posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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,
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you sure that there are studies to back that up, rivka, or do you think that just because of my past posting history?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh...to be popular so that people wouldn't feel that it was perfectly fine to take unsupported cheap shots at me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.
