http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/apocalypto.html

I guess PQ is not as good as Pirates 4 stars only. Apparently not the whole movie was shot in HD.

it's still tier 0 according to some reviewers.

I currently cannot take advantage of the PCM tracks and find it annoying that they didn't include a Mayan DD track.

I currently cannot take advantage of the PCM tracks and find it annoying that they didn't include a Mayan DD track.


i was worried about the same thing but somebody in a diff thread stated their is a mayan DD track

it is definitely a Mayan DD track. There is no English dub on this disc, nor was there one even created for this film.

Dropping the star for video is almost as bad as the half star for audio, which is especially ridiculous.

so i just watched this, and i give it 5/5 on video and audio. the character detail is so rich and vibrant for each extra and main character! you can see on the close ups each little scar, puncture, mole or whatever! the jungle scenes are amazing and you see the veins in leaves everywhere! def a demo disc in my book...

Haven't seen POTC yet on Blu-Ray, but to my eyes this was the best looking Blu-Ray disk I've seen yet. I do see where some of these scenes aren't as consistent as others, but as a whole this movie had more "wow, I had no idea an image could look that great" moments than any other blu-ray disk I've watched. I found myself hitting pause a lot just to take it all in. Great stuff.

I haven't seen the film yet, but the reviewer gave it 3 stars and then talks about Mel Gibson's personal life. He seemed to like the film, but knock at least one star off for his personal opinion of Mel Gibson. Even his conclusion starts

Say what you want about Mel Gibson the man
How about just reviewing the frickin' movie? I bet he wouldn't do that to a Roman Polanski directed film.

I haven't seen the film yet, but the reviewer gave it 3 stars and then talks about Mel Gibson's personal life. He seemed to like the film, but knock at least one star off for his personal opinion of Mel Gibson.
I hope that this is not the case, as I believe the theatrical presentation also did not receive as much of the critical acclaim it deserved for much the same reason.

Perhaps he is knocking off a star for “it's overly violent and at times simplistic in its thematic excesses” ?
I don’t know.
I have no problem with violence in films, as long as it is not gratuitous………. or violence added for the sake of violence which is all too common in today’s films and even in presentations on some home theater cruises, for that matter.

The graphic nature of Barbaro breaking his leg real time on live TV (and the image then being re-played again) disturbed me far more than the sum total of violence in the …………..movie……………..Apocalypto.

And as far as "thematic excesses", I guess I am a simple man at times.

I just wish people left out their opinion of Mel Gibson when reviewing his movies. I don't care what you think of the man, just review the disc. Boggles my mind as to what passes as a "review" these days. So unprofessional.

I just wish people left out their opinion of Mel Gibson when reviewing his movies. I don't care what you think of the man, just review the disc. Boggles my mind as to what passes as a "review" these days. So unprofessional.

It's the internet...lowered standards.... :(

Dropping the star for video is almost as bad as the half star for audio, which is especially ridiculous.

I completely agree. This is one of the best soundtracks I have heard. Period.

And the video is excellent as well. Top shelf material! :cool:

I just wish people left out their opinion of Mel Gibson when reviewing his movies. I don't care what you think of the man, just review the disc. Boggles my mind as to what passes as a "review" these days. So unprofessional.

Gee, I don't want to just keep saying "me too", but "me too"! It's completely unnecessary, and I don't care who it is: Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, or even Michael Moore :eek:, just review the damn movie!

I completely agree. This is one of the best soundtracks I have heard. Period.

And the video is excellent as well. Top shelf material!
I agree. I honestly think Peter underrated the film on the video. It's 5 stars all the way.

It seems odd that reviewers these days always have to remind readers of Mel Gibson's pass transgressions but yet when they review Roman Polanski's movies, they gave him a free pass with his past transgressions. Whats the deal with that? Being indicted as a pedophile is more forgiving than being drunk and blurting out racial slurs?

I have to say I have difficulty trusting any of Peter Bracke's star ratings, he is wildly inconsistent. Notice "Traffic" and "March of the Penguins" also got 4 stars for PQ from this reviewer, and I can't imagine "Apocalypto" coming close to the PQ disasters as those films.

I've ordered the BD disc from Amazon anyway, and I'll make my own judgments, but I would probably look toward other reviewers if I was on the fence.

