|
Directed by: Mel Gibson Starring: Rudy Youngblood I saw it tonight and really enjoyed it. Exciting, humorous, and even has a great twist that I didn't see coming (though I probably should have). It's a very fascinating movie to watch, and while naysayers are certainly going nitpick Apocalypto to death for it's inevitable historical inaccuracies (though they aren't inaccuracies as much as they are knowledge gaps), Gibson's attempt to recreate one of the most complex civilizations in human history was done creatively and admirably. Unfortunately, the movie isn't completely devoid of Mel's personal religious agenda (as per the last 5 minutes of the movie where the white man has come to spread Christianity and lead the Mayans to a 'new beginning'). I just try to forget this and not let it ruin my enjoyment of the movie  Overall, Apocalypto was a surprisingly fulfilling moviegoing experience. I really hope people don't avoid it just because of the media sideshow that is Mel Gibson, because it's really one of the most important and intriguing movies to come out in recent years. RATING: 4.5 PROS: Fascinating, exciting, creative, even funny at times CONS: Drags on a bit, some unbelievable moments ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0472043/ Vernacular fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Nov 29, 2006 |
#
?
Nov 29, 2006 09:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
Saw it last night. Cool loving movie with a sweet soundtrack by James Horner(Patriot Games). Some of the scenes in the movie were incredible and the acting was pretty good for how blunt it was supposed to be. Pros: The Jaguar in the jungle, Mel Gibson throwing the Cortez/Fransiscan bit in at the end Cons: Hysterical women crying nonstop, Rating: 4/5 Stars
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2006 01:29
|
|
|
My roommate got tickets to a screening last night. I actually wasn't expecting much so to say that the movie surpassed my expectations is a dramatic understatement. I thought it was a great movie - intriguing, well-acted, and had some very fast-pased, exciting scenes. I thought the ending was good, but slightly predictable. I guess when you make a historical movie, though, the ending should be slightly predictable. Overall, 4/5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2006 17:10
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2006 19:28
|
|
|
I enjoyed it for the most part but I felt like the last 10 minutes just unraveled everything into a giant cop out, She shoots out a kid under water, the two dudes who have chased J-Paw to the End of the Earth just give up when they see the boat, and we don't even see how he gets the family out. Those parts aside, I loved the procession into the city and the King/Chief Priest costumes especially. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2006 06:21
|
|
|
.
Belloq fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Dec 10, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2006 01:19
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie, but the ending kind of ruined it for everyone who was watching with me. To quote one of my friends on AIM after we saw it, "Through the entire movie, you have the 'savages' killing each other in various ways, with varying levels of disgusting, and then, in the moment of need, the Europeans show up deus ex machina style, in slow motion, with a massive crucifix, coming to the shore like a beacon of hope for this sad sad culture" If I just pretend the last 5 minutes of the movie didn't happen, then: 5/5 With the ending included: 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2006 03:03
|
|
|
Anyone else reminded of Mystic River or Frailty? Movies that are totally excellent or drat near perfect, only to have a huge annoying thing happen in the last 5 minutes? 4.5/5 Blistex fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Dec 11, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2006 08:29
|
|
|
This movie is interesting. In that on one hand, it is a jungle action film, sprinkled with humor, love, and spookiness. On the other hand, it horribly misrepresents Mesoamerican culture, leading the viewers to think that they were all "Time Worshipping Savages". The gods were mostly wrong, except for Kukulcan, the "We will be masters of time" comment is wrong and has been proven to be wrong. If you are an Art History person, or have to see it for a class, like myself, you will write an awesome review The ending was very annoying, even though I understand what Gibson was trying to get at. Also, there were some major Editing flubs, like when the mother was applying the ant stitches, she puts on the 3rd, then asks the boy if he's ready for the 4th, then puts on the 3rd again. Also, in the city, I swear I saw a pair of sneakers. So, I have two ratings. As a movie: 4/5 Well shot sequences, brilliant sound, great read. As a historical movie: 1/5 Editing flubs, historical idiocy, too much slow motion, ending.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2006 16:44
|
|
|
