[QUOTE=capybara]
To be fair, that article states that pictures of a sacrificial ceremony suggest it was a common practice (imagine all the crucifixions the Christian Europeans performed! Millions of thirty-something men must have been nailed to trees, into the twentieth century).
[/QUOTE]
Or imagine if the violence of our culture were judged based solely on a surviving boxed set of Mel Gibson DVDs. 
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Heard the review on NPR’s Morning Edition on the way home from work this morning. According to the reviewer, Mel’s trying to show how moral decay causes a civilization to collapse. The reviewer then says, “Since none of his entourage will say it, I will. You are not part of the solution. You are part of the problem. A big part.” In short, he feels that the level of violence depected in this film is so repugnant that it calls into question the nature of any society that would allow it to be shown.
[/QUOTE]
This is my problem as well. I think there’s something inherently hypocritical in “deploring” societal ills like violence by lovingly, graphically, and repeatedly portraying them: “Here’s a guy having his heart literally ripped out. Isn’t this terrible??? Let’s zoom in!” I think Mel Gibson has a preoccupation with violence that seems almost sexual, and that probably reflects some major deep-seated probalems, including rage. The guy’s got more issues than National Geographic. I find his use of graphic violence to be distracting and unnecessary to the stories he tries to tell, and I find his high-minded justifications for what is IMO obviously a personal visceral love of gore for gore’s sake to be bullshit. So no, I’m not going to see Apocalypto.
“Gee Tamerlane, that’s an impressive pile of heads you’ve got, but what with all the rats and crows, it really isn’t that impressive, its just kind of yucky.”
“Don’t worry. Once they’re done, it will look great.”
“See, that’s why guys like you who take the long view rise to the top!”
OK, so “Apocalypto’s” release is why Bravo has been running “Braveheart” in heavy rotation lately. I guess the History Channel will have plenty of “Secrets of the Maya Unleashed” shows as well. If that’s the case, I wish TMC would show “Kings of the Sun,” which was one of the most expensive B&W movies made. A civilization of Maya-like people lead by George Chicaris are driven out to sea by a culture with better weapons, land in North America and build a new temple. A local chief, Yul Brynner, is captured, given a bird-feather cape and told that it will be his great honor to have his living heart cut out. Anybody else remember this one?
Or can anyone answer why, for a movie scrited in the Mayan language, it has for its title the Greek work for “revealed?” A reference to the Book of Revelations? Is that soMel can get his Catholic ya-yas out somehow?
Oh well - at least Mel is RC instead of LDS, otherwise he’d have Jesus putting in an appearance in Pre-Colombian America.
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
It’s getting good reviews. 82% at Rotten Tomatoes
[/QUOTE]
Down to 60% now, and a rank of 67 at Meta-critic (both scores are still higher than Blood Diamond or The Holiday, both also opening today).
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
True, but I think that’s a very difficult accent. If your not used to hearing it, it sounds odd.
[/QUOTE]
I’m used to it, and his sounds fake. His Boston accent in The Departed was terrible, too-- at least he only used it in a few scenes.
**
Slithy Tove**: Apocalypto means “I reveal” in Greek, and it does seem odd to give the movie a Greek title, and a confusing one since people will think of Apocalypse and think it’s a Christian themed film. From what I’ve heard in interveiws, Mel says the title refers to a new beginning-- an end, and a new beginning. It’s got environmentalist overtones as well-- some historians conjecture that the Mayan civilization fell due to poor land management policies and overpopulation.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewer Steve Murray gives it a B-. He calls it a “simplistic, super-bloody but very well-made adventure.”
More:
I want to see it. Mel Gibson shows violence that (a) is appropriate to the time and place in which his movies occur and (b) is fairly accurate and appropriate for the events which occur. That’s uncommon, and he while he doesn’t shy away from the blood-n-guts, I’ve never gotten the feeling that he dumps it on the camera just for shock value, or in some gore-rotica display. He shows it because he’s making a very good movie, and because this is what real life is like, no more or less than Saving Private Ryan.
