| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 01/02/2007 : 14:07:02
|
Apocalypto
I am wondering whether to go and see it or not. I expect that I shall, especially once I have used up the other new releases, but I feel dirty about this and wonder whether I really oughtn't boycott it instead. Involved in this is that it is, bizarrely, being particularly promoted with the Mel Gibson angle (to the extent of the trailer being him giving soundbites).
Hhmmm... |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/09/2007 09:19:08 |
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 14:34:01
|
Personally, I will never, ever again watch anything that Mel Gibson has had anything to do with - past, present or future. And it's not that I won't pay to see them, I won't even watch them on TV for free. He is on my "King Kong Sized Shit List"*! [insert NO smilies here, whatsoever]
But that's just me. If you want to see it, go ahead.
(*Funny - he's the only one on that list of mine. I do hope he isn't joined by anyone else. Makes keeping that list so easy, doncha know.)
|
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 14:50:10
|
I would already boycott anything to do with Michael Jackson.
The anti-Semitic thing wasn't Mel's first worrying tirade, though. He had already said severely homophobic things in the past. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 14:51:22
|
| P.S. I definitely at least wouldn't pay. I'd only go on my Cineworld card. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 15:13:46
|
quote]Originally posted by Salopian
Apocalypto
I am wondering whether to go and see it or not.
[/quote]
Well, you could see it  Or ... You could just read my review here
 
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 06:22:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
P.S. I definitely at least wouldn't pay. I'd only go on my Cineworld card.
I wouldn't even waste a free ticket on one of his films.
(But that's just me. Perhaps its just my adversion to ethnocentric, holocaust denying, homophobic, bible thumping, assholes. Perhaps I should learn to be more tolerant... )
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 09:03:35
|
Don't worry, I don't need any convincing that he's an awful individual. (I didn't realise that he had denied the Holocaust though!  ) |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/06/2007 : 23:27:44
|
I thought of this thread when I saw the trailer for the second episode of Ugly Betty. Something absolutely disastrous happens (losing 'the book') - it's described as being "Mel Gibson bad".  |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 00:59:02
|
Minor spoilers ahoy! -
Well saw it today - my first of the New Year. I wanted to dislike it more than I did, I will say. As a canny reviewer pointed out if this had been submitted to a film festival under a pseudonym it would be hailed as an absolute must see, but Gibson brings baggage. He unfortunately pervades it with his increasingly familiar trademarks - bloodletting and violence to the point of sadism, a fast and loose take on history to suit his own allegory and characters so two-dimensionally "good" and "evil" as to be comic book stereotypes.
There's also a major slip up dramatically when a plague infected little girl suddenly turns into some kind of evil seer and foretells the fate of the conquering tribe (and with the subtlety of a sledgehammer reveals everything that is going to happen in the second half of the film, including the final moments, either literally or in riddles a child could work out).
On the flip side though it is astonishingly fast paced and exciting, invariably brilliantly shot and always involving and immersive. The non-pro actors sometimes fumbled the early set-up scenes with forced hilarity or lamely concocted character development, but in the action sequences (80% of the film) they are all first rate.
For all the energy and excitement of the film though there's a lingering bad taste in my mouth - the Mayans are presented as a thoroughly primeval and brutal civilisation with little to commend them apart from a grasp of epic architecture (actually not true according to some of the research I've read tonight). The Spanish invasion to come is seen as some kind of blessing as the stupid bloodthirsty savages are going to be educated and converted, or wiped out, and by the end of the film you really don't care if they are. So what is Gibson's point? Judging from the opening quotation he's suggesting great civilisations cause their own downfalls, and presumably that Western civilisation is going that way. Frankly it's a very long and pretty chase movie just to point out we're messing up the world. Thanks Mel. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 07:45:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Minor spoilers ahoy! -
So what is Gibson's point? Judging from the opening quotation he's suggesting great civilisations cause their own downfalls, and presumably that Western civilisation is going that way. Frankly it's a very long and pretty chase movie just to point out we're messing up the world. Thanks Mel.
See, this is just the thing that ticks me off. From all I've ever learned about the Mayans, their downfall was due more to the Spanish than anything they were were doing or responsible for.
Thanks but no thanks, Mel. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 07:47:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I thought of this thread when I saw the trailer for the second episode of Ugly Betty. Something absolutely disastrous happens (losing 'the book') - it's described as being "Mel Gibson bad".
Precious!
