Posted on 12/01/2006 3:38:06 AM PST by AmericaUnited
'Apocalypto' Is More 'Mad Max' Than Mayan
With the subtlety of several thousand flying mallets and arrows, here comes Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto," a two hour plus torture-fest so violent that women and children will be headed to the doors faster than you can say "duck" when the film opens on Dec. 8th.
Indeed, 'Apocalypto' is the most violent movie Disney has ever released, with so much blood spurting out of orifices that even Martin Scorsese would blush. If you've ever wondered what it would be like to see heads and hearts removed without anesthesia, then this is the movie for you. "Grey's Anatomy" it is not.
...
"Apocalypto" surpasses "The Passion" in every way as a movie about pain, flagellation and wounding. The grotesqueries are almost numbing, and at some point they become laughable. But all the while, you're thinking, what's the point here? If "Apocalypto" was supposed to be about that transitional civilization, where is it? After two hours and several minutes of squirming and covering eyes, you start to think that "Apocalypto" exists just to show violence for itself. The point is lost.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yeah, the Mayans were all puppies and kittens.
I'm looking forward to this. It is being called Gibson's best film ever. For pure screen spectacle and sheer beauty, I don't anything will beat it this year.
And I've had enough of his interviews where he speaks in the third person.
It seems to me that a lot of critics panned Braveheart when it first came out.
If I listened to the news the Poodle would be president. I think I'll form my own opinion.
Mad Max with Mayans? Can't go wrong with that!!!
ditto that.
I won't see it, but probably my guys (hubby and son) will.
The thing about Gibson is that he picks subjects for his movies and then decides to portray them realistically.
Read about the Mayans...there's probably no more torture, blood, gore than is historically accurate.
Same with Passion of the Christ, the Bible says Jesus wasn't recognizable as a man after his beatings. The scourging was probably historically accurate.
Braveheart wasn't what you'd call "tame" either.
His desire, I guess, is realism, and his subjects are historical. That's better, in my book, than the garbage coming out of Hollywood like Kill Bill, etc.
I saw the Passion, but don't feel compelled to know more about the Mayans than I already know, so since I "can't stand the gore, I'll stay out of the theater."
So whats the beef? Is there a law that requires me to have to see the movie.
Mel Gibson and HollyWood may make all the movies they like, doesn't mean I am required to see it.
You say it's too bloody for the children, who's their parents, what is required by a parent?
I don't want anything to do with it.
Entertainment based on murder simply doesn't move or compel me to view it. I don't watch these films and hope I never have a desire to.
For others, if that's entertaining to them, fine. Enjoy it. For those who wish to consider it, it might be good to ask "Why?"
A definent will see movie!
Hey it's a free country buy my beef is Gibson is a FRAUD! As pointed out by the reviewer, this movie has little to do with wanting to show case Mayan civilization and just an excuse to sell a blood/gore filled spectacle.
Hundreds of human sacrifices were performed daily - the temple steps flowed with a river of blood and with hearts ripped out while the 'victim' was still alive.
So what did Roger Friedman expect in a realistic retelling -- 'Bambi Goes To The Yucatan'?
Have you seen the movie?
We've got all we can handle with Bedlam in Oklahoma.
Gibson is basically right. The Mayans were incredibly violent. Put "Bonampak + Mayans" in your Google or Yahoo search and read what you find. The Mayans delighted in torture to almost the extreme. And yes, the city states were involved in civil wars. Tikal, the greatest city state of them all, has no stelae honoring leaders with the dates from 562 a.d. to around 692 a.d. and a stelae in Belice commemorates a victory over Tikal in 562 a.d. so the answer is somewhat obvious as to what happened. Pretty interesting stuff.
True, but that's my point! That's why Gibson chose to do a whole movie about them. There's something mentally unbalanced upstairs.
---I don't want anything to do with it.---
Amen.
I'm not expecting much from Apocalypto, but that was terrible preview
Are you thinking about the Aztecs? The Aztecs were more humane than the Mayans. At least the Aztecs made it quick. The Mayans were in to torture for enjoyment before dispatching their victims.
No. Oh I'm sure it's some 'cinematic masterpiece', but that's not my point of contention. It is Mel's sick facination...
Mel seems to be a poster boy for the fact that getting to the top and having money does not guarantee happiness. He was probably better off when he had to struggle some. Now he seems to indulge his dark side. He needs to get right with God, come to terms with his age, and use his talent to benefit mankind. He might find some joy in his own future.
You cannot take anything Friedman writes or says seriously. He is a modern day Louella, complete with shameless ass kissing and character assassination where desired. He probably owns a collection of flashy dresses and hats also.
True... One gets hundreds of millions of dollars, total film director/producer freedom, and what kind of movie is the first one to pop out? Very telling indeed!
There's no question that Mel wouldn't have chosen this subject if there wasn't gore, bloodlust, impalement and torture involved. Dude's got issues, face it.
What's the over/under on decapitations, impalements and spurting blood this time around? Seek help, Mel.
That being said, the subject matter doesn't interest me, and realistic violence on screen has no benefit. More drama was created when the violence was merely suggested.
I don't feel like seeing this bloodbath. I'll go and see "The Nativity Story."
I like action movies. At least when Arnold is blasting hundreds with some machine gun on steroids, there is some 'redeeming value' that bad guys are being eliminated. But what is the redeeming value in this movie?
Somehow they squeezed in between their otherwise nonstop programing on Hitler and Nazis. (joke)
Click on the link and there's a picture, not of a scene from the movie, but of Mel Gibson.
---What it is, Gibson says, is the story of a civilization in transition, as the Mayans 500 years ago fought among themselves until visitors from Europe arrived by ship and spelled their doom. ---
This is complete misinformation. Mayan civilization was gone long before Europeans happened along.
The dialogue spoken in Yucatec Maya, with English subtitles.
Hollywood did not choose the theme for this movie. Hollywood did not Make Gibson make some phony claim as to why he's making it (See#38). Mel did both.
I'll have to wait and see on whether to watch it or not.
However, the violence does not terribly surprise me. The Mayans were a very brutal race. In fact, the guy who was the head of my college community group feels that the reason why the Mayans all mysteriously vanished without a trace was because God wiped them out for practicing human sacrifice.
I know nothing about this movie. When I saw it was about the Mayans, I thought, "Oh no, the noble Indian faces the evil Western European Spaniards." But from what I am reading here, perhaps it is not so one-dimensional. I will wait and see.
The movie should do quite well.
Indeed they were. Above is one of the many friezes surrounding the "ball court" at Chitzen Itza. Just above and to the right of the turf is one of the "ball players" being decapitated while on bended knee. Above from the left corner of the turf is his head. It's speculated that the losing (or maybe the winning) team was dispatched right there on the field at the conclusion of the ball game as a sacrifice to the gods or the king or something else.
You might be wrong that that "Hollywood would love for Gibson to fail, and they'll do anything to hasten it." They also LOVE VIOLENT MOVIES and BLOODBATHS as long as they're not religious.
*******
Quote from PETER TRAVERS at Rolling Stone....
""This being Gibson, there's more to the film than the rush. It's impossible not to see parallels to our own cultured civilization, one that knowingly destroys its environment and sends troops to Iraq as human sacrifices.""
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/9387680/review/12626008/apocalypto?source=movie_reviews_rssfeed
Maybe he'll do a movie on MS-13 next.
I agree, the man is seriously mentally ill. Sure the Mayans were a violent lot. But they also spent an immense amount of time building their magnificent cities, with all that hieroglyphic writing carved in the stones, developed that beautiful and complex calendar, etc. I wonder how much time Gibson's movie devotes to that sort of thing. Not much, I'd guess, since his sick mind is drawn to anger and violence.
Of course, "Apocalypto" arrives with a lot of baggage. Gibson — an admitted alcoholic who denies being Anti-Semitic despite evidence to the contrary — is kind of a marked man.
What part of the review related to the blood/gore, intensity and amount, do you think is wrong?
that would be perceived anti-semitism......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.