HOLY CRAP!!! :eek: :eek:

I really don't quite know how to describe this movie. Take The Last of The Mohicans, toss in a bit of The Naked Prey, mix that with a drop of Apocalypse Now and a dash or two of Gladiator, add a spritz of Fellini's Satyricon and a shot of 2000 Maniacs, then top it off with a couple of Three Stooges shorts for good measure. That will give you some idea of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. It's a heady brew and may be too strong for some tastes, but I liked it just fine. I may have a hangover in the morning though.

Can you give a basic run-down on what the movie's about? I've never heard of it and am curious to know the basic plot, w/o hearing any SPOILERage if possible.

I was thinking it was going to be Apackacrapo.

It was probably inevitable that Mel Gibson would make a movie about one of the most bloodthirsty civilizations that ever existed. As he's demonstrated in the past, when it comes to staging nauseatingly realistic acts of torture, mayhem, and disembowelment, he’s an absolute master.

He made a movie about HollyWood lawyers? :confused:

He made a movie about HollyWood lawyers? :confused:

Naw. Even if Gibson could get the required degree of carnage and brutality up on the screen he'd never get it past the MPAA. ;)

BTW, in spite of my personal feelings about Gibson, and screen violence in general, I found Apocalypto to be a very bold, daring, exciting piece of filmmaking. But, man... it ain't for the squeamish.

It was probably inevitable that Mel Gibson would make a movie about one of the most bloodthirsty civilizations that ever existed...
As soon as I saw the commercials for this movie, I thought "uh-oh, Gibson's made 'The Eternal Mayan'." Please tell me he hasn't. And, why this movie shouldn't be thusly interpreted.

OK... So, this movie is about Mayans?

OK... So, this movie is about Mayans?

Griff. Yes. Boiled down to it's very essence though, Apocalypto is a just a very rousing (if incredibly gory) action/adventure flick.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/apocalypto/about.php

As soon as I saw the commercials for this movie, I thought "uh-oh, Gibson's made 'The Eternal Mayan'.If that's meant as a reference to the infamous Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew, I don't quite see the comparison. After all, the Mayan civilization died out more than 700 years ago, and (according to modern historians) their culture was brutal, warlike, and heavily into human sacrifice and blood offerings to their gods. On the positive side, of course, they were pretty good at astronomy and calendars and stuff like that.

At any rate, I think I'll wait for this one on cable.

Jeff, not only is is ABOUT Mayans, the dialog is IN Mayan, with subtitles. :freak:

Sort of like the "Passion of the Christ", huh? Interesting. At least screams of pain and agony are the same in any language. :)

... and some of those subtitles are very funny!

If that's meant as a reference to the infamous Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew, I don't quite see the comparison...
It was. Although I haven't seen Apocalypto, I read a bit of the above-linked Rotten Tomatoes article. I'm somewhat relieved, regarding the film itself.

I'm still not thrilled with the message implicit in the advertising. That message being: that Meso-Americans are better off, for having been conquered and decimated by Europeans.

I'm still not thrilled with the message implicit in the advertising. That message being: that Meso-Americans are better off, for having been conquered and decimated by Europeans.

That isn't the "message" of this movie in any way shape or form.

That isn't the "message" of this movie in any way shape or form.
How about the movie's advertising?

It was probably inevitable that Mel Gibson would make a movie about one of the most bloodthirsty civilizations that ever existed.

After all, the Mayan civilization died out more than 700 years ago, and (according to modern historians) their culture was brutal, warlike, and heavily into human sacrifice and blood offerings to their gods.

I dunno, every civilization has had a very bloodthirsty past. Were the Mayans good at it? Yes, but what's the difference between sacrificing the conquered warriors versus quarter-and-drawing your enemies (Europe) or eating your enemies so you add his lifeforce to your own (and presumably any STDs along with it... the Pacific Islanders).

Though I don't mean to derail the conversation away from the movie. :) M wife asked if I wanted to see the movie. As much as culturally I should be drawn to it, I'm really not. Not necessarily Gibson's fault; there aren't many movies I'd like to shell out $20 in tickets and food to see.

...every civilization has had a very bloodthirsty past...
The question is, who will be the first to break the cycle of self-destruction? Will it be us, or will we just provide archeologists of the next civilization mountains of cheap, toxic evidence of our superstitious savagery, and hopeless addictions to sadism and melodrama?

The question is, who will be the first to break the cycle of self-destruction? Will it be us, or will we just provide archeologists of the next civilization mountains of cheap, toxic evidence of our superstitious savagery, and hopeless addictions to sadism and melodrama?

That's sort of the "message" of the movie. That, and how very effective the use of "fear" can be as a tool for manipulating the masses.

The theme of a great civilization rotting from within is certainly an important one. Ironically, the sort of over-the-top savagery Gibson exploits to demonstrate this theme makes him, IMO, more a part of the problem than the solution.

