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 ...
I was not making a 'straw man.' The email that was posted cited a good deal about the actors. Then, however, he added other "bills of particular" which were non-sequiturs from the initial argument (i.e., that, horrors, Catholic and 'non-Biblical' accretions had been placed in a movie on the Crucifixion!). That is what sent my tinfoil meter on.
If the man had stopped at his, "What are porn stars doing in a movie about Jesus?" I would have had to ponder this. However, considering the rest, I smelled an anti-Gibson and perhaps anti-Catholic "rant."
I don't know why Mr. Gibson chose the cast he did. He alone can answer that and I'd be curious to know. I would be aghast to find he put out a blurb in "Variety, Europe" that read "Porn stars needed for religious movie!" I will presume he did not know the full resumes of these actors since he needed people who would learn Aramaic and Latin in short order and on budget or that he thought that this had no bearing on what he asked them to do in his movie. It was privately funded by his company. And while working, they were acting on HIS film and not another.
>>Yeah, the Mayans were all puppies and kittens.<<
That is a lie!!!
They had squirrels as well.
I'm there!!!
I may leave my wife at home though.
FWIW, I hated The Passion. I watched it with my pastor and the elders of my church. Everyone was awestruck and teared up. I had to say that I was sort of the kid saying "the emperor has no clothes". It was gratuitous violence, period. I told my wife at the time that the other problem I had was that it never suspended disbelief. I could always "see" everything behind the camera while I watched it.
http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract12.html
Last Trumpet Ministries is the origin of the post with accretions added later. I found it by Googling "Porn stars starring in Mel Gibson's movies." Quite an interesting site, I'd say.
Quod erat demonstrandum...
F
Aflopalypto.
Thank you so much for your reply.
We agree.
History is violent. Almost every historical shift has been surrounded by horrible things happening to people. If hollywood were to take your advice then either:
1. In movies about gladiators they should replace the swords with flower bouquets.
or
2. They can't do movies about historical things.
You would prefer that hollywood glorify the past and make it into something it wasn't? Something peachy and kind? The result of that is people wishing they lived in the middle ages, unaware of the fact that it was a time of disease (plague), death (in your thirties or forties if you were lucky enough to survive childhood), and oppression (feudal lords). I'd rather people understand truth, even if it's unpleasant.
We 'somewhat' agree on those other things...
I was pretty enthusiastic about this film originally. I just don't feel up to a graphic portrayal of human sacrifice.
Yet I do feel that the voilent trend in these movies are not unlike the bloody slaughter that took place in the Coluseum. Instead of bread they provide popcorn.
I've just never been into "snuff" type movies. Feels entirely wrong, particularly those horror/murder movies.
Then again, I did see "The Passion". That was pretty graphic, but to an entirely different end altogether. Still, it was horrible to sit through.
From what I've read about it, he was interested in the collapse of such a seemingly flourishing civiliation. The violence was certainly part of that collapse. I don't see anything sinister about deciding to do it that way.
The mystery of the collapse of the Mayan civilization is a complex matter, with educated speculation involving political conflict, disease, climate cycle, and various other causes. A non-stop blood and gore movie is not made by someone who is genuinely interested in this historical matter, it's made by someone who is interested in blood and gore.
I think this movie review is probably TOTAL CRAP.
I think that the movie is, yes, likely to be VERY violent (that's why it's rated R), in view of the subject matter. Those who have insight into the history of that period in the "New World" and who have some background regarding Archeology (and anthropology) know it was violent times then, violent people, and . . .
. . . I imagine that this is what Gibson wanted to project, and likely did so - the violence, and fighting among each other and tribes, weaken them so that the next blow from the "unexpected" bring their own Apocalypse.
I haven't seen the movie, yet, so I don't know if this is the message and content of the movie or not, but I would guess that is the message and content, and I think this is probably going to be a very interesting movie to watch.
Since I have always enjoyed Mel Gibson's movies, ever since I first saw the movie "THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY" (which was FANTASTIC! rent it, sometime) - I would think and hope that this movie will also be good.
I think the reviewer hates Mel Gibson because many of such who write this kind of movie review crap have agendas, and most of them are liberal commie pinko crap and they *think* Mel Gibson is a "right-winger" *(e.g. Braveheart, The Patriot, Passion etc.), which he is NOT but this ideation of these idiots brings up their hatred of Mel (as in their hatred of Bush) upon which the write up crap like this so that they hope no one will go to his movie.
Well, I'm going. I can't wait until Dec 8, I'm going. I don't know if it will be a great movie, good movie, not so good, not good, horrible, and such - I will find out when I view it.
But knowing Mel Gibson who I admire as an actor and director and artist in general, I think it will likely be a good movie, one that I will even purchase when it goes to DVD.
Go see the movie.
Then judge.
I don't agree. If the violence is part of the history, it should be in the film. Why he concentrates on that part, I don't know, but I'm not going to assign motives to him in the absence of fact.
Unless you've actually SEEN the film, how do you know that it is non-stop blood and gore? Yes, that's what the trailer shows, but those are likely very selective scenes, and I'm not sure those are chosen by the director. The trailer may actually be put together by the distributor
I'm sure Gibson researches his movies before filming them. I trust - all artistic license aside - he's done a good job with this film.
As we know, the Mayan civilization was in decline by the time the Spaniards arrived in 1520. Nevertheless, though there were still Mayans around at the time, their main cities were abandoned. Despite being an advanced civilization, there's no question they were bloody, but not as bloody and ruthless as the Aztecs.
And let's not forget the brutality of our increasingly secular society: infanticide by the thousands, murders and mayhem, homosexuality normalized and honored, ad nauseum.
"Gibson is basically right. The Mayans were incredibly violent."
This is missing the point. The point is that Mel Gibson chooses to be in, or to direct and/or produce movies that in general, with few exceptions, are incredibly violent. His "bent" so to say, is violence and gore. Why? What's going on up in his noggin that he so actively seeks out the portrayal of incredible violence? Mad Max, IMO, is probably really mad to some degree. He has a lot of seething anger it appears, bottled up inside. His upbringing by his Dad I think plays a major role in Mel's mind being messed up. Read about Hutton Gibson and you'll see what I mean.
"The thing about Gibson is that he picks subjects for his movies and then decides to portray them realistically.
How refreshing. I am so sick of movies "based on" historic figures and events that are so twisted you can't recognize them."
Oh yeah, really realistic and refreshing. Especially the part where Mel compares his movie to being representative of what Bush is doing in Iraq. How refreshing.
I can't wait to see this one. If the LSM hates it, chances are I'll love it.
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.