posted
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!
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting take, Astaril. I wonder if I'd view such films differently if I had the same background as you. Hmmmm....
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he kept asking the sky to not rain ever since he first was captured, so he knew that it was a strong possibility.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny, I actually expected The Fountain to be fantastic and Apocalypto to be pretentious. Turns out it was the other way around.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
