It's in Mayan, it's about the end of a civilization, Mel Gibson has been in the news and has a wild film past, and it has a 90% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
It's also wildly, incredibly violent. When the hearts are torn from the beating victims and someone's face is ripped off, apparently it resembles an anatomy lecture more than The Temple of Doom. I don't like watching violence.
I am going to see it, because Matt wants to see it and it's his birthday next week. I imagine I'll spend much of the movie the way I spent The Passion of the Christ - curled in my chair with my eyes closed. I have to say, the POTC I saw was a very lovely, moving, gentle film with a part about Mary the mother of Jesus that made me cry.
I'm nervous about watching the film, but I must say, the look of it is enchanting.
[ December 12, 2006, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Mel Gibson will never get a dime of mine again.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It sounds like Gibson is being true to the violence being done, which I really appreciate.
I also find the premise of the movie fascinating.
So, definitely will be seeing it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'll see it, but I'm not telling Chris it's in Mayan at least until after we've bought the tickets and are sitting in the theater.
I think the previews are pretty interesting, so I'd be interested in this movie regardless of the filmmaker. The fact that it's one of Mel's is just a safety net. It might suck as a movie, but I bet it's fascinating as an insight into megalomania.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What's amazing to me is how much the critics like it right now. One said that the Mayan doesn't matter - it's a pure action movie and on that level it delivers completely.
If only I LIKED action movies...
On the other hand, I dislike ones like The Island, but this is supposed to be much better than anything Michael Bay does. That's interesting.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
I might rent it later. I don't have the funds to see many movies in the theater right now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't even see Passion, so I'm certainly not going to see this.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
No Way.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I never saw The Passion either. What is supposed to make this a good story? I'm slightly intrigued that it's in Mayan. If I ever see The Passion, it would probably be for the language aspect.
As for the Mel factor, I was much more disgusted by Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman getting divorced after making Eyes Wide Shut. The Brook Shields thing actually improved my disposition toward Tom Cruise. He didn't direct the movie, but he was the whole reason everyone was supposed to go see it, right? It was just after that movie (which I also did not see) just seemed to capitalize on them being actually married, and then they weren't. Something about it seemed deeply evil to me. It's not like my usual irritation with celebrities like Robin Williams or Ben Affleck. But as I said at the time, Mel was just saying in a drunken way what most of the news media was implying, with the whole "Israel should show restraint" thing. So I guess that's how it winds up being like the Cruise/Kidman divorce. It's like they made deals with the devil and have had to pay up.
Well, I sure think about movies I don't even see quite a bit.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I can find no reason not to see it. It sure beats out the dozens of pointless movies that are out their only to show boobies and make the producers money.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I saw it, if you want info about violence, etc, let me know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If I declined to see movies made by people whose actions or views I loathe, I don't think I'd ever see any.
[ December 04, 2006, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The only movie I think I will see this month is Night at the Museum. The trailer had my wife in tears she was laughing so hard.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I was actually willing to give Gibson another chance after he apologized for what he said to that cop. The apology impressed me.
But after what he said about Michael Richards, screw him. I can't even watch Lethal Weapon any more, and I really, really liked that movie.
I haven't tried, but he's probably ruined The Stand for me a little as well. Despite the casting of Jamie Sheridan as Randall Flagg in the movie, Mel Gibson has always been the very image of Randall Flagg from the book. I don't often visualize characters, but everything from appearance to mannerisms to style of speech made me think of Gibson.
I guess I didn't realize how much he was like him in personality as well...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The only movie I think I will see this month is Night at the Museum. The trailer had my wife in tears she was laughing so hard.
What about Pursuit of Happyness? That looks awesome.
And I have to stop watching the trailer. It makes me cry.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You would choose Gibson over Christopher Walken for Flagg?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I was actually willing to give Gibson another chance after he apologized for what he said to that cop. The apology impressed me.
But after what he said about Michael Richards, screw him. I can't even watch Lethal Weapon any more, and I really, really liked that movie.
I haven't tried, but he's probably ruined The Stand for me a little as well. Despite the casting of Jamie Sheridan as Randall Flagg in the movie, Mel Gibson has always been the very image of Randall Flagg from the book. I don't often visualize characters, but everything from appearance to mannerisms to style of speech made me think of Gibson.
I guess I didn't realize how much he was like him in personality as well...
What did he say about Michael Richards? i do not like too much violence, it makes me dizzy. Yet I like Sin City.
Posted by GForce (Member # 9584) on :
What did Gibson say about Richards? I must've missed that.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm sure I'll see Apocolypto on cable. Though honestly it doesn't look that interesting to me.
I used to really like Mel Gibson. I even defended him when the Passion came out. But no, He *is* anti-semetic, and that makes me sad.
But like MPH said, if I refused to watch any movie or read any book by or starring someone with views I found abhorrent, I'd never be able to enjoy any art at all.
And if I refused to associate with people whose views I find evil, I'd never be able to leave my room.
Pix
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I'd take boobies over excessive gore any day. Add in Mel Gibson and I'm even less interested. Pass.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
There are also a TON of naked butts. You really can't get around seeing them. `
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well I'm definitely in, then. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I won't go out of my way to avoid this movie, but nothing's going to convince me to get up and drag myself to the theater to pay $10 to see it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The only movie I think I will see this month is Night at the Museum. The trailer had my wife in tears she was laughing so hard.
What about Pursuit of Happyness? That looks awesome.
And I have to stop watching the trailer. It makes me cry.
That does look really good to, but I think we'll hold off on that for Netflix like we usually do.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Mel Gibson Feels Michael Richards' Pain
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The only thing I can find is that Mel said he was sorry for the guy and, "They'll probably torture him for a while and then let him go. I like him."
I guess if you want to burn Michael at the stake then this would be a bad thing. There might be something else he said but I can't find it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I won't go out of my way to avoid this movie, but nothing's going to convince me to get up and drag myself to the theater to pay $10 to see it.
How long is it? 'cause the theatres here only charge $5 on weeknights. But I have to be in a MOOD to sit and watch a really long movie. And there have to be a lot of nachos involved.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is apparently a very long chase scene. There was an interview with Gibson last week where he said that the idea started with wanting to do a really fantastic chase scene. Cars had been done, planes have been done, boats have been done, bikes have been done...what about on foot? Why would someone be running for their lives with high stakes and stick to just their feet? How about a society with no alternatives (there were no large domestic animals in the Americas before the Europeans came)? So, the Mayans!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I really want to see this movie, I am sure Mel is capable of showing much more then just violence, though I imagine that will likely dominate the movie. The idea of a chase movie has always intrigued me, and the fact its in such an exotic location, and the lengths Mel will go in presenting that time and place make me want to see it. I hope the movie is good and that it warrants a warm reception, I'd like more film makers who think similarly to Mel Gibson, (in regards to movie approaches) to see that his approach is not without merit.
I've heard ALOT about a waterfall shot that was apparently the first of its kind in movie history. Keep your eyes open for it
I don't get what is offensive about the Michael Richards comment.
Ill be honest I was one of the, "I won't look at Mel Gibson the same way again after his comments on Jews, but certain folks in hatrack really illuminated my understanding on why people might say the things they do while under the influence.
If Mel is indeed sorry for his comments who am I to refuse such an apology? I'd rather not be the one holding that sin in the end.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
The chase scene was too long, IMO. It seemed like it was an hour long and while it had some *gasp* worthy parts, ended up being kind of boring.
pH, total it's about 2 hours.
edit: BlackBlade, the waterfall scene was definately one of the oooh wow parts of the chase.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: You would choose Gibson over Christopher Walken for Flagg?
I've heard people suggest Walken. The thing is, Flagg is described as being handsome, and charming, and being able to seem very pleasant in a way that doesn't bring Walken to mind for me. He'd also have to have done it many years ago, because Flagg looks younger.
(Of course, Gibson is too old for the role now as well.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hmmm. Interesting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's also wildly, incredibly violent. When the hearts are torn from the beating victims and someone's face is ripped off, apparently it resembles an anatomy lecture more than The Temple of Doom.
That pretty well sums up why I won't be seeing it. I have no desire to see graphic violence no matter how well its done. A good story teller should be able to tell any story without resorting to graphic depictions of violent unspeakable acts. The only reason to do this is to appeal to an audience that wants to see blood and gore.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It looks pretty awesome to me.
When I visited Mexico a couple years ago and toured Chichen Itza, I was really fascinated by all the rituals, architecture, and history of the place and people. I'm glad there's a movie about the Mayans. They seem like they were a crazy, vibrant people, and I would love to learn more about them.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
Nope. I don't really care about the amount of violence, but the story just doesn't really appeal to me.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
They paint people blue.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Isn't that the Celts?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The only reason to do this is to appeal to an audience that wants to see blood and gore.
I do not agree with this.
I think showing what violence really looks like is vital if you want to tell the truth about violence and those who practice it.
Making 'violent, unspeakable' acts palatable by taking them off-screen is just another way of lying. It's not repackaging the truth in palatable ways. It's a lie.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Isn't that the Celts?
*shrug* They painted people blue in the movie. And then a few got their heads cut off.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I'm definitely going. This will be my first movie in about 7 months.
As to all the hoopla surrounding him...Mel Gibson has my respect as an artist. I usually don't pay much attention to artists and entertainer's lives.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
Like Mel can ruin my opinion with one drunken tirade, who hasn't been evil with a skinful?
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: It looks pretty awesome to me.
When I visited Mexico a couple years ago and toured Chichen Itza, I was really fascinated by all the rituals, architecture, and history of the place and people. I'm glad there's a movie about the Mayans. They seem like they were a crazy, vibrant people, and I would love to learn more about them.
Do you honestly think you'll learn about the Mayans through a Hollywood movie made about them? That would seem (to me) to be one of the most inaccurate sources in existence.
Edit: or maybe I misinterpreted what you said, and "a movie being made about them" is separate from "I would love to learn more about them"
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Mel Gibson will never get a dime of mine again.
Right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Doubtful I'll see this before it hits TV. Interests me very little, and it's one of the few times I dislike the director so much that I'll scorn his movie.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I get to see so few movies in the theaters these days that I'm not even putting something like Apocolypto on my list. Life's too short for me to spend the few times I get to go out with my wife getting bludgeoned with graphic, unnecessary violence.
As far as it being Gibson, I don't really care, aside from the reputation of "Passion" suggesting to me that if I'm told it's gruesome, I should take that warning to heart. I was a little amused when I saw the previews that he'd put his name on top of the title at this particular juncture of his career. Given the rather obvious reactions some people are having to him as a public personality right now, you'd think he'd have a narrator whisper "A Mel Gibson film" during the fade out.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
There is an interesting theory about that. Namely: That they think the 'Passion of the Christ' audience will be more likely to come see this film if they flaunt Mel Gibson's name, since Bible-belters dislike the Jews. Kind of a way to stick it to the Jews. "Come see this movie and prove to the world that we like it when people hate Jews!"
I'm not sayig Bible-belters hate Jews, and I'm not saying the film company thinks they hate Jews... I'm saying I've heard this floated, as a theory.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't buy that at all. It sounds like a paranoid theory.
Mel Gibson is much more well known for the Passion than for whatever happened recently. It is much more likely his name is up on top because he produced and directed it and the last movie he produced and directed made half a billion dollars.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Having come from the bible belt, I was in high school before I learned that some people were anti-semetic and after someone defined it for me I was floored.
My reaction was "But... But... JESUS was a Jew!!!"
Pix
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Well there really is nothing like controversy to promote a film. Da Vinci code probably wouldn't even had become a film if certain people were not so up in arms over the book.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Me too. The only time I ever even encountered the idea before I was in college was in the Merchant of Venice.
I think saying that Mel Gibson's name is there because it is appealing to anti-Semitism in the Bible Belt is some not-so-subtle bigotry and snobbishness on the part of the person putting for the theory. It's ascribing the worst possible motive for an action that is sensibly and easily explained by other motives. It sounds like another jab at dumb Southerners. Not impressive.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The fact that some people are so unwilling to forgive regardless of what Gibson does really bothers me.
There are folks who are not Jews who are saying, "Ill never support anything he does again!"
I find that attitude sickening, it is to be hoped that folks like that never find themselves in need of other's forgiveness as they should only expect the same level of scorn from everyone else.
Heaven forbid we allow people to change and make themselves better, its much easier to hang on relentlessly to their mistakes. Just another reason I don't look to Hollywood for a moral compass.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:There are folks who are not Jews who are saying, "Ill never support anything he does again!"
Well, I'm one of those people. I'm sorry you find it sickening. Anti-semitism upsets me. It's not up to me to "forgive" Mel Gibson -- he did nothing to personally wrong me. And I don't hate Mel Gibson. I want to be clear about that.
I simply choose (now) not to support his work. I think I have a right to do that, without it being said that I'm relentlessly hanging onto his mistakes.