I thought Apocalypto was a terrific movie; it was fast paced enough to make 2 hours fly by, and you there was a suprising amount of emotion for the characters considering that it isn't in English. It had a ton of action, sadness and even some humor mixed in. It is a shame that this movie probably won't get the respect that it deserves after the Mel Gibson drama months ago. I also think a lot of people are misinterpreting the ending, since it is not implied that the white people are there to save everyone with Christianity, it is more of an implication that Christianity is doom, since Jaguar Paw ran away I also wish there would have been some sort of resolution to what happened to the abandoned children and the other Mayans who were behind J-Paw when he escaped. There is no answer about whether or not they escaped when all of the captors chased Jaguar Paw, or if they stayed and got killed Rating: 4.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2006 18:12
|
|
|
I really liked Apocalypto even with the ending as is. I see what you guys are saying about a "new hope" but I really felt it was just saying that a civilization begins, gets conquered, then the civilization that did the conquering gets conquered, then they get conquered, etc. etc. I really felt that the Spanish were symbolizing all new beginnings must have an end, just like the people in the forest finding a new beginning. It is just a cycle of civilizations. A part that I really hated though was the ending water scene with the woman. baby scene, is that even possible? I know about water births but dang. Also why couldn't they just slowly float to the top? Another thing I really loved about the movie was how much was said with such a small amount of words, everything is really shown in the actors movements and faces. 5/5 dongsweep fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 12, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2006 22:07
|
|
|
I saw this last night and enjoyed it as a stright up action movie. I went into this movie expecting an action movie and not a documentary on Mayan culture so I wasn't looking for inaccuracies in the film. The only thing that irked me about the whole movie was the fact that their was a solar eclipse followed by a night time shot of a full moon. This is impossible but it didn't bother me enough to not enjoy the nonstop violence, action, and kickassity of everything 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2006 03:54
|
|
|
I'm gonna ramble a bit so forgive me... This is one of the most intense and thought-provoking films I've ever seen. It's really sad that Mel Gibson has become such a public farce because the guy knows how to make fantastic films. Braveheart has always been one of my favorites and this one comes close to eclipsing it (lol, spoiler! lol!). In fact, a LOT of the film is very reminiscent of Braveheart (the throat slash, musically, the bursts of flutes during dramatic chase scenes, a lot of fight sequences are very similar to the type of thing we saw in Braveheart, the unremittingly bleak and naturalistic portrayal of human life as nasty, brutish and short, etc. The movie is not as violent as I thought it would be. What *does* make it difficult to sit through is the emotionally traumatizing plot event that occurs about 25 minutes into the movie. I found that the hardest part. Thereafter, the rest of the film is a really fascinating look into an ancient culture that can be both captivating and incredibly offputting in its savagery. To be honest, there is very little of the cultures shown (in the "city" sequences, anyway) that puts them in a positive light. A lot of people may think the ending is a cop out but I think it was a very, very effective way for Gibson to weave his themes into a larger historical tapestry. The entire film is replete with thought-provoking symbolism and the plot develops all these very well. The notion of "Apocalypto" as "an ending" and witnessing the omens and portents in the film unfold as they do leaves you feeling immensely satisfied at the close of the film and still insatiably curious to learn more about the culture afterwards. One of the best movies I've ever seen. A true 5.5/5.0.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2006 07:03
|
|
|
I went into this movie as level-headed as possible. Ignoring the fact Mel Gibson made it, and leaving my anthropology textbook at home. To be as concise as possible, this was one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. Despite being visually stunning on so many impossible levels, this movie totally jerked my emotions around for the full 2 hours and 15 minutes. I was literally blown away. Anyone who has taken a history class has the 'big picture' concept of what essentially happens to all of them, so to ride on that will just distract you from enjoying the film. The Spaniards really play an insignificant, outside role in the film. They're omnipresent but you don't even see them until the very end. Hroby's review for the SF Chronicle totally pissed me off because he ranted on the concept that Mel Gibson was advertising the benefits of Christianity and that is essentially the "savages" "new beginning"--overanalysis from left field ahoy! I wasn't even paying enough attention to see the cross when I saw the movie, I was more or less examining the Spaniards on the ships to examine emotions. People need to understand that is how Spaniards addressed outsiders they came across during that time. It was a period of massive conversion and discovery. I still felt the tribes' religions were portrayed with great dignity and pride, and the men died with pride. Going for the historically accurate epic representation, this movie falls short. For various reasons. However the story that was created for this movie, the struggle of one warrior to save his family, was beautifully delivered. My one nitpick is I think they could have cut the jungle chase scenes a tad. Then you could have got the movie down to 2 hours. I like the concept of two ratings for this movie. Enjoyment Movie: 4.9/5--great story, great character structure, visually stunning beyond description, -.1 pt for a rather rushed ending Historical Movie: 3/5--quite a few personal interpretations of historical inaccuracies
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2006 08:43
|
|
|
I went to this movie with a chick. She picked it, said she wanted violence and gore. That tone didnt last 5 minutes into the movie and turned into "Im not sure I can watch this" repeated throughout the movie. We stayed for the whole thing though. The movie takes awhile to get any bit positive. I found myself thinking of ways for people to escape/get revenge and asking myself which way the movie was heading. All in all I enjoyed it, but probably not a good date movie, unless they are ok with A LOT of violence/gore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2006 10:43
|
|
|
Honestly, this movie bored the hell out of me. I hear a lot of people making a big deal out of the subtext of the movie, but I just found myself getting bored watching someone walk a hell of a long way get to a city and then run a hell of a long way. Also, I think that the use of handheld, digital cameras absolutely counteracted the image of an ancient culture they were trying to convey. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2006 03:23
|
|
|
I hated, hated, HATED this movie. I found it to be incredibly boring and almost completely unwatchable, and no, I am not exaggerating in the least, and that is why I am rating it a 1.0. The main reason, I think, is that there were basically no actual *characters* in this movie: All the people we get to see are just stereotypes or stand-ins to fullfill a certain function instead of characters with motivations that we can empathize with; there was "hero guy who wants to rescue his family", and a couple of "bad guys who want to kill him" and so on, but next to no actual characters - I won't even go so far as to ask for character *development*, but please, at least make them seem like *people* - to speak of, at all. We are pretty much just thrown into this strange world and shown a bunch of faces that mean nothing to us, with basically no fleshing out of who they are to make them seem real to us, before they are shown being tortured, hunted down like animals, and killed in all the gorey detail modern special effects can produce. Now showing this, the movie revels in, but to be quite honest - it's just boring. Because it didn't manage to shock me (because the movie didn't manage to make me care about the characters) the intended effect fell completely flat on its face, with the result being that these scenes were shown for what they were, completely useless, gratuitous violence that on any level but the most basic, visceral one, is just completely devoid of anything to make it interesting to watch. When the film starts off it shows a bit of tired old "noble savage" imagery which was probably intended to build empathy with the characters, but when the characters are as devoid of, well, actual *character* as these it just falls flat. And then after that without losing any time it goes off directly into the non-stop gore and chase scenes which make up the rest of the film. Now why would I want to watch 30 minutes or more of basically anonymous people getting their hearts cut out alive by another bunch of anonymous people? They might just as well try and sell us an hour of footage from a slaughterhouse for all the good it will do us as viewers. So the film is basically completely devoid of any actual content, and apart from that, well I guess a friend of mine summed it up pretty much perfectly with the following (paraphrased) quote when he said, "as interesting as these ancient South American cultures may be, they are not sufficient to carry this whole move on their own." And there you have it, that's basically it. Which is a drat shame, because I had really high hopes for this movie. I don't think I shall ever watch it again. And my rating here will reflect the fact that this movie is not only not "just average," or "below average," or even just "pretty bad" like a slightly higher rating would imply, no it is, in fact, actually "terrible". In fact I can only think of one movie right now that I have watched in recent memory that I thought to be even worse than this one; and that movie is King Arthur. -- 1.0
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2006 02:18
|
|
|
