-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
film: Apocalypto
- Thread starter L2R
- Start date
tambourine-man
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,970
^ Nail. Head.
Indeed, and it's that sentiment why Gibson's trash usually floats.
Metaphorically speaking, the ass scratching is often more interesting than the proverbial skullfuck. But as we've already discussed, such films aren't made to explore the 90-something percent of people's lives and cultures in depth, they're made to titillate by blowing up the 0.01% to the point of caricature.
Indeed, and it's that sentiment why Gibson's trash usually floats.
Metaphorically speaking, the ass scratching is often more interesting than the proverbial skullfuck. But as we've already discussed, such films aren't made to explore the 90-something percent of people's lives and cultures in depth, they're made to titillate by blowing up the 0.01% to the point of caricature.
ChemicalBeauty
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 2,788
I think you missed the point
A man died for your sins. He didn't just get killed, say, in his sleep, either. He was tortured and then crucified for your benefit.
One sentence in the Bible which reads "Then he was scourged" just doesn't accurately portray what happend to Him. The Passion, however, portrays exactly what is believed to have happened to Jesus. Had you ever realized the full extent of what He went through for you before you saw this film? I hadn't.
My 2 pents
/end Christian rant
Last edited:
pennywise
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 5,205
I have said what my point is repeatedly. This level of sacrificial activity means that human sacrifice was a significant part of Aztec culture, and thus it is not historically inaccurate to portray scenes such as those in the film.
Have you even seen the film?
Have you even seen the film?
pennywise
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 5,205
There are only select scenes pertaining to human sacrifice. There are, however, comparitively fewer scenes of average Aztec life. The film was therefore more focused on human sacrifice than on average life.
Considering you are objecting to the innacuracy of the film, I would think it is important that you know what specifically you find so inaccurate.
Considering you are objecting to the innacuracy of the film, I would think it is important that you know what specifically you find so inaccurate.
L2R
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 43,528
L2R
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 43,528
Just saw it and thought it was great. A very good coming of age tale set in a ferocious era, this film does well in it's portrayal of human qualities which we are all familiar with in a setting and language that none of us know.
With it's digital look, a blunt and more realistic feel is the result. This is not unlike recent Michael Mann efforts.
5 stars
With it's digital look, a blunt and more realistic feel is the result. This is not unlike recent Michael Mann efforts.
5 stars
kappadaftie
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,203
agreed.
Watch it for pure visual masturbation if nothing else.
You probably won't have seen anything like it before so that should be reason enough.
Watch it for pure visual masturbation if nothing else.
You probably won't have seen anything like it before so that should be reason enough.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Messages
- 66,868
not sure if you're still around these days, s... but you are way off here. there are actually 24
i watched apocalypto this afternoon and really enjoyed it. i had assumed that he movies was about rape and pillage of natives by white men so it was a surprise in that regard.
i was on the edge of my seat for most of the movie and i found most of the scenes in the movie to be portrayed very dramatically. i normally love to get baked to watch movies but this time i'm pretty glad i was sober
alasdair
Last edited:
mariacallas
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
- Messages
- 23,781
Going to watch this on DVD this weekend. Cant wait :D
goatofthenever
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,183
Good, exciting movie with a unique setting. The story, however, was rather basic leaving not much to happen.
4/5 stars.
4/5 stars.
DarthMom
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2003
- Messages
- 10,152
jesus, that argument was mind numbing. these people sacrificed 100 ppl a day (if you take those number as an avg, and you didn't dispute them) of course it is fine to take a film and go with that.
why the fuck are you so intent on ignoring that part of the aztecs way of life? murdering 20-50 thousand people a year is an attrocity, why can't you focus on it?
i loved the film, two hours just flew by.
why the fuck are you so intent on ignoring that part of the aztecs way of life? murdering 20-50 thousand people a year is an attrocity, why can't you focus on it?
i loved the film, two hours just flew by.
echo off
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2006
- Messages
- 1,213
i'd like to know where the people who claim mel gibson has made movies which are historically inaccurate are getting their information. Cause really, if you are going to give him shit for his sources, perhaps turn that eye inwards. especially when the known history of the mayans and the aztecs is minimal at best, even if it is slightly less a twisted truth than the history of jesus.
tambourine-man
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
- Messages
- 15,970
Wow! I remember this thread!
For what it's worth, I quite enjoyed the film. I thought it showed enough of their day-to-day life to be respectable. In other words... I was happy with the reasonable amount of ass-scratching content.
For what it's worth, I quite enjoyed the film. I thought it showed enough of their day-to-day life to be respectable. In other words... I was happy with the reasonable amount of ass-scratching content.
Benefit
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 5,193
First of all, the film depicts the Mayan civilization not the Aztecs. Mel Gibson and co-producer Farhad Safinia have stated that they deliberately chose Mayans because the evidence suggests they performed less sacrifices and had more highly developed notions of medicine and astronomy.
Of course, the film chooses to focus on the sacrifices, while excluding any mention of science and medicine, but in terms of visual composition... that choice is a no-brainer. This isn't much of a thinking man's film. As to the historical accuracy, certainly liberties were taken but it's not a total distortion of facts. The Mayans are depicted as brutal and warlike, but no archeologist can tell you definitively to what extent they practiced warfare. Many Mayan cities had walls; walls are usually built for a reason. A leading hypothesis for the decline of Mayan civilization (it was well on the downslope by the time the Spaniards ever set foot in Central America) points to overpopulation, plague and economic factors including poor crop yields. Gibson makes reference to all these elements.
As for the suspect portions of the film, they drew on aspects of Mayan culture and civilization from many different time periods, and some elements were lifted straight from the Aztecs. It is also unlikely that the urban vs. rural opposition was so pronounced; a band of forest dwelling natives who live about 1 day hike away from a major city aren't likely to have been dumbfounded by the sight of an urban center. And the urban center itself, as depicted in the film, never existed. The Mayan city of the film is am amalgamation of different time periods.
So while it may not be totally authentic, the filmmakers made a decent effort. History is just a guessing game anyway, so why not take some creative freedoms if it produces an entertaining product? It is not, after all, a documentary and never claimed to be one.
Of course, the film chooses to focus on the sacrifices, while excluding any mention of science and medicine, but in terms of visual composition... that choice is a no-brainer. This isn't much of a thinking man's film. As to the historical accuracy, certainly liberties were taken but it's not a total distortion of facts. The Mayans are depicted as brutal and warlike, but no archeologist can tell you definitively to what extent they practiced warfare. Many Mayan cities had walls; walls are usually built for a reason. A leading hypothesis for the decline of Mayan civilization (it was well on the downslope by the time the Spaniards ever set foot in Central America) points to overpopulation, plague and economic factors including poor crop yields. Gibson makes reference to all these elements.
As for the suspect portions of the film, they drew on aspects of Mayan culture and civilization from many different time periods, and some elements were lifted straight from the Aztecs. It is also unlikely that the urban vs. rural opposition was so pronounced; a band of forest dwelling natives who live about 1 day hike away from a major city aren't likely to have been dumbfounded by the sight of an urban center. And the urban center itself, as depicted in the film, never existed. The Mayan city of the film is am amalgamation of different time periods.
So while it may not be totally authentic, the filmmakers made a decent effort. History is just a guessing game anyway, so why not take some creative freedoms if it produces an entertaining product? It is not, after all, a documentary and never claimed to be one.
Benefit
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 5,193
As for the film itself, it is good.
Mel Gibson is not a great director, or a particularly gifted storyteller, but he has the Hollywood muscle and the money to pull excellent production managers and staff and they at least make his films highly polished. This film is no different. Except for one scene involving an animatronic/puppet cougar that looked kind of like the talking cat from Sabrina the Teenage Witch, the set design, props, makeup and costuming are extremely detailed. The camerawork is excellent; very dynamic and fluid with an emphasis on motion. Considering they shot on location in a tropical rainforest, this is nothing to sneeze at.
