Mel Gibson is an exploitation filmmaker, like Herschel Gordon Lewis or Russ Meyer . . . only not nearly as original or interesting. He makes torture porn, but he spends all his creative energy constructing elaborately pious and self-righteous justifications for it. He obviously possesses a great deal of such creative energy, but he’d be a much better filmmaker if he was a more honest one and devoted those energies to the screen rather than the justification.
In a year or so when ACROCASHITTO comes off the New Releases wall, it’s going in Horror, between *Cannibal Holocaust * and The Passion of the Christ.
That would be great, if he actually tried for historical similitude, instead of just going on talk shows and talking about trying for historical verisimilitude. He keeps what he likes and jettisons the rest. He said as much for Pizzle of the Chrizzle, and though I don’t know a lot about Mayan history, I have no reason to believe I know any more about now after having sat through ACRAPALYPTO.
(And what kind of title is “Apocalypto”? That isn’t Mayan.)
I thought the main storyline was rather corny, and I was disappointed in the ending, but I very much liked the middle portion, in the Mayan city. It was great just to watch. Overall, definitely worth seeing. I’d give him at least a B on historical verisimilitude (excluding the last 5 minutes).
I liked it for what it was: a fast-paced chase movie through a gorgeously-photographed jungle. Watching it, I didn’t have any thoughts about the controversies in the filmmaker’s life, or how historically accurate it may have been. I was engrossed and entertained for 2-plus hours, and that’s all I can ask from a movie.
Phooey, not for historical inaccuracy, but for animal husbandry. Pigs hunt only truffles. Unless he hunts by rooting around with his snout, I call B.S.
lissener, I haven’t seen every Mel Gibson movie, but at least a few of the ones he’s acted in seem to feature a really disgusting scene (eerily similar in each case) portraying the abuse and mortification of his own body. I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest a reason for this, but it does seem to be a pattern: the good guy gets the snot kicked out of him beyond all reason and expectation of survival, and later returns to triumph. I wish I could think of the original story from which this template is derived…
I think you’re referring to Cool Hand Luke. No, wait; Saving Private Ryan. No–Amistad! Wait. Superman! No, I mean Blade Runner! Or was it E.T.? Dang. It’s on the tip of my tongue . . .
I admit I have not seen the movie, so I might later find out it really sucks donkey balls, but you need to come up with more objective reason for your disapproval.
Otherwise you might as well just leave the OP as Apocalypto Sucks, or even not write an OP at all.
So let me see if I have this straight: you haven’t seen the movie, and* I* need to come up with a different reason for my disapproval. Based on you haven’t seen the movie. Cool, just so I know the rules.
Why can’t I have an issue with your reasons for disapproving the movie? What if you said the movie sucks because Mel Gibson hates Jews? Would I have to watch to movie first before I could respond to that?
Um, I didn’t say that. What if I said I hated the movie because “macaroni” is spelled without a Q? The reasons I gave were specifically a reaction to seeing the movie.
Right, but it was a very subjective reaction. What you said in your OP was no better than if you said you hated the movie because macaroni is spelled without a Q.