You know how people are always saying, "if you don't like Author A, don't buy his books; if you don't like Radio Show X, change the channel; if you're upset about the content on TV, turn it off"?
That's what I choose, now, to do with Mel Gibson.
That's sickening?
Really?
I loved 'Braveheart', and 'Passion' -- and didn't he direct 'Man Without A Face'? I've been a huge fan of his filmmaking. And me choosing not to support his work is more about disappointment than it is about hating him, or something. I was terribly disappointed to find, especially after defending 'Passion' up and down, that he really did harbor those kinds of anti-semitic feelings.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I find it the backlash against Mel Gibson fascinating, considering Roman Polanski gets a standing ovation and he raped a 13-year-old girl.
I also find it amusing that this movie is, by all reports, absolutely spectacular - amazing, vivid, wonderful filmmaking. There's no religious angle to use an excuse to ignore it, so I can't wait to see if it gets any recognition.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
To add my two cents, I have lived all over the South, and have never heard anyone say anything about Jews.
On the other hand, I have been friends with Jews who have said that they had been on the recieving end of anti-Semitism.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
I don't skip movies because of the people involved in them. Sorry, I just don't, perhaps that means I don't put enough emphasis on morality of the people who make them???
I see a movie because of the storyline, the premise, the action, whatever. And on the flipside, yes I'll see a movie because of who is involved. Example?
I didn't quit going to Tom Cruise movies because MI2 or Collateral stunk. I don't avoid movies with Nicolas Cage because I've never been impressed with him as an actor.
But I did watch more Kevin Costner movies because Dances with Wolves was so great. I do keep watching Tom Hanks movies because he is such a good actor.
I guess I choose not to judge people by what they do or don't do. Thats between them and someone else. I'd rather be entertained and will not bring other factors into the equation of choosing what I'll see at the movies.
Just my $.02.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
"Anti-Semitism in the Bible Belt" is not an actual characteristic of the South (although there are undoubtedly nutty people everywhere); it's just part of the bigotry some people have against Southerners.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I always feel a little weird about watching Woody Allen films nowadays, and prior to the early 90's I was a huge fan.
But then, I didn't vote for Bush in '00 because of that 11th hour drunk driving arrest thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"Anti-Semitism in the Bible Belt" is not an actual characteristic of the South
That sort of depends on how you define anti-Semitism and what makes up a characteristic. People from the south on average score the highest by far in scores of prejudice and bigotry, one of the main ones of which is anti-Semitism.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, there is prejudice in the South. Anti-Semitism is a kind of prejudice. Therefore, the South must be anti-Semitic.
Squick, your logic is faulty. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, the South scores significantly higher in tests of anti-Semitism than the rest of the country. I don't think my logic is the problem you're having.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Baloney.
Considering your past posting history, I am ignoring your posts in this thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Whatever you say.
Personally, I would have gone the refute my obviously incorrect (or baloney) assertions with fact to the contrary route, but maybe this'll work out better for you. Of course, if you looked for hard facts to argue against my position, you've probably found that I'm actually correct, which might explain your choice of tactics.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:There are folks who are not Jews who are saying, "Ill never support anything he does again!"
Well, I'm one of those people. I'm sorry you find it sickening. Anti-semitism upsets me. It's not up to me to "forgive" Mel Gibson -- he did nothing to personally wrong me. And I don't hate Mel Gibson. I want to be clear about that.
I simply choose (now) not to support his work. I think I have a right to do that, without it being said that I'm relentlessly hanging onto his mistakes.
You know how people are always saying, "if you don't like Author A, don't buy his books; if you don't like Radio Show X, change the channel; if you're upset about the content on TV, turn it off"?
That's what I choose, now, to do with Mel Gibson.
That's sickening?
Really?
I loved 'Braveheart', and 'Passion' -- and didn't he direct 'Man Without A Face'? I've been a huge fan of his filmmaking. And me choosing not to support his work is more about disappointment than it is about hating him, or something. I was terribly disappointed to find, especially after defending 'Passion' up and down, that he really did harbor those kinds of anti-semitic feelings.
See I can understand that attitude if you are unrepentant about it, but I honestly think that Mel Gibson has asked for forgiveness and has tried to slay his demons. Now I could be wrong about that, but until I have evidence that its wrong I am inclined to believe what I do know on the matter.
If a man is repentant why should we continue to loath them?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I don't loathe him.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Baloney.
Considering your past posting history, I am ignoring your posts in this thread.
By the way, this is such a weird thing to say. What past posting history are you talking about? I once had someone do this to me, (I don't recall who) and they said "Considering your history of anti-religious posts, I choose not to speak to you." And I was like, "What the heck -- WHAT history of anti-religious posts?"
I just think it's a bit cheap to invoke some imaginary past posting history to demean and dismiss the thoughts of a fellow hatracker.
Maybe if you plan to ignore someone, you should just ignore them, rather than adding insult to injury by telling them *why* (in cases when the reason is as ethereal as this one).
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Considering that everyone I know is a confusing bundle of contradictory virtues and vices, and so many of them, including my wonderful Mexican wife, have inexplicable biases for and against things, despite struggling long and hard to be impartial and fair and all that "kuso," I'm going to give Gibson a chance here and see his film,
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: There is an interesting theory about that. Namely: That they think the 'Passion of the Christ' audience will be more likely to come see this film if they flaunt Mel Gibson's name, since Bible-belters dislike the Jews. Kind of a way to stick it to the Jews. "Come see this movie and prove to the world that we like it when people hate Jews!"
I'm not sayig Bible-belters hate Jews, and I'm not saying the film company thinks they hate Jews... I'm saying I've heard this floated, as a theory.
I also think this is nonsense.
Despite the fact that anti-Semitism is more common in the Bible Belt (there are many studies backing that particular assertion up), the theory just requires a few leaps too many.
People like Mel Gibson. That is why his name is on the movie. It's really that simple.
Now, I personally do not believe he has been all that sincerely repentant, and might not go to see this movie because of him. But I don't have to make that decision, because I have absolutely zero interest in seeing it anyway!
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
The movie looks interesting. If it comes out around here, I might go watch it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Are you sure that there are studies to back that up, rivka, or do you think that just because of my past posting history?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In spite of it, since you asked.
That is, when you have made statistical assertions in the past, I have not always agreed with your interpretation of the studies in question (and/or your choice of which studies you consider valid). However, I happen to have seen these studies long before you brought them up.