(By the way, that show was originally from South America, and later was made into an Israeli sit-com called "Esti HaMechuaret" - meaning Ugly Esti and from what I can see, some of the episodes are exactly the same.) |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 09:54:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Minor spoilers ahoy! -
So what is Gibson's point? Judging from the opening quotation he's suggesting great civilisations cause their own downfalls, and presumably that Western civilisation is going that way. Frankly it's a very long and pretty chase movie just to point out we're messing up the world. Thanks Mel.
See, this is just the thing that ticks me off. From all I've ever learned about the Mayans, their downfall was due more to the Spanish than anything they were were doing or responsible for.
Thanks but no thanks, Mel.
Well, if we're into historical accuracy the film is really off in so many ways. Refs to the "downfall of the great Mayan" civilization still argue about what caused such a creative, fairly peaceful, highly developed society to lose its considerable influence over the millennia -- most suspect it was a gradual accumulation of factors including one of the most severe droughts for thousands of years, the decline of some of their trading partners, leaving them without vital resources, the spread of disease, and threats by other South American tribes. But they ARE agreed the Mayans, though never actually wiped out, were pretty nearly washed up about 2-3 hundred years before the Spanish arrived.
This Wikipedia article gives a fascinating overview, concluding:
"However by the time of the Spanish arrival in 1519 it is generally accepted that most of these centers had substantively declined from their Classical peak."
None of which should detract from Gibson's film which is not a documentary in the sense that some John Wayne or Sylvester Stallone war films are documentaries.  Or that the British played no part in the D-Day landing in Saving Private Ryan. or ... or ... or ... fill in the blanks! The point is whether or not it's a good film, which it is in parts.
But I wonder if I'd be so damn opinionated if I had to pay to see it 
|
|
|
|
Ali 
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 11:12:41
|
quote:
Or that the British played no part in the D-Day landing in Saving Private Ryan.
Saving Private Ryan never claims that the entire D-Day invasion involved only Americans. The film, as you know, is about the search for a paratrooper of the United States 101st Airborne Division, carried out by a squad of US Army Rangers, who fought in the Omaha Beach assault, an attack which involved only American units. What would have been inaccurate would have been to have the Brits, the Poles, the French etc fight alongside with Tom Hanks et al.
I am not a fan of the film, but this "Ryan is such a travesty because there are no Brits in it" argument is a particular pet peeve of mine.
|
Edited by - Ali on 01/09/2007 11:52:44 |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 13:02:59
|
I'd prefer "Saving Private Ryan" if it were a better film, not if there were British soldiers in it.  |
|
|
|
mampers11 
"Lazy Lebowski Loses Rug"
|
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 18:30:30
|
Just saw Apocalypto though I really did not want to, but it was a toss up between that or Employee of the Month, and I do not think of Ms Simpson having the greatest assets of an actress, barring the obvious. (Guys I think you might understand)
So on the movie itself. The violence is piled on like a dinner lady lumping on mashed potatoes on your tray, it is thick and sometimes disgusting. Straight from the off, you see a pig impaled on a trap and its organs distributed around and testicles bitten into. Now on in you can see this is not a happy mive where people talk about their differences. This is instead a bloody and violent movie, which is a trademark of Mel Gibson. In fact, I am starting to worry about Mel and all this violence, but that is neither here on there.
The characters were as dsecribed brilliantly by Demonic as either solely "good" or "evil". Obviously this is not the time to go into complex characters and such, when one guy is trying to survive from the baddies, but I wish I could see more of a human side to the Mayans, rather than seeing them as killing machines.
There were some funny moments, especially a reference to Midnight Cowboy. "Hey I'm walking here" was not something I was expecting to be said by a Mayan tribal leader.
The only thing that was off putting and I wish it was not put there was near the end of the movie.
Spoilers Ahoy.
When our protagonist is running from the two Mayans and reaches the beach, where the three of them can see the Spanish ships coming to the shore. Then there is a close up to the boat, where their is Spanish priests holding bibles and crosses and other religious icons. The Mayans are dumbfounded by what they see, but our hero runs away to safety. Now in my eyes, what I could see from this scene was "Hey. Christianity can save you", and it was that moment which annoyed me in a way.
Now I am not knocking the Christian faith, since I am Catholic myself, but it was my interpretation of it, which kind of given me a bad taste in my mouth. Mel Gibson's movies always seem to have a religious allegory in them, and they are not that subtle either. It just made the movie a bit flat that is all.
PM me if you wanna know anything else about it, or flame me about my review.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/19/2007 : 09:48:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by mampers7
a pig impaled on a trap
Actually, it's a tapir. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Apocalypto (contains minor spoilers)