I have to say I have difficulty trusting any of Peter Bracke's star ratings, he is wildly inconsistent. Notice "Traffic" and "March of the Penguins" also got 4 stars for PQ from this reviewer, and I can't imagine "Apocalypto" coming close to the PQ disasters as those films.


:eek:

Thanks for pointing that out.

I have to say I have difficulty trusting any of Peter Bracke's star ratings, he is wildly inconsistent. Notice "Traffic" and "March of the Penguins" also got 4 stars for PQ from this reviewer, and I can't imagine "Apocalypto" coming close to the PQ disasters as those films.

I've ordered the BD disc from Amazon anyway, and I'll make my own judgments, but I would probably look toward other reviewers if I was on the fence.

Yes ...I can't imagine Traffic and March of the Penguins are in the same PQ league as Apocalypto. Peter Bracke is very inconsistent.

Peter Bracke is very inconsistent.

I agree, he is becoming somewhat inconsistent. I always read at least one other review, after I read Peter's

I watched Apocalypto tonight and was VERY pleased. A great Tier 0 title.

************ SPOILERS ******************

The story was great, the action continuous, and the pq amazing....

The only thing i was somewhat ambiguous about was the depiction of the spanish as some sort of saviors. In fact, these guys wiped out and killed more people by far than the mayans ever did :(

Disease did most of the killing as there weren't nearly enough Conquistadors to do it themselves. In the context of the story, it looked to me like the city Mayans were gonna face justice for all those victims of their blood sacrifices. :shrug:

*************MORE SPOLIERS********************

************ SPOILERS ******************

The story was great, the action continuous, and the pq amazing....

The only thing i was somewhat ambiguous about was the depiction of the spanish as some sort of saviors. In fact, these guys wiped out and killed more people by far than the mayans ever did :(

Granted, I'm not a history buff, but I'm not sure how you saw the spanish as some sort of saviours (if you're refering to the end of the film with ships coming to dock). To me, I felt as that was the beginning the end of their civlization.

*******MORE MORE SPOILERS**********
I just finished watching this and I have to give Gibson some credit for the ending, and the movie as a whole. When the spanish were arriving there was an obvious shot of the priest holding the cross. The protagonist of the story decided to go back to the forest rather than embrace the newcomers, it was the "bad guy" mayan's who went to them. Along with the omen, I thought it was perfectly clear that the christian spanish were not saviors, but harbingers of their demise. Just when you think things couldn't get any worse, here come the christians to "save" the day.

Mel Gibson wanted to make a movie showing the demise of a great civilization usually starts from within, not from external forces. The Mayans were so preoccupied with sacrificial rituals and butchering themselves, they were weaken and left defenseless when the Conquistadors came. Most of the movie showed the Mayan civilization decaying by their own device. Then at the end, Gibson let the viewers see the finisher.

Mel Gibson wanted to make a movie showing the demise of a great civilization usually starts from within, not from external forces. The Mayans were so preoccupied with sacrificial rituals and butchering themselves, they were weaken and left defenseless when the Conquistadors came. Most of the movie showed the Mayan civilization decaying by their own device. Then at the end, Gibson let the viewers see the finisher.

well, the funny thing was that the Mayan civilization collapsed BEFORE the spanish ever came...in fact, their cities were abandoned i believe hundreds of years before the spanish came...gibson's making fairy tales :rolleyes:

And I think he's confusing the Aztec civilization, which WAS pretty bloody, with the Mayan one? The spanish did meet the aztecs and hastened their fall...the mayans if i remember were relatively peaceful, although they did drown people in those cenotes.

I guess PQ is not as good as Pirates 4 stars only. Apparently not the whole movie was shot in HD.

Can't speak for Apocalypto yet, but Pirates 1 transfer was excellent. Pirates 2 had a mixed bag look. Some scenes top tier, others...eh. Man, you get spoiled when they do everything right.

************ SPOILERS ******************

The story was great, the action continuous, and the pq amazing....

The only thing i was somewhat ambiguous about was the depiction of the spanish as some sort of saviors. In fact, these guys wiped out and killed more people by far than the mayans ever did :(

How did you come to that conclusion? As others have said, it was more like the beginning of the end.

