posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
I'd take boobies over excessive gore any day. Add in Mel Gibson and I'm even less interested. Pass.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. I don't really care about the amount of violence, but the story just doesn't really appeal to me.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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"
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!!!"
posted
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