. . . what's the difference between sacrificing the conquered warriors versus quarter-and-drawing your enemies (Europe) or eating your enemies so you add his lifeforce to your own (and presumably any STDs along with it... the Pacific Islanders).Exqueeze me, but I believe you get STD's from having sex with infected persons, not from eating them (literally)! You must mean CTD's (Cannibalistically Transmitted Diseases).

The theme of a great civilization rotting from within is certainly an important one. Ironically, the sort of over-the-top savagery Gibson exploits to demonstrate this theme makes him, IMO, more a part of the problem than the solution.

I was thinking about Zorro's comment when I read yours. Yes, the person who is playing the role of the messenger is a bit ironic.

Another thing that impressed me about Apocalypto is its relatively small budget. It looks like it cost 100 mil and that every penny of that is on the screen. The actual budget was considerably less (estimates vary).The cast are all unknowns and it was shot in Mexico so there's some serious cost savings there. But I was shocked after seeing it to read that Apocalypto was shot digitally. I've got a pretty good eye for this kind of thing and it never once occurred to me in the theater that I wasn't watching film. Apocalypto is the first digital movie I've seen that leads me to believe that HD video might actually replace film as the predominant medium for theatrical movies

Apocalypto is the first digital movie I've seen that leads me to believe that HD video might actually replace film as the predominant medium for theatrical movies

IMHO, it's here and film is on its way out. Inevitable when you consider just the costs of storing a bunch of ones and zeroes vs. the costs of refreigerating film forever.

When the last film projectors are replaced in theaters with HD projection or HD screens, there'll be no need for movies to be released in film format.

Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise are two very controversial Hollywood types and two that, I must admit, are very good at what they do. I thought the last M.I. was the best ever and Cruise was at his best in it while I do not consider myself to be a Cruise fan.

I thought Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was an incredibly good movie and own it on DVD format though it is not a perfect movie by any means (at least in terms of my personal Biblical beliefs).

I'm glad to hear that this movie is as good as it was rumored to be and look forward to seeing it despite what I may think of Mel Gibson as a person. He, like many in Hollywood, has his idiosyncracies but can do a really great job of moviemaking. In that respect, I consider him to be a modern day Charles Chaplin. :thumbsup:

Why did Chaplin hate the jews too?

Why did Chaplin hate the jews too?


Looks like it, look what I found on one of those internets:

http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/XsFilms/SnelPlaatjes/ActChaplinGreatdictator.jpg

Heck, next to Mr Chaplin's obviously bad behavior, Mel doesn't loook so bad.

Why did Chaplin hate the jews too?

Chaplin was (idiosyncratic) a self-appointed (openly admitted) communist in his beliefs and a raving capitalist in his personal habits. I don't care for much of his politics but love his movies. Admittedly, that's just my humble opinion of what I've read about him. You can always research it for yourself if you wish to delve further.

Never knew that about Charlie...hmm I guess I'll still watch his stuff though as he isn't personally benefiting by it.

Gibson on the other hand...well I guess I'll just have to wait him out.

Chaplin was (idiosyncratic) a self-appointed communist in his beliefs and a raving capitalist in his personal habits. I don't care for much of his politics but love his movies. You can always research it for yourself if you wish to delve further.

from the Wikipedia:

"Chaplin's political sympathies always lay with the left. His politics seem tame by modern standards, but in the 1940s his views (in conjunction with his influence, fame, and status in the United States as a resident foreigner) were seen by many as dangerously communistic. His silent films made prior to the Great Depression typically did not contain overt political themes or messages, apart from the Tramp's plight in poverty and his run-ins with the law. But his films made in the 1930s were more openly political. Modern Times depicts workers and poor people in dismal conditions. The final dramatic speech in The Great Dictator, was critical of blindly following patriotic nationalism without question.

During World War I, from March 1916, Chaplin was criticized in the British press for not joining the Army. He had in fact presented himself for service, but was denied for being too small and underweight. However, Chaplin also raised substantial funds for the war effort during War bond drives, and by making, at his own expense, The Bond, a comedic propaganda film used in 1918. This lingering controversy reportedly prevented Chaplin's knighthood in the early 1930s."

Yep, sounds like a rabid commie to me. Plus I heard he claimed to have invented the internet and that he was the inspiration for the character in Love Story.


Never knew that about Charlie...hmm I guess I'll still watch his stuff though as he isn't personally benefiting by it.


Never hurts to research stuff yourself. Like most things, Chaplin's life was a little too complex to sum up in soundbites.

Modern Times depicts workers and poor people in dismal conditions. The final dramatic speech in The Great Dictator, was critical of blindly following patriotic nationalism without question.

Boy, a guy becomes controversial for suggesting things aren't so great for the workers and the poor, and that blindly following patriotic nationalism is bad. Things were sure different back in the thirties! :freak:

I always try to separate the "artist" from the "art". I'm an agnostic, but thought The Passion of The Christ was a powerful (if extremely manipulative) piece of filmaking. Apocalypto falls in the same ballpark for me - although plenty of people are calling it "racist". I got reamed out on this very board once because I listed Richard Pryor as a "hero" of mine. Well the guy that attacked me completely missed the point. Pryor was obviously a horrible failure in his personal life. It was his "art" that I loved and his "art" was what moved me. Apples and oranges, but that's my feeling.