Just got back from seeing it.
A couple of quick impressions (sans spoilers):
The movie is very bloody and violent. However, the violence is mostly in service of the plot. Warfare is and was brutal. Why sugar-coat it? Better that the full horror be shown lest war and conquest be romanticized.
I have a bigger problem with the way the Maya were depicted. Mel likes his heroes virtuous and his villains extra-villainous (as we saw in Braveheart and The Patriot). To that end, the Maya (who are the villains of this piece) were made to seem exceptionally malign and bloodthirsty. I think the folks complaining about that have a case.
Overall, though, Gibson knows how to entertain an audience and has made a gripping film. Worth a look. As entertainment, I’d probably grade it a “B” or “B-”. Don’t think I would trust it as history.
Thumbs up from me. And, let me be the first person in the thread to call it a bloody good movie.
I don’t have any Mel Gibson baggage, and I wasn’t looking for historical accuracy. I got just what I expected–a fast paced story of survivial set in Mesoamerica. As to the complaints of violence and gore–I’d wager that there was at least as much graphic bodily destruction in “Flags of Our Fathers”. I think that they protest too much.
The acting was top-notch, and the jungle came alive–lush, beautiful, and dangerous all at the same time. As has been mentioned, there are a couple of deux ex machina moments, but they didn’t particularly bother me. It’s 2.5 hours long, but I never wanted to look at my watch–I was immersed from the opening scenes. Apocalypto took me away from the “real” world for a couple of hours, and gave me something to think about. What more can you ask from a movie?
I saw it tonight. I thought it was pretty kick ass. Some of the criticisms are technically accurate. The villains are kind of one dimensional mustache twirlers, there really isn’t a lot of insight into Mayan culture or religion, there is one giant deus ex machina and there are definitely some trademark “Gibsonian” elements to it (a hero that suffers a ridiculous amount of physical damage, lots of blood and gore, father/son themes, public executions), but I didn’t think any of that really detracted from my enjoyment of the movie. I was with it all the way – sad when I was supposed to be sad, scared when I was supposed to be scared, elated when I was supposed to be elated.
There’s a shot at the end that comes out of nowhere and is kind of a head scratcher (and it’s an image that in, its own way, is the most frightening, unsettling moment in the film) but I thought the movie was a damn good ride for the most part. The second half of the film is basically one long chase scene and has some really good stuff in it.
The acting seemed ok considering it was mostly non-actors. I thought the guy who played the sadistic little henchman did a good job of making you want to punch him in the face even if he was a little cartoonish. Thumbs up here. I might even go see it again.
Hedging my bets here and assuming there won’t be a new thread now that the movie is out. Just got back from seeing it. There are a lot of reasons I wanted to see the film but when I first heard about it I was excited because Mayan/Aztec art usually seems to depict the temple style dress with elaborate head wear and so forth, but illustrations in history books tend to show more of the common dress so I was hoping to finally see a realistic portrayal of royal and temple dress. Aside of course from the whole Mel Gibson controversies, the reviews seemed very polarized. There were a lot of 3.5-4 star reviews and several 1/2-1 star reviews. There was at least one review that called it THE worst movie of the year and at least one that called it THE best. And there were several reviews noting the incredible violence and graphic gore. There was also some talk about not portraying the culture entirely accurately and also in not spending much time depicting the culture.
[SPOILER]I really liked this film. It could have been a little bit better and then it might have been a great film, but as it stands it was just really good.
It was violent to some degree, and there was some blood, but it was all in service of the plot. It was much much tamer than I was expecting given the reviews. Yes there are many deaths, a few decapitations, some ripping out of hearts, blood letting, ant stitching, booby traps, and a brain spurt ala monty python/kill bill. But most of it is consequential (people are fighting so the will get hurt) and the injuries are shown realistically and not in an over the top way. The deaths that are stylistic (at the temple) are there as commentary on the state of the city empire and the ruling class. It’s a little hard to describe, but the gore that there is, is shown just enough to be realistic and effective, but not enough to be prurient and garish and for it’s own sake.
The film works well as an action/adventure with the escape/rescue goal which is also a good vehicle from which to take us through the jungle and city. And although subtle, the moral themes of the decline of cultures and the corruption of the city/technologyruling class, and man with nature / man out of nature were thought provoking as well. I was simultaneously entranced by the jungle and wanting to escape my culture and run away to nature, and at the same time petrified of the dozens of dangers in the wild and potential hazards from animals, disease, the environment, and violent tribes.
I heard that Mel wrote most of the movie before doing any research so I wouldn’t be surprised if there were inaccuracies. And even if it was 100% accurate, the reviewers were right about us not getting an in depth look at the culture or history of the period. But I don’t think that was really the point. The story wasn’t set up to really tell us all about that. The story was more thematic, and the setting serves the themes while also being visually spectacular. Both the jungle scenes and the city scenes were amazing to look at. And it would be my pick to win this year’s oscar for costume design. Between the eclipse and the twist ending (which reminded me a lot of Lord of the Flies) it should be easy to pick the exact day the movie took place historically assuming there was any accuracy to it.
Overall I found the movie engaging and visceral, and visually thrllling. Thematically it was both terrifying and hopeful - a warning and an inspiration - and though provoking. A very well made film that could have potentially been a masterpiece.
[/SPOILER]
DtC pretty much wrote what I would’ve wrote. An exciting and bloody action flick with the usual number of action flick cliches and silliness.
And did I imagine it, or was there an homage to Dustin Hoffman’s “I’m walking here!” line from Midnight Cowboy?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
And did I imagine it, or was there an homage to Dustin Hoffman’s “I’m walking here!” line from Midnight Cowboy?
[/QUOTE]
One of the two reviewers I cited early mentioned this, although I’m not sure if (s)he thought it was intentional or accidental.
Just checked my local listings, and it looks like it’s only playing in theaters at the malls around here. I’m don’t know if I can stomach venturing into one of those until after Christmas…
[QUOTE=Jodi]
This is my problem as well. I think there’s something inherently hypocritical in “deploring” societal ills like violence by lovingly, graphically, and repeatedly portraying them: “Here’s a guy having his heart literally ripped out. Isn’t this terrible??? Let’s zoom in!” I think Mel Gibson has a preoccupation with violence that seems almost sexual, and that probably reflects some major deep-seated probalems, including rage. The guy’s got more issues than National Geographic. I find his use of graphic violence to be distracting and unnecessary to the stories he tries to tell, and I find his high-minded justifications for what is IMO obviously a personal visceral love of gore for gore’s sake to be bullshit. So no, I’m not going to see Apocalypto.
[/QUOTE]
You took the words right out of my mouth. Count me in as missing this one as well.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
One of the two reviewers I cited early mentioned this, although I’m not sure if (s)he thought it was intentional or accidental.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure it was intentional. In context, the line should have been “We are walking here.” The only way to explain the use of the singular would be as a playful reference to the Hoffman line.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Slithy Tove**: Apocalypto means “I reveal” in Greek, and it does seem odd to give the movie a Greek title, and a confusing one since people will think of Apocalypse and think it’s a Christian themed film.
[/QUOTE]
My first reaction upon seeing the trailers was to say, “What an awful title!” It brings to mind a bad sci-fi flick.
I was a bit surprised that the marketing for this film emphasised Gibson’s involvement, in light of the controversy.
[QUOTE=Production designer Tom Sanders]
“It was really fun to say [to consulting archaeologist Richard Hansen], ‘Is there any proof they didn’t do this?’ When he said, 'There is no proof they didn’t do that, ’ that gives you some license to play.”
.
[/QUOTE]
So, it seems the guiding ethos here was not looking for proof that the Maya did something, but as long as there was no evidence they didn’t it was OK for inclusion. This strikes me a shoddy and unworthy. Why go through all the crap to pretend to make an acurate film when it’s really just a desire to make another action flick, albeit in a foreign language.