Apocalypto - 5 stars

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Gizmo

Gizmo

Sicc OG
#41
Nov 8, 2002
1,693
31
48
48
#41
What Gibson brought to the screen was great. Yes they have several inaccuracies but aside from the Boats this could have been happening at anytime during the Great Mayan Empire. It shows how the Mayan and even the Aztecs would terrorize small villages and destroy all who would not come under thier command. I think it played out well from beginning to end including the desease that followed due to the rotting corpses outside the city, next to the crop fields.

I took my five year old cause I couldnt find a sitter and wanted to really see it. The whole movie is in Yucatec and that being that she still pretty much understood the whole thing just by motion, actions and jestures. That is what I liked the most, unlike "Passion" which I didnt care for too much Apacalypto was easy enough to understand even if you missed some sub-titles here and there.
 
I AM

I AM

Some Random Asshole
#43
Apr 25, 2002
21,001
86
48
#43
is it still in theaters? i don't really go to the movies much, but this movie sounds good, and i heard about it awhile ago, just been busy...
 
R

RedStorm

Sicc OG
#44
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#44
I guess I'll be the minority here. I found the film to be disappointing at best. Yes, the action is good. If you've seen one Mel Gibson movie, you've seen them all in terms of how he likes to portray violence. It's the same detailed, graphic scenes we've all seen before, but this time it's in the jungle.

The movie was inaccurate in (1) the sacrifices, (2) the boats, (3) the outreach of the Mayan empire.

If you're looking for a historically accurate film, this isn't it. If you're looking for a film with a good plot, this isn't it. If you're looking to be entertained and see a movie in a setting/environment that you're not used to seeing, then this film is for you.

I don't think it was a bad movie, I was "tuned in" the whole time and wasn't waiting for it to end or anything, but it seems to lack the depth one would expect it to have. I'd still recommend it though, for entertainment purposes only.
 
Gizmo

Gizmo

Sicc OG
#45
Nov 8, 2002
1,693
31
48
48
#45
RedStorm said:
I guess I'll be the minority here. I found the film to be disappointing at best. Yes, the action is good. If you've seen one Mel Gibson movie, you've seen them all in terms of how he likes to portray violence. It's the same detailed, graphic scenes we've all seen before, but this time it's in the jungle.

The movie was inaccurate in (1) the sacrifices, (2) the boats, (3) the outreach of the Mayan empire.

If you're looking for a historically accurate film, this isn't it. If you're looking for a film with a good plot, this isn't it. If you're looking to be entertained and see a movie in a setting/environment that you're not used to seeing, then this film is for you..
Click to expand...
I would never compare this film to any "Lethal Weapon" movie first off. Second aside from the Boats how was how was the sacrifices and outreach of the Mayan empire false. Like I said before This film is accurate if portrayed during the Hieght of the Mayan rule. Just forget the boats at the end.
 
R

RedStorm

Sicc OG
#47
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#47
Gizmo said:
I would never compare this film to any "Lethal Weapon" movie first off.
Click to expand...
I'm mostly referring to Braveheart and Passion of the Christ.
Second aside from the Boats how was how was the sacrifices and outreach of the Mayan empire false. Like I said before This film is accurate if portrayed during the Hieght of the Mayan rule. Just forget the boats at the end.
Click to expand...
The sacrifices were inaccurate in how they were portrayed. Of course the Mayans performed sacrifices, but the way in which they performed the sacrifices were more in the style of the Aztec.

What I meant by the Mayan "outreach" was that during the height of the Mayan empire it is unlikely that there would still be little tribes like that so close. The Mayans probably would have taken over everything under their expanse by then.
 
Gizmo

Gizmo

Sicc OG
#49
Nov 8, 2002
1,693
31
48
48
#49
I understand you on the Braveheart/Passion thing just dont agree still.

A stab in the torso, under the rib cage then reaching under to extract the heart is a theory many scientist believe for Mayan & Aztec. For the amount of people killed it would have to be approx - 1 every 3.5 minutes for several days. Decapatation was practiced by some when in cunjunction with certain rituals.

And if you notice the Knights had not respect at all for any one else. two to four day journey was about how far the village was from the empire so I believe that was a fare enough length for the Villagers to never stumble upon. They had all they needed in the forest surrounding them. For them, life was established in that small circle. If remembered it gave the influence that the Knights were chasing another tribe, who also got caught. Maybe the other tribe/village lead the Knights to that area while running? Just thoughts
 
R

RedStorm

Sicc OG
#50
May 15, 2002
2,964
8
0
#50
I just got done looking at some Mayan paintings that depicted those sacrifices, so I'm wrong. When I saw how they were performed I immediately thought "Aztec" without checking what "Mayan" was. Check your PMs.
 
:ab:

:ab:

blunt_hogg559
#51
Jul 6, 2005
8,149
5,192
113
#51
Two blunts up for this one....

I do believe that the movie was slightly inaccurate.....cuz i'm fresh off a trip to Cancun, (and a visit to Chichen Itza)...
 