Vernacular posted:Unfortunately, the movie isn't completely devoid of Mel's personal religious agenda (as per the last 5 minutes of the movie where the white man has come to spread Christianity and lead the Mayans to a 'new beginning'). I just try to forget this and not let it ruin my enjoyment of the movie I'm not sure why you chose to interpret that scene like that. I felt it was part of the theme of the movie. In the beginning, the primitive tribes were hunting a pig. They killed it, then ate it's heart. Then more advanced people are hunting the savages, and they treat them like animals. They hunted the more primitive tribes the same way the pig was hunted. Their hearts cut out, and eaten. Starting to see the pattern? Then at the end, it was just showing that there's always a bigger animal. He wasn't trying to say "here comes your hope and salvation", he was saying "say hello to the next step on the food chain". In my opinion, it was not supposed to be an ending of hope, but rather an ending of hopelessness. This should be evident by the movie's tagline "you can't escape your destiny" or whatever. Since clearly Jaguar Paw did in fact escape, and the tag line is plastered on an image of the plague-infested city, it's obviously referring to the downfall of their civilization. I can't imagine how Mel could have intended to portray the arrival of some great salvation, when everyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of history is well aware of how the Christians treated those cultures. If anything it was a cynical ending, demonstrating the cruel circle of life, that no matter how big you are, something is bigger. Always a bigger fish to eat you, even as you eat a small fish. I give it 4.5 / 5 Gorgeously filmed, beautiful imagery, a rare opportunity to see a gloriously colorful society portrayed with a big fat Hollywood budget backing up the costume department 
Mongolot fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Dec 21, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2006 04:39
|
|
|
I agree with Mongolot's conception of what the events in the film were portraying and the relation of the various societies to each other. I think Gibson is a very skilled director and it's a compelling and suspenseful film. However. Dude has some serious issues. I don't know what's up with his preoccupation with torture and cruelty, public eviscerations and beheadings and the like. I'm pretty jaded, and I realize that some of this represented actual events that have happened, but it's just all a bit much to take.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2006 02:56
|
|
|
Kind of a gimmick, really. The setting, atmosphere, etc is fantastic. The costumes, the actors, the language, the tiny little details like the decorative things on their teeth and the sound of heads rolling down the temple steps...it's all great. But that's it - the plot is about as simple as they come, and frankly, much of the movie reminded me of an overglorified Looney Tunes cartoon. Also, this movie is sadistically violent. Yes, I know daily violence and death was a part of that world, but geez...did they have to show all of it, in detail? I thought that South Park that lampooned Mel Gibson as a sadomachistic freak was a bit overdone, but now I dunno. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2006 04:08
|
|
|
Sadistic and boring. At least 30 very explicit murders shown in great detail and slow motion. I don't find this enjoyable and there is absolutely no point other than the director clearly enjoying this kind of thing. The walk from the village to the city was the most boring 30 minutes I've ever seen on screen. 3/5 for the good production values, beautiful shots and a pretty unique 45 minute chase scene through the jungle. Also what is the point of capturing people, bringing them from far away, only to kill them by letting them run through a field (I am not talking about the sacrifice, I get that). But why not put them to work or sell them or something? Pinkied_Brain fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Dec 25, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2006 18:24
|
|
|
I went into this movie expecting to see two and a half hours of nonstop gore and violence, what with the way people were talking about it, but this movie isn't really all that violent a film. People here keep saying "they showed every detail," but most of the murder and raping happened just out of view of the camera. We wouldn't actually see the act of say, someone's head being chopped off or heart being cut out, just the aftermath. I don't think the "WHOA DUDES HOLY poo poo THIS IS VIOLENT" rep this movie has is warranted one single bit. This is almost entirely a visual film: the dialogue isn't really that important, and even though several people walked out on the movie in the theater I saw it in because they didn't realize it wasn't in English, there's actually very little dialogue anyway. The makeup and costumes is some of the best I've ever seen, and I really liked how the city looked. I spent much of the first 90 minutes or so of the movie admiring all the attention to detail put into that stuff. There's one thing that I have a huge problem with though, and nobody seems to have brought it up here. The solar eclipse causing everyone to panic part was BULLSHIT. The Mayans worshipped the sun, and considering that that their calendar is pretty drat accurate, they would have known EXACTLY when that solar eclipse was coming, so when even the priests were freaking out over the eclipse happening, that made me stop and go "man, talk about a totally lazy deus ex machina way to save the main character." I think every single 80s children's cartoon has used that one. Still, that's just one part of the movie. 4/5.
