Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

I've heard that, as well, but I'm not bothered by the idea. As you say, it's probably historically accurate to depict such violence. Also, while I'm generally very annoyed with any violence I regard as unnecessary (or existing primarily to shock), I have no problem whatsoever with violence that has a clear reason for being there. I thought the violence in The Passion of the Christ was entirely necessary, and from the sound of things it will be just as necessary in Apocalypto.

I suppose that's just a matter of taste, though.

I have to agree with Yoda here. The fact that the movie is about an ancient civilization like the Mayans, plays into the fact that there is going to be violence, and much more gruesome violence than in typical movies, just becuase in those days that is how cultures worked. I would say that Gibson would not put in such hard violence just to create buzz for the movie...I would imagine that it is all justifiable and reasonable. So, it really isn't something that would turn me off from going to watch the film.

This looks like the worst film ever made.

While I assume your lack of stated rationale is an indication that no such rationale exists, I'll bite, and ask the obvious question: why?

Damn I didn't actually expect to have to think about this. Firstly, the way it actually seems to be called 'Mel Gibson's Apocalypto' rather than just 'Apocalypto'. Secondly, that the word 'Apocalypto' should appear anywhere in the title, it just reminds me of an ice lolly. So I suppose there is no actual rationale behind my comment, but it has a certain je ne sais quoi that reeks of badness. I'll try to work on my reasoning in future.

With the end of a civilization and a rise of a new, take a look at the title (in gest) Mel Gibson's "his own" Apocalypto. Except it's not a civlization but a reputation. Would people go see this after what has happened? I would.

i think i'll see it

A visual-driven movie with very little dialogue? yay!

I saw it today. It wasn't as good as I hoped it would be but it wasn't bad. It was more of a chase movie than a movie about the Mayan civilization. We learned as much about the Mayans here as we learned about the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Only here there were good Mayans and bad ones.
The chase sequence and the set up to the chase was very, very similiar to the one in a movie I really like, The Naked Prey (1966), with Cornel Wilde.
It was beautifully filmed and there were some great action scenes. As a historical drama I'd give it a D but as an action movie I'd give it a B+.
I just don't get why Mel Gibson went to all that trouble to have indigenous actors speak an antique language if he was only going to present a cardboard version of the civilization.

__________________

"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."- Groucho Marx

Just thought I'd correct Yoda (and many others) that Yucatec Mayan, the language apparently spoken in the movie, is not in fact an archaic or dead language. It's still spoken by over a million people.

Anyway, I'm not planning to see this. I will say I'm a little curious, but given Gibson's track record it just ain't a priority for me.

I would have to say its one of the better movies I have seen in a while. Yeah, it was a chase movie but the eiry vibe it gives off really makes for good entertainment. The violence was brutal but realistic. You would be wise to see this movie regardless of what people are saying.

Well that's a major letdown. I was mostly looking forward to it because I thought it would give me a glimpse of the Mayan civilisation. I'm obsessed with antient civilisations. I'll still probably see it though.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

Well, adidasss it seems like maybe you should still check it out bc there had to have been people who really seemed to like and and are spreading the work about it bc it opened at #1 this weekend!! I wasn't feeling well, so I didn't get a chance to go see it, but from what I have heard it is amazing! And the chase scene is all it is pumped up to be.

Hehe im looking forward to see this movie. My parents always said I wasnt allowed to see the Passion of the Christ because several people died during viewing it, but they made me see Braveheart when i was five.

I very interested in Maya culture, i just hope this movie isnt going to be a kick for money.

__________________
I Amsterdam

And do check my "art": Deviant

You're worried that Mel Gibson made a subtitled film about an ancient culture in an obscure language acted by people no one's ever heard of...for money?

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

well.. yes i cant see why you cant see my point. He's mel gibson alright, hes doing something only the filthy rich can do so that gets a LOT of attention. I love the culture and i dont care who directed it, but some, lets say lots of people are Gibson-geil. theyll see it anyway, just because its Mel. Thats ridiculus.

I honestly have no idea what you're saying here. If you're changing your original statement to claim that he might have done it for "attention" instead of "money," then I suppose it's plausible, though still doubtful in my mind.

And even if people will see whatever he directs, my original response still applies. If money were the goal, there'd be no reason not to put something more mainstream out there, and reach beyond his hardcore fans.

Im nog changing my original statement. Attention is money nowadays. You've got to open up man, cant you see its absolutely obvious it COULD be about money and attention an the abuse of the culture.

Sometimes i hate it when english isnt my first language, it would have so much easier explaining it all in Dutch

What i'm trying to say: Is it not true that shooting a film like this one gets media attention, and attention means money?
just answer that question.

No, absolutely not. Mel received hoards of attention for his drunken tirade earlier this year, and it clearly hurt Apocalypto's prospects. Not all attention is good attention.

Besides, Apocalypto really hasn't received all that much attention for its uniqueness outside of places like this. Certainly not enough to make it any kind of blockbuster.

People don't make bizarre films "for money." It's too risky, and even when they do fairly well (as Apocalypto has), they usually don't make as much money as the more formulaic films. Someone like Gibson could've moved forward with a number of rehashed sequels or big-budget action-comedies, all of which, while not particularly great films, would've been very likely to make a significant profit. Why take such an unnecessary risk if money was the primary motive? There's no point.

If all this weren't enough, you can tell just by listening to Gibson, and by his career track in general, that he's making the films he wants to make. He's bucking the system and taking risks. He's probably the least likely person in Hollywood to take on a project for money alone at this point.