here that need to be studied.
And the most interesting one is the Homo sapien. We haven’t come close to figuring out what makes them tick. They are always getting in trouble and disagreeing with one another. Heck, some of that species have been known to kill for just looking at each other. Yep, they need a lot of studying – and soon, very soon. :)
Bob,
Are you going to be in line on Friday?
BTW, great posts everyone. :)
RobertWood
12-06-06, 01:17 PM
I'll probably do a matinee at the new 15 screen all DLP cineplex which has just opened near me, oink.
I'm looking forward to seeing a whole movie in a theater in DLP. All I've seen so far is the one time I snuck into a DLP auditorium for a few minutes after I'd finished another movie.
I haven't been to a DLP theater.
However, I do have a 56" Samsung DLP that I love intensely.
IF a DLP theater is capable of putting out a picture similar to mine...I'm there.
The theaters I have been to recently appear to be LCD (washed-out image, dull colors, out of focus, etc.).
I am beginning to wonder if front projectors' images are unsatisfactory for my tastes. :(
Ktulu_1
12-06-06, 02:06 PM
Thank goodness you're here, Jeff.
I get that a lot. It's mostly dripping with sarcasm but since that doesn't translate very well in this medium, I can only assume you're being sincere.
http://209.187.238.153/movies/Forum_stuff/chewy.gif
Okay, I give up. It's time to kill this thread and just wait for another one to start up when actual reviews are forthcoming.
For your consideration:
www.aintitcool.com/node/30900
RobertWood
12-06-06, 03:34 PM
Okay, I give up. It's time to kill this thread and just wait for another one to start up when actual reviews are forthcoming.
I know what you mean. It's still two more days till the movie starts and I'm getting restless too.
What we need is something to pick up our spirits while we're waiting. I think I've got just the thing.
First this...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vfDXlgmKFyU
And then the Wes Craven version...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TUzcRLnjvzE
Better yet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QYcQ464ZMQ
And, of course, animals lack intelligence... :rolleyes:
RobertWood
12-06-06, 06:22 PM
This is the movie theater I watched the 1950's horror flicks in.
One of the first ones I remember seeing was "It Came From Outer Space".
I was about 7 or 8 years old. All I can remember, and my cousin who was with me verifies this, was when the monster was finally on the screen I took off running for the lobby. I couldn't bear to watch it.
At that time, Saturday afternoon matinee admission was 15 cents. I think that was probably about the same price as the box of popcorn and the coke.
I also remember seeing William Castle's "The Tingler" in the same theater. With that one all the seats were wired with buzzers that went off when the monster showed up.
But the one I remember most was "House on Haunted Hill". Castle had supplied all the theaters with this crazy skeleton contraption. At the climax of the movie, this skeleton on a wire would go from a box mounted beside the screen all the way across the ceiling to the back of the auditorium.
It was a Navy town and all the sailors would go to the Rex for the Saturday matinees.
When the skeleton came out the sailors went wild and started throwing stuff at it to try to knock it down. It was chaos. Flattened popcorn boxes flying everywhere like missiles.
I don't remember if they were able to take it out. I was too scared to notice.
http://www.agilitynut.com/05/1/rext.jpg
The 1950's was a good time to grow up in.
Shane,
There is no frickin' way MG will get any awards from the Academy for a very long time.
Even if Apocalypto is the best movie ever done. ;)
Which is why I think the Oscars worth the price of a bagel down on Olympic blvd at Noah's. ;)
Ron Temple
12-06-06, 08:45 PM
By the way, what is the relationship of the word "apocalypse" to the Mayans?
Is that a reference to that stuff I've been picking up on Coast to Coast AM about those Mayans having whipped up some calendar that says the end of the world is coming soon? :D
I think you mislead us by claiming that you don't or can't read...
I haven't been to a DLP theater.
However, I do have a 56" Samsung DLP that I love intensely.
IF a DLP theater is capable of putting out a picture similar to mine...I'm there.
The theaters I have been to recently appear to be LCD (washed-out image, dull colors, out of focus, etc.).
I am beginning to wonder if front projectors' images are unsatisfactory for my tastes. :(
I've never seen or heard of LCD projectors for films in theaters, Ive seen they use it for those old style static image commercials before the previews start, but then they switch over to the film projectors for the feature. I did see a DLP presentation once years ago though[Episode II]
I haven't been to a DLP theater.
However, I do have a 56" Samsung DLP that I love intensely.
IF a DLP theater is capable of putting out a picture similar to mine...I'm there.
The theaters I have been to recently appear to be LCD (washed-out image, dull colors, out of focus, etc.).
I am beginning to wonder if front projectors' images are unsatisfactory for my tastes. :(
We saw CASINO ROYALE in DLP, our first DLP movie. Impressive!! Not a noticeable print flaw in the movie (I assume they take a print and digitize it? - which would allow them to clean up any defects) - none of those occasional blotches or black circles - and the colors and detail were great.
Ron Temple
12-06-06, 08:50 PM
Sirius.
The Dog Star.
The Dogons.
Robert Temple.
http://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius-mystery.jpg
Check it out, RW. :D
And while you're at it, check out Zecharia Sitchin, too. :D :D
http://www.nomorehoaxes.com/shop/images/the_12th_planet_lg.jpgNo relation...
Seriously, I popped in on this thread last night and look what's grown up since. RW your sh*t has legs.
RT
RobertWood
12-06-06, 09:56 PM
:D
I think you mislead us by claiming that you don't or can't read...
I read a great deal, Ron. I just don't read books (fiction) :)
Which is why I think the Oscars worth the price of a bagel down on Olympic blvd at Noah's. ;)
Actually, a half eaten bagel. :D
:D
I think you mislead us by claiming that you don't or can't read...
Maybe he has been unduely influenced by Stephen Colbert's campaign. :eek:
JohnR_IN_LA
12-07-06, 12:15 AM
Okay, I give up. It's time to kill this thread and just wait for another one to start up when actual reviews are forthcoming.
Khyron, pssst. The movie isn't out yet.
But guess what, almost ALL the critics have seen it in special showings. So theres reviews galore! Brilliant, articulate reviews by professional writers! Just go to Rotten Tomatoes, or the site of your choice.
But we dont get to see special showings. So please, dont kill our thread.
BTW, this film is getting some really nice reviews, some reviewers are gushing about it.
RobertWood
12-08-06, 09:16 AM
Only four and a half hours to go. And I will be entering into the apocalyptic experience of a lifetime.
http://www.movietickets.com/house_detail.asp?exid=rmp&house_id=9996
It feels like July 20, 1969 all over again.
Cool!
Give us a review when you get back. ;)
Bob McLaughlin
12-08-06, 10:00 AM
I think this has potential to be really good. One of my favorite parts of "The Patriot" was that great fight in the woods, where Mel and his sons took out all those redcoats. From what I've heard about this movie, it has a lot of running around and fighting in the woods. And it doesn't seem to have any overpaid, overexposed movie star types in it to ruin all the fun.
The only question is, will an audience who likes action movies put up with reading subtitles for a whole movie? And will the audience who liked his previous movie (TPOTC) go see this movie about a bunch of "pagans"?
RobertWood
12-08-06, 10:04 AM
I must say I feel kinda dirty though. Kind of like I'll need to go take a shower after it's over.
I say that because the very beautiful Ashley Simpson on MSNBC just told me the reason everybody will be going to see this is only because Mel's bigotry has made him a curiousity and is filling the theater seats.
I think PT musta been right all along. We have met the "suckers" and they is us.
JohnR_IN_LA
12-08-06, 10:48 AM
And will the audience who liked his previous movie (TPOTC) go see this movie about a bunch of "pagans"?
Well one "thumbs down" reviewer said this movie has a similar agenda ...
I must say I feel kinda dirty though. Kind of like I'll need to go take a shower after it's over.
I say that because the very beautiful Ashley Simpson on MSNBC just told me the reason everybody will be going to see this is only because Mel's bigotry has made him a curiousity and is filling the theater seats.
I think PT musta been right all along. We have met the "suckers" and they is us.
Who is Ashley Simpson, and why does her opinion have weight?
RobertWood
12-08-06, 11:14 AM
Who is Ashley Simpson, and why does her opinion have weight?
I tried to google a photo to show you who she is. And I discovered that Simpson must not actually be her last name. Ashley Simpson is some other personality.
But her first name is Ashley. And she's the beeyootiful MSNBC anchor who comes on after Imus.
But as I think about it, you're right, Eric. Opinions on this matter are like arseholes.
Everybody has one.
So I don't feel dirty anymore.
Thanks. I needed that.
Ktulu_1
12-08-06, 11:16 AM
Who is Ashley Simpson, and why does her opinion have weight?
No one and it doesn't.
Who is Ashley Simpson, and why does her opinion have weight?
No one and it doesn't.
Who are we, and why does our opinion have any weight? Her opinion carries as much weight as anyone here. Dis her, dis yourself. ;)
RobertWood
12-08-06, 01:19 PM
Well I'm off. I don't know where this journey will lead me. So wish me luck.
All I do know for certain is that I won't be "let's all going to the lobby". I'll be be stopping by Walgreens on the way to fill my socks and pockets with lots and lots of triglycerides before I ever arrive at the theater.
sdurani
12-08-06, 01:32 PM
I don't know where this journey will lead me.It will be the best movie you ever saw (as usual).
Sanjay
dougotte
12-08-06, 02:19 PM
...to fill my socks and pockets with lots and lots of triglycerides...
Mmmm...candy in socks...that's an appetizing image.
:eek:
Doug
How about "Candy, in just her socks"...?
RobertWood
12-08-06, 05:32 PM
Apocalypto
My Review by Sultanist
This movie is an extremely difficult movie to review. For the first half hour to maybe hour of the film, I had decided my review was probably going to take this form: "This movie is an obscenity and Mel Gibson is a childish excuse for a filmmaker".
And a little over an hour later after the movie had ended, I was then thinking: "this might be a masterpiece".
I can elaborate on that. But right now I'll let that suffice for my review.
If anyone else sees this movie today, please let me know what your reaction to it is.
I'm very anxious to learn what that will be.
Apocalypto
My Review by Sultanist
This movie is an extremely difficult movie to review. For the first half hour to maybe hour of the film, I had decided my review was probably going to take this form: "This movie is an obscenity and Mel Gibson is a childish excuse for a filmmaker".
And a little over an hour later after the movie had ended, I was then thinking: "this might be a masterpiece".
I can elaborate on that. But right now I'll let that suffice for my review.
If anyone else sees this movie today, please let me know what your reaction to it is.
I'm very anxious to learn what that will be.
Very ... interesting. Sounds like you had a mid-movie conversion or epiphany!
sdurani
12-08-06, 05:51 PM
Robert,
Forget Gibson's filmmaking abilities for a moment...
Did you have a good time? Were you entertained? Did it hold your interest? Were the characters compelling?
BTW, did you see a digital screening? If so, how was it?
Sanjay
RobertWood
12-08-06, 05:58 PM
I'll add only this.
What Gibson intended with this film is very difficult to comprehend. But only after the final scene has concluded.
If you consider the first two hours and ten minutes of the movie in it's entirety up to and including the beginning of the final scene, Gibson's vision and intent seems to be crystal clear.
But when the final scene is ending, and one protagonist asks the crucial one-line question, and the other provides his climactic one-line answer, and then the scene dissolves to the credits, that's when the entire intent of what this movie represents to Mel Gibson then becomes a mystery.
When Gibson sums it up as a story about "rebirth", that much becomes evident. But "rebirth" to what?. That's the question which is left in the mind of the viewer.
It's at that point that the mind of Mel Gibson becomes so much less predictable and so much more complex than I ever imagined.
It's so interesting how this relates to the final scene in Da Vinci. Except what is presented to us there explains the intent of the whole movie. Ironically, this time it serves to instead "unexplain" the whole movie.
Once you've seen it I hope you will want to discuss this. But please do so in spoilers. Because this is one time when you absolutely do not want to give away anything about a movie ending to those who have not yet seen it.
RobertWood
12-08-06, 06:07 PM
Very ... interesting. Sounds like you had a mid-movie conversion or epiphany!
That's what happened. And I'm still not sure how to react to it.
Robert,
Forget Gibson's filmmaking abilities for a moment...
Did you have a good time? Were you entertained? Did it hold your interest? Were the characters compelling?
BTW, did you see a digital screening? If so, how was it?
Sanjay
Yes, yes, yes, and yes to your first four questions.
Except I must emphasize that I answer those questions that way only as a result of
seeing the movie all the way through to it's conclusion. What I mean by that is if an earthquake or a tornado had destroyed the theater after I'd seen only the first hour or hour and a half, and I had to then write a review, I might say "This sucks and so does Mel Gibson." And I'll try to elaborate on that better after others who've seen it can weigh in (but only in spoilers).
Yes, I saw the digitial screening and it suited me fine.
Although I had misplaced my eyeglasses and watched it without corrected vision so I still don't know if there's visible screendoor. But color and clarity are sufficent
and 3-chip DLP completely eliminated all the DLP artifacts I'm used to seeing.
I thought there might not be the amount of light output to give the picture the same punch in bright scenes I'm used to seeing. But I need to experience some more of it to be able to judge that for certain.
Black level is comparable to film projection. Maybe not absolutely the same shadow detail, but similiar enough that that didn't provide a distraction (again I need to watch some more to judge that too).
RobertWood
12-08-06, 06:12 PM
Oh, and there is some spectacular cinematrography in this movie. That alone is probably worth the price of admission.
RobertWood
12-08-06, 07:11 PM
Also, something else needs to be mentioned.
This movie is a portrayal of human emotion. There is no human intellect here.
Only behaviour driven by raw, crude and pure human emotion and instinct.
Some will undoubtedly be put off by that. And I may be too if what I'm seeing is not authentic.
I do not know enough about the history of what's being portrayed in this movie to know how authentic it is.
If it is an accurate portrayal of what this human society was and how they lived and how they behaved, then I can have no beef with Gibson's portrayal of that.
But, and this is a big but, if it's all nothing more than a creation of Gibson's imagination, then I'm back to the "Gibson sucks" perspective. Because then it becomes nothing more than a terrible obscenity for Gibson to want to present our human ancestors to us in this manner.
I really wish I knew what the truth of that is. What is actually known about the human civilization which is the focus of this movie. And until I do I really cannot know what to make of what was shown to me in this movie.
From http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2006-12-07/film/film.html:
Maybe the Mayans really did bounce human heads down the steps of their pyramids but, as their civilization collapsed hundreds of years before the Spanish conquest, how would we know? "A lot of it, storywise, I just made up," Gibson confessed to the Mexican junketeers who visited his set last year. "And then, oddly, when I checked it out with historians and archaeologists and so forth, it's not that far [off]." Or far out, for that matter. Irrational as it may be, Mel's sense of history does have a logic: JP's trip to hell ends when the Christians arrive.
spoiler tags per RobertWood - but all I am doing is quoting from the review at the link above.
RobertWood
12-08-06, 07:29 PM
I read somewhere that Gibson said he made a lot of it up.
If so, then I guess Gibson sucks, eh?
If this society as it is portrayed in this movie was fundamentally "just made up" and it has little basis in what we actually do know of human history, then for me this movie then becomes the ultimate in obscenity and Gibson should be dismissed as a pornographer.
With great emphasis on if.
And if anyone, once you've seen this movie, would like to discuss and debate that
point with me I'll be more than happy to oblige.
If this civilization as it is portrayed in this movie was fundamentally "just made up" and it has little basis in what we actually do know of human history, then for me this movie then becomes the ultimate in obscenity and Gibson should be dismissed as a pornographer.
With great emphasis on if.
And if anyone, once you've seen this movie, would like to discuss and debate that
point with me I'll be more than happy to oblige.
I rewrote/edited my post while you were responding to it - i.e., I found the source in which I read this, and it seems to vindicate Mel for you.
RobertWood
12-08-06, 07:33 PM
I really urge you in the strongest terms to put post #85 in spoilers, Eric.
Please humor me and do that now.
And once you do I'll start talking about what you've said there.
I really urge you in the strongest terms to put post #85 in spoilers, Eric.
Please humor me and do that now.
And once you do I'll start talking about what you've said there.
Done. I gotta run soon, so I may not be responding right away.
Is that how pinball or soccer was invented?
Matt_Stevens
12-08-06, 07:50 PM
The Mayans were a BRUTAL civilization. Utterly bloodthritsy. Well, their leaders were. The people ultimately rebelled against such insanity and the Mayan civilization ultimately collapsed. It's fascinating.
Cannot wait to see the film.
Ron Temple
12-08-06, 08:05 PM
Someone referenced Gary Jennings' Aztec not long back, which was well researched. I did read it and since have read several fiction and non-fiction works that try to picture what the Mayan and later Aztec cultures (as well as several others with lots of vowels and x/t/l/zs mixed in) were like. From the trailers it looks like Apocalypto plays with these themes. Pretty daring...I'll probably read the spoilers...
Is that how pinball or soccer was invented?
Futbol, IIRC, and from what I guess is your context was played by some strange rules.
RobertWood
12-08-06, 08:05 PM
From http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2006-12-07/film/film.html:
Maybe the Mayans really did bounce human heads down the steps of their pyramids but, as their civilization collapsed hundreds of years before the Spanish conquest, how would we know? "A lot of it, storywise, I just made up," Gibson confessed to the Mexican junketeers who visited his set last year. "And then, oddly, when I checked it out with historians and archaeologists and so forth, it's not that far [off]." Or far out, for that matter. Irrational as it may be, Mel's sense of history does have a logic: JP's trip to hell ends when the Christians arrive.
Firstly, if you have not yet seen the movie you will absolutely want to avoid reading both what's in spoilers above and my response to it which now follows...
It's very disappointing to read that, Eric. Because for me it is just unconscienable for anyone to present that degree of make-believe as truth. I have no idea what he means when he says "I checked it out with historians and archaeolgists and so
forth and it's not that far off".
Why is this so important?
Because this movie portrays an entire civilization of human beings as being nothing more than psychopathic animals of the worst kind. And goddamn it that better damn well be the truth. You don't just go making up crap like that to sell movie tickets and get your name in lights. If you do then you're one sorry no good scumbag in my book.
It's an entirely different matter if you fess up and say "THIS IS FICTION". But when you weasel out of doing that and hem and haw and say "well I made this up and I made that up but it could be the truth" then that just do not cut it.
Again, if this is what those human beings were actually like then that's something we need to know and I have no problem with presenting them in exactly that manner.
But if instead it's just a load of BS then I have no use for the scumbag who is creating a horrible myth and lie like that. This is my species we're talking about damnit and I'm not interested in seeing my species misrepresented in such an obscene manner.
Now, that's point number one. Here's another.
Whoever wrote what you quoted is full of crap. Because the movie absolutely does not conclude as "JP's trip to hell ends when the Christians arrive.".
That was my whole earlier point.
As this story unfolded, what it appeared to be is Mel Gibson telling us "we're all just savages until Christianity rescues us". And that would have been as offensive to me as any movie message has ever been.
But, that is not what the message of this movie ended up being.
This movie ends with the Christians coming ashore. And then Seven turns to Jaguar Paw and asks: "Should we go to meet them".
And Jaguar responds: "No, we should retreat into the jungle".
The suggestion being that Christianity may be no better for Jaguar Paw than
the pagan religion which was wanting to kill him.
And that's what makes Gibson so unpredictable. And made this movie palatable for someone like me.
Now, that's point number one. Here's another.
Whoever wrote what you quoted is full of crap.
Well, it is in the Dallas Observer (a free magazine that shares/uses movie reviews with a group of similar free urban papers from coast to coast), and my opinion of movies - when I see them - is often the opposite of their views!!!!
RobertWood
12-08-06, 11:23 PM
I want you to go see this movie, Eric. I need your take on it (and particularly that point about the ending).
I also would very much appreciate getting the insight from anyone who both sees the movie AND knows something about Mayan history, to share with me your opinions about what is truth and what is fiction in this movie.
Oh, and there is some spectacular cinematrography in this movie. That alone is probably worth the price of admission.
From:
http://www.laweekly.com/film+tv/film/apocalypto-the-passion-of-mel/15169/
"(The cinematographer, Dean Semler, shot the first Mad Max sequel, The Road Warrior, and it’s clear that Gibson learned more than a few things from the bouts of breathless, wordless combat that Semler and the director, George Miller, staged in that film.)"
I want you to go see this movie, Eric. I need your take on it (and particularly that point about the ending).
I also would very much appreciate getting the insight from anyone who both sees the movie AND knows something about Mayan history, to share with me your opinion about what is truth and what is fiction in this movie.
The Rave theater nearby is showing it on their DLP screen. I don't know if I can get the wife interested in this movie, even though she likes The Patriot and Braveheart. That review link in my last post - LA Weekly - might interest you, as it has an interesting perspective on the film.
RobertWood
12-08-06, 11:43 PM
I so want you to go see it because I so want you to tell me what you think about it.
But I have to add this disclaimer. Like Passion, this one depicts some truly graphic and sadistic blood and gore. Actually it's even more intense in this one (a lot more). So if that's something she objects to you may want to leave your wife at home.
JohnR_IN_LA
12-09-06, 12:54 AM
I will pass on this flick then Bob.
Watching torture for entertainment is about as sick as it gets.
FredProgGH
12-09-06, 01:29 AM
I will pass on this flick then Bob.
Watching torture for entertainment is about as sick as it gets.
So I take it you haven't been to see Saw, Last House On The Left, Wolf Creek or any of the slasher flicks and horror movies in recent months and years.
RobertWood
12-09-06, 02:00 AM
He won't want to see the last one I saw either, Fred. Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes.
Wowee! Not only did they slice em and dice em, that's the first time I've ever seen someone literally burned at the stake like you were standing right in front of him and watching it. :D
FredProgGH
12-09-06, 02:31 AM
Actually, it was the Hills Have Eyes remake I was thinking of- got my Wes Craven flix mixed up!! Anyway, it wasn't my intention to call out John on his taste in movies, bt to point out that torture is specifically many people's idea of entertainment and doesn't necessarily mean you're sick or twisted. I actually really want to see Apocalypto even though I don't care for the Saw style movies myself.
I dislike slasher movies; I don't see the point. If Apocalypto is a slasher flick, I'll likely pass, too.
JohnR_IN_LA
12-09-06, 12:34 PM
Agreed Eric, I would never rent SAW., SAW2, etc...
On the other hand, I thought Kill Bill was brilliant :D
Apocalypto I will probably end up watching on DVD, and Ill have to fast forward through the parts where men, women, and children are brutilized.
RobertWood
12-09-06, 01:25 PM
I dislike slasher movies; I don't see the point. If Apocalypto is a slasher flick, I'll likely pass, too.
Which point illustrates the very point I have been trying to convey.
If the Mayans did these things then showing it in a movie is no different than showing cannablism in a movie about Jeffrey Dahmer. The movie is obligated to show it.
But, if it's a matter of only Mel Gibson "make believing" the Mayans did these things, then Apocalypso does become just another "slasher flick" and I don't want to see it either.
Why? Because 500 years from now if Mr. Spock's brother, Mel Hitchspock, makes a movie on the planet Vulcan about the American society of the 21st Century, and it shows Americans routinely chopping off each other's heads, and Mel Hitchspock is quoted as saying "well I made that part up but they coulda done it so fugedaboutit" then you and I would think Mel Hitchspock is a dirtbag too.
Bob, here's some info I found about the Mayans: "The Mayans were warlike and raided their neighbors for land, citizens, and captives. Some captives were subjected to the double sacrifice where the victims heart was torn out for the sun and head cut off to pour blood out for the earth."
Also this: "Blood sacrifice played a major role in their religion. Individuals offered up their blood, but not necessarily their lives, to the gods through painful methods using sharp instruments such as sting-ray spines or performed ritualistic self mutilation. It is probable that people of all classes shed their blood during religious rites. The king's blood sacrifice was the most valuable and took place more frequently."
Source: www.crystalinks.com/mayanhistory.html
Haven't seen the movie, but from what you've hinted, this seems to support what the movie portrayed. What do you think?
RobertWood
12-09-06, 03:29 PM
Bob, here's some info I found about the Mayans: "The Mayans were warlike and raided their neighbors for land, citizens, and captives. Some captives were subjected to the double sacrifice where the victims heart was torn out for the sun and head cut off to pour blood out for the earth."
Also this: "Blood sacrifice played a major role in their religion. Individuals offered up their blood, but not necessarily their lives, to the gods through painful methods using sharp instruments such as sting-ray spines or performed ritualistic self mutilation. It is probable that people of all classes shed their blood during religious rites. The king's blood sacrifice was the most valuable and took place more frequently."
Source: www.crystalinks.com/mayanhistory.html
Haven't seen the movie, but from what you've hinted, this seems to support what the movie portrayed. What do you think?
Thanks, Joe. Now that's exactly the kinda stuff I was hoping to hear about.
See, now we know it aint Mel who's the dirtbag. It's them Mayans who were the dirtbags. :D
p.s. And let's be honest. When Spock's brother makes that future movie, there's gonna be plenty about us we aint gonna be very proud of either. So when it comes to Mayans, maybe those in glass houses shouldn't be throwin no rocks.
Or even better, maybe we should play Mel's own game here and say: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".
Say what you will, but Mel Gibson has a wicked sense of humor who punctuates many scenes with these little bits of human vices that reminds us that humans are humans, no matter what the time period is, or the societal framework, there is this baseline of human conduct for selfishness that is totally contradicted by selfless acts of a protective nature, and the propagation of family lines, but it is what makes us human.
It's an amazing look into a past Mayan civilization from an outside tribe from the forest, but the past reveals a lot about us now, and that's the real kick in the pants about the film using this glimpse into Mayan life, rituals, engineering, and superstitions, and still creating human drama out of it all. The film is brutal, and vicious at times, but it balances it with a importance of community and bonding that shows the impact of social aspects of human relations.
If you get queasy over blood, and gutting of animals and humans, and more, then this is not the film for you, but the savagery shown is steeped in lore and their perceived relationship with their deities, and their requirements for satisfying them. You could even draw metaphorical similarities to today's way of life in spots as well.
I think the pacing was pretty good for a film that runs about 135 minutes, and the camera work is very good is more spots, but there are action sequences that have spliced-in video camera footage that makes the action look like it was filmed at 30 frames/second which is jarring when the rest of the footage is 24 fps. But it's not a big deal, just a directorial decision that seemed odd on my first viewing.
The choice to use unknowns for the characters in the film pays off because you simply believe that these are characters from the time period in question and just accept their characters as-is with no personal baggage from familiarity with known actors. Mel Gibson is in good form as director, and you could tell he really had to direct the performances and all of the coordination required to really sell us the landscape of the Mayan population as this living, breathing organism with its own pulse as a whole society.
I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.
I do think Mel's point of the film is this:
Organized religion is not a good thing, be it the Mayan pagan rituals demanding human sacrifice, or the onslaught of Christianity that has also committed savage acts on humans, all in the name of religion. That what I got from the final exchange between Jaguar Paw and his wife as they go find their own way.
sdurani
12-09-06, 03:55 PM
If Apocalypto is a slasher flick...Indeed the movie's original title was 'I Know What You Did Last Epoch'. Make of that what you will.
Sanjay
RobertWood
12-09-06, 03:55 PM
I do think Mel's point of the film is this:
Organized religion is not a good thing, be it the Mayan pagan rituals demanding human sacrifice, or the onslaught of Christianity that has also committed savage acts on humans, all in the name of religion. ...That's what I got from the final exchange...between Jaguar Paw and his wife as they go find their own way.
That's exactly what I got from it too, Patman. And because of it Mel Gibson's stock just went way up for me.
Mel said more with that one line of movie dialogue than anyone could have said in a thousand books. :)
p.s. and I don't give a damn if it's against the rules to say it. Mel said it. Not me. :D
Considering how much Gibson devotes to bringing forth new life in the wake of adversity in this film, it does make you wonder why people can support religious views that condones murder of those with different belief over occupation of land, or an ancient one that treats human life so friviously. And the reason that murder becomes acceptable is mainly from cultural/societal indoctrination that allows humans to murder "conscientiously" for their beliefs and devalues life over said conquests. Gibson is asking people to take another look into themselves and act on what's true in their hearts, not on a popular notion of the "right" course of action. That he can do this by showing us the past, it forces us to look at the brutal truth of the effects of such beliefs in the present.
RobertWood
12-09-06, 04:12 PM
Gibson is asking people to take another look into themselves
Which of course Mel has had to do to his own self just lately. :D
But the current day equivalent for Jaguar Paw and family is to simply move to France. Haha.
RobertWood
12-09-06, 04:21 PM
:D
Simply put,one of the best movies I"ve ever seen. It is about way more than the violence. Mel Gibson is a drunk,a human,and a genius.
That's exactly what I got from it too, Patman. And because of it Mel Gibson's stock just went way up for me.
Mel said more with that one line of movie dialogue than anyone could have said in a thousand books. Rember the anti-littering campaign featuring Chief Dan George? A simple 3 second look at his face revealed volumes.
Robert Wood......You probably think the holocost of WWII is a myth,perhaps that Idi Amin and Sadam Hussien didn't kill thousands. This movie depicts life in a sacrifical society. Thousands of slaves died at the hands of the Egytians building those burial pyramids.The history of our own country is filled with the slaughter of native Americans because the white man of the day had greed and ignorance as his lamp unto the destruction of Indian society.Maybe not a probable movie success to point fingers,but,Gibson's approach to what is a single episode in what turned out to be the destruction of an entire society,is an amazing spectacle..............IMHO
RobertWood
12-09-06, 06:26 PM
enmoco, consider this a response to all three of your last posts. You've made me a believer on all counts. :D
Especially, the thing about Chief Dan George. I'd completely forgotten about that.
p.s. But no, I didn't think the Holocaust was a myth. And it was movies which made me a believer on that count too.
These movies. ;)
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/films.htm
Reading the spoilered parts...
Several comments.
1) There were several ages of Mayan civilization. I am assuming that this was the multicentury fight between the cities that are now known as Tikal and Calakamul. After the southern civilization ended, the northern Mayan were still around. In any event, the Mayans were nearly totally spent as a cultural force by the time of Columbus. They literally could not read their own writing, at least, no profess to read them.
2) Hey guys, you really should stop throwing stones in glass houses. By today's standard, and really in much of the world today, ancient human societies are stunningly violent and lethal. If some euro dude really want to get all high and mighty about how so vicious mayans were, then they really ought to take a closer look at european societies. It wasn't any less savage during the 30 years war (Germanic speaking states lost 1/3rd of the population), or during the Pelopponesian conflict through to the rise of Alexander the Great, where the rise of the dictator was accepted because all the greek city states were stunningly destructive on each other, whole cities routinely destroyed with the menfolk killed and women and young children sent into slavery elsewheres (and this could happen multiple times to a city!). And not to mention the utter, sheer, brutality of many of the 20th century's conflicts, from the Armenian Genocide through WWI Low Countries through WWII Eastern Front, through the Indian Partition, through to central american wars, Rwanda, the like. The Mayans were like any other group of people. To believe that the society was insensately violent and without redeeming features is also to condemn the Greeks and Romans...
3) Mel Gibson played as fast and loose with the history as he did with The Patriot or Braveheart. He's just a self satisfied religious freak doing another movie about unsaved people.
4) There are so many better stories available! Almost immediatly before the Spanish arrived, there was the story of the leader of one of the Triple Alliance (Aztec empire) kingdoms, called Nezhaulcoyotl. He was a pretty awesome guy with lots of ups and downs, and one of those *really* popular political leaders, who was known for being among the best of people, by standards *we would agree with*. Not mention guys like the founder of the Inca empire, or a really good movie version of Cortez's struggles
RobertWood
12-09-06, 07:44 PM
I wish I'd learned more about history over the course of my life, shah8. You've got me realizing I may have spent way too much time on flying saucers.
But in my defense, Mr. Ezell sure as hell shoulders a lot of the blame for that.
FredProgGH
12-09-06, 10:41 PM
Why do people keep attributing The Patriot to Mel?? That was a Devlin/Emmerich movie, written by Robert Rodat. Gibson just acted and cashed the check.
Why do people keep attributing The Patriot to Mel?? That was a Devlin/Emmerich movie, written by Robert Rodat. Gibson just acted and cashed the check.
I'm glad to know that. I never really liked it, and thought it was inferior to BRAVEHEART. Now I know why.
Ron Temple
12-10-06, 04:15 AM
shah8,
yeah, the Romans were sports fans and western history is littered with atrocity, et al. I'm pretty sure the Meso-American pre-history is being "over-done", but the cornel of truth is there. We're a flawed race, capable of supreme self delusion. The universe better "Watch Out" (if we ever get there).
I saw this movie with my wife last night, and I was quite surprised how entertaining this was, the movie is quite a ride. Mel Gibson is simply at the top of his game as a visual storyteller, he tells his tale with style & confidence without much in the way of dialog to move it forward. His direction and pacing keeps the movie fresh at all times. The acting is excellent, all the main players are convincing and you truly feel transported back to the time period. The violence in the movie IMHO is always within the context of the story, and although its obvious Mr. Gibson is going for a certain level of shock value, I never thought it stooped to a "slasher flick" mentality. The final 45 minutes or so is a pure thrill ride rivaling some of the best chase scenes in recent movie history. For all the flap surrounding the movie & the director, I thought this was presented in a very mainstream Hollywood-style, epic-type, sprawling action-adventure way not far from Gladiator and other such efforts. My only complaints were: (1) digital cameras....hate 'em. I just don't like the motion blur in fast moving scenes. Give me good old fashioned film anyday. (2) I thought they played a little fast & loose with the translations at times, making them quite modern, and it took me out of the moment at times. Most of the time it was played for humor, and it was effective, but for me, a bit distracting. I wont go into what message Mr. Gibson was trying to convey in terms of relating it to todays world, I believe he leaves it purposely open ended and ambiguous to stimulate discussion and controversy. Gibson as a filmmaker doesn't want you to just sit there and watch a movie, he wants to make you think, squirm, react; not make it a passive experience. I think he hit this one out of the park. As an action-adventure thrill ride of a movie, Apocalypto succeeds admirably. As a statement relating to todays world, if it causes as much discussion and debate as sampled so far throughout the media, then Gibson has again succeeded and no doubt accomplished his goal. I highly recommend this movie.
3) Mel Gibson played as fast and loose with the history as he did with The Patriot or Braveheart. He's just a self satisfied religious freak doing another movie about unsaved people.
For the interested, from ARCHAEOLOGY's online reviews:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/apocalypto.html
ted
RobertWood
12-10-06, 10:36 PM
This is why I maintain that no matter what any filmmaker says, no matter how big the fonts are which say "based on a true story", no matter how much we want to believe we're watching real-life when we're in a movie theater, movies are always fiction.
I watched Nashville today (hadn't seen it since 1975). And before I watched it I spotted this in a review on it's rotten tomatoes page...
"This film is like no other I have ever seen for one major reason: it plays exactly, and I mean exactly like real life."
Bullsh*t.
I'm so embarrased to have to write this post. Both because I'm serving to derail my own thread but mainly because I feel like such a jerk.
When I wrote the post quoted above, I had seen only about the first hour of a 2 hour and 40 minute movie. And now I've completed watching it.
And now I realize that if Tom Cruise had been sitting in front of me when I said that he would have said "you're just being glib". And he would have been correct.
I have a whole different opinion after seeing Nashville in it's entirety. Nashville is maybe the very last movie one should ever use as an example to argue with that reviewer's point.
On a given level (and with emphasis on that), it is probably the single best example of movie real-life'ism I have ever seen. So much so that I am awed by it.
Again, I now feel like such a jerk for that earlier glibness but I couldn't in all conscience let it stand.
Forgive me for the off-topicness of this post and please proceed with the Apocalypto discussion.
Unfortunately, I probably won't be able to catch this in theatres and will have to wait for the video. :(
History has been one of my passions since I was a youngin'.
I can tell you all this: our ancestors were NOT mambee-pambees.
Not by any stretch.
Blood sacrifice was done all over the world and through out nearly every civilization.
Too show the Mayans as being a culture of benign astronomers (the prevailing view up until the last 20 years) is so off the mark as to be laughable.
Anyone interested in the Meso-American cultures should start at Wikipedia and look up the following civilizations: Olmec, Toltec, Mayan, Aztec, Inca, Moche, Chichimec...
Thinking about it over the weekend, relatively speaking, the flap over the "blood & gore" factor in this movie is way overblown. I mean c'mon, on our most popular TV shows we constantly see autopsies, murders graphically displayed, bloody crime scenes, etc that in retrospect I would deem much more graphic & gratuitous then 95% of the questionable stuff in the movie. Jeez, in one of the latest episodes of HEROES on network TV at 9pm, you had a scene with the cheerleader waking up on the ME's slab with her chest cavity splayed wide open! You cant make it thru an episode of various CSI incarnations without some shock-value driven gore scene of some kind or another. Totally hypocritical IMHO.
blkacklover
12-11-06, 03:37 PM
Unfortunately, I probably won't be able to catch this in theatres and will have to wait for the video. :(
History has been one of my passions since I was a youngin'.
I can tell you all this: our ancestors were NOT mambee-pambees.
Not by any stretch.
Blood sacrifice was done all over the world and through out nearly every civilization.
Too show the Mayans as being a culture of benign astronomers (the prevailing view up until the last 20 years) is so off the mark as to be laughable.
Anyone interested in the Meso-American cultures should start at Wikipedia and look up the following civilizations: Olmec, Toltec, Mayan, Aztec, Inca, Moche, Chichimec...
Yep.
I have read through this thread and maybe I am misunderstanding something, but are we, reviewers, and critics trying to hold ancient civilizations up to our current PC standards?
That can't work and should not even be considered.
The history of the world is the history of tribes.
IIRC, Lewis & Clark were shocked at the primitive savagery of the Indian tribes they encountered.
PooperScooper
12-11-06, 04:29 PM
Now that people are seeing the movie, please try to keep the discussion about the movie. Not everybody comes in here looking for a history lesson. :) Thanks.
larry
RobertWood
12-11-06, 06:01 PM
This is why I maintain that no matter what any filmmaker says, no matter how big the fonts are which say "based on a true story", no matter how much we want to believe we're watching real-life when we're in a movie theater, movies are always fiction.
I watched Nashville today (hadn't seen it since 1975). And before I watched it I spotted this in a review on it's rotten tomatoes page...
"This film is like no other I have ever seen for one major reason: it plays exactly, and I mean exactly like real life."
Bullsh*t.
I'm so embarrased to have to write this post. Both because I'm serving to derail my own thread but mainly because I feel like such a jerk.
When I wrote the post quoted above, I had seen only about the first hour of a 2 hour and 40 minute movie. And now I've finished watching it.
And now I realize that if Tom Cruise had been sitting in front of me when I said that he would have said "you're just being glib". And he would have been correct.
I have a whole different opinion after seeing Nashville in it's entirety. Nashville is maybe the very last movie one should ever use as an example to argue with that reviewer's point.
On a given level (and with emphasis on that), it is probably the single best example of movie real-life'ism I have ever seen. So much so that I am awed by it.
Again, I now feel like such a jerk for that earlier glibness but I couldn't in good conscience let it stand.
Forgive me for the off-topicness of this post and please proceed with the Apocalypto discussion.
Bob Bob Bob Bob, what have you been putting in your iced tea? :D
I saw Apocalypto today.
Entertaining flick, even if the plot has some weak spots.
I could not escape the feeling that the film is not about the Mayas, it's about us.
I saw Apocalypto today.
Entertaining flick, even if the plot has some weak spots.
I could not escape the feeling that the film is not about the Mayas, it's about us.
In which case, even if Gibson used the popular mythology about the Mayans, and played loosely with some history, as the archeology article seemed to indicate - though there seemed to be some political issues in the piece, and not just straight archeology/history, plus Gibson didn't set out to depict Mayan civilization in all its aspects, which, IIRC, the piece somewhat faulted him for - then maybe he's justified in what he did and how he did it.
RobertWood
12-11-06, 11:38 PM
Bob Bob Bob Bob, what have you been putting in your iced tea?
I switched from the blue pack chemicals to the yellow pack sweetener chemicals. I kept reading so much of that tinfoil stuff about aspartame on the web that I finally chickened out and got scared.
LOL!
Bob, you worry too much (as my mother would always tell me). :D
b2bonez
12-12-06, 01:59 AM
I saw Apocalypto today.
Entertaining flick, even if the plot has some weak spots.
I could not escape the feeling that the film is not about the Mayas, it's about us.
OMG !!.. Someone who actually has seen the movie :eek: Give us a "stars rating" scale 1-10..
And just how bloody was it. I tried the Australian movie (forgot the name.. the one with all the flies.. yuk) but ending up FFing to the end..
b2b
Matt_Stevens
12-12-06, 09:34 AM
The wife and I saw it. We both liked it. The story was simpler than expected, but tense and never boring. FX were seamless and Gibson shows yet again that he is a master storyteller. The film does have political and religious statements to make and I applaud Gibson for making them in such a daring project. Oliver Stone, he is not. Thank God!
OMG !!.. Someone who actually has seen the movie :eek: Give us a "stars rating" scale 1-10..
And just how bloody was it. I tried the Australian movie (forgot the name.. the one with all the flies.. yuk) but ending up FFing to the end..
b2b
I'd give it 7.5-8 due to the weakness of the plot in a couple of spots.
Flick well worth watching, though.
Very bloody, but to me, the gore was totally justified because it carried a message.
The message was: Throughout the human civilizations (generally, not only the Maya one), human life was worth s#*t. This is still true in our times.
That's the message I took away from the film.
There were other messages that Gibson tried to convey in the film, such deep notions that in the end love conquers all and that children are important, but being the twisted person that I am, my takeaway was that throughout history humans have been behaving like evil savages.
Nothing really revelatory, but shown very well.
Civilization is a thin veneer.
archiguy
12-12-06, 02:06 PM
Civilization is a thin veneer.
Boy, ain't that the truth! And it's amazing how quickly we can revert to our inner animal when things start to break down. I've often felt that "being civilized" is such hard work because it's just not in our nature. We're not programmed by millions of years of evolution to act in a "civilized" manner.
Boy, ain't that the truth! And it's amazing how quickly we can revert to our inner animal when things start to break down. I've often felt that "being civilized" is such hard work because it's just not in our nature. We're not programmed by millions of years of evolution to act in a "civilized" manner.
Some threads and posts here at AVSForum are living proof of what you write, arch!
archiguy
12-12-06, 02:50 PM
Some threads and posts here at AVSForum are living proof of what you write, arch!
Yeah?? What do you mean by that, huh??? WHY YOU #@*!.....
:D
Yeah?? What do you mean by that, huh??? WHY YOU #@*!.....
:D
archiguy, minus his thin veneer of civilization:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/me4president2008/bodyworlds.jpg
(image of one of the specimens from "Body Worlds," an exhibit currently at a museum in Dallas and elsewhere: http://www.bodyworlds.com)
archiguy
12-12-06, 03:18 PM
Skin - it keeps your insides in. :p
When I'd misbehave as a youth, my dad always said he'd "skin me alive". That "Body Worlds" exhibit is eerily similar to the mental picture that warning generated.
Ron Temple
12-12-06, 05:51 PM
archiguy, minus his thin veneer of civilization:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y265/me4president2008/bodyworlds.jpg
(image of one of the specimens from "Body Worlds," an exhibit currently at a museum in Dallas and elsewhere: http://www.bodyworlds.com)
Guys name was Wun Hung Lo(wer than the other)
Well, it certainly wasn't Dong Hung Lo. :D
archiguy
12-12-06, 07:30 PM
Yes, it's appearing that as the thread goes on, we're seeing more evidence of the decline of civilization. :p
RobertWood
12-12-06, 08:35 PM
Yea you punks all think you're so cute don't you. You and your jokes and your rule breaking and all.
Well I've got news for you punks. Let's see how smartalecky you'll be when the man gets hold of you. Cause I'm calling...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYhYYRRZt0g&search=dog%20bounty%20hunter%20south%20park%20hall%20hallway %20monitor%20milan
Oh jeez, now we've done it. :eek:
The Boss is pissed.
How much beggin' for forgiveness is required this time?
BTW, do you have Beth's phone#? :D
Ron Temple
12-13-06, 02:46 AM
Well, it certainly wasn't Dong Hung Lo. He's not in the best of shape ;)
Yes, it's appearing that as the thread goes on, we're seeing more evidence of the decline of civilization.
I resemble that remark :p
jamawass
12-13-06, 11:50 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization
Mind-boggling and mind-bending stuff. I can't understand why nobody ever told me about all this. No wonder Mel got interested in it.
May I ask one question. I ask this only because I'd like to know the answer without having to read the entire history.
Fact. The ancient Egyptians built pyramids.
Fact. The ancient Mayans built pyramids.
Fact. They didn't know anything about each other.
So do we know why they both built pyramids? Have we completely ruled out the possibility that flying saucer people talked to both of them?
Why is it whenever ancient civilizations populated by dark skinned people do something original they have to be helped by aliens? I never hear the alien question about Stonehenge.
PooperScooper
12-13-06, 11:53 AM
Please talk about the movie.
larry
archiguy
12-13-06, 12:41 PM
Please talk about the movie.
larry
Party PooperScooper. ;)
And to jamawass: Everybody knows that aliens also built Stonehenge, silly. (Illegal aliens from Scotland, that is - the Druids had an illegal immigrant problem too, as stacking big rocks on other big rocks was work that native Druids just wouldn't do. Sheesh. Learn some history, whydoncha'. :rolleyes: )
RobertWood
12-13-06, 03:06 PM
Why is it whenever ancient civilizations populated by dark skinned people do something original they have to be helped by aliens? I never hear the alien question about Stonehenge.
Au contraire, grasshopper, Au contraire.
http://www.google.com/search?q=extraterrestrials+stonehenge&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Trust me on this, jamawass. If so much as a mushroom pops up in your yard tomorrow, by the end of next week Richard C Hoagland will be arguing the case for extraterrestrial origin.
RobertWood
12-13-06, 09:34 PM
I just finished watching a 20 minute interview Gibson did with Sean Hannity.
It's worth watching and it will repeat on Hannity and Comes later tonight if you care to watch it (with the second half of the interview to air on tomorrow night's show).
You'll get a good glimpse of how this filmmaker's mind works. And some insight into the personality. And some of his perspective on this movie.
p.s. I reluctantly post this. Please don't do the predictable and start talking about Hannity and Colmes. I already have a helluva lot stronger feelings about Sean Hannity than you do anyway so nothing you can tell me will be new. And my intent in posting this has absolutely nothing to do with either Hannity or politics. Just Gibson and his movie.
MatthewR
12-15-06, 01:48 PM
mel lost his way 1/2 way through the movie and turned it into an action flick... an entertaining one though.
he lost me with the wife in the hole though... i can't figure out these spoiler tags so i can't say more but i feel like he went way over the top with her just to add more tension.
also the ending would mean more to me if we knew the fate of the other 2 that were on the beach with the stories "hero"
I just finished watching a 20 minute interview Gibson did with Sean Hannity.
It's worth watching and it will repeat on Hannity and Comes later tonight if you care to watch it (with the second half of the interview to air on tomorrow night's show).
You'll get a good glimpse of how this filmmaker's mind works. And some insight into the personality. And some of his perspective on this movie.
p.s. I reluctantly post this. Please don't do the predictable and start talking about Hannity and Colmes. I already have a helluva lot stronger feelings about Sean Hannity than you do anyway so nothing you can tell me will be new. And my intent in posting this has absolutely nothing to do with either Hannity or politics. Just Gibson and his movie.
Part 2 of Sean and Mel was on last night, but I only saw a couple minutes of it, and it was not very interesting. In fact, Mel was saying some dumb things about making friends with your demons in order to put them in their place.
RobertWood
12-15-06, 04:58 PM
Part 2 of Sean and Mel was on last night, but I only saw a couple minutes of it, and it was not very interesting. In fact, Mel was saying some dumb things about making friends with your demons in order to put them in their place.
I now know the correct last name of that woman you asked me about way back in the thread. Her name is Ashley Banford. And man is she ever attractive (as in "hot").
hitchfan
12-15-06, 10:03 PM
I thought the movie was an ok chase film in an unusual setting and era. But I just didn't see much in it to support the grand themes Gibson has implied, the ones about the overuse of natural resources or the one stated in the Will Durant quote that opens the movie.
Regarding the overuse of natural resources, none of the "societies" depicted appeared to be short on the traditional natural resources on which their survival depended. On the Will Durant quote, none of the "societies" depicted appeared to be weakened by a collapse from within.
Instead, what I saw was the old gag about the little fish being swallowed by a bigger fish and then, oops, along comes an even bigger fish to swallow the last one. From tapir, to Jaguar Paw's tribe, to the Mayan pyramid builders to the Spanish explorers...there just didn't seem to be anything particularly weak about the last swallowed society except in size and, if anything, the larger, more developed society's more effective EXPLOITATION of their resouces.
Now, if there was anything inherently weak about these various societies as implied by this movie...
...it is in the boast that Jaguar Paw and his father repeated several times, that "this is my jungle, my father always hunted in this jungle, I have always hunted in this jungle. my sons will always hunt in this jungle", etc., that one. If anything, staying put in the jungle was the fatal flaw that kept the smaller society weak enough to be conquered by the next. Jaquar Paw's tribe was swallowed by a society that DID NOT stay put in the jungle....which in turn will be swallowed up by a society that DEFINITELY DID NOT stay put in the jungle (the Spanish explorers).
If anything, the further away from "Dad's jungle" a society traveled or explored, in Gibson's version of things, the more likely that society was to overcome the only inherent weakness that appeared to matter in the movie; its vulnerability to being swallowed up by the next maurading invaders.
Even Jaguar Paw's decision to return to the jungle at the end was pertinent to this theme since we know that wasn't going to prevent their little society from vanishing into the mouths of the larger fish anyway.
I now know the correct last name of that woman you asked me about way back in the thread. Her name is Ashley Banford. And man is she ever attractive (as in "hot").
'Tweren't I that asked ya, I don't think?
Ashley, the lady with the glasses, who hailed from Dallas?
I saw it too, and I'm in sort of agreement with hitchfan, but probably cared for the movie even less. I also didn't think this was an "epic", it was a rather "small " picture compared to even the Passion.It just didn't have that "grandiose" feeling to it then one would maybe expect.The camera was always seemed to be close to the characters, I'm guessing to give a more "immidiacy" to it, and maybe that's what was Gibson after anyway. I liked his vision of Breavheart much better with the great John Toll as his DP.
RobertWood
12-16-06, 06:26 AM
'Tweren't I that asked ya, I don't think?
Ashley, the lady with the glasses, who hailed from Dallas?Yep it was you...
Who is Ashley Simpson, and why does her opinion have weight?
First I said Ashley Simpson. And then when I corrected myself I misspoke again and said Ashley Banfield.
This time I'm gettin it right.
Her name aint Ashley anything. It's actually Amy Robach. Feast your eyes on her and you'll see why her opinion has weight. I believe anything she says.
http://www.reportercaps.com/Home_MSNBC/arobach/amy_robach_008.jpg
Brewhound
12-16-06, 05:44 PM
Which point illustrates the very point I have been trying to convey.
If the Mayans did these things then showing it in a movie is no different than showing cannablism in a movie about Jeffrey Dahmer. The movie is obligated to show it.
But, if it's a matter of only Mel Gibson "make believing" the Mayans did these things, then Apocalypso does become just another "slasher flick" and I don't want to see it either.
Why? Because 500 years from now if Mr. Spock's brother, Mel Hitchspock, makes a movie on the planet Vulcan about the American society of the 21st Century, and it shows Americans routinely chopping off each other's heads, and Mel Hitchspock is quoted as saying "well I made that part up but they coulda done it so fugedaboutit" then you and I would think Mel Hitchspock is a dirtbag too.
"RANT ON" Well... being of Guatemalan descent, and having studied Mayan culture.... Human sacrafice was a BIG part of their culture. Now as to the details of how this was carried out... my guess would probably be as good as Mel Gibsons. But there is archaelogical proof that humans were sacraficed. Having gone to the temples, there is a definitely some mystique and energy found in there. I hope to visit Guatemala again sometime soon, but I'm glad that Mel Gibson chose to show the history of my ancestors, it's about time someone did. That comes with a caveat, it is HOLLYWOOD, and everything that comes out of hollywood comes with it's share of fiction and interpretation. But to write it off because of violence is kinda ridiculous... the crusades were bloody and hey... the pyramids were built using slaves and i'm sure there was quite a bit of brutality going on. Humans are inhently violent you see it today and it was probably worse in ancient times where the law was kill or be killed. Back then it was a struggle for survival, and Kudos to Gibson for presenting something that the majority has probably never even heard of. "RANT OFF"
lonwolf615
12-17-06, 01:47 AM
Very good points,brewhound.
But to write it off because of violence is kinda ridiculous... the crusades were bloody
Absolutely right.
the pyramids were built using slaves and i'm sure there was quite a bit of brutality going on.
Actually, the prevalent view held by archaeologists and historians today is that most of the labor involved in building the pyramids were Egyptian farmers and craftsman.
And they were volunteers and/or paid for the effort.
Why?
Religious beliefs.
Slaves may have been used, but they were in the minority...at best. ;)
JohnR_IN_LA
12-18-06, 12:36 AM
Thats ridiculous .. the farmers tilled the field until noon, then pulled giant stones after lunch?
Once your in huge man-teams pulling rocks across the desert, you aint a farmer no more, your a beast of burden :D
Bob McLaughlin
12-18-06, 12:15 PM
I would give this movie a B+. Not everything worked but it was a good movie overall, I thought. The action scenes were great, the lead-up to the pyramid scenes was positively harrowing. A not necessarily "enjoyable" movie (there were a lot of downers!) but it definitely held my interest throughout and gave me a few things to think about. I will likely watch it again when it comes out on DVD.
I watched this at a pretty superficial level and didn't try to think much about what sort of message was there. I just let the story unwind before my eyes, and for the most part it worked. I had plenty of time to think about meanings later.
One thing:
For a minute at that big beach revelation scene at the end, I thought we were going to see the head of the Statue of Liberty sticking out of the sand! Oh wait, that's another movie.
Bottom line, I'd recommend this movie to anyone except the squeamish. It wasn't so much the amount of gore but the brutality. I have seen much bloodier movies but this one had a lot of brutality and meanness to go with it.
Thats ridiculous .. the farmers tilled the field until noon, then pulled giant stones after lunch?
Actually, that isn't how it was done (according to the archaeologists).
The commoners would volunteer their time when little farming/business could be done (ie, during the annual Nile flood or when business was slow).
It was considered an honor and an obligation to donate one's time to these public works projects.
Additionally, it was believed that they could earn extra bonus points with the gods for doing this.
And the Egytians were very, very concerned with the after-life. ;)
adpayne
12-18-06, 12:27 PM
Firstly, if you have not yet seen the movie you will absolutely want to avoid reading both what's in spoilers above and my response to it which now follows...
Now, that's point number one. Here's another.
Whoever wrote what you quoted is full of crap. Because the movie absolutely does not conclude as "JP's trip to hell ends when the Christians arrive.".
That was my whole earlier point.
