Apocalypto - 5 stars

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Aug 26, 2002
14,639
826
0
45
WWW.YABITCHDONEME.COM
#1


'Apocalypto' Is Gibson's Best
By John Hartl, Film critic, MSNBC

Our rating:




Just a few months ago, Barbara Walters declared she would not see another Mel Gibson film. Thanks to his appalling anti-Semitic drunken rant, a lot of people made the same pledge.

If they follow through, they'll be missing the best picture he's directed. His stunning new jungle-chase movie, "Apocalypto," is more accomplished than "Braveheart," more interesting than "The Man Without a Face," and less gratuitously gory than "The Passion of the Christ."

And unlike "The Passion," this Mayan epic can hardly be accused of anti-Semitism, which has compromised the careers of artists from Richard Wagner to T.S. Eliot. Should we deny ourselves Wagner's "Ring" or Eliot's poetry because of the prejudices of their creators? It's a question that can be debated endlessly.

Meanwhile, "Apocalypto" is as thrilling as any adventure movie we've seen in years. Although the narrative has a myth-like simplicity, it doesn't feel overextended at 138 minutes, thanks to Gibson's ability to establish characters quickly and shape each scene in a way that creates a headlong momentum.

All the actors are unknowns, but they're so consistently strong that they may not remain that way for long. Rudy Youngblood, a 25-year-old Native American who plays the hero, Jaguar Paw, has piercing eyes and a remarkable presence. When he's kidnapped by another tribe, and his son and pregnant wife hide out underground, he promises he'll return to save them. We have no reason to doubt his pledge.

Helping to establish Jaguar's authority is a Cassandra figure, a diseased child who condemns the kidnappers with a series of ominous warnings. When they're fulfilled, Jaguar is saved from human sacrifice, and he leads his tormentors on a merry chase that's reminiscent of "The Naked Prey" as well as Br'er Rabbit's tricky Briar Patch.

Gibson and his first-time co-writer, Farhad Safinia, have come up with their own vision of 15th-Century Mayan civilization, which may or may not have anything to do with historical fact.

For the most part, the setting is used as the background for a series of close calls and daring feats that suggest Saturday-matinee cliffhangers rather than a serious attempt to recreate a dying Mayan culture.

The actors speak Yucatec Maya, which is translated into English subtitles that can be jarringly modern. "Move it" sounds a little odd in this context, and so does one hilarious profanity. But so little of "Apocalypto" relies on dialogue that Gibson ends up using a lot of silent-film shorthand to tell his story.

The cinematographer is the Australian Dean Semler, who won an Oscar for "Dances With Wolves" and this time uses a handheld camera to tear through the jungle in a way that's just short of dizzying. Whenever you think he's gone too far, he pulls back and gives you breathing space. The same could be said of Gibson's direction, which has never seemed this smooth before.

im pretty anxious to see this movie...
Im huge on the Mayans, Aztecs, and other indian civilizations..

anyone else in the GOM gonna check this flick..

i cant believe they are saying its better than BRAVEHEART...that movie is a instant must watch for me..

I watched it last night ...haha..

5000
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
45
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#3
Yeah, I'm most definitely going to see this film. Have been looking forward to it for about a year or so.

Personally I think Braveheart was a dope movie and I took it strictly for entertainment value, so the historical inaccuracies that many criticized him for never bothered me and surely wont with Apocalypto either.

It's nice to see that all the actors are unknown and the lead role is filled by a Native American.
 
Aug 3, 2005
857
3
0
#5
ya it got some criticisms for having a buncha cliches and exploiting the mayan culture, but those are probobly from anti-mel critics.

but ya im tryna peep this too, looks interesting.
 

V

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
5,308
137
0
41
#7
  • V

    V

good lookin wit the article, this shit sounds tight imma check it out...
 
Aug 26, 2002
14,639
826
0
45
WWW.YABITCHDONEME.COM
#10
movie was real dope...

the ending was nice tooo...
i know alot of people are gonna be dissappointed with it...
but think about that.....

seein those big ass boats outta no where just show up like that...

5000
 

TBo01

Sicc OG
Apr 2, 2006
341
2
0
48
#11
propz....im surprised his movie got 5 stars....the movie seems dope, but i dont think mel gibson is takin two sides of the story and just focusin on waht he sees as the 'right' story
 

TBo01

Sicc OG
Apr 2, 2006
341
2
0
48
#13
^i havent seen this film and i know some parts of the history

but usually, films have only one side to a story....its hard to even incorporate two sides to a story, so thats why i feel mel gibson would do soemthing like that......i.e. passion of the christ had one side only
 
Nov 1, 2005
8,178
820
0
#15
^^boats cought me off gaurd too...specially being that the mayan empire was long gone before the spaniards arrived...i think mel gibson got the mayans mixed up with the aztecs.
 
Nov 27, 2002
2,092
103
0
48
#17
boats? thats kinda odd, i have not seen the movie yet but if its about the mayans thats way off from what I know. Only thing I could come to off that is the mayans who migrated to what is now michoacan in mexico an were apart of the tarascan empire.
 
Nov 27, 2002
2,092
103
0
48
#19
ReKz said:
Wrong...The Mayans were still around at the time of the Spanish conquest, just not as strong as they once were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_Yucatán
See I have to see the movie now Im just goin off what people are saying off here.
But is this movie in anyway goin for historical fact based?
Im saying was mel gibson goin for any historical time frame during the mayan times?
 
Nov 18, 2004
407
0
0
#20
I have a hard time justifying theatre prices, but this was worth every penny. The cinematography was amazing, acting was convincing, and the storyline kept me engaged throughout the 2 1/2 hours of film. Come to think of it Mel gibson's better at making movies than starring in them.