Apocalypto

Peyton Manning

So, what did everyone think of this movie?

Personally, I thought it was outstanding. It gripped me from start to finish. The storyline, although basic enough, was great and the acting was just phenomenal. Perhaps a few Oscar nominations are in order?

Rhyme

Fantastic film. Now, i don't think Gibson hit the 'epic' scale he was aiming at... that kind of life altering film, but he was damn close. So much work must have gone into the sets, the casting, the costumes, everything... and he didn't degrade it into an action film with a lacey plot but just left it as a sort of passive camera following the action.

Has to win a few awards at least.

TerrorFirmer

Excellent movie. Quite graphic, and some outstanding set pieces.

jank

few Oscar nominations are in order?

Not a chance. Do you know who runs hollywood?;)

I thought the film itself was very good but for one thing which I will get to later.
It was a very well put together production. The acting was very good at times and those Mayans were intimidating up to a point.

Good cinematography, action sequences. Plenty of atmosphere too.

However I feel that Mel in portraying the Mayans as bloodthiristy pagans went a bit too far. In a way it excused what happened after when the europeans arrived to cleanse the land with christianity and inadvertantly killed 100 millions Indians (which to this day is the largest genocide in history)


The quote at the start says it all.

Other then that good flick but don't read into it too much

DS

You can explore the cultural relevance of it all you want but it doesn't really matter in movie terms.

I thought it was an amazing film. Got off to a pretty slow start but once they reached the city it really accelerated into a thrilling and spectacular film. There were so many epic shots that left you in awe, like when Jaguar leaps off the waterfall and a spear hurtles past underneath him.

The best film I've seen in the cinema for a long time.

Rabies

Hope to watch this tomorrow when it gets released here. Looking forward to it.

ixoy

Am I the only one then who didn't enjoy the movie? Now that's not to say it's a bad movie - I fully appreciate that it's well crafted in a technical sense but I derived little pleasure from the (to my perception) almost sadistic nature of the movie: violence and brutality in glorious cinematography for us to marvel at. Look how pretty that gouging is, that spurt of blood, etc.

Indeed it's much the same issue that I had with "Passion of the Christ" where Gibson again put his lead through a violent hell with lingering shots of the torture and pain suffered. Sure, both have historical basis but it's not something that I got any sort of pleasure from viewing.

Another contributory element is that I felt characterisation is almost secondary to the photography and filming. I find it harder to empathise or understand anyone's point bar our suffering lead, when everyone but the lead is so thinly sketched - they're all barbaric without any insight to their motivations. That's fine in a slasher/horror movie but in a view on something historical, I expect a bit more.

Disappointed in this overall - visually magnificent but lacking too much of a true soul for me to ever want to see it again.

jank

You can explore the cultural relevance of it all you want but it doesn't really matter in movie terms.

What?? Movie making is a form of art that portrays society and culture through the the Lens onto a big screen, much the same as a poet uses words, a painter uses paint etc.

Sure films like XXX, Fast and the furious and so on maybe classed as a film with no cultural relevance(fast food for masses!) but a film like this, that takes itself so seriously the cultural relevance is perhaps the core of the film.

If you dont think so, why did Mel gibson make this film?? Just ask yourself that question baring in mind that he directed and personaly financed the project.

Think he wrote it too but not too sure about it. The basic plot and story is supposed to be a rip off of some old testament tale...thats a hint for ya;)

Dont be at yourself

Wow, I'm a little taken aback by such almost-universal acclaimation for this.

I did enjoy the film a lot, but I don't think it's a film that will be bandied about as an example of great cinema. As an epic drama, it was hampered by non-existant characterisation, and as a blockbuster it was hampered by a slow opening act and (as has been mentioned) passiveness of the directing. It basically amounted to a collage of incredibly tense, incredibly gorey scenes, but very little else.

DS

What?? Movie making is a form of art that portrays society and culture through the the Lens onto a big screen, much the same as a poet uses words, a painter uses paint etc.

Sure films like XXX, Fast and the furious and so on maybe classed as a film with no cultural relevance(fast food for masses!) but a film like this, that takes itself so seriously the cultural relevance is perhaps the core of the film.

If you dont think so, why did Mel gibson make this film?? Just ask yourself that question baring in mind that he directed and personaly financed the project.

Think he wrote it too but not too sure about it. The basic plot and story is supposed to be a rip off of some old testament tale...thats a hint for ya

Ok I should have been clearer. The cultural relevance of the film is irrelevant in terms of entertainment value. That is why I went to the cinema after all, I wasn't expecting a faithful portrayal of an ancient civilisation and I didn't really care if I got that or not.

It wasn't a classic by any stretch of the imagination for reasons some people have mentioned, but to get treated to such a visceral visual experience, I'm prepared to forget about it's cultural significance, why it was made, how seriously it takes itself, and the limitations of the film's characters and storyline.

Of course there's a valid debate to be had about the exploitative inaccuracies and what Gibson's true motivation was, but if I go to the cinema with all that stewing in my head I'm not going to enjoy any film.

Just because the film takes itself seriously doesn't mean you have to.

Goodshape

I'm with ixoy on this one. Not a bad film but nothing at all special, and I really think it could have been (love the ancient American lore) so I was a bit disappointed.

To be honest, I thought the cinematography was far too tight and fast moving - no real chance to take in the obviously beautiful scenery - and the actual story was almost entirely forgettable with, as has been pointed out, feck all characters to be interested in bar the lead. Well, that's not entirely true - there was a few other interesting characters but they were disregarded altogether after the first act.

And despite the cast of unknowns and use of authentic language, Hollywood never felt far away. Beautiful, loving, kind-to-the-earth good guys versus ugly, mean-looking, barbaric and one dimensional foes. Yawn.

3/5. Not dreadful, probably worth seeing, but I expected more.

Galvasean

Why is there no option between 'Brilliant' and 'Okay'?
I thought it was fairly good. It wasn't a masterpiece but it was an entertaining romp for sure and a visual treat.

SoupyNorman

Really liked this offering from Mel, and I can tell it is quite the Gibson movie as he never fails to extract 'gasps' from the patrons with no exceptions this time round. He gets quite explicit with the gore but Its excecuted supremely as you get alot of quick-panning shots or indirect gore where the sound provides the impact, sometimes its overdone but I would say that in any given context all directors go a step too far in one area or another e.g.(Spielberg and his 'broken home' fixation and love for wee Tom Cruise)!

After scanning the criticisims in the above posts I would say that its true that Mel diviates from historical accuracy and I thank him for it as it would be a horrird boring affair to sit through hitorical accurate films, History is not exciting but take the essence of what we know about the Mayans in this case and make up something exciting.....We go and watch and be entertained (ideally) and a culture that is quite obscure in the History books gets rejuvinated interest.

The film itself was great, solid story, immense backdrop, no B/S, super action and a good ending. The one thing I like about Mels movies is that he picks a side and rolls with it with complete deciveness. As for the "tight and fast moving cinematography", how do you expect to film in a jungle. I felt it was fantastic camera work (especially the opening sequence hunt).

Some of the criticisims are undue here, the film is high calibur and to me did not hint of hollywood one iota.It Resonated with a 'last of the mohicans' feel, the films have a connection but are leauges apart.

Goodshape

bravestarr082 wrote:

Mel diviates from historical accuracy and I thank him for it as it would be a horrird boring affair to sit through hitorical accurate films, History is not exciting but take the essence of what we know about the Mayans in this case and make up something exciting...

That's absolutely ridicules.

I see now that this was, for the most part, a fairly simple by-the-numbers Hollywood action film with a twist - but I was sort of hoping for an interesting film about an ancient civilisation meeting their destiny, not a clichéd story of one man struggling against the odds to get back to his wife and child - with extra blood and jungle. An ohh subtitles, how bold.

To be honest, the more I think about it the more I dislike it. Might actually enjoy it more a second time around (on DVD), with lower expectations and a knowledge of what I'm in for.

We go and watch and be entertained (ideally) and a culture that is quite obscure in the History books gets rejuvinated interest.

Pity that's so dull and horrid boring by comparison.

As for the "tight and fast moving cinematography", how do you expect to film in a jungle. I felt it was fantastic camera work (especially the opening sequence hunt).

True, and some of it was fine, but it went overboard I thought. I wanted to see some Terrance Mallick or [BBC's] Planet Earth style stuff, and it never came.

Rabies

Galvasean wrote:

Why is there no option between 'Brilliant' and 'Okay'?

Is 'Okay' not the option between 'brilliant' and 'terrible'?

Should be going to see this in the next hour. Looking forward to it.

Only another week to go until Pan's Labyrinth is out, woohoo

BlitzKrieg

???



Pans labyrinth has been out for weeks

Rabies

BlitzKrieg wrote:

Pans labyrinth has been out for weeks

Not in Sheepland (New Zealand). Think the release date is 18th Jan. We didn't get the latest Bond movie until mid December and The Prestige was only released last week

On Apocalypto, wasn't too bad. Prob give it 6-7/10. Not really one I can see myself watching again for a while. Won't be rushing to rent it on dvd when it gets released.

BlitzKrieg

Haha!

Rabies

Don't laugh. It hurts

BlitzKrieg

its the price you pay for new zealand women and scenery, weather etc (and the meat)

Dave!

DS wrote:

I thought it was an amazing film. Got off to a pretty slow start but once they reached the city it really accelerated into a thrilling and spectacular film. There were so many epic shots that left you in awe, like when Jaguar leaps off the waterfall and a spear hurtles past underneath him.

The best film I've seen in the cinema for a long time.

Yeah, I feel the same. Really great film, gonna have to buy it on DVD (won't just be downloading this one!)

kead1987

I thought Ronaldinho's acting was great as the lead character, Jaguar's Paw.

madrab

soo dissapointed by the movie, it looked good but i just didnt think it was worth the hype

Galvasean

Rabies wrote:

Is 'Okay' not the option between 'brilliant' and 'terrible'?

There is a big difference between 'Okay' and 'Brilliant'. An option called 'Good' would have been nice.