The visuals are plush and beautiful for the most part. Vibrant base colors (blue, green) are contrasted with rich earthy tones like brown and black and create a nicely textured visual composition.
The violence in the film is definitely over the top and gratuitous, in the same style as Braveheart. I am not particularly a fan of violence just for the sake of violence, but going into a Mel Gibson film you know what you are getting into. The violence in his films has this brutal, stylized Hollywood quality that I'm not too big on, but it is occasionally effective.
Shooting it in traditional Mayan vernacular was a nice touch, as was using totally unknown native actors. It's not just a novelty; using Latin or Aramaic or Yucatec lends the film another level of realism. What's the alternative? Having these guys dressed like Mayans and talking in English? Most films do go that route, and it creates some discontinuity within the film's world.
As for the story, there's not much of a plot, the characters are one dimensional and it's full of cheesy moments, but it's still fun. It is, at its core, an entertaining action chase film. But instead of car chases through the streets of San Fransisco, you've got a half naked man running through a forest being chased by a cougar in slow motion. You know what you are seeing is campy, but that is part of the fun. Like that scene in Braveheart where William Wallace is on top of a mountain with his sword and he starts screaming for no reason. It's a great moment. And you can be upset that Braveheart won all those Oscars because it certainly isn't Best Picture quality, but you can't blame the film for being what it is.
One thing: Gibson wanted to build the set for the Mayan city from scratch instead of using CGI, or miniatures. Bad decision. The wide shots of the Mayan city as underwhelming, given what would have been possible if he had opted for heavy CGI or miniatures. To be fair... they probably ate up most of the budget on costuming and makeup for the 700 extras.
Mel Gibson is not a great director, or a particularly gifted storyteller, but he has the Hollywood muscle and the money to pull excellent production managers and staff and they at least make his films highly polished. This film is no different. Except for one scene involving an animatronic/puppet cougar that looked kind of like the talking cat from Sabrina the Teenage Witch, the set design, props, makeup and costuming are extremely detailed. The camerawork is excellent; very dynamic and fluid with an emphasis on motion. Considering they shot on location in a tropical rainforest, this is nothing to sneeze at.
The visuals are plush and beautiful for the most part. Vibrant base colors (blue, green) are contrasted with rich earthy tones like brown and black and create a nicely textured visual composition.
The violence in the film is definitely over the top and gratuitous, in the same style as Braveheart. I am not particularly a fan of violence just for the sake of violence, but going into a Mel Gibson film you know what you are getting into. The violence in his films has this brutal, stylized Hollywood quality that I'm not too big on, but it is occasionally effective.
Shooting it in traditional Mayan vernacular was a nice touch, as was using totally unknown native actors. It's not just a novelty; using Latin or Aramaic or Yucatec lends the film another level of realism. What's the alternative? Having these guys dressed like Mayans and talking in English? Most films do go that route, and it creates some discontinuity within the film's world.
As for the story, there's not much of a plot, the characters are one dimensional and it's full of cheesy moments, but it's still fun. It is, at its core, an entertaining action chase film. But instead of car chases through the streets of San Fransisco, you've got a half naked man running through a forest being chased by a cougar in slow motion. You know what you are seeing is campy, but that is part of the fun. Like that scene in Braveheart where William Wallace is on top of a mountain with his sword and he starts screaming for no reason. It's a great moment. And you can be upset that Braveheart won all those Oscars because it certainly isn't Best Picture quality, but you can't blame the film for being what it is.
One thing: Gibson wanted to build the set for the Mayan city from scratch instead of using CGI, or miniatures. Bad decision. The wide shots of the Mayan city as underwhelming, given what would have been possible if he had opted for heavy CGI or miniatures. To be fair... they probably ate up most of the budget on costuming and makeup for the 700 extras.