And since I have no interest in arguing with you or Katie, let's leave it at that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Wow. Which studies would those have been? I've always been very careful with that (only making claims that I was pretty darn sure were supported by the data) and I don't recall you ever saying anything about it at the time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nope. I didn't. Nor do I have interest in doing so now. I would not have brought it up, either. But if you are going to use my post to take a slam at Katie, I am going to react unfavorably to that.
I know it's hard to believe, given my post count, but I frequently read threads and post little or not at all.
For the record, I am not saying you act in bad faith. Just that your interpretation of data and mine frequently differ.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ahhh...to be popular so that people wouldn't feel that it was perfectly fine to take unsupported cheap shots at me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Rivka,
That makes sense. In all my years in the South I never encountered it or heard of it, but I also wonder if I actually knew any Jewish people from the South in all my years of living there. I think between that and that most of my associations were Mormon (the LDS church has a much-sought-after-by-members branch of BYU in Jerusalem), it makes sense that I never would.
I think what I object to most in TL's theory is that it responds to a dreadful and defamatory outbust against one people with blanket and unreasonable accusations against another. Surely we can raise the level of debate above that.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
We have Jewish people in the South?
I think Apocolypto looks good. Since violence was a part of the Mayan culture, I think it's only truthful to portray it in the movie. This was a major part of their religion. How could it not influence every part of their lives?
Plus, I want to see if they can show the characters in their own culture and still make them appeal to Americans.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I heard an interesting review on NPR this morning. The interesting part of it was that it mentioned the extreme violence and also talked about the theme of the movie, that no culture can be conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within. The reviewer concluded by saying something along the lines that this movie fails as a cautionary tale for us because it is so much an example of the very problem. In other words, the reviewer found it so extremely graphic in its violence that it sullies its viewers.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Maybe they could replace the bits where they rip out hearts with really strong hugs.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Do you think that actually showing the violence is critical to the movie as a work of art?
Could not the same effect be acheived by implying the violence? For instance, showing all the set up to the sacrifice, showing the knife at the chest, showing the reactions of the participants, everything short of actually showing the penetration and removal of the heart? (I'm arguing theoretically, here, since I haven't seen the movie yet.)
Do you think film can go too far in portraying violence? Where do you draw the line, if you do?
(I guess this could be moved to another thread, but I'm lazy.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks for engaging me in dialogue about this, Karl. Sadly, Rabbit declined.
quote: Do you think that actually showing the violence is critical to the movie as a work of art?
I can't speak to how it's used in the movie, as of course I haven't seen the movie yet, but it is historical truth that brutal, ritualized sacrifice was a central part of Mayan culture. Mayans watched it. If you want to show the full truth of Mayan culture, then you must show what Mayans did.
quote: Could not the same effect be acheived by implying the violence? For instance, showing all the set up to the sacrifice, showing the knife at the chest, showing the reactions of the participants, everything short of actually showing the penetration and removal of the heart? (I'm arguing theoretically, here, since I haven't seen the movie yet.)
No, it couldn't. As your post demonstrates, having something implied isn't the same as seeing it.
quote: Do you think film can go too far in portraying violence? Where do you draw the line, if you do?
I like the truth. I think there's plenty of other cinema that sugar coats violence, sex, and many other things to make them bearable, if not acceptable and appealing. We need to have more art that shows just how ugly violence really is.
Seeing a heart being ripped out of a chest brings home in a way nothing else can just how ugly and brutal and nasty certain parts of Mayan culture were.
My question is, why lie about what something really is? Why hide it? To what purpose? How far do you have to go to hide ugliness? Taken far enough, Apocolypto could be just another Indiana Jones rip off.
Trying to satisfy the lowest common denominator, trying to make it so that art is acceptable to as many people as possible, means, to me, lying. I think this is wrong in both principle and practicality.
Now, certainly, I'm not saying that ugliness must be shown, that it is an end in and of itself (like, say, Faces of Death). That is where I think a personal line might be drawn. That is where I agree with Rabbit, that death is being glorified and reveled in, and that, for me, isn't something I want to do.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I think what I object to most in TL's theory is that it responds to a dreadful and defamatory outbust against one people with blanket and unreasonable accusations against another. Surely we can raise the level of debate above that
Uh...wait a minute. This isn't my theory. It's a theory I heard that I thought was interesting, and here was a topic on the subject, so I thought I'd pass along the theory. That's about the extent of that.
quote:I find it the backlash against Mel Gibson fascinating, considering Roman Polanski gets a standing ovation and he raped a 13-year-old girl.
That seems to presuppose that it's the same people ovating Polanski who are backlashing Gibson. Is it? It might be, I don't know. I remember loving 'The Ninth Gate' before realizing who Polanski was. Haven't seen any of his films since.
I also won't see films by Victor Salva or written by Dan O'Bannon. (Though O'Bannon, admittedly, is just because he's a terrible blight on all of us. Not because he's a pederast.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thanks for the response, SS. I always like engaging you in dialog, even if I don't always agree with you exactly.
I agree with your points, at least to a degree. It would be hard to find out where our opinions differ without dealing in specifics, though. We should re-visit this when we've both seen the movie.
Have you ever seen Pasolini's Salo?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Nope.
Truthfully, as I've gotten older, my tolerance for blood, gore, and pain has gotten lower. I will go see the movie because I like period pieces, and I like novelty, but I'm not going to enjoy the bloody bits at all.
One other thing I would like to point out, now that I'm thinking about it, is that I don't think this movie is glamorizing the pain and violence. It is what it is. I think this is important.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Squicky, I'll be willing to believe that the South is more antisemitic than other parts of the world, if you can provide evidence. (My evidence: I've never heard an anti-Jew statement by a Southerner, and I've lived in the South my entire life except for 4 months.)
[ December 08, 2006, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Storm, that's pretty much my own attitude about seeing this movie, too.
I mentioned Salo because it is a good, if extreme, example of a film full of extreme violence, sex, and debauchery wherein those things are integral to the entire point of the movie. (Now one could argue for or against the need to express the point in question, and many who have seen the movie have.) I couldn't recommend the movie to anyone and I'd probably steer clear of anyone who actually found it entertaining, but it would probably be interesting to discuss it with anyone who has seen it. (Probably not on this board, though.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think what I object to most in TL's theory is that it responds to a dreadful and defamatory outburst against one people with blanket and unreasonable accusations against another. Surely we can raise the level of debate above that.
I agree. And TL, while it might be interesting, I don't know that it should be perpetuated/spread -- that is how ideas become accepted, neh?
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: We have Jewish people in the South?
Did you not watch Driving Miss Daisy?
Will, it tends to be more a question of attitudes and (sometimes subtle) actions than in-your-face rhetoric. Which is consistent with Southern attitudes in general, IME.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
<---Southern Jew.
