Apocalypto- 5 Star Review

  • Thread starter Thread starter AngelRose81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AngelRose81

Guest
Apocalypto Review

Mel’s new movie has recieved a 5 star rating from one critic who says its the best movie that he ever directed. Check it out.

-Kristy

👍
 
Going to see it tomorrow! My man mel is back with an action packed, violent, bloody and yet philosphical tale!
 
APOCOLYPTO’ — Mel Does a Mitzvah

By Marvin Silbermintz

I’ve just returned from seeing Mel Gibson’s extraordinary new epic set in ancient Mayan times, and I have a problem. I must decide which film to drop from my list of Ten Best Films of All Time to make room for ‘Apocalypto’.

What Mel Gibson has created is possibly the most intelligent, best edited, most beautifully photographed pulp fiction action movie ever. When I say ‘pulp fiction’, I’m thinking of the writer’s definition of the term.

“Pulp’ stories are lean, mean dramas designed to thrill and entertain. The structure of ‘pulp’ is very simple; the hero is never out of danger until the end. Crises overlap. Before your hero solves one problem, another emerges. He’s never at peace.

When Mr. Gibson discusses the film he talks about dying civilizations, a culture controlled by fear, and the historical importance of his subject — but don’t let that put you off. He’s telling a simple story of a man trying to survive in a violent time.

politicalmavens.com/index.php/2006/12/08/apocolypto-mel-does-a-mitzvah/
 
Stephen Graydanus doesn’t seem to think much of it – gave it a C. Too gory for me, but it may be someone else’s cup of tea.
I don’t like gratuitous violence.

He says “Above all, the film speaks the language of violence. Following in the footsteps of Gibson’s Braveheart, The Patriot, and The Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto is steeped in graphic bloodletting, mutilation and gore.”
 
I would have to separate “The Passion of The Christ” from these other films. The violence in it wasn’t gratuitous. What Mel Gibson depicted was probably less violent than what Our Lord actually went through for our sins.:yup:
 
GregoryPalamas said:
When Mr. Gibson discusses the film he talks about dying civilizations, a culture controlled by fear, and the historical importance of his subject — but don’t let that put you off. He’s telling a simple story of a man trying to survive in a violent time.
Click to expand...
Gibson might be a lot more clever than he lets on with this movie. I have not yet seen it. My grown son saw it two nights ago. He said it is far and away the goriest movie he ever saw, and that’s saying something. He also said it is extremely prolife and Christian in ways that are so understated they are not evident at all on the surface, but speak more eloquently than a hundred sermons. The indictment of romanticization of paganism to which modern societies seem much given, is more overt.

I am looking forward to seeing it, bloody as it evidently is.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Gibson might be a lot more clever than he lets on with this movie. I have not yet seen it. My grown son saw it two nights ago. He said it is far and away the goriest movie he ever saw, and that’s saying something. He also said it is extremely prolife and Christian in ways that are so understated they are not evident at all on the surface, but speak more eloquently than a hundred sermons. The indictment of romanticization of paganism to which modern societies seem much given, is more overt.

I am looking forward to seeing it, bloody as it evidently is.
Click to expand...
I want to see this movie.

And I’m also praying that he makes a sequel about the mass conversion of these people to Catholicism because of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

I doubt it will happen, but one can always hope.
 
Yonnie said:
I would have to separate “The Passion of The Christ” from these other films. The violence in it wasn’t gratuitous. What Mel Gibson depicted was probably less violent than what Our Lord actually went through for our sins.:yup:
Click to expand...
Agreed. This is an extremely violent movie, among the most violent I’ve ever seen, BUT…

the violence is in NO way gratuitous. It depicts warfare, human sacrifice, and other brutality that was characteristic of the civilization, but it was all used in context and accurately.

I’m busy with final exams right now, but I’ll be posting an extensive review of the film in a day or so. I’m a professor of history with an expertise in Latin America, so I think I’ll be able to provide some insights on the movie for everyone.

(The short review? Mostly accurate, visually stunning, a great story about what happens when you don’t respect human life, and probably a leading Oscar contender.)
 
Rolltide? Any use of stingray spines? I know you’ll know what I mean. 2nd question: Looks awful classic Mayan to me, I understand the Spanish appear at the end of the movie. Does Gibson give an explanation for this?
 
brotherhrolf said:
Rolltide? Any use of stingray spines? I know you’ll know what I mean. 2nd question: Looks awful classic Mayan to me, I understand the Spanish appear at the end of the movie. Does Gibson give an explanation for this?
Click to expand...
  1. Not specifically stingray spines, but there is a bloodletting ritual performed by a priest using a flint knife at the sacrifice on the pyramid.
  2. This is set in a fictitious Maya town. Architecturally, the pyramids certainly have many of the hallmarks of Tikal, although there’s a definite Chichen-Itza / Kabah influence. Most definitely Puuc style architecture though (and that’s only native to the Yucatan after about 1100). The masks on the corners of the pyramid dedicated to Chac (the rain god) are the clear giveaway. Look for the hook noses on the corners.
It’s never specified when the movie is set, but it’s got to be between 1400-1530. Whether you go with the earlier or later date depends on how you interpret the ending. It can’t be Classic Maya, because they didn’t practice this level of human sacrifice. That was a Toltec innovation. There are definitely skull racks in this city (and a major city it is!), and you only see that in Post-Classic sites like Chichen-Itza. This also appears to occur at some point after the demise of the League of Mayapan, as there’s some evidence of warring city-states.

SPOILER SPACE!
  1. With regard to the ending, I have two possible interpretations. By the time of the Spanish arrival, there were no Mayan cities of this magnitude still in existence in the Yucatan, although a few, like Tulum, were inhabited. It could be taken literally, in which it’s an error, but by only a few years. Personally, I see the ending as a foreshadowing. There’s a LOT of foreshadowing and prophesies of demise in this film. I see it as a vision of the near future, fortelling the end of the Maya. You’ll understand what I mean within the context of the movie when you see it. On the other hand, it could have been Francisco de Montejo. It clearly wasn’t Columbus’s brief encounter during his 4th voyage. I’m still working on putting all the pieces of the ending together…
 
Thank you, most interesting! I know I won’t ever get DW to go see this so I have a few month’s wait for the DVD to come out. Your point about the Toltecs is well taken as well as the Chac mools. I’ve only seen the preview and the ceremonial center does look like Tikal.

What would Gibson have done with Hernan Cortes and Tenochtitlan? I may have to beg oldest son to come home and go with his father. Some things just have to be seen on the big screen.
 
The members of another forum I frequent are so rabidly anti-Mel (it began with the rumors that Passion was anti-Semitic) that they ripped Apocalyto apart which leads me to believe that it’s an excellent movie. Can’t wait to see it.
 
I loved it. The movie was not so violent as many critics claim it to be. Hostel, a horror movie that made it to number one it’s opening weekend was praised by some critics even though it is the MOST grotesque movie ever done. The Mayan sacrafices reminded me of abortions. More than a million abortions are performed every year in our country. Babies heads are crushed, limbs are torn off, and the bodies discarded like road kill. Are we any better than the Mayans in the movie? No. Probably worse.
 
Jedi_Master said:
I loved it. The movie was not so violent as many critics claim it to be. Hostel, a horror movie that made it to number one it’s opening weekend was praised by some critics even though it is the MOST grotesque movie ever done. The Mayan sacrafices reminded me of abortions. More than a million abortions are performed every year in our country. Babies heads are crushed, limbs are torn off, and the bodies discarded like road kill. Are we any better than the Mayans in the movie? No. Probably worse.
Click to expand...
It’s important to keep in mind that the amount of sacrifice portrayed by the Maya in this film is greatly exaggerated. You would never have seen anything as large as the pit of bodies that Jaguar Paw runs across during his escape. Only the Aztecs committed sacrifice on such a large scale. That said, the basic details are correct.
 
Rolltide said:
It’s important to keep in mind that the amount of sacrifice portrayed by the Maya in this film is greatly exaggerated. You would never have seen anything as large as the pit of bodies that Jaguar Paw runs across during his escape. Only the Aztecs committed sacrifice on such a large scale. That said, the basic details are correct.
Click to expand...
Actually this is false. Montezuma was sacrificing as much as 250 people per day, by the time Cortes had arrived. The victims were mostly the surrounding tribes, who helped Cortes defeat Montezuma.

The vast majority of those tribe members converted to Catholicism.

Jim
 
It is a fine movie. My elder son and I enjoyed it together though he thought it too violent. I’m not sure everyone will understand the point he is making…that a dying culture turns upon itself to be overtaken by another and in the midst of the death there is always hope for a “new beginning”…but that is the subtle message that was given. Put more simply…life always conquers death. “Apocalypto” does reveal a mystery.

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
It is a fine movie. My elder son and I enjoyed it together though he thought it too violent. I’m not sure everyone will understand the point he is making…that a dying culture turns upon itself to be overtaken by another and in the midst of the death there is always hope for a “new beginning”…but that is the subtle message that was given. Put more simply…life always conquers death. “Apocalypto” does reveal a mystery.

CDL
Click to expand...
Gibson certainly left the door open for a sequel to the movie, which I hope he does.

It’s been nice to get a different perspective on the arrival of the Europeans to this land, recently.

I just finished the book, " Mayflower," by Nathaniel Philbrick.

It’s about the Pilgrims and the courage it took, for them to cross the Atlantic to settle in this unknown land. They were not evil to the Native People as they have been portrayed over the past 30 years.

I hope Gibson does the same sort of history with the arrival of the Spaniards.

Jim
 
Mel Gibson is such a genius! I saw Apocalypto with my mom and there was so much to talk about - This movie is packed with action and violence but Mel can tell a story like no one else.

Sadly, I feel the academy will over look him again just like they did with Passion of the Christ. Mel was cheated due to hypocracy in Hollywood. Apocalypto wil largely be pushed aside.

I loved the movie. What amazing chase scenes. 👍
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Actually this is false. Montezuma was sacrificing as much as 250 people per day, by the time Cortes had arrived.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand you. Montezuma was Aztec. Rolltide said that Aztecs used human sacrifice on a large scale.

Could some of you who saw the movie share what you thought the opening scene, with the hunt of the boar and the theme of the man using the red leaves, was designed to communicate? We had just seen that quote from Will Durant about how civilizations fall, and it was in my mind during the scene.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top