Daryl Surat fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Dec 28, 2006 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2006 07:56
|
|
|
I was very pleased with this film. It was actually a lot like the other two Gibson films - We Were Soldiers and The Passion, in that the characters are actually very static (although of course a case can be made for Jaguar Paw not being static) and the movie is more of a camera being turned on in the middle of a very interesting moment in historical time. Gibson would very much rather show a whole bunch of poo poo going on and rely on a lot of vivid images to make impressions on the audience than tell a story, and for the first time I was totally cool with that. I didn't really watch the film as strictly historical - I knew that the Mayans would have predicted an eclipse easily, and not been frightened of it but more as being set in the general time and place without historical specifics. There wasn't a Moctezuma character, for example, or anything that would give audiences a definite sense of time and place. The conquistadores at the end were an unfortunate addition then, although I didn't feel that Gibson straight-out glorified their bringing of "culture" to the Mayans... the smallpox scene seems to foreshadow the diseases they brought over, and really I think they are there to serve as the conquerors of a decaying culture - it isn't necessarily a whites>savages type thing, but a show of how stronger cultures will overtake those that cannot keep stable themselves, thus making the film relevant to modern times. It wasn't an extremely bloody film, but I found the first hour a little hard to watch, just because of the sheer brutality. The photography was masterful, the acting was pretty good given the sparse dialogue, and the action was very well-done. I thought the half-hour build from the mines, to the city, to the enormous temples was incredibly well-done. Overall, a very interesting movie that gives you a lot to think about with minimal dialogue/plot devices and a whole lotta imagery. Some of the scenes will stick in your head for a while. Loses points just for being a little too simplistic sometimes and for the excessive violence, which sometimes added very little and ended up adding nothing insightful to the film's interpretation of Mayan culture, other than them being bloodthirsty savages. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2006 08:50
|
|
|
^burtle posted:I enjoyed it for the most part but I felt like the last 10 minutes just unraveled everything into a giant cop out, She shoots out a kid under water, the two dudes who have chased J-Paw to the End of the Earth just give up when they see the boat, and we don't even see how he gets the family out. Those parts aside, I loved the procession into the city and the King/Chief Priest costumes especially. I don't in any way see how that was a cop-out. We already know there was rope around the hole from before, and I'm sure there was rope left in the village if not. What's wrong with her pumping out a baby underwater? While it was a little fast and underplayed, I don't see how that's a copout. A copout would have been her going into labor but then just holding it until she was safe above-ground, which would totally destroy the suspense. And when you see 3 massive ships and some people with strange clothes and different colored skin, your entire world is probably going to be rocked. Not to mention their leader had just been slaughtered, I don't think it's unreasonable that after they saw those boats they'd just give up. Overall, I loved this movie much more that I thought I would. I don't understand all the bad word-of-mouth I'd heard (even with the pretty good reviews), maybe because most of my friends are the type of people who refuse to watch "Minority Report" just because Tom Cruise is a moron, despite it being a kickass movie. Whatever, I loved it, 4 out of 5. It doesn't get 5 because I was expecting something a bit more epic and long-winded (like Braveheart) when what I got was a high-speed chase movie with awesome Mayan warriors. I was still satisfied, I was just a bit miffed when it ended. Edit: Added spoiler tags. AmnioticSac fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jan 2, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2007 21:43
|
|
|
I saw this movie with my parents the other night and thought it was terrible. While my father actually enjoyed it as a jungle action film, I had an extreme distaste for the nonstop deus ex machina moments that plague it...to the point where they become an overbearing theme within the movie. I unfortunately find this to be very bad screenwriting, especially when used in such a massive abundance, no matter what movie I'm watching. The main character is repeatedly saved throughout the film by 'acts of god' or omens being thrown upon his enemies. A jaguar or a snake killing one of his pursuers out of nowhere, a solar eclipse distracting them, a somehow limitless stamina even after being wounded countless amounts of times by spears, clubs, and bows. ...The list goes on. None of this makes the Mayans seem "mystical" or interesting. It just further stereotypes them among several other things in the movie. Of course you could say, "Well, Wickedcapedkid, you went to see a movie called APOCALYPTO. It means the end of something! The apocalypse! You have to expect it. And besides, we know Mel Gibson is a man of god and believes in divine intervention!" And, you're right. I suppose I should've known better before spending $6.00. 1.5/5 Wickedcapedkid fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Jan 11, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2007 02:06
|
|
|
I was very disappointed by this movie, honestly. First the pros though: the setting, the costumes, the general atmosphere, the language and some of the actors were excellent. It pulled me right in, and during the first 20 minutes or so I felt like I was watching a really great movie. Then the idiocy began, and it suddenly became Deus Ex Machina: The Movie. Ugh. (the jaguar, the snake, the toddler doing the Cassandra out of nowhere, the loving comic book solar eclipse! etc.) Even worse than that: with one single exception (fat villager) I didn't care about any of the characters. They all seemed like generic cut-outs. Especially the baddies, with their generic brutal-yet-noble leader and the generic sadistic evil dude. Total cliché. The good guys weren't any better either. Are we supposed to give a drat about the wife and kid in the hole? I sure didn't! I don't care that she's pregnant and too dumb to tread water. The cinematography was completely average on every level, and I felt they missed many great opportunities. Instead they gave us one of the worst uses of shakey-cam in recent memory, that looked completely out of place. And of course, the violence. It was very graphic, and very, very unnecessary. It added absolutely nothing to the story, and often looked downright silly. Really, Mel Gibson needs to see a therapist. 3/5 and that's only because I really dig good costumes and original languages in movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2007 16:25
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie, but I can't take it seriously. I mean, the storyline just seemed kind of aimless, like it had been made up as it went along. What was with all the random loose ends that didn't seem to make sense? Why did Itchy-Penis say 'before the night is out I'm going to die and take as many of these bastards with me as I can' if he was going to do nothing of the sort? Why did we have that scene where the wife kills the monkey? I assumed that was going to have some significance later on, but it didn't. I didn't really understand what the significance of the little girl's prophecy was either. Were we supposed to believe that she had some sort of mystical powers? If she did, so what, she made a prophecy that applied to about six people. If she didn't (which was suggested by the pure luck by which Jaguar Paw kept escaping death) then what was the point of that scene? I just thought the plot on the whole wasn't very satisfying, and I definitely interpreted the ending as 'oh gently caress, they're going to get wiped out now anyway' seeing as that's what actually happened. I never had any idea that it was supposed to be a hopeful ending. Anyway, yeah, it was really fun to watch (the ludicrously over the top death scenes were hilarious) but I'm surprised to find people actually taking it seriously. 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2007 16:45
|
|
|
I was blown away by Apocalypto. The directing is just so beautiful it helps you skip over a very rare few strange scenes such as the birth scene which was a little bit incredible. The colours used, the camera angles and the general direction was just superb. The acting was virtually flawless, and each and every character was interesting and fun to watch for the entire duration. I really liked the Lord Of The Flies moment at the end too. Some scenes that have been criticised in this thread I feel were perfect, because the Aztecs and Mayans and people of that time really were very mysterious and in to mysticism and suchforth. I felt that to provide that element to the film really payed homage to the whole culture. Personally I think Apocalypto is one of the best films i've seen in a long time. 5.0/5.5
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2007 15:41
|
|
|
Very satisfying and enjoyable film. At first I found it difficult to empathise with the characters, but soon felt drawn in (I guess seeing human suffering on that level will make you empathise with anybody). The performances are very impressive, especially considering the lack of dialogue. I was a tad disappointed that the story took such a personal route - I was definitely expecting a more epic tale seeing as it's about the fate of a whole civilisation. Individual stories have to be woven in to any epic to make it engaging, but this film is almost completely focused on the life and death struggle of one man. I guess the important thing, though, is that it works. As to the violence - there is a lot of it, and it is quite graphic. Considering the subject matter, it did seem justifiable, but... I dunno. Mel Gibson does seem to revel in it a tad too much. Also on that subject - I don't know much about what he has said or done recently that's made him so unpopular, but I was anticipating the appearance of dodgy moral/religious messages in this film. As it turns out, I didn't need to worry - if there was any implcit preaching in there, I missed it. If there is a message, it's a fairly simple and sad one about the eventual fate of any human civilisation. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2007 19:44
|
|
|
I'm surprised a lot of people liked this movie. The first twenty minutes or so were fairly interesting- the village being attacked was the best part of the movie, in my opinion. After that, things were pretty dull, but the (relatively) advanced civilisation they showed was interesting, and might have even been interesting if it had been developed on a bit more and was actually important. Then they showed an hour of some guy running from some other guys. It was like they already ruined an already fairly boring movie by adding in a bunch of boring "running through jungle with lovely camera" scenes. I mean, the guy pulled arrows out of himself, jumped down waterfalls, was beaten the poo poo of and crawled all over the place half dead, and still lived, with no excuse but "well he's loving Jaguar Paw yeaaaaaah". All the action scenes after the first parts of the movie are boring. The ending wasn't bad, but it didn't make up for everything else. This is the most boring movie I've seen in a while; it had a decent story and theme, but it was ruined by not being at all interesting. Also, the characters were developed a good amount, but they just got killed or ignored, so it was pretty pointless. This whole movie was pretty pointless. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2007 23:08
|
|
|
This was a good, detailed, thorough movie. There were moments of incredibility, but they were at least entertaining. There were some moments that were just seemingly forgotten or not explained, but they were small enough to let the movie still be engaging to the viewer. I found the raw camera angles and the feel of it not take away from the movie, and add a bit more inclusivity to the situation that Jaguar Paw was going through. It seemed to me at least that the movie goers who didn't like it at my theatre were already predisposed to showing off how much they hated Mel Gibson or how Historically inaccurate the movie will be so they went in ready to critisize and not enjoy it. The ending just seemed like another distraction that saved Jaguar paw to me. He was all out of stamina and almost done, and then there came one final distraction, It didn't seem like too much, otherwise Mel Gibson would've focused on them a bit more. All in all, I thought this was a solid action/chase movie. There was humour worked in there also. And seeing the mercenary leader constantly getting more and more pissed off made the movie better in my opinion. 4/5 I don't understand people calling this movie sadistic and the violence intense, when Pan's Labyrinth in the same forum is getting higher ratings?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2007 04:18
|
|
|
Re: final scene I thought it was pretty unlikely that the henchmen would have continued to go after Jaguar Paw after their head honcho died in the first place, they were obviously reluctant to do crazy things like jump off the waterfall and they didn't have the same revenge stake in it as their boss, so I didn't strike me as any MORE preposterous that they gave up when they saw the ships. After all, dudes could have gone back to pyramid land (or not) and made up any story they wanted about what happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2007 04:36
|
|
|
I loved this movie. The simplicty of the story and characters was refreshing, while still carrying the dark undercurrent about the self destruction of civilization and mans unending greed. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2007 08:38
|
|
|
If you're channel flicking and you come across this movie on tv, it would be worth seeing for the sumptuous costumes and huge scale environments.. but i'm quite discerning when it comes to paying for movies, so i'd say it's something you'd watch if you're just in the mood for a big budget hollywood action movie and minimal dialog. I think the eclipse thing suited the movie though. It was so cartoonish it worked. My first thought was "I saw this scene in tintin decades ago!" And as for the violence, it was violent, but not in a shocking way at all. It probably just seemed disturbing because it was so normal for the characters to just pull out people's hearts but aside from that, nothing out of the ordinary. 3/5 - brainless, but entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2007 11:26
|
|
|
Well, I've been curious about this movie. It's mostly because I'm a sucker for original language stuff and I wanted to hear some mayan. Oh and the trailer made the cinematography look pretty interesting. So where to start...as I was watching the movie, my mood turned from curious enjoyment, to incredulity, and finally into B movie mode where I just gave up on taking any of it seriously in any way and just waited for the next hilariously horrible bit to turn up. But first the good points: the costumes were great and the acting was solid. Now to the movie. For such an epic premise, this is a very very small movie. There are approximately zero characters present, all present being clear, never changing cut outs. This is not helped by the fact that there were about five speaking roles in the movie and that most of the speech is in monologues or pointlessly mystical one liners. The story could have taken place at any time in any place to anyone. The mayan bit just made it cool. The irony of the chief dying by the same trap as the boar at the beginning of the movie made me laugh out loud. The script is full of lazy cop outs, dropped characters, loose ends and deus ex machinas. When they end up on the beach and were all looking into the distance I said to myself "I hope it's the spaniards", just to make it all stop. And lo, it was! And yet every drat thing in this movie turns into a pathetic anti climax. The eclipse being a prime example. Who were these people? What is this society? Yes, they all wear silly head gear and cackle and god knows, but they're not actually people. They're just scenery. Now we'll just give you a chance to save yourself da da da that was the city Mel Gibson should not be let behind the camera. Nothing forgives the shaky cam, the slow motion, the seemingly endless running through the same few acres of jungle. The CG is glaring, the wide shots are few and feeble and the scale is provincial. Most of the movie looks as if Gibson had been heavily drinking. I mean the shots are just downright poor. Was most of it filmed on DV? Was any of it good?! I'm giving this movie 2/5, only because it really is a good gimmick to tack a one-sentence-plot chase movie to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2007 05:47
|
|
|
About the eclipse scene I interpreted it as showing that all the high priest and people on top of the pyramid knew it was coming and had accurately predicted it BUT the regular people down bellow didn't. So they were basically using that event to put on a big show of how they were pleasing the gods so they could cement their power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2007 09:02
|
|
|
NeoHentaiMaster posted:About the eclipse scene I interpreted it as showing that all the high priest and people on top of the pyramid knew it was coming and had accurately predicted it BUT the regular people down bellow didn't. So they were basically using that event to put on a big show of how they were pleasing the gods so they could cement their power. Thread back from the dead but I agree here, it was clear that the priests knew what was going on and meant to use the eclipse to impress the peasantry, JC just took advantage of it Overall, this movie blew me away with its direction and the relatively simple plot didn't detract from it, nor did the ending which I think was pretty obviously one of hopelessness not hope 5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2007 19:33
|
|
|
Awesome, awesome movie. Going in I didn't know almost anything about the movie, except the general setting and that it was violent. Letting the movie speak for itself without any extra baggage, I was flabbergasted. This was one of those rare movies where I lost track of the time and just sat in my chair, fixed to the screen. Say what you want about Mel Gibson as a person but the man can tell a story. I can't remember the last time I was so surprised by a movie. I especially loved the contrast between the city scenes and those in the jungle, created by the use of different cameras in both parts. The city scenes pop out and look like big budget Hollywood spectacles, while the intense jungle sequences feel natural, intimate and hectic as all hell. It's a shame that Apocalypto won't get the recognition it deserves, because many people seem hell bent on projecting their personal feelings about Mel Gibson onto the movie, and also are reading the completely wrong signals on it. In the final scenes the Spanish obviously aren't the knights in shining armor come to praise the joys of Mel's religion, they are the harbingers of doom that have been foretold and foreshadowed all movie long. I agree it's an extremely convenient and tired deus ex machina but still they kinda had to be in the movie. A lot has been made of the movie's violence, and make no mistake - it's violent as hell, but I think it needs to be. The graphic and frequent violence gives the movie a ton of punch and it strikes so suddenly you never want to let your guard down. I don't think Apocalypto would've worked nearly as well had it been toned down, and ultimately we're not talking about Passion of the Christ level snuff film stuff here, the movie just doesn't shy away from what happens when you hit someone in the head with a stone axe. Still it's gonna drive some people away and that's a god drat shame. I saw the movie on Blu-Ray and if you're looking for a demo disc, consider this one. Awesome colors, excellent picture quality and discreet but impressive audio. All said, one of the best chase movies I've seen. Pros: Awesome atmosphere, unique setting, visually impressive, unapologetically violent Cons: The ending feels rushed, upapologetically violent Rating: 4/5 Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Feb 18, 2008 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2008 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 14:37 |
|
|
Mel Gibson has now set braveheart in scotland, america, AND south america. Braveheart was totally badass, so that's not a bad thing. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2008 02:01
|
|