I, personally, have encountered far more anti-Semitism in the Northeast than I ever did in the South. Particularly in Boston. Also, I believe Midwesterners outscore Southerners in anti-Semitism.
There have been Jews in the South since before the American Revolution. The second boat after Oglethorpe was a group of Sephardic Jews (and 3 Ashkenazi families). They had no problems because they had the only doctor in Georgia for a very long time. One of the heroes of the American Revolution is Mordecai Sheftall, from Savannah, whose ancestors live there to this day.
I don't think Mel Gibson was at all sincere in his half-hearted attempts to apologize and make amends. Perhaps if he would intercede on behalf of the Jewish arresting officer who he berated and who is now having a lot of trouble because of it.
Also, I don't like angry drunks and I especially don't like drunk drivers. He could have killed someone and no one seems to care. Of course, it seems that half of Hollywood has DUIs and none of them ever seem to wind up in prison.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
I wanted to add something to the discussion between SS & Karl above.
I'm with SS sentiments above. And here is where I kinda draw the line. A movie that glorifies the gore just for the sake of being gory and doesn't really add anything to the movie. My prime example of this is Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers". I generally have liked Stone's movies, but this one was just ridiculous. Quentin Tarantino's early stuff was sorta like this too.
Then you have movies like "Apocalypto" that are telling a real or meaningful story where the violence is a vital part of the story.
I am fine with the gore, its not why I'm watching the movie, but if its there and helps tell the story, then its ok by me.
As for the Jewish/South thing that is being bantered about in this thread, I have two things to say: 1) I've lived in the South all my 33 years. Not alot of Jewish discussions have come up. And I've never heard any anti-Jew sentiments. 2) Start another thread if you feel the need to discuss that, this should be about "Apocalypto" and as far as I know, no Jews are portrayed in the movie.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by striplingrz: Start another thread if you feel the need to discuss that, this should be about "Apocalypto"
You can try to get people to do that, but on Hatrack, thread drift is an artform.
Welcome, btw. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:And TL, while it might be interesting, I don't know that it should be perpetuated/spread -- that is how ideas become accepted, neh?
So we shouldn't acknowledge any ideas unless we agree with them?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:I think what I object to most in TL's theory is that it responds to a dreadful and defamatory outbust against one people with blanket and unreasonable accusations against another. Surely we can raise the level of debate above that
Uh...wait a minute. This isn't my theory. It's a theory I heard that I thought was interesting, and here was a topic on the subject, so I thought I'd pass along the theory. That's about the extent of that.
quote:I find it the backlash against Mel Gibson fascinating, considering Roman Polanski gets a standing ovation and he raped a 13-year-old girl.
That seems to presuppose that it's the same people ovating Polanski who are backlashing Gibson. Is it? It might be, I don't know. I remember loving 'The Ninth Gate' before realizing who Polanski was. Haven't seen any of his films since.
I also won't see films by Victor Salva or written by Dan O'Bannon. (Though O'Bannon, admittedly, is just because he's a terrible blight on all of us. Not because he's a pederast.)
How about this as an alternate "I hate Mel Gibson" argument: I find his movies officious, vulgar and preachy. His attitude is not very good, so that doesn't earn him points, but I mainly have a problem with "The Passion of the Christ," because it was horrific as a movie. That's my opinion of his work, and it's reflected in my opinion of his personality as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:And TL, while it might be interesting, I don't know that it should be perpetuated/spread -- that is how ideas become accepted, neh?
So we shouldn't acknowledge any ideas unless we agree with them?
Nope. But just "passing something along" without specifically stating whether you agree or disagree, carries an implication that you agree, at least in part.
And if you tell a joke, or forward an email, "I was just passing it along" wouldn't be much defense either.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Nope. But just "passing something along" without specifically stating whether you agree or disagree, carries an implication that you agree, at least in part.
I tend to agree with that, actually.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I don't revile Mel Gibson and Michael Richards as bigots. I'm disappointed in them as an angry drunk and a person with poor impulse control and a fading sense of humor (respectively). But bigotry on the whole is such a shameful trait in our society, which is rooted out of everyone at every opportunity, that I have a lot of trouble believing that these guys are closet bigots whose secrets are finally being exposed. It's much easier to believe that both of them lost control of themselves and just said the most hurtful thing they could think of (which in our culture, would be racist or anti-Semitic remarks). It's still shameful, but it's an entirely different degree of shame than actual bigotry deserves.
I also don't understand the whole "boycott" attitude people get towards artists they dislike. I mean, if I thought someone's work was doing harm to the world, or was just bad, that would be a reason to avoid it, or to try and prevent it from succeeding. But the fact that you just don't like one specific person?
I mean, if you knew everyone in the world's most shameful secrets, and boycotted them all for it, you could never again spend a cent of your money. They guy who cooks your hamburgers might be a racist. The woman who sells you real estate might scream at her kids when she's drunk. So what do you do? Do you try and ruin that real estate agent's career? That's a great idea — now her kids have a drunk, screaming, unemployed mom.
Hundreds of people contributed a serious, heartfelt effort to the creation of your favorite movie. I'm sure at least ten of them are horrible, horrible people. Did you do something wrong by paying for that movie? Or is it perhaps worth the cost to reward good art — and good work of any kind — even if some of the money ends up in horrible people's pockets.
After all, horrible people need to eat, too. And most of the people that you might judge as "horrible" from one or two shameful revelations are actually no more horrible than you on the inside. They made a bad choice, they suffered from a misconception, or they just had a bad day. Do they deserve a ruined career any more than you do?
So yeah, I side with BB on this one. If I see Apocalypto (which is doubtful until the baby is older or we blast through our Netflix queue faster), it will be because I've heard it's a great film, and I want to experience and reward greatness, along with all the great people who contributed to it. If Mel Gibson is the worst person involved in that production, then holy crap, that must be the best team ever assembled in the history of the world, and they deserve a few bucks from me Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I find it the backlash against Mel Gibson fascinating, considering Roman Polanski gets a standing ovation and he raped a 13-year-old girl.
Hear, hear. Now, I am totally disgusted that Mel Gibson harbors such hateful thoughts (apparently) about Jews. Unfortunately, though, if I were to block out every person from my life who had bigoted feelings I found objectionable, I would be cutting off about 98% of my entire family, not to mention countless other facets of my life. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I've chosen instead to enjoy the good things these people do and to not support the things they do or say that are specifically in opposition to my feelings about other groups of people.
