Apocalypto

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Also, isn't not paying to see a film a good way for studios to know who they should and shouldn't be green-lighting and supporting? Mel's a freak.

Hollywood has already experimented with only allowing people to work if they subscribed to certain predetermined world views. It isn't a period generally well though of. Just because this time you agree with it doesn't, in my view, make it any better.

For some reason I typed "Cecil B. Demille" when I was thinking "D.W. Griffith" and Birth of a Nation was the racist movie in question.

Personally, I don't buy into the anti-semitic reading of The Passion of the Christ and think it was a great film. It is anti-semitic in the sense that it is a version of the story that Jews don't like. The alternative would be anti-Roman, they just don't have an anti-defamatation league to speak up for them.

But I understand the idea of not patronizong financially people with views you find objectionable. I just find the actual practice to be inconsistent (the vast majority of people who views I find to be objectionable in some way or another).

Calls for the studios to deny work to homophobes and anti-semites are essentially the same as calls for the studio to deny work to gays and communists. We just find that some of those more directly align with our own personal preferences and would find the remainder abhorrent.


As for Apocolypto, everything I hear is that it is an incredibly well made B-movie with lots of gore. Because it is Gibson it will then be layered by observers with lots of hidden messages that wouldn't be seen if it were made by Rodriguez or Jackson.

I don't agree with Gibson's cosmology but I do admire his balls-to-the-wall attitude of making exactly the movie he wants and to hell with anybody who tries to temper it. That doesn't mean I'll like the result (I like The Passion but don't care for Braveheart) but he is doing exactly what I wish most artists in Hollywood would do once they achieved the economic security that comes with super stardom. Clooney/Soderbergh are the only other ones I can think of who consistently do that.

[Gemini Cricket]

'Birth of a Nation' is the only film on AFI's top 100 list that I haven't seen.

[katiesue]

I'm not going to see it because it looks incredibly boring. And I can't take gore which is why I didn't see Passion either. I have to watch half of CSI through my fingers as it is.

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[Sub la Goon]

What's Mayan is yours.

Seriously though, my view of Mel G is that he is bucking for the Oliver Stone award for out-of-control directing. His stuff just gets harder to watch and more egotistically skewed as time goes on. At least Tarantino started out that way and knows how to temper his excesses and not call too much attention to his own cleverness.

This probably will be a good movie to see in a large theater to show off the spectacle of it all. I will, however, wait for Netflix to snare this gem.

[mistyisjafo]

I stopped liking Mel Gibson right about the time he was in Lethal Weapon #2. I was never a big fan and have NO urge to see anything he's affiliated with or in.

[innerSpaceman]

Oddly enough, if he were present on screen ... I would be far less likely to want to see this film. He's certainly repugant to me, and I don't want to look at him.

Behind the scenes, he's just like any one of a million poor causes I give my money to for my own pleasure and survival.



One word about the descendents of the Maya objecting to their ancestors' portrayal in the film: Give me a frelling break!

I'm really sick and tired of that kind of thing. Ever since a bunch of whiney Arabs actually got Disney to edit out the lyric "they cut off your ear if they don't like your face" from Aladdin, I have zero tolerance for hysterical historical revisionism from thousand-year-later progeny. Get.Over.It. Some of your revered ancestors were barbarians. Deal.

[Gemini Cricket]

Ironic that someone gay and Jewish would give money to a Antisemitic homophobe.

[innerSpaceman]

I also object to the fact that I should somehow only object (or primarily object) to those who cause offense to my religion, my race, my orientation, etc.

Frankly, I've got a pretty thick skin ... and I'm more likely to object on behalf of other groups I don't belong to. Ya know, call me queer all you want ... but don't use the N word around me ... that kinda thing.



Anyway, I'm seeing Apocolypto in an hour or so ....

[innerSpaceman]

... and two hours later, my review is ....





Meh.





Not as in Mehl. Just meh. Nothing great, nothing terrible. A decent enough actioner in a very unusual setting. I guess I should give it points for keeping my interest as a foreign language film (I don't usually do well with subtitles).


I think many reviewers are giving it a bum rap as to blood and gore. I didn't find any of the bloodletting gratuitous. In fact, during plot-necessary scenes of human sacrifice, the action and lensing were staged to specifically avoid showing the gory stuff.

The lead actor who played Jaguar Paw was very effective, and the story was interesting. But it just didn't grab me all that much. Without spoiling too much, it's a tale of capture and escape and comeuppance ... and there was so much hard-hitting stuff that I felt should have hit me harder ... but somehow didn't.

The mid-section of the film was at once the most interesting and most irritaing part. As our hero is led through the Mayan suburbs and city, we get fascinating and visually breathtaking views of the culture and society ... but the characters move through all this like it's a theme park ride, and that's a tactic I hate.

If there was some kind of analogy about the decay of Mayan civilization to our own, it was not played out specifically. But I feel that's where the film was strongest. All in all though, not the bravura stupendousness that I'd hoped for. And certainly not the sadistic twist-fest that some have wrongly railed against.


No gaybashing or jewbaiting either, GC. But yeah, the Maya did not come off well. Maybe they'll be the next subject of Mel's DUI ranting.