Apocalypto

[HLS]

Has anyone here seen it? Did you like it? I will not spoil it by telling too much about it but I loved it! I thought the acting was good given most of these people have no acting experience. I thought it was a beautiful movie and the scenery outstanding. The movie never left you bored. I liked how you got to see into these peoples lives, grow attached to them, then follow them threw their tragedy. Lord, it is hard to talk about a moivie and not spoil it at the same time

[DVW5150]

Yes it looks great . Thanks for the recomendation .

[capncnut]

I will probably see this as I've heard it's pretty cool... and gruesome!

[Terran]

(Notice instead of making a new post I searched for the related topic first people) I just caught it the other day...... I would say that the story is about average theres nothing particularly amazing about the story. I would say the tragety and "sadness" factor of the movie is about average too. Yes its sad but there are so many other stories out that are much more tragic. To name a few: David Lynch's Elephant Man, Aronofsky's The Fountain and Requiem for a Dream, Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth. Part of the reason why Apocalypto isnt very sad or tragic is that there isnt much emotional investment in the majority of the characters. Also movies where lots of characters die tend to feel less sad and less tragic Stalin said it best The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic Interestingly enough is that theres plenty of research/evidence on Sociology and the Human psych that this is exactly how we humans think. Thats why when a lot of people die people try to pick one person of those dead to spearhead a reaction out of the public. Examples: People dont really care about the story of six million Jews dying in WWII but they care deeply about Ann Frank. Any war story from the present: People dont really care about the ~3602 coalition troops but will care deeply about a new dad that hasnt gotten the chance to see his first child and planned on marrying his highschool sweetheart when he returned and was supposed to return on leave the day after he was killed. etc etc I digress Im sorry.... Theme The theme?....well I would say the theme is the weakest part of the movie. "Destiny" and "Civilizations in Decline" and all that stuff they linked it to just didnt strike a chord and didnt feel particularly meaningful. Some of the sub themes of the movie felt much more meaningful but were so subdued that they hardly make a lasting impact on viewing. The sub themes I am referring to are Cultural Myths, Father Son Relationships, Family ties, Group Dynamics, Heir/Progeny/Inheritance, and a sense of land territory ownership as it links to ones personal identity (These are the ones that I recall, but there may be some more). All these were more meaniful than the main themes of "Destiny" and "Civilizations in Decline" The plot is actually so simple and the story telling so direct that without any trouble one could follow the plot and character's motivations without the subtitles. Watching the movie completely in the foreign language would cause little loss of content. So the movie has an added appeal to those hating subtitles because one doesnt really need to read anything. Accuracy Historical accuracy was pretty flawed, much like how the Passion was and BraveHeart was. The flaws in all these movies are generally related to a number of issues like: making the story more exciting, easing the work load on the writers/production, and making issues black and white for a more digestable movie for casual viewers. For example, it was more typical of the Aztecs to practice the kind of human sacrifice depicted in the movie, rather than the Maya. The sun god Kukulkan, to whom the sacrifices are offered, is in fact the Maya equivalent of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl and did not demand human sacrifice. This all being said....the movie was still very enjoyable. Pacing The movie is paced uncharacteristically well for a Gibson movie. It never felt slow and I have thought that past Gibson movies had a tendancy to be sporadic in excitment and tension. Apocalypto starts off gradually but very early into the movie the real action starts, and after that moment theres a persistant increase in palpable tension all the way up until the climax of the movie, making the viewer feel really engaged in the movie. Even on rewatching it several times over there is a tendancy to lose track of time "Oh I just want to wait for this scene.....oh wait I just want to see this next scene....Ug wait one more second this next part is so tight!" Then suddenly you have wound up watching nearly the entire movie over again. Visuals Visuals are "kindof" great. I say "kindof great" because yes the visuals are great but most of the movie is just deep suffocating jungle. The jungle and rivers and natural enviroments are extremely pretty but its not like these places were manufactured. The only thing the production needed to do to exploit this natural amazing visual was to use lighting and film work that was flattering to the enviroment.....and they most definitely were successful in capturing the natural beauty of the enviroment. Where the visuals really shined was the portrayal of the Mayan city most notibly the temple courtyard. It just really gave the viewer a sense of awe and the thoughts like "Damn!!! this place would truely have blown me away especially if I was a forest dweller" entered my mind frequently. Also the costumes of the Maya just looked really damn cool....from the soldiers, to the wealthy citizens, to the priests and priestesses, and the Royalities.....It was just all so pretty.... Violence: There is a lot of violence in this movie. Which many people here will probally like. For the most part it is pretty realistic violence too. Like most of it really appears how it would happen in real life. With a few exceptions.   When the mayans are sacraficing the people. They dont appear to cut out the heart rather they cut a hole and reach up and pull the beating heart out. While theres nothing wrong with this in principal, one can remove a heart this way, and it would still beat depending on how quickly one does it, but the removed hearts in the movie appear cleanly cut. If they pulled the heart out this way the arteries and veins would still be attached. So there would be a bunch of "chords" attached inbetween the heart and inside the body. If you pulled it out far enough it would eventually snap but then you would have like 4 feet of "chords" attached to the heart because they are more firmly attached to the heart than they are to places further away. I suppose this would be too graphic to show on the big screen and pulling the heart out the hole and then cuting the "chords" might have been equaly graphic. I suppose they could have not shown them cutting those chords but indirectly show them cutting those chords by making the motions while the camera is fixed in a position that doesnt show the procedure. But maybe they felt the audience wouldnt get what they were doing. Also the incident with the Jaguar killing the guy. Most of that looks good but when the guy's buddies are killing the Jaguar there are several instances where it clearly appears as a puppet. And that really killed that scene for me. My brother had a probelm with the second in command badguy and the sporadic blood squirting out of his head wound. But really there is nothing wrong with that scene a blunt force trama to that portion of the head could have ruptured the temporal artery. If it was incompletely ruptured and squished like typical blunt force injuries it would squirt out with a decent amount of force when the blood pressure builds up enough to pass the squished damaged area and then out the ruptured artery. Depending on how much pressure is built up to push it out would determine how it squirts out Other than those small exceptions the violence is gritty and real. The fight sequences are realistically brief, none of that long hollywood swashbulking dueling. Real fights to the death, especially with weapons, are decided in the first couple of seconds. So the fights felt real....and urgent. Actors: There is nothing to complain about when it comes to the acting in this movie. There is actually very little dialogue in the movie to begin with but with what little there is everyone performs well and believably. If there was any flaw in the acting it is certainly lost in the translation because their physical acting, tone, gestures, and emoting was professionally perfect. Overall I rate this movie: 8.0 out of 10 Since Gibson claims historical accuracy and the movie is portrayed as a realistic interpretation it loses a little points for its obvious historical flaws. -.5 The biggest thing that hurt this movie's rating is the lack of a strong central theme that is meaningful . In a thematic viewpoint the viewer is left thinking "So what?" or "Why should I care?" or "Why is this movie meaningful?". -1.5 Recomendation: Despite its flaws Apocalypto is a lot of fun. If you are looking for a face paced, violent and gritty action flick and are unconcerned with subtitles and historical accuracy youll love this movie and probally rate it much higher than I did. The visuals are beautiful and there is no room for boredom in the two in a half hours of viewing. Apocalypto remains exciting upon multiple viewings which is a testament to the how superb the pacing and action is throughout the movie. Nice work Mel Gibson.