The Classic Maya Collapse occured in the 9th century AD. This was the end of most of the monumental building and the end of stone Long Count dates - the telltale signs of Maya 'Civilization'. In northern Yukatan, however, the collapse was not as stark as further south. Sites such as Chich'en Itza, Mayapan, and others had substantial political and economic hegemony long after the Classic Collapse (many more southern sites (Tikal, Calakmul, etc) were completely abandoned). The history is complex, and still being deciphered.
Large scale Heart Sacrifice is more of a central mexican than a Maya pattern. Maya did sacrifice prisoners of war (often by beheading), and were influenced by central mexican ('Toltec') war cults, however, as can be seen in the buildings at Chich'en Itza.
The film's language is Yukatec Mayan, but I believe it was filmed in Veracruz, an entirely different (and mostly non-Maya) culture area. So the people speaking in the film live in a somewhat different natural and cultural environment too.
Even though there are historical inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the film, I still enjoyed it and am getting the Blu Ray for screening this weekend. It is a terrific way to hear real spoken Yukatec, and if it spurs people to learn more about the very, very rich cultures of Mesoamerica, I am all for it!

The film's language is Yukatec Mayan, but I believe it was filmed in Veracruz,
Correct. :)

As to the other insights, if I had to guess, you’re from GT on 37th and O….. or AU on Mass. Ave.?

Correct. :)

As to the other insights, if I had to guess, you’re from GT on 37th and O….. or AU on Mass. Ave.?

Actually, Microsoft in Friendship Heights.
The interest in things Maya is purely avocational.

ka'ka'atech (Later)!

Matt

For everyone giving this movie a hard time for not being historically accurate, did Gibson ever claim it to be? It was entertaining and had several good messages that added depth, but I was never under the impression that it was supposed to be a history lesson.

did Gibson ever claim it to be?
No and I've seen countless stories and articles on the show.

The Classic Maya Collapse occured in the 9th century AD. This was the end of most of the monumental building and the end of stone Long Count dates - the telltale signs of Maya 'Civilization'. In northern Yukatan, however, the collapse was not as stark as further south. Sites such as Chich'en Itza, Mayapan, and others had substantial political and economic hegemony long after the Classic Collapse (many more southern sites (Tikal, Calakmul, etc) were completely abandoned). The history is complex, and still being deciphered.
Large scale Heart Sacrifice is more of a central mexican than a Maya pattern. Maya did sacrifice prisoners of war (often by beheading), and were influenced by central mexican ('Toltec') war cults, however, as can be seen in the buildings at Chich'en Itza.
The film's language is Yukatec Mayan, but I believe it was filmed in Veracruz, an entirely different (and mostly non-Maya) culture area. So the people speaking in the film live in a somewhat different natural and cultural environment too.
Even though there are historical inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the film, I still enjoyed it and am getting the Blu Ray for screening this weekend. It is a terrific way to hear real spoken Yukatec, and if it spurs people to learn more about the very, very rich cultures of Mesoamerica, I am all for it!

Veracruz, huh? Might explain the fact that those leafcutter ants looked like they were Atta mexicana, and not Atta cephalotes.

http://www.blueboard.com/nfu/behavioral_plasticity.htm
http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/

Large scale Heart Sacrifice is more of a central mexican than a Maya pattern. Maya did sacrifice prisoners of war (often by beheading), and were influenced by central mexican ('Toltec') war cults, however, as can be seen in the buildings at Chich'en Itza.

That's what I meant....I'm not sure they did mass heart cuttings like the aztecs did....they did drown people by throwing them into those cenotes, but I think for fiction sake gibson was just doing some sort of historical mishmash. Other than that, it was a totally engrossing movie....

Veracruz, huh? Might explain the fact that those leafcutter ants looked like they were Atta mexicana, and not Atta cephalotes.


Wild guess here, but I take it you know alot oabout ants. :D

Wild guess here, but I take it you know alot oabout ants. :D

That's my website :)
http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/

I just got done watching this movie on Blu Ray...absolutely stunning but for one scene...did anybody have a problem with that really fake looking jaguar or is it just me? I have seen stuff animals at Toys'R'Us that look better. It is really ashame that did not look good because the rest of the movie was accurate as hell.

tier 0 for me...

I just got done watching this movie on Blu Ray...absolutely stunning but for one scene...did anybody have a problem with that really fake looking jaguar or is it just me? I have seen stuff animals at Toys'R'Us that look better. It is really ashame that did not look good because the rest of the movie was accurate as hell.
It was a real Jaguar. :rolleyes:

Really...it looked so fake.