I always try to separate the "artist" from the "art". I'm an agnostic, but thought The Passion of The Christ was a powerful (if extremely manipulative) piece of filmaking. Apocalypto falls in the same ballpark for me - although plenty of people are calling it "racist". I got reamed out on this very board once because I listed Richard Pryor as a "hero" of mine. Well the guy that attacked me completely missed the point. Pryor was a obviously a horrible failure in his personal life. It was his "art" that I loved and his "art" was what moved me. Apples and oranges, but that's my feeling.

Very well stated, sir!

I've always believe that art, or any other achievement for that matter, ought to be judged on its own merits regardless of the source. Hey, Henry Ford had "issues" with the Jews, but he made damn good cars!

I don't admire Charles Lindberg's aerial achievement any less because he made public statements agreeing that Germany had a "Jewish Problem." Gotta consider the lack of enlightenment of the times.

Alright, fellas. No more racial/religious/political comments, please. I have a bad feeling this thread is going to Go South pretty quickly if we don't put the brakes on that angle of conversation. Hate to be that way, but would rather be a hard-case than see things get in to anti-semetic debate on who said what.

Many thanks in advance and let's all have a Happy Holiday Season. :)

Alright, fellas. No more racial/religious/political comments, please. I have a bad feeling this thread is going to Go South pretty quickly . . .

Well! Someone apparently is bigoted against the South and Southerners!



JUST KIDDING!!!!!

:jest:

Definitely have some not-all-that-nice feelin's towards both Southerners and Yankee's. It all stems from the way both sides treated Missouri (pronounced Miz-ur-uh by those in-the-know) during The War Between The States. Specially how them Kansan's were nasty towards us at that time. :mad:

So, yeah, I guess I'm a little bigoted.... :p

Definitely have some not-all-that-nice feelin's towards both Southerners and Yankee's. It all stems from the way both sides treated Missouri (pronounced Miz-ur-uh by those in-the-know) during The War Between The States. Specially how them Kansan's were nasty towards us at that time. :mad:

So, yeah, I guess I'm a little bigoted.... :p

Then may I recommend Ride With The Devil? Great movie!:thumbsup:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134154/

Only people from KC pronounce it that way. The rest of the state pronounces it with a hard "e" at the end. Didn't know you were a show me guy, Griff.

A bone for the Civil War buffs here - this year's MU/KU football game featured a "Quantrill" banner hanging from one of the luxury boxes in the Faurot Field press box.

...may I recommend Ride With The Devil...
Yep, that's the one with the memorable Quantrill speech scene.

Only people from KC pronounce it that way. The rest of the state pronounces it with a hard "e" at the end. Didn't know you were a show me guy, Griff.

A bone for the Civil War buffs here - this year's MU/KU football game featured a "Quantrill" banner hanging from one of the luxury boxes in the Faurot Field press box.

:freak: Was there a reenactment of Sherman's march at halftime!? :freak:

:freak: Was there a reenactment of Sherman's march at halftime!? :freak:

Wrong theater of the war, John :p

Only people from KC pronounce it that way. The rest of the state pronounces it with a hard "e" at the end.
Yeah, we know how to pronounce it correctly, most of the folks I know from Western Missouri do, anyhow. Everyone who doesn't is "from the wrong side of the state", according to my great grandparents. :)
Didn't know you were a show me guy, Griff.
Yeppers. Born in Harrisonville. Lived in Belton, Blue Springs and Pleasant Hill - as well as parts of that blasphemous state called Kansas, specifically Gardner and Olathe. Also lived in Colorado as a youngin'. My dad finally settled in Arkansas so we could be closer to my mom's mother when I was ten.
A bone for the Civil War buffs here - this year's MU/KU football game featured a "Quantrill" banner hanging from one of the luxury boxes in the Faurot Field press box.
Ooohh... that's just so wrong. That's yet another reason why folk from Kansas ain't exactly welcome in Missouri. Especially not after dark. ;)

There were theaters of war in the Civil War?! :freak:

Who put up the Quantrill banner, MU or KU? 'cause if it was MU, whoever thought it up needs the crap beat out of him.

John, Faurot Field is at Mizzou. It wasn't put up by the school, though...it was just hung from a private luxury box. And we threaten to re-burn Lawrence every time those danged Jayhawks come to town...

Niiiiice. :freak:

If a football game can rile people up, it's proof there will always be wars......

Of course, the losers of Mayan ball games had their heads cut off. Talk about incentive to win.

Of course, the losers of Mayan ball games had their heads cut off. Talk about incentive to win.

Didn't the heads get used as the balls in the next games? :confused:

If a football game can rile people up, it's proof there will always be wars......

Of course, the losers of Mayan ball games had their heads cut off. Talk about incentive to win.

I'm almost surprised the MU/KU football and basketball games haven't come to that... :tongue: