Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

A comment form Mexico, the movie is very good to me, the chasing secuence is great, the sacrifice shot is great also. to much blood? i don't think so, and for the subtitles issue, well, here all good movies are subtitled except for "amores perros" and "y tú mamá tambien"

__________________
CHE PILLIN

I finally saw Apocolypto the other day It isn't one I am going to buy at times I loved the movie and at times I was very frustrated I got sick of characters looking at the camera with intense looks also was sick of people running, running, running, even with huge injuries

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Apocalypto happens to be one of my favorite Mel Gibson's pictures. I own it on HD-DVD and the picture and sound are absolutely superb

Awesome piece of work. Truly shows how brutal man can get. There's one thing I need to say before I leave for those who are complaining about this movie being excessively violent. They should either try to understand the meaning of 'Rated - R' before buying a ticket in the theatres or buy a lolly pop and hold mommy's little finger before entering the theatre to watch Pingu

I loved the ending-- it really did majorly shift the perspective of both the characters and the audience, that's pretty cool and hard to do.

PS Also a great date movie.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

I hated it the ending, it ruined the whole film for me

Put me in the "love" pile. Actually, I don't like the way that sounds, but you get the idea. Anyway, the end represents the end of an era, and the beginning of another. I don't think it's saying "yo, European Christians will come to save you and never do anything wrong," so much as their landing does indicate a major societal shift, at least away from some of the more barbaric practices going on. I'm sure someone can try to make some convoluted case that modern practices were barbaric in their own way, and it's not hard to find things to complain about, but it still looks like progress on the grand scheme of things.

Anyway, Gibson has his beliefs and he doesn't apologize for them, and I don't think anyone should be surprised if he actually dares to end a major motion picture with the suggestion that Christianity coming to a new place is a good thing.

Regardless, the movie as a whole is really superbly crafted. I haven't seen it since my first viewing in the theater, but I think I will before too long. It's probably one of the most atmospheric films (for lack of a better description) I've ever seen.

Good call. Maybe turn it into an Apocalypto/Vera Drake double feature to seal the deal.

I'm not saying I was surprised, I'm saying that personally I thought the exact opposite of what you think he was saying because he is as you say unapologetic, and thus, Apocalypto became a whole new movie with a whole new message, and it bothered me enough to comment again

I actually wasn't singling anyone out -- wasn't there someone else who said the ending bothered them? I might be thinking of another thread. My bad.

Anyway, what do you think the message was, exactly, and why do you dislike it?

Throughout the whole movie we see a power struggle that grows to a larger scale, and amongst it are all these barbaric methods of handling situations, which are understandable due to the circumstances let alone the "underdevelopment" (which is a shitty way of putting but you know what I mean). Because of the ending, firstly, I don't know if you were actually supposed to be rooting for the main guy to destroy all the others who wronged him or if you were just watching a cock fight because, secondly, I do think that the ending says "Christianity has finally come to heal and civilize you animals, there is no escape" when in fact the era when Christianity reached the "pre-America" so to speak was when they killed everyone who didn't agree with them, which is exactly what the barbarians in the beginning of the film did. Even if you want to take religious beliefs out of it, you still can't ignore that

I think you're clearly still supposed to root for Jaguar Paw, because his violence is a response. He's the "we make war that we may live in peace" type, minding his own business until his family is attacked. I don't detect any ambiguity about that.

As for the Christian element; feel free to give me a history lesson on the "they killed everyone who didn't agree with them," because I don't know this period as well as I probably should, but my impression is that these sorts of generalizations are almost never really accurate, and that any more developed society that ultimately "wins" and under which terrible things happen (read: every society, ever), ultimately gets painted with one big brush.

Regardless, I don't think one has to love what happened next to acknowledge that it was a major step away from the barbarism we see depicted. The fact that people are still inhuman to one another under more "civilized" systems doesn't really change that, to my mind. It's just an example of how excruciatingly slow certain types of progress can be.

Put another way: it can represent a new, more positive era, and still have a hell of a lot of problems of its own. If Gibson meant to imply that everything was going to be hunky-dory, he could have easily expanded on the arrival of the ships and made the Europeans seem like lovely people. But all that happens is that Jaguar Paw sees it, and goes back into the forest to see a "new beginning." It takes a lot of extrapolation to assume that Gibson is whistling by any natives' graveyards from what little we see on screen.

Quick note: after poking around a bit, I see that Gibson was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that the film is about "civilizations and what undermines them." When taken this way, the Christian Europeans merely being the beginning of the end for that part of Mayan history makes a lot of sense. It represents and encapsulates the end of that era. I think this is how he primarily intended the ending to be taken.

Well yeah that's definitely true, regardless if religion or technology is in play. And the only part of history you have to know about is what we did to the native americans soon after, it's the same time period.
I think you contradicted yourself with your first and second sentence, unless I'm reading it wrong. Either way, I agree with your second sentence..I think
I see where you're coming from here, but I just don't see it that way. Especially knowing the type of person Mel is

And of course he's not going to publicly state his personal feelings about what he thinks about Christianity reaching the shores, no one would see the movie. He knows better than that..sober

That's kind of what I was getting at: I was wondering if there was something historical or specific I was forgetting, or if it was just a general assumption that, because they're Europeans landing in a new place, they're necessarily going to destroy everything.

I phrased the second one a bit awkwardly; I don't mean that there's no change at all, just not a fundamental change in human nature. IE: even progress is going to have lots of problems, and people will still do messed up things to each other even if they're more civilized. I don't think this means there is no progress, just that something can be a step forward even if it has a ton of problems on its own. Heck, I'd say almost all societal progress is like this.

Well, what type is that? We know he has a temper, some anti-Semitic thoughts, and a drinking problem, but I'm not sure if we can use that as a catch-all to assume that everything he thinks is extreme, or objectionable.

Oh, I dunno; saying that Christianity is a net force for good still isn't a terribly controversial opinion, knock on wood (sadly, it's getting there). He's publicly stated a lot of things sober more controversial than "hey, bringing Christianity to remote parts of the world is a good thing."

Anyway, we might have to agree to disagree. My basic position is that everything he's said about the film indicates that its about why civilizations rise and fall, and everything we see on screen is consistent with what he's said, so it's pretty much entirely speculation to go much further. Moreover, even if he was implying that Christianity coming to that part of the world was ultimately a form of progress, I think he's right.

The only untenable position here is first making the speculation that he wanted to say a lot more than he actually did, and then making the second speculation that he also wanted to portray the visitors as some kind of unmitigated good, rather than a more nuanced good.

This would be where speculation becomes a catch 22 because of the many directions it can take, all of which contradict the next. And it wasn't Christianity itself that provided the progress, it was the people themselves who deviated from British laws (only to return to them in the 20th century), and they just happened to be religious people. According to a good portion of those who signed the Constitution, America is technically not intended to be a Christian nation

Their morals and worldviews are undeniably shaped by their religion, though, so it's a lot more than merely incidental, like their hair color. When someone's actions are consistent with their stated religion's belief system, I think we have to assume some causality.

I'd be curious to hear what laws you're referring to here, though. Didn't quite follow that part.

In the sense that we should not have an official religion, yes. But what's this got to do with Apocalypto and the Mayans?