Really...it looked so fake.


It was real i read...they had to tie the jaguar so it wouldn't actually crunch on jaguar paw :D

It's scary when people think the reality looks fake, and the FX looks real :eek:

Listen to commentary, Gibson talks about using live Jaguar baby and adult.

I watched last night using the 1080p/24 mode on my PS3 which my set accepts and displays and all I can say is jaw-dropping Tier 0. That mode seems to sharpen everything which in turn with other display additions (rgb full) gives a superlative picture with smooth pans (excepting in 1080p/24 I get the occasional jitter, clipping).

Hmmm...yeah that is very scary that I thought it was fake. I guess I really need to rewatch this and know if I ever come across one looking like that it is the real thing...LOL! Thanks for clarifying that up for me. Now I have nothing but mad respect for the movie!

It's scary when people think the reality looks fake, and the FX looks real :eek:

;)

I don't know how they could have "faked" that jaguar. I never had any doubt it was real.

When anavrin0901 said he thought it was fake, I thought perhaps he was talking about the "dead" jaguar.

I don't know what that reviewer is smoking (and I don't want any of it); the picture quality was drop-dead gorgeous on this film. I tend to enjoy reading Bracke's reviews, but sometimes I just don't know what he is thinking (like with his PQ rating for Casino Royale).

Veracruz, huh? Might explain the fact that those leafcutter ants looked like they were Atta mexicana, and not Atta cephalotes.

http://www.blueboard.com/nfu/behavioral_plasticity.htm
http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/


Hi ASJ:
Very interesting, I will pass on your links to my entomologist buddies at NMNH!

Matt

I've watched this twice since Tuesday - such a good looking disc and just a kick ass movie.

Hi ASJ:
Very interesting, I will pass on your links to my entomologist buddies at NMNH!

Matt

No problem.... :)

Btw, I was watching the movie on sd-dvd, so the pics of the ants were blurry, so I cannot be 100% sure of the species...

If some of the very large-headed soldiers (these don't have long points on the sides of their heads also) have fuzzy reddish clumps of hair on the tops of their heads, then that's Atta cephalotes, if they have very shiny, hairless heads, then Atta mexicana. Veracruz might also have Atta texana.

No problem.... :)

Btw, I was watching the movie on sd-dvd, so the pics of the ants were blurry, so I cannot be 100% sure of the species...

If some of the very large-headed soldiers (these don't have long points on the sides of their heads also) have fuzzy reddish clumps of hair on the tops of their heads, then that's Atta cephalotes, if they have very shiny, hairless heads, then Atta mexicana. Veracruz might also have Atta texana.

Will be screening the Blu Ray later tonight. We'll pause and see if we can diagnose the species in question!

I looked up Maya words for 'ant' and found a few varieties, unfortunately no terms that match leafcutter ants:

box síinik 'small black ant'
chak síinik 'red ant'
chi'ibal síinik 'biting ant'
x k'an síinik 'ant associated with bull-horn acacia'

I don't recall from the theater that the dialog included anything about the ants, but I'll listen hard to see if they use a term for the critters in the film.

Looking forward to the film, and I'll report back on the leafcutters.

Matt

Will be screening the Blu Ray later tonight. We'll pause and see if we can diagnose the species in question!

I looked up Maya words for 'ant' and found a few varieties, unfortunately no terms that match leafcutter ants:

box síinik 'small black ant'
chak síinik 'red ant'
chi'ibal síinik 'biting ant'
x k'an síinik 'ant associated with bull-horn acacia'

I don't recall from the theater that the dialog included anything about the ants, but I'll listen hard to see if they use a term for the critters in the film.

Looking forward to the film, and I'll report back on the leafcutters.

Matt

In fact, leafcutters figure very prominently in mayan mythology, and there is a a mayan word for leafcutters. Sayil means the place of the leaf cutter ants. This is mainly because the area where mayans lived is basically crawling with leafcutters.

http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/ldumois/maya/ldmayacity.html

---------------------------------------------------

Just in the middle of the dense Guatemalan tropical forest, in the department of El Petén, the greatest of all the ancient Maya cities thrived: Sayil. Her constructive development spans more than 1,200 years, from the 3rd century B.C. to the 9th century A.D. A definite characteristic of its architecture is the height of its temples and palaces -sometimes counting several storeys- crowned by ornamented crests. Finely carved lintels and doorheads are also found in Sayil.

The Palace - SayilThe ObservatoryThe small centre of Sayil boasts a couple of buildings decorated in the Puuc style. The so called Observatory was perhaps used as an astronomical observation device, hence the name. With rudimentary instruments, Mayan priests managed to accomplish one of their more extrordinary feats - the astronomical observations and measurements that led to the development of the Maya calendar, a system more precise than the Gregorian calendar we use today!

PQ/AQ were great, top notch. History aside, the MQ of Apocalypto was great too. While it had some violence, even my wife was able to handle it and loved the film. Gibson and the actors did such a fantastic job (so did costumes, make-up, and production design), that the movie made you feel like you were watching real events in the past. Emotions were clearly conveyed and the story told with fairly minimal dialogue. So far, IMHO, it ranks as the second best film of last year, right behind The Departed.

The Academy gets it wrong almost as often as they get it right. I own Letters from Iwo Jima, but haven't watched it yet and Blood Diamond is on order, so I can't comment on them. However, the rest I've seen or own. I still think that the Departed deserved best picture, but to ignore Apocalypto, Dreamgirls or Children of Men in favor of Babel, The Queen and Little Miss Sunshine is just plain wrong. Borat was 100x funnier than LMS and Babel pales in comparison to any of those other three. Helen Mirren WAS the Queen, but it wasn't better than Apocalypto, that's for sure. Alan Arkin was probably was the least deserving performance in his category for an Oscar. Somebody tell me how Apocalypto didn't win the best make-up Oscar? They did different hair and make-up on all 700 extras. Too much politics in Hollywood for my taste. That crap should stay in DC where it belongs. At least, they got the two actress awards right....

Bottom line, you owe it to yourself to at least rent Apocalypto, if nothing else. 'Nuff said.

PQ/AQ were great, top notch. History aside, the MQ of Apocalypto was great too. While it had some violence, even my wife was able to handle it and loved the film. Gibson and the actors did such a fantastic job (so did costumes, make-up, and production design), that the movie made you feel like you were watching real events in the past. Emotions were clearly conveyed and the story told with fairly minimal dialogue. So far, IMHO, it ranks as the second best film of last year, right behind The Departed.

For some reason, I'm the only one who thought the ending of The Departed sucked like heck and brought down the entire movie. I liked Apocalypto better actually. The emotions seemed more real, and the reality closer.

I don't know what that reviewer is smoking (and I don't want any of it); the picture quality was drop-dead gorgeous on this film. I tend to enjoy reading Bracke's reviews, but sometimes I just don't know what he is thinking (like with his PQ rating for Casino Royale).

When politics or personal feeling stand in the way, it is better not to do a review at all. Many movie reviewers become incompetent because they apply their personal believes and politics based on the director, actor, or theme of the movie in question, which hurts their credibility instead. Because of this I have stopped visiting dvdfile as well, they are always ranting political crap, for that we have thousands of internet loons.

PQ/AQ were great, top notch. History aside, the MQ of Apocalypto was great too. While it had some violence, even my wife was able to handle it and loved the film. Gibson and the actors did such a fantastic job (so did costumes, make-up, and production design), that the movie made you feel like you were watching real events in the past. Emotions were clearly conveyed and the story told with fairly minimal dialogue. So far, IMHO, it ranks as the second best film of last year, right behind The Departed.

The Academy gets it wrong almost as often as they get it right. I own Letters from Iwo Jima, but haven't watched it yet and Blood Diamond is on order, so I can't comment on them. However, the rest I've seen or own. I still think that the Departed deserved best picture, but to ignore Apocalypto, Dreamgirls or Children of Men in favor of Babel, The Queen and Little Miss Sunshine is just plain wrong. Borat was 100x funnier than LMS and Babel pales in comparison to any of those other three. Helen Mirren WAS the Queen, but it wasn't better than Apocalypto, that's for sure. Alan Arkin was probably was the least deserving performance in his category for an Oscar. Somebody tell me how Apocalypto didn't win the best make-up Oscar? They did different hair and make-up on all 700 extras. Too much politics in Hollywood for my taste. That crap should stay in DC where it belongs. At least, they got the two actress awards right....

Bottom line, you owe it to yourself to at least rent Apocalypto, if nothing else. 'Nuff said.

Wow, what an excellent post! I agree with all of it with the possible exception of Alan Arkin's Oscar win. As much as I did NOT think Little Miss Sunshine was deserving of an Oscar nomination for best picture :rolleyes: I did think Arkin did quite an admirable job of acting here....even though his role was quite limited. Of course part of it has to do with what you mention: Hollywood politics. They probably felt Arkin was overdue an Oscar.

In fact, leafcutters figure very prominently in mayan mythology, and there is a a mayan word for leafcutters. Sayil means the place of the leaf cutter ants. This is mainly because the area where mayans lived is basically crawling with leafcutters.


Thanks! I was at Sayil a few years ago and missed what the name means!
Armed with your post, I went back and found more ant citations (My resources are not a full scholarly complement, and some of this is hard because I don't have very good English to Maya sources (Besides not being comprehensive, they tend to leave out vowel length and tone, both morphemic in Yukatek). This is from "A Dictionary of the Maya Language as Spoken in Hocaba, Yucatan" Victoria Bricker, Eleuterio Po'ot Yah, Ofelia Dzul de Po'ot):

h saay argentine ant (The aa vowel is long and low tone. ASJ: Is this a misidentification, then? Should it be leafcutter ant?)
sayil place with ants
mul-saay carpenter ant hill


Screening the bluray last evening, we paused and stepped through the ant sequence. I could see no hairs on the heads of the ants, they are quite shiny.
All the heads had little horns at the back/widest portion of the head.

Enjoyed the film a lot and the disk transfer looks really good (Playstation (latest firmware), through Lumagen, to Phelpsed HD2K onto 96" wide 16:9 Silverstar).

The degree of effort that went into creating an entire social world is impressive.

Thanks! I was at Sayil a few years ago and missed what the name means!
Armed with your post, I went back and found more ant citations (My resources are not a full scholarly complement, and some of this is hard because I don't have very good English to Maya sources (Besides not being comprehensive, they tend to leave out vowel length and tone, both morphemic in Yukatek). This is from "A Dictionary of the Maya Language as Spoken in Hocaba, Yucatan" Victoria Bricker, Eleuterio Po'ot Yah, Ofelia Dzul de Po'ot):

h saay argentine ant (The aa vowel is long and low tone. ASJ: Is this a misidentification, then? Should it be leafcutter ant?)
sayil place with ants
mul-saay carpenter ant hill


Screening the bluray last evening, we paused and stepped through the ant sequence. I could see no hairs on the heads of the ants, they are quite shiny.
All the heads had little horns at the back/widest portion of the head.

Enjoyed the film a lot and the disk transfer looks really good (Playstation (latest firmware), through Lumagen, to Phelpsed HD2K onto 96" wide 16:9 Silverstar).

The degree of effort that went into creating an entire social world is impressive.

When we went to Merida in the Yucatan to view Chichen Itza and Uxmal, the leafcutters were very much in evidence, especially near night time and in the mornings, when it is cooler and not too hot and sunny...

In the film, I think many of the ants used were not soldiers, but large workers, which complicates things...when it shows close-ups of the of the woman using the ants to sew up the kid, those are either large workers or soldiers...i gotta get the blu-ray version of this....

Here are pics of Atta cephalotes soldiers (notice the small tufts of golden hair on
the head):

http://www.myrmecos.net/myrmicinae/AttCep5.html
http://www.myrmecos.net/myrmicinae/AttCep10.html
http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/pics/asj_1.htm
http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/id/images/atta_cephalotes_dscn4255.jpg


These are Atta mexicana soldiers:

http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/id/images/atta_mexicana_dscn4220_b.jpg
http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/id/images/atta_mexicana_dscn4191_b.jpg
http://www.myrmecos.net/myrmicinae/AttMex1.html

Btw, not that it matters much, since the amazon.com rankings have long since lost relevance to actual sales in the wider world, but it's interesting that Apocalypto now is outselling both matrix (HD-DVD) titles at amazon...so the good WOM may be helping it :)

Apocalypto (blu-ray) #37
Matrix 1 (hddvd) #38
Matrix 2 (hddvd) # 52

PoTC are at #14,15, while Planet Earth (HD-DVD) is still top 10....

Btw, not that it matters much, since the amazon.com rankings have long since lost relevance to actual sales in the wider world, but it's interesting that Apocalypto now is outselling both matrix (HD-DVD) titles at amazon...so the good WOM may be helping it :)

Apocalypto (blu-ray) #37
Matrix 1 (hddvd) #38
Matrix 2 (hddvd) # 52

PoTC are at #14,15, while Planet Earth (HD-DVD) is still top 10....

Those numbers make zero sense.

How are Matrix 1 and 2 separated to 38 and 52 when you CANT BUY THEM SEPARATELY? :confused:

Those numbers make zero sense.

How are Matrix 1 and 2 separated to 38 and 52 when you CANT BUY THEM SEPARATELY? :confused:

Sorry, meant:

The Ultimate Matrix Collection [HD DVD] #38
The Complete Matrix Trilogy [HD DVD] #52

Here are pics of Atta cephalotes soldiers (notice the small tufts of golden hair on
the head):

http://www.myrmecos.net/myrmicinae/AttCep5.html
http://www.myrmecos.net/myrmicinae/AttCep10.html
http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/pics/asj_1.htm
http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/id/images/atta_cephalotes_dscn4255.jpg


These are Atta mexicana soldiers:

http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/id/images/atta_mexicana_dscn4220_b.jpg
http://www.blueboard.com/leafcutters/id/images/atta_mexicana_dscn4191_b.jpg
http://www.myrmecos.net/myrmicinae/AttMex1.html

For what it is worth, from these pics, it looks like Atta mexicana - your second mexicana link looked the closest to what the film shows (to a non-entomological eye, of course).. The little horns we saw are there. Also, the lack of hair tufts, and an overall darker coloration.

I watched this yesterday and really liked it. One thing I found interesting is that the extra feature about the movie was in VC-1, while the main feature was in AVC. About 24 minutes into the extra feature they showed a shot from the movie of the sun and the banding was pretty bad. I checked and the bitrate was much lower than the AVC used for that part in the movie and there was little to no banding for the main feature version of the same thing. This might not be a fair comparison because the extra was probably 1080i and possible other differences, but I still found it interesting.

--Darin

For some reason, I'm the only one who thought the ending of The Departed sucked like heck and brought down the entire movie. I liked Apocalypto better actually. The emotions seemed more real, and the reality closer.

Can't say that I agree with your point about the ending. Not sure if you mean "brought down the entire movie" as in a depressing ending. I haven't watched Infernal Affairs recently, so I forget how that ended. Personally, while it may have been depressing, I thought that it was a great ending. Heck, nearly perfect now that I think more about it. So, yes, I'd say you might just be "the only one who thought the ending of The Departed sucked like heck."

And while that may have brought it down a notch below Apocalypto in your estimation, at least we agree that the later was clearly over-looked by the Oscars.

It's so sad that because of one's man mistake in a moment of weakness, so many others associated with this fine work were over-looked too. PC in America has gotten ridiculously out of hand. Glad those judgmental types weren't around when Christ said, "He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone" or that women would be buried under a barrage. Hypocrites, the lot of 'em. I hope that sales of this film do well so that Mel can continue producing such great films.

Can't say that I agree with your point about the depressing ending.

It's not "depressing", it felt "stupid" to me...too many things happening in so short a time, as if the director wanted to wrap things up quickly.

It's not "depressing", it felt "stupid" to me...too many things happening in so short a time, as if the director wanted to wrap things up quickly.

Quick post. I was just editing my post for clarification and saw your new one.

True, a lot did happen in a short time, but I'm not sure how, or better yet, why the story would need to take longer to complete after the elevator scene? There's basically just one more loose string to tie up and the film did that. The rat was a nice touch too. I guess I'm use to Scorsese' rapid endings. Goodfellas had a similar pace at the end. Same for Casino as I recall.

Oh well, one man's ceiling is another man's floor. We just agree to respectfully disagree on the ending.

Wow, what an excellent post! I agree with all of it with the possible exception of Alan Arkin's Oscar win. As much as I did NOT think Little Miss Sunshine was deserving of an Oscar nomination for best picture :rolleyes: I did think Arkin did quite an admirable job of acting here....even though his role was quite limited. Of course part of it has to do with what you mention: Hollywood politics. They probably felt Arkin was overdue an Oscar.

Thanks for the kind words Rob.

I know that they gave it to Arkin for his body of work, but I still think that's not fair to the other actors. I'm still wondering if Martin Landau was really better than Samuel L. Jackson in 1994. And after Snakes on a plane, I don't see Sam getting another chance either.

IMHO, Eddie Murphy was better. I haven't seen Djimon Hounsou yet, but he was probably better too. Heck, Wahlberg was better too. Oh well, maybe they'll eventually give one to Depp or DiCaprio after years of work. Just glad they finally gave one to Marty.

Got it today , cant wait to watch it tonight.

but it's interesting that Apocalypto now is outselling both matrix (HD-DVD) titles at amazon...so the good WOM may be helping it :)

Cheap plug :o :D for Apocalypto here......................
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10643893&&#post10643893

Sorry, meant:

The Ultimate Matrix Collection [HD DVD] #38
The Complete Matrix Trilogy [HD DVD] #52

Ah, thanks.

The comparison is difficult though. How would they compare if there was only one version of the Matrix collection available?

Ah, thanks.

The comparison is difficult though. How would they compare if there was only one version of the Matrix collection available?

Like I said, all I know is that Apocalypto had a higher ranking than either Matrix...whether that can be projected to actual sales is not certain. as to the speculations and what ifs - what if pigs had wings?

Like I said, all I know is that Apocalypto had a higher ranking than either Matrix...whether that can be projected to actual sales is not certain. as to the speculations and what ifs - what if pigs had wings?

Then they would FLY! :D

Quick question about this film...

Was this originally shot in 1.85:1? I kind of doubt it and I just realized that this BD and The Fountain are both in 1.85:1... Are they going to start releasing everything in this format to stop people who whine about black bars? I REALLY hope not as I am getting ready to dump a fairly substantial amount of money into a constant height 2.35:1 setup and obviously that would be quite a waste of money if nearly everything they are releasing as far as new titles goes aren't in their original aspect ratio, and they don't even offer (AFAIK) an option to buy them in their original aspect ratio (unless of course these were originally shot in 1.85:1. Most of the other BD titles I own are 2.35:1, 2.37:1, or 2.40:1 but since these are the newest titles I own they just got me worried....

Hi Ebanks-

I doubt that they all will change to 1.85 - Id be one for this move if it did since 99.99% of the folks wouldnt have a 2.35setup...I got to admit, it was substantially refreshing to watch it with very little bars on a front projector and none on a rear projector - due to overscan..

Quick question about this film...

Was this originally shot in 1.85:1? I kind of doubt it and I just realized that this BD and The Fountain are both in 1.85:1... Are they going to start releasing everything in this format to stop people who whine about black bars? I REALLY hope not as I am getting ready to dump a fairly substantial amount of money into a constant height 2.35:1 setup and obviously that would be quite a waste of money if nearly everything they are releasing as far as new titles goes aren't in their original aspect ratio, and they don't even offer (AFAIK) an option to buy them in their original aspect ratio (unless of course these were originally shot in 1.85:1. Most of the other BD titles I own are 2.35:1, 2.37:1, or 2.40:1 but since these are the newest titles I own they just got me worried....


I don't know if it was originally shot in 1.85:1 but it was definately presented in the theatre as such.

:eek: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=28311 :eek:

I don't know if it was originally shot in 1.85:1 but it was definately presented in the theatre as such.

According to IMDB

Apocalypto (2006)
advertisement Camera
Arriflex 2C
Arriflex 435
Ikonoskop A-Cam
Panavision Genesis HD Camera


Laboratory
DeLuxe


Film negative format (mm/video inches)
16 mm (Kodak Vision2 500T 7218)
35 mm (Kodak Vision2 50D 5201, Vision2 500T 5218)
Video (HDTV)


Cinematographic process
Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
HDCAM SR (source format)
Spherical (source format)
Super 16 (source format)


Printed film format
35 mm (Kodak Vision Premier 2393)
D-Cinema


Aspect ratio
1.85 : 1

For the ant lovers on this thread:

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3931/apoants2tr5.th.jpg (http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apoants2tr5.jpg)

Were those real ants or were they digitally added? Was there a "no animals were harmed in this production" disclaimer? :D :D :D

Were those real ants or were they digitally added? Was there a "no animals were harmed in this production" disclaimer? :D :D :D

They were very real ...if you have seen it, there is no question about it. I don't remember any disclaimer. Mel Gibson is not a PC freak ...thats an understatement. :D