|
I'm rushing out to see it as soon as I can, probably Sunday ... and I will make a point of going to the Cinerama Dome ... which I reserve for visually stunning films.
I don't know where on earth anyone could get the idea that this film would be boring. From what I understand, it's action-packed throughout ... as well as wonderfully acted and stunningly beautiful. The only reservation I personally have is its intense violence and brutality.
While not a scholar of the period, I have zero problem accepting that the Maya, near the depths of their decline, were a brutal and savage culture. What, the Aztecs had a monopoly on that? Far from having tupperware parties, I think the fact that so little record exists of their culture leaves it open to reasonable interpretation. Savagery among the pre-Columbian societies of central America is hardly a stretch, in my view.
As to not supporting Gibson ... well, I'd have to freeze stone cold in my tracks - never eating or driving or shopping again - if I wanted to refrain from supporing causes I abhor.
I felt silly for my self-boycot of Woody Allen movies for several years, and I don't intend to repeat that nonsense with Mel Gibson. I don't particularly like his work as a director. I though Braveheart was meh, and I can't bring myself to watch PotC sans Depp. I want to see Apocalypto on its merits alone as a fascinating adventure story set in a mileau where few films have tred, and with verisimilitude extending to the Mayan language spoken in the film. Perhaps its just a sucker's assumption on my part ... but why go to that trouble if you're going to create a film totally untrue to history?
If I can steal my stomach for the gore and violence, I will certainly be seeing this film ASAP.
|