I just had this conversation recently with my husband, in fact, who asked how I can support Orson Scott Card with my money and my time spent hanging out on this very forum when he is opposed to gay people obtaining the right to marry people of the same sex. If I shunned everybody whose views I found objectionable, I'd have an incredibly boring, lonely life. Instead, I choose to support the things they do that aren't offensive and not support the things they do that I find offensive.
I never saw The Passion of the Christ, because once the reviews hit, there was a little too much emphasis on the RARR EVIL JEWS angle for me to be entirely comfortable with viewing it - which is a bummer, because I really love "ancient history" fiction and I heard that otherwise it was quite good - but I didn't want to watch a movie that was being reviewed as heavily anti-semitic.
I don't have any qualms about seeing Apocalypto, and I might actually see it tonight (and not just for Scooter the tapir's cameo). Even though I dislike Mel Gibson's anti-semitic behavior that time when he was pulled over by the cop, this movie itself is not (as far as I know) anything that I wouldn't want to see.
I'm not saying that everybody has to do as I do, of course. This is just the way I've chosen to reconcile being entertained by and related to people whose opinions I might find unsettling.
quote:I also find it amusing that this movie is, by all reports, absolutely spectacular - amazing, vivid, wonderful filmmaking. There's no religious angle to use an excuse to ignore it, so I can't wait to see if it gets any recognition.
I've heard the same. Isn't it at 69% on Rotten Tomatoes right now? Or something like that...? I've heard that it tends to go on a little too long and that it's pretty bloody, and that there's an extremely long chase scene that gets a little boring, but otherwise it sounds like a great flick. The ancient Central and South American cultures are some of my favorite to study and to experience via historical fiction, so I can't wait! If I don't catch it tonight, it'll be tomorrow for sure.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Maybe they could replace the bits where they rip out hearts with really strong hugs.
HAHHAHAHA!
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Okay, wait. I just found the best review ever:
quote:Passable but not really memorable, it's a movie that should have been released over the summer, which still reigns as the best time of year to see a guy get killed with frog-poisoned darts
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: and that there's an extremely long chase scene that gets a little boring
ummm...from what I've heard that is the ENTIRETY of the movie. So if you don't want to see an extremely long chase scene, i wouldn't suggest this flick.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Saw it this afternoon, the chase scene really isn't THAT long. I'd estimate that its about 1/3rd of the movie.
I liked the premise of the movie but it was hard to watch a movie that have no character development, I suppose I am just not used to it.
I enjoyed watching it with my brother but I probably won't buy it.
If you like history pieces though its worth a watch.
edit: Though I should confess the movie is quite different then any I have seen in awhile, and that usually means it would grow on me alot if I saw it again. The camera work really is top notch.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The camera work is very good. The costumes, sets, casting, acting, and - yes - direction are superb.
This film was ambitious and I think it succeeded pretty well in what it set out to do. It was exciting, horrifying, and at times humorous (mostly in the beginning). As for the violence, yes, it was graphic, but I know I've seen far worse in other movies. The violence and gore in this movie was anything but gratuitous.
One thing that stood out in this movie was how the hero's tribe was so much more civilized than the people who had managed to tame the jungle and build an enormous city. The fact that the movie was in Yucatek only enhanced it, for me, and Chris - who hates reading movies - said the subtitling wasn't distracting at all. I highly recommend this movie (with all the caveats about the violence above).
The movie was much more than just a chase scene, though that was an important part. (I agree it was about 1/3 of the whole.) I don't care that there wasn't a lot of deep character development (and there wasn't) because it's not that kind of movie. There's a lot of action, but I thought it was deeper than simply an "action movie" too.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Thanks, KarlEd! It sounds from what you say that it'll be right up my alley. I'll go tomorrow, right after my daily gym visit!
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Saw it a couple of hours ago and I loved it. It's a suspense/thriller/action film and nothing more. Any 'message' to it, if any, is truly irrelevant to that aspect of it. And the violence is truly WAY, WAY over hyped. Yes, there are depictions of human sacrifice and murder but given the culture and the time it's entirely appropriate depiction. It's never gratuitous, and dressing it down to make it more palatable would've been a copout, IMO.
Incidentally I find interesting that these critics who insist on pointing out the film's violent nature as a fault aren't around to point out the same about Hollywood darlings like Tarantino and Scorsese.
Hell, they weren't even whining this much about "Sin City" which indisputably has far worse gratuitous violence than Mel's film.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Haven't seen this movie yet, but from the reviews I've read (which rarely help me make up my mind), the gore and violence cloud over any sense of what could make this film good. Reviews (EW/Time, etc) say that it's well made, good acting from the lead character, good camera work, but the violence overshadows everything and gets in the way of what could've been a good story.
I don't believe everything reviews have to say, after all, they gave "Blood Diamond" a poor review, and I thought it was an utterly fantastic movie (that was quite violent, to boot).
It's something I might catch when it's out to rent, but then I never got around to seeing Passion of the Christ, so I may not catch this one either. Plenty of other good stuff coming out to catch my attention.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I just want to go on record for the final time as saying that I think there's a mischaracterization of motives happening here -- and that I (and I daresay others like me who would now be uncomfortable watching a Mel Gibson film) am not (are not?) "boycotting" the artist. I'm not trying to ruin anyone's career. I don't hate Mel Gibson. I don't even think of him as being a more horrible human being than most other human beings. We all have contradictions and faults. I'm not calling for anyone else to avoid his films-- I'm merely saying that as a consumer, I have a right to choose who I do and don't give my money to. I'm no longer comfortable giving my money to Mel Gibson.
That is the extent of my ill-will towards the man.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Reviews (EW/Time, etc) say that it's well made, good acting from the lead character, good camera work, but the violence overshadows everything and gets in the way of what could've been a good story.
Niki, her father, her brother and I just got back from seeing it, and none of us were very bothered by the violence. Sure it was a violent movie. Was it too violent? I didn't think it even approached that level.
It wasn't gore for the sake of gore like Sin City or Kill Bill (two movies I detest). It was there for the sake of realism, and not for show.
I'd compare it to Saving Private Ryan, perhaps a notch above it (violence and gore wise).
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
Ten years ago, I would have loved to see this film, and it wouldn't have bothered me a whit. Now, I think I have a similar problem with it as I did with Gladiator (which I have seen nonetheless). Somewhere in the midst of my Classics and Archaeology degrees, ancient people became real people to me. I have learned their languages and philosophies, worked with their bones, and held the same objects that they held. They are not characters from a book, or figures in a mythology anymore. They are real people. And the idea of real-life gladiators disgusts me, beyond measure. As does the idea of human sacrifice. As does the idea of medieval torture.
Mind, I am a relativist anthropologist. I hold no dislike or blame against these people or these cultures for living the way they did, or for exhibiting the violence they did. In their cultural context, it was accepted. I can not, however, bring myself to watch it in an entertainment form from the comfort of my 21st century Western armchair without feeling slightly ill. Heck, I can hardly stand Temple Of Doom, and certain parts of The Princess Bride.
Strangely -- or not -- I have fewer problems watching films dealing with rape and murder set in the present time with gore for show instead of realism (unless they involve torture or are particularly gruesome). You know, that makes me sad.
Anyway, as interested as I would be to see this film from an anthropological viewpoint, and also because I love listening to languages I don't know, I probably won't unless convinced by someone else.
Silly? Probably. But that's me. Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
That's an interesting take, Astaril. I wonder if I'd view such films differently if I had the same background as you. Hmmmm....
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to go see the movie who isn't interested, but I feel I have to reiterate that the violence has been way over-hyped. I can name a half-dozen movies of the top of my head where the violence was far, far worse:
Reservoir Dogs Kill Bill (1 & 2) Sin City Saw (1 & 2) Hostel The Departed American Psycho Wolf Creek Hellraiser (any of them)
The thing is that none of those were harped on as being extremely violent. It's entirely possible that no one felt the need because its a given that several of those titles are violent. My point is, I think the hype about the violence in this movie is overblown.
Astaril, I'm not an expert on South American Anthropology, but the movie felt very genuine to me. YMMV.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
Hello... This is my first post on this forum, so please don't skewer me.
Anyway. I haven't seen the film, but the discussion about film violence was interesting, so I wanted to add my opinion. (English isn't my first language, so hope I'll be able to make this readable...)
I do think that in general realistic violence is better than nonrealistic violence. In films such as Saving Private Ryan I feel it is essential to try and depict the violence as accurately as possible, and in my opinion even the new James Bond film had slightly stronger moral foundations than its predecessors because this time the violence had consequences.
However, I think there is a real problem in that too much violence desensitizes its viewers. Alfred Hitchkock said about his film Psycho that there was not much point putting that many graphic murders after the initial scene in the shower, because the shower scene was already so shocking that everything coming after it would just be bland. I think there is truth to this in that if a film is just heaps of blood and gore after blood and gore the new bloody moments never feel quite as bad as the previous ones.
I'm also wondering, what really constitutes as realistic blood and gore? I've never seen hearts ripped from chests or people decapitated and blown up in real life, so I don't know what such moments are "realistically" like. I remember reading an old newspaper review from the 50's about a John Wayne western, and the reviewer called the violence in that one "extremely realistic" - even if it most likely was just bloodless deaths with actors clutching their hearts in theatrical fashion. So I suppose what we consider as realistic violence today is more realistic than what this guy in the 50's did, but I do wonder if in some ways our modern movie gore isn't just as far fetched as the deaths in the John Wayne film. Of course I am no expert, but I have a hunch that in many modern movies violent moments include much more blood than they would in real life, and not just in the Kill Bill types of films.
Hmm... So I guess I'm not really disagreeing with what was posted on the previous page. I just think that there are some reservations.
I actually own Salo on DVD, but I've sort of kept postponing my watching it. I suppose I get around to it one of these days...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Great reviews. Thanks. Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I really want to see this movie because it seems like such a cultural experience for me. I have no idea what my ancestry is, but I'm sure there has to be some Mayan or Aztec in there.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Late to say it, but I just wanted to agree with Puppy's very nice post.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Okay, I just got back from watching Apocalypto.
I really enjoyed it. I saw it with my husband, who also enjoyed it, and two friends, who enjoyed it little enough that they left about halfway through. they said the graphic violence didn't bother them, but they felt that it had no plot. After chatting with them later, I found out that they'd heard it was a deep story about a young man trying to preserve his fading culture in the face of the Mayan empire's power, so they were expecting a totally different film. On the other hand, I'd heard it was a rad chase movie with frog-poison darts and a tapir, so I was completely satisfied.
It was very beautiful in terms of set, costumes, makeup, and I respect the entire film crew's decision to use native Mesoamerican people and to use a historically accurate language. It added much to my enjoyment of the movie. I was so glad they didn't go the usual "cast people with dark skin and expect the audience to believe they look like whatever non-white race we're portraying here" route. And although I am not as knowledgeable about those cultures as I'd like to be, it seemed to be historically accurate in its portrayal of the Mayans and the non-Mayan surrounding cultures, from my point of view.
I'd be really interested to know what a person with more knowledge of these cultures thinks of the way the cultures were represented.
So...I'd recommend it to anybody who likes chase/action movies. I dug it.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
And while there isn't MASSIVE character development, Jaguar Paw does learn to reject fear (as his father recommends he do early in the film) and stop running.
Good film, guys. I recommend it.
Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
I might see it yet. The language intrigues me, and there are a lot of other aspects that interest me as well. I can always look away for the heart-rippings.
Karl, it does look good from a cultural point of view. And just to be clear, it's not that I think the film will be horribly inaccurate. Rather, it's the opposite! Anyway, I'm not much of an expert on South American cultures either, so I probably wouldn't notice discrepancies any more than you. My studies have focussed elsewhere in the world.
Hmm. The more I read this thread, the more tempted I'm getting.
Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
I went and saw it Friday night. And this is my 3rd post in this thread, but i felt a review was in order.
a) After all the talk of blood/gore, too much, blah blah blah... Way over hyped. This movie had very little that was gory. I must say watching heads bounce down the temple steps was a bit much, and (duh) fake looking. The only other thing I found gory was the dude's head spitting a stream of blood out towards the end of the flick. It was gory, but, lol, i thought realistic and dare I say cool! Sorry, but it was. Anyway, I thought Saving Private Ryan was way more gory, so if you are worried about that aspect, don't!
b) sub-titles: Didn't bother me, and didn't detract from the movie. I was worried that it would, but it didn't. It wasn't hard to keep up. I do think that it might have prevented us from getting really close to the storyline/characters, as I felt that was the most disappointing part of the movie, but maybe I'm trying to find a reason for that?
c) It did feel like I was watching a National Geographic feature. Plenty of butts, the occasional breast, oblong ears, etc... It was obviously realistic, but never overtly in your face. So afterwards, I was like, you know that was very National Geographic'ish. LOL
d) The beginning of the movie was actually very entertaining. I won't give away the humor, but it was good.
e) The chase was like others have said only about 1/3 of the movie. And honestly, I didn't get bored with it. What he was trying to get back to was compelling enough to not bore me.
f) I was pretty disappointed with the ending. I thought it was silly to portray that and it contributed absolutely nothing to the movie, other than serve as an ending to the chase.
g) My overall review? It was good. Not great, but good. And certainly worth watching at a theater. It wasn't nearly as good (and gory) as Braveheart. I thought the camerawork, the culture, the surroundings, and the lead character were all outstanding. It did lack in storyline, and that keeps this from being a must-see.
Sorry to be so long.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Astaril:
Hmm. The more I read this thread, the more tempted I'm getting.
Just keep in mind: It's an action/chase film with really cool costumes and makeup. That's all it is. If you're expecting anything else, as my friends were, you'll probably be disappointed.
I think most action films have only a very flimsy plot, anyway: Save the precious treasure before the bad guy gets it; save the innocent victim from the menacing bad guy; save the ___ from the ___. That's what action movies are. This one just seems awkward to some people, I think, because they were expecting a story about culture and society rather than just "Save wife and kids from drowning in a hole; use only jungle stuff to do so."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by Astaril:
Hmm. The more I read this thread, the more tempted I'm getting.
Just keep in mind: It's an action/chase film with really cool costumes and makeup. That's all it is. If you're expecting anything else, as my friends were, you'll probably be disappointed.
I think most action films have only a very flimsy plot, anyway: Save the precious treasure before the bad guy gets it; save the innocent victim from the menacing bad guy; save the ___ from the ___. That's what action movies are. This one just seems awkward to some people, I think, because they were expecting a story about culture and society rather than just "Save wife and kids from drowning in a hole; use only jungle stuff to do so."
Well to be fair he didn't KNOW his wife and son were in danger of drowning until the end of the movie. If you want to dumb down the plot its, "Escape from the bad guys who want me dead, I can't out run them, Ill have to face them and fear itself to get back to my family.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Well, he kept asking the sky to not rain ever since he first was captured, so he knew that it was a strong possibility.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I also don't understand the whole "boycott" attitude people get towards artists they dislike. I mean, if I thought someone's work was doing harm to the world, or was just bad, that would be a reason to avoid it, or to try and prevent it from succeeding. But the fact that you just don't like one specific person?
(Puppy)
I boycott Robin Williams and Ben Affleck because they bug me (unless they are playing bad guys, but only sort of bad guys because I don't like serial killer movies.) I don't think there is anything wrong with having preferences and dislikes. Though my husband and I did get in a fearful argument about it once, and it turned out the actor he thought I was dissing was Kevin Kline and not Robin Williams anyway.
As for not being able to disassociate artists from their real life behavior, I have a much lower threshold than him for certain types of immorality (such as we saw in "Superman Returns"). I guess it's lucky for me, insofar as he had no qualms about marrying me despite my checkered past. But I sometimes think people who haven't had serious moral challenges dismiss the danger that media influence is to some people. It's like a person whose not alcoholic saying to an alcoholic "get over it, one drink, what's the harm."
Well, this doesn't exactly apply to Mel Gibson, but since the whole big picture was being discussed...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Well, he kept asking the sky to not rain ever since he first was captured, so he knew that it was a strong possibility.
Oh hey thats right! I didn't pick up on that, I thought he didn't want it to rain so that while being marched back to the Mayan city it would not be as treacherous. He didn't ask the sky to not rain when it thundered the second time while he was fleeing through the forest, so I guess I figured he no longer cared about the rain.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:He didn't ask the sky to not rain when it thundered the second time while he was fleeing through the forest, so I guess I figured he no longer cared about the rain.
Are you sure? I seem to remember him getting panicked when he heard the thunder on his way back to her, though I don't remember whether he said anything or not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:He didn't ask the sky to not rain when it thundered the second time while he was fleeing through the forest, so I guess I figured he no longer cared about the rain.
Are you sure? I seem to remember him getting panicked when he heard the thunder on his way back to her, though I don't remember whether he said anything or not.
Pretty sure he said nothing the second time. Though he did look up and note the rain I didn't see any "more panicked then he was previously" look on his face. But that could just be me missing the message the actor was trying to send.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I totally got that he was worried about his wife drowning in the hole from the first rumble of thunder. If I recall correctly, he even glanced toward the hole either before or after he prayed that it not rain, but I could be mistaken.
In general, I thought the acting was fantastic. Given that we couldn't understand their words, they had to convey an awful lot through their facial expressions, and I thought they did that extemely well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I saw the movie last night. It was violent and macho and very save-home-and-family and check-out-the-fighting-and-cleverness-despite-the-wounds, but that actually is a trademark of Gibson films. I didn't think it was too violent, although I closed my eyes a few times. I thought the chase scene was fantastic, and the whole movie was paced and written well. I'm glad I saw it. It's a pleasure to see movies that are actually well made. It sucks that so many are "Good, but..." This one didn't need qualifications - it was actually good the whole way through.
It occurred to me yesterday that every single Mel Gibson-directed movie I have seen I saw at the urging of and with a guy. *amused*
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
It's funny, I actually expected The Fountain to be fantastic and Apocalypto to be pretentious. Turns out it was the other way around.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: He didn't ask the sky to not rain when it thundered the second time while he was fleeing through the forest, so I guess I figured he no longer cared about the rain.
Heehee - yeah, that was when he really started booking so he could get back and rescue them. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Since we're doing spoilers officially now, I have to say the part where Jaguar Paw was running from his namesake and one of his abductors unwittingly inserts himself between the two was one of moviedom's great "Oh Crap!" moments. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That was hilarious "sucks to be that guy" moment.
Rudy Youngblood did an amazing job. His face was so expressive, and I thought he did a great job visibly turning his fear into resolve and fire.
I did like how the wife wasn't completely helpless. She was in about as vulnerable a state as it is possible to be and she still had to be saved, but I liked her character.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I had a "How did they show that" moment.
There are 3 guys left chasing jaguarpaw and if I remember correctly the leader suddenly turns on the juice and smokes the other 2 henchmen even though they both look like they are running as fast as they can.
Do you think they shot that scene twice and just superimposed the pair and the leader running together?
Karl: That scene was definitely an, "oh Crap!" moment for me. Even more interesting is the entire scene with that jaguar was shot completely without CGI. Not that they had some dude being gored by the jaguar but STILL, doing that whole scene without it must have been tough!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sadly, Rabbit declined.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I've chosen instead to enjoy the good things these people do and to not support the things they do or say that are specifically in opposition to my feelings about other groups of people.