As this story unfolded, what it appeared to be is Mel Gibson telling us "we're all just savages until Christianity rescues us". And that would have been as offensive to me as any movie message has ever been.
But, that is not what the message of this movie ended up being.
This movie ends with the Christians coming ashore. And then Seven turns to Jaguar Paw and asks: "Should we go to meet them".
And Jaguar responds: "No, we should retreat into the jungle".
The suggestion being that Christianity may be no better for Jaguar Paw than
the pagan religion which was wanting to kill him.
And that's what makes Gibson so unpredictable. And made this movie palatable for someone like me.
Robert, I'm in complete agreement with you on this movie!
This isn't an epic, it's a small film with spectacular scenery.
What I took away from the film, was that simpler was better. The more complicated life was, the less fullfilling and less enjoyable it was. That family, community, and friendship are the most important things.
It also was not as gory as had been mentioned. It is violent. Very much so. But there is no lingering over the violence. There was mention in one review about a scene where an arrow is shown going through a skull through an open mouth. If I had blinked, I would have missed it, as it was literally 1 second, or less.
In regard to a christian message. I didn't see one. If anything, it was agnostic. The least (organized) religious - the jungle people - were the happiest, and most peaceful of all. JP was no more trusting of the "men in ships" than he was of the Mayans.
I'm no huge Mel Gibson fan, but I can separate the artist from his work. He also seems to be able to separate himself from his religion enough to make a work that seems to question it.
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit.
Art
lonwolf615
12-18-06, 01:52 PM
Actually, that isn't how it was done (according to the archaeologists).
The commoners would volunteer their time when little farming/business could be done (ie, during the annual Nile flood or when business was slow).
;)
So, its how commoners spent their time before they could build HT's?:)
JohnR_IN_LA
12-18-06, 03:37 PM
I read a little last nite, and your right, many were probably not slaves per se, but they didnt have much of a choice either, If the Pharoah decided to build a pyramid, thats what Egyptians did!
But all classes of society probably participated, the farmer may feed the workers, a prince might be an architect .... etc
I read a little last nite, and your right, many were probably not slaves per se, but they didnt have much of a choice either, If the Pharoah decided to build a pyramid, thats what Egyptians did
Underneath many of the finished stone blocks workers would often chiseled the names of their villages or the nick-names of their work crews.
But all classes of society probably participated, the farmer may feed the workers, a prince might be an architect .... etc
Right, and it took an INCREDIBLE amount of effort.
The Giza Pyramids are believed to have taken up to 30 years to complete. :eek:
So, its how commoners spent their time before they could build HT's?:)
Actually, the first HT in history was built on the west side of the Nile during the reign of the Pharoh Ramses II... :D
Just saw this movie last night and thought it was awesome. It felt so unbelievably real, I thought I was right in the jungle with them at times. And as I think about my experience, I think a lot of what held such extreme realism was in using the sub scripts and steller photography. The movie made quite an impression and I can't seem to stop thinking about it actually. In particular I sure would not want to be painted blue walking up to the top of one of those pyramids! But there are 2 things I can not quite get past with the plot line. First of all, I can't understand is why there wasn't more of a struggle going on for the prisoners getting laid on the carving block. I know as much a coward as I am, I would probably be kicking and screaming all the way tied or untied.
And second of all, how come the real Jaguar did not eat the character Jaguar? A real cat could have caught a human so fast he should only have gotten 2 or 3 steps. That part sort of spoiled credibility for me.
But anyway I really enjoyed this movie.
I read a little last nite, and your right, many were probably not slaves per se, but they didnt have much of a choice either, If the Pharoah decided to build a pyramid, thats what Egyptians did!
But all classes of society probably participated, the farmer may feed the workers, a prince might be an architect .... etc
They were skilled artisans who lived in an on-site community dedicated to the construction of these monuments. It was actually a decent living in a world in which only a precious few enjoyed a relatively secure life of luxury.
hitchfan
12-19-06, 02:20 AM
RVonse,
I agree with you about the peculiar lack of...
...fear or pain expressed by the characters in this movie.
I mean, people's throats are slit without struggle and then they slowly sink to the ground apparently contemplating the complex meaning of it all. They get speared in the chest and can still outrun their pusuers through the jungle for HOURS. They are laid across the chopping block and only held in place absent-mindedly by relatively disinterested assistants. Their chests are split open to remove their hearts without so much as a squawk and then they stare at the disembodied organ in their killer's hand with wide-eyed curiosity...uh...
Meanwhile, you are right. There is no way Jaquar Paw could have gotten down from that tree FASTER than the real jaguar and then up on his feet and down the path so far AHEAD of the jaquar as he was when we next see him. Therefore, Gibson skips the whole escape sequence after he's painted the character into an impossible corner.
And why didn't Jaguar Paw even bother to pick up one of the various spears, bludgeons or knives he ran past or had opportunities to snatch up in the target practice field and beyond? Because it was more convenient for Mel Gibson to have Jaguar Paw ignore that impulse until the big stand-off scene between him and his prime tormenter later in the movie, of course...
To me, it really seemed as though Gibson and his writing partner were making most of this up as they went along during the filming process.
adpayne
12-19-06, 04:33 PM
RVonse,
I agree with you about the peculiar lack of...
...fear or pain expressed by the characters in this movie.
I mean, people's throats are slit without struggle and then they slowly sink to the ground apparently contemplating the complex meaning of it all. They get speared in the chest and can still outrun their pusuers through the jungle for HOURS. They are laid across the chopping block and only held in place absent-mindedly by relatively disinterested assistants. Their chests are split open to remove their hearts without so much as a squawk and then they stare at the disembodied organ in their killer's hand with wide-eyed curiosity...uh...
Meanwhile, you are right. There is no way Jaquar Paw could have gotten down from that tree FASTER than the real jaguar and then up on his feet and down the path so far AHEAD of the jaquar as he was when we next see him. Therefore, Gibson skips the whole escape sequence after he's painted the character into an impossible corner.
And why didn't Jaguar Paw even bother to pick up one of the various spears, bludgeons or knives he ran past or had opportunities to snatch up in the target practice field and beyond? Because it was more convenient for Mel Gibson to have Jaguar Paw ignore that impulse until the big stand-off scene between him and his prime tormenter later in the movie, of course...
To me, it really seemed as though Gibson and his writing partner were making most of this up as they went along during the filming process.
My take on this...
Regarding the lack of fear, etc... Remember the speach JP's father gave him about showing fear? Plus they were probably exhausted from their ordeal, and in shock. I agree the jaguar scene was a bit much, but still enjoyable. As to why he didn't fight sooner? His mission was to get to his family, not take on a bunch of skilled killers. At the end he confronted the man who killed his father, and friend. No action movie is going to be completely believable. I enoyed it for what it was.
Art
Bob McLaughlin
12-21-06, 09:49 AM
There's also no telling what you can do when you're literally running for your life. People operate on pure adrenaline when their lives are at stake, and don't even realize they are wounded or hurt until later.
But I agree, there's no way a man on a tree branch between a jaguar and her young gets out of that one alive! It wouldn't have even resulted in a chase, it would have been over in a second.
There's also no telling what you can do when you're literally running for your life. People operate on pure adrenaline when their lives are at stake, and don't even realize they are wounded or hurt until later.
But I agree, there's no way a man on a tree branch between a jaguar and her young gets out of that one alive! It wouldn't have even resulted in a chase, it would have been over in a second.It's a movie,i.e. entertainment,it's not intended as a documentary of ancient life,animal behavior,or as a commentary of Mel's political or religous beliefs. It's a movie.....
Speculation of whys and what ifs is just that,speculation.Was it entertaining or not? Cinematography great or lousy?Sound so so or suck?Keep your interest for two hours? The vast majority of these posts have absolutely nothing to do with the review of this picture.E.T. was a little far fetched,but great none the less.As a director Gibson has proven his abilities. Who cares what else about him? Polanski slept with an underage girl and fled the country..........does that make him less of a director?Let's cut back on the social,behavioral and ecological commentary and review the movie.Just my .02
I would give this movie a B+. Not everything worked but it was a good