2-0-Sixx

2-0-Sixx

Sicc OG
#53
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
45
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#53
So I got around to watching this film a few weeks ago but I wanted time to reflect before posting my thoughts.

First off, let me say, for a strictly entertainment purpose, I thought it was a great movie. Lots of violence, blood, torture, suspense, severed heads, impaled bodies, etc., which is what Mel Gibson is really good at.

However, the more I thought about the movie and the more I searched for meaning or a message, I couldn't really find anything other than these people were violent, bloodthirsty savages.

Nowhere in the film does it show anything regarding the great advances in mathematics, science, writing, art, architecture and engineering or any other positive aspect of the Mayan civilization.

The human sacrafice that Mel Gibson whowed us, well was probably not very true at all. The human sacrifices that were practiced in those times were grossly exaggerated by accounts left by the Spanish soldiers & preists, which Mel Gibson chose to ignore and painted the Mayan civilization as nothing more than complete savages.

At the end of the movie, there was a scene where the Spanish came with a cross and I'm not sure what exactly Mel was getting at. Was he saying that these people, these "savages" needed the bible and/or the white man in order to be saved from their own savagery? That is was the bible and the white man that "civilized" latin amerika and saved them from their own brutality?

I'm not sure but the more I think about it, the more I think Mel Gibson is a douchebag.
 
2

2-0-NINE

Sicc OG
#54
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
37
#54
2-0-Sixx said:
Nowhere in the film does it show anything regarding the great advances in mathematics, science, writing, art, architecture and engineering or any other positive aspect of the Mayan civilization.
Click to expand...
I agree, but the fact that they were able to build those pyramids was somewhat a display of their advances in those areas which I put bold.
At the end of the movie, there was a scene where the Spanish came with a cross and I'm not sure what exactly Mel was getting at.
Click to expand...
Pretty much what a crusader would think, Kill or convert these Heathens.
Was he saying that these people, these "savages" needed the bible and/or the white man in order to be saved from their own savagery?
Click to expand...
Pretty much, Catholic Standards for mankind.
That is was the bible and the white man that "civilized" latin amerika and saved them from their own brutality?
Click to expand...
Then can, one make a case the spanish actually used it to Confuse and bond these civilizations, not knowing, that it could turn on them, once the Natives understood the true meaning of the Religion?

There is encrypted messages in his movies.
 
Dhadnot

Dhadnot

Sicc OG
#55
Feb 7, 2006
6,794
229
0
39
#55
this movie was bullshit, inaccurate, and there was a shot of a dude dressed as where is waldo in this movie that I found. I posted a video of it on youtube and it got taken down from because of copy right infringement, then all these other fools started posting shit about Mr. waldo in Apocalypto. prob. I tell yall a lil more bout it later.
 
LAZYBOY408

LAZYBOY408

Sicc OG
#56
Mar 29, 2004
1,536
11
0
39
#56
I thought it was a good form of ENTERTAINMENT. I could care less if it was true or not I don't get paid to care if i was a college professor then i would give a shit about something like that.
 
F

Fucky McFuckerson

Sicc OG
#57
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,283
113
#57
2-0-Sixx said:
So I got around to watching this film a few weeks ago but I wanted time to reflect before posting my thoughts.

First off, let me say, for a strictly entertainment purpose, I thought it was a great movie. Lots of violence, blood, torture, suspense, severed heads, impaled bodies, etc., which is what Mel Gibson is really good at.

However, the more I thought about the movie and the more I searched for meaning or a message, I couldn't really find anything other than these people were violent, bloodthirsty savages.

Nowhere in the film does it show anything regarding the great advances in mathematics, science, writing, art, architecture and engineering or any other positive aspect of the Mayan civilization.

The human sacrafice that Mel Gibson whowed us, well was probably not very true at all. The human sacrifices that were practiced in those times were grossly exaggerated by accounts left by the Spanish soldiers & preists, which Mel Gibson chose to ignore and painted the Mayan civilization as nothing more than complete savages.

At the end of the movie, there was a scene where the Spanish came with a cross and I'm not sure what exactly Mel was getting at. Was he saying that these people, these "savages" needed the bible and/or the white man in order to be saved from their own savagery? That is was the bible and the white man that "civilized" latin amerika and saved them from their own brutality?

I'm not sure but the more I think about it, the more I think Mel Gibson is a douchebag.
Click to expand...
Maybe he was portraing the struggles ahead for the main character. Sure, he escaped the Mayans, but now he has to deal with the crusade, which is much worse and will almost commit genocide to the Mayan people.
 
smeezy

smeezy

Sicc OG
#58
Nov 16, 2004
849
26
0
#58
speedy gonzalez said:
Movie was too hard..Man I'm surprise none of you guys have seen "Catch a Fire" that movie was real hard too
Click to expand...
Catch A Fire was aight, the trailer ruined it for me, made it seem like it was going to be about something else.

Apocalypto is a great movie period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom