Apocalypto... turned rant

snodart

snodart

Veteran
SPOILERS***********

First off, I enjoy a good piece of eye candy... good old fashioned entertainment, and I know there are other films that might be more worthy of my rant... but oh well.

I don't know where I stand anymore with blockbuster films... and Apocalypto is a good example of why. It isn't so much that I didn't like the movie. Some nice visuals, decent story, great concept... but I might as well have been watching Rambo, Terminator, Predator, etc. Yes, I know that these storylines have been around since the ability to communicate (thank you Joseph Campbell), but is $40,000,000 seriously required to tell it again? Do we enjoy it enough that we have to have more? And $40,000,000 is small compared to King Kong's $200,000,000.

Near the beginning of Apocalypto, the villagers are sitting around the fire listening to the "elder" tell the story... "Man has a hole that can never be filled…". Now that was a good story. That is the kind of story that has power... instigates emotion and change and inspiration. The tragedy is that Apocalypto could have held some of that same type of power. After about the 19th smashed skull and 4th beating heart... oh and the out-of-control blood squirt from the side of 'ol boys head, the story just sort of faded away. Let me say that I am not one to shy away from a good bit of cinematic violence... IF it is truly part of the story (homage to... Kill Bill?).

One could argue that the over-the-top violence was goaled with putting the viewer next to the characters during their surreal experience, but I say hogwash. During the end chase scene (it felt like 2 hours), I actually had to drag myself up to the edge of my seat and play along... "Okay, the bad guys are far away... no wait, they are very close. Oh, far away again, oh my... he is stopping too long to rest... they might catch him... blah blah blah". Not much realism sucking me in there; might work for Fred Flintstone and the 4,000 ft long wall in his house though. Yes, it is all good movie-making trickery, but it is also worthless if it actually comes across AS movie-making trickery.

Transformers; is anybody really going to see it for the story? Hell no, we are going to see it for the action, to feel the excitement, and to judge how realistic the 3D work looks. I just can't help but feel a little guilty for this. Who the hell am I to encourage the spending of millions of dollars on eye candy? Seriously though. Cancer, child-abuse, poverty, hunger... you get the picture. Acting as the devil's advocate, I have to wonder.... Can we validate the exchange of 100's of millions of dollars for stories that have been told over and over again? Stories the need more violence, action, and sex to meet our tolerance level. And yes, I am aware that a similar $$$ issue exists with most televised and pay-per-view sports.

Don’t get me wrong; I AM the pot calling the kettle black. I will most likely see transformers at some point and I am still a UFC fan. I am part of my own problem. But please, until I figure all of this out... let there be more movies that instigate change, evoke true emotion, force us to take a look at ourselves, ... anything!


Sorry,

Carry on....
 
Last edited:
It's funny you should mention Apocalypto... My wife threw it in the other night, while I was on the computer shooting down German Fokkers. So, I'm listening to the movie and it isn't making any sense to me. After giving up the fight online, I sit down to watch the last hour or so of the flick. You're right, it did seem like a two hour chase through the jungle, and was about as painful as that 2 hour asswhippin Jesus took in Gibson's last movie.

Seems a bit long winded to me. No matter what it is Mel wants to tell you, it's going to take at least two hours... and not really say much.
 
It's an excellent question you ask and something that I devote a surprising amount of time to pondering. As someone who is trying desperatley hard to be a film maker, even having not attained Hollywood status, I still feel that I have a responsibility to my audience and to the world around me to make smart material that isn't just something pretty on the surface, but that really has substance.

How's that for high and mighty? :)

I think about the films that have influenced me, and why they influenced me. If I watch an old Bogart film I'm not being talked down to. Maybe Casablanca isn't going to end world hunger, but it made a tremendous statement about the French involvement in WWII. In the same vein when I watch Rocky I always feel like at the end of two hours I'm a better person.

Does that mean we, or Hollywood, can only make political films, or underdog stories? No. Raiders of the Lost Ark means just as much to mean and my life as any film out there, and at it's core it's a 1940's serial.

When Apocalypse Now was being made no one could believe that anyone would spend thirty million on a movie. How wasteful. But Apocalypse is one of the best and most meaningful war films of all time. Was it worth thirty million? It was to me.

Was Spiderman 3 worth $250 million? Not in my opinion, but there's probably an eight year old out there that has been forever inspired by what he saw. Maybe he'll grow up to be the next Spielberg.

I do wish that Hollywood didn't spend as much on the big blockbusters as they do. I think Spiderman 3 or Pirate 3 could have been made equally as good on smaller budgets, but they made their money back, so that means that the era of the $300 million dollar films is not over. Then the problem that you run into is a huge risk with a relatively small return on investment. I guess indie films are probably the result of this "problem" in Hollywood. No one is going to give $200 million to a first time director, so the first time director gets a film with a $1 million budget, then a $10 million dollar budget, you get the idea.

I'll probably see Transformers too, but I do so a little begrudgingly.
 
Apocalypto is my 2nd favorite movie of the year. The action and violence was part of the story. That's actually how the ancient Mayans did things. It's actually historically accurate, not done for the audience. And the endless out of control head squirt? A doctor who saw the movie and was asked about that, said with where the guy was bleeding from, it would bleed like that in real life. Everything in this movie is accurate to the real story of the ancient Mayans.

To each his own I guess...
 
ZFarms said:
Apocalypto is my 2nd favorite movie of the year. The action and violence was part of the story. That's actually how the ancient Mayans did things. It's actually historically accurate, not done for the audience. And the endless out of control head squirt? A doctor who saw the movie and was asked about that, said with where the guy was bleeding from, it would bleed like that in real life. Everything in this movie is accurate to the real story of the ancient Mayans.

To each his own I guess...
Click to expand...
Agreed - it was my first fav of the year actually.
 
i really liked the film as well, but it is not all historically accurrate and this is the reason it has posed such a controversy.

The Mayans never did mass killings (sacrifices) as DEPICTED in the film and the conquistadors arrived much later after the fall of the mayan empire.

However, i forgive all that from an artistic and cinematic point of view

Gibson was making a statement that goes beyond historical accuracy, in fact he relates his story to contemporary violence and conflict.

Just wish the bonus features on the dvd were a lot better
 
I loved the film as well, and felt right there with them.

Also, the deeper meaning I got was that this race of people were killing their own off, because of their religious system... this is a scary thing...
 
I can absolutely see why Apocalypto wouldn't appeal to everyone. I don't see the film as an example of excessive violence just used to shock people though.

For what it's worth, I thought it would be a complete dud and put off seeing it until yesterday. But from the first minute, my wife and I were so mesmerized we couldn't turn away. I agree that it's very, very violent, but I wouldn't have been as engrossed and as concerned for Jaguar Paw if I hadn't SEEN the pulsing hearts with my own eyes. Everything just really worked to show the jungle and the Mayan city as incredibly brutal places to survive in at every step of the way.

I don't mean you Snodart, but it's funny that so many have a problem with or at least bring up the amount of violence in Mel's movies. His stories are very well told and the violence is always essential to the setting. So what's the problem?

I've read several critic's reviews of Passion and Apocalypto and they dismiss him as a director who has an unhealthy fetishistic obsession with violence and gore. Honestly, I think that the Passion pissed a lot of people off, for a variety of reasons (i.e., is it or isn't it anti-semitic, the record breaking success of a christian movie at the box office) I think that targeting the violence and gore is an easy way for people, critics at least, to just toss the movie off and not have to take a hard look at it. I've seen the same thing with Apocalypto... But I really don't know.

In light of all the other movies that really DO fetishize much worse - "torture porn" as well as hardcore nudity/sexuality a la an actual snuff film - I'm kind of at a loss as to why Mel's stuff can actually take any heat.
 
Great stuff krestofre... and I agree.

ZFarms said:
Apocalypto is my 2nd favorite movie of the year. The action and violence was part of the story. That's actually how the ancient Mayans did things. It's actually historically accurate, not done for the audience. And the endless out of control head squirt? A doctor who saw the movie and was asked about that, said with where the guy was bleeding from, it would bleed like that in real life. Everything in this movie is accurate to the real story of the ancient Mayans.

To each his own I guess...
Click to expand...

A doctor... I have to laugh about this (not at you Zfarms). Everybody asks one doctor and assumes it to be truth. My wife and her brother are both docs, I'll have to see if they agree. Anyway, I'm not saying that blood would not squirt like that... probably would for all I know. My point is that it pulled me out of the story and felt like a weak attempt to shock me. When I think of the blood squirting out of the guys head in Apocalypto, I think of Halloween (the holiday). When I think of the image of the man being "curbed" in American History X, I get an empty pit in my stomach. And you don't see the guys jaw separate from his face, his teeth fly through the air, and blood gush from his mouth. Why? Because it's impact was created via art and not gore.

Action was part of the story... I agree. The whole movie was about action. But that was about it. When he stood at the edge of the waterfall, I thought, "he will jump"... and he jumped. When he was about to be sacrificed, I thought, "he isn't going to die"... and he didn't. When he was running with another captive once they were released, I though, "the other dude is going to die", and he died. And there was no doubt in my mind that he would make it back to his "wife" and child(ren). It was a cookie cutter movie.

I don't want to get too deep under people's skin here. There are plenty of movies that I love, that most would rip apart. No problem. I just felt like Apocalypto could have been so much more. At first glance it had all the makings of exactly the type of movie that I would love. It ended up being another big budget piece of action-adventure eye-candy. And again, I'm not saying that that is wrong... I'm just not sure that I can validate the need for it.

As far as it being historically accurate.
ZFarms said:
That's actually how the ancient Mayans did things. It's actually historically accurate, not done for the audience.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Like many blockbuster and epic movies, the dramatic and "good" parts of reality are selected and throw together. Google will turn some good articles as to why Apocalypto isn't accurate. Archaeologist Lisa Lucero stated the Mayas did not perform mass sacrifice (like the Aztecs). I think that Mel's focus on accuracy went toward the setting, buildings, costumes, tattoos, etc. Anyway, the point is that is was exaggerated and dramatized for us... the viewers. Not a big deal... no surprise..

Brandon Rice said:
I loved the film as well, and felt right there with them.

Also, the deeper meaning I got was that this race of people were killing their own off, because of their religious system... this is a scary thing...
Click to expand...

The problem is that we can't count on getting an accurate depiction of the Mayans and their religious beliefs in a blockbuster setting. I would be much more moved and intrigued by watching a documentary or discovery channel special about the Mayan civilization. But, putting such a great story idea and such an interesting civilization into a cookie cutter blockbuster movie just doesn't seem worthy of the $$ and time it took. It just sort of blends into the masses of other similar movies. I have to say that there were some nice visuals and sound/score going on at times that did a great job of pulling me in... Mix some more of that with an original storyline and art being created for art's sake, that's a good... no, a great movie (IMO of course).

Rasquachemedia said:
Gibson was making a statement that goes beyond historical accuracy, in fact he relates his story to contemporary violence and conflict.

Just wish the bonus features on the dvd were a lot better
Click to expand...

That is what kills me about this movie. I could have been so good, but I just can't get past the typical, epic-movie tactics. I didn't see the violence as being too graphic... jut out of place. I just can't help but think that the moral premise of this film took a back seat to the urge to satisfy the viewer and make a buck.

Jared Meyer said:
I can absolutely see why Apocalypto wouldn't appeal to everyone. I don't see the film as an example of excessive violence just used to shock people though.

For what it's worth, I thought it would be a complete dud and put off seeing it until yesterday. But from the first minute, my wife and I were so mesmerized we couldn't turn away. I agree that it's very, very violent, but I wouldn't have been as engrossed and as concerned for Jaguar Paw if I hadn't SEEN the pulsing hearts with my own eyes. Everything just really worked to show the jungle and the Mayan city as incredibly brutal places to survive in at every step of the way.

I don't mean you Snodart, but it's funny that so many have a problem with or at least bring up the amount of violence in Mel's movies. His stories are very well told and the violence is always essential to the setting. So what's the problem?

I've read several critic's reviews of Passion and Apocalypto and they dismiss him as a director who has an unhealthy fetishistic obsession with violence and gore. Honestly, I think that the Passion pissed a lot of people off, for a variety of reasons (i.e., is it or isn't it anti-semitic, the record breaking success of a christian movie at the box office) I think that targeting the violence and gore is an easy way for people, critics at least, to just toss the movie off and not have to take a hard look at it. I've seen the same thing with Apocalypto... But I really don't know.

In light of all the other movies that really DO fetishize much worse - "torture porn" as well as hardcore nudity/sexuality a la an actual snuff film - I'm kind of at a loss as to why Mel's stuff can actually take any heat.
Click to expand...

Good comments. I don't know honestly, I'm a fan of Braveheart. It was violent... a typical blockbuster flick for the most part. But even though I liked it, I put it in the category of epic/blockbuster/cookie-cutter movies. They are entertaining and exciting. And for several hours afterward... I retain those feelings, but like a cheap buzz, it eventually dies. I guess I'm just tired of it all though. Even as a teenager, I remember watching Days of Thunder and thinking, "hey, this is Top Gun with cars!". The Patriot was Braveheart part II. It just sort of steals the greatness away when we are pounded with the same goods over and over. Maybe it is just because I have kids and am getting old. :Drogar-Shock(DBG):

I agree by the way, Mel gets singled out. Saw.. Hostel.. on and on...

I don't know. I'm not trying to rub anybody wrong. I understand and have %100 respect for that fact that this movie is the favorite of many. Like I said, I am guilty of my own complaint. I'm just trying to sort it all out.

Great comments and great discussion all. Rock on.
 
snodart said:
When he stood at the edge of the waterfall, I thought, "he will jump"... and he jumped. When he was about to be sacrificed, I thought, "he isn't going to die"... and he didn't. When he was running with another captive once they were released, I though, "the other dude is going to die", and he died. And there was no doubt in my mind that he would make it back to his "wife" and child(ren). It was a cookie cutter movie.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a hallmark of all "high concept" movies, though?

Anything from Spielberg, Lucas, Gibson, etc. is going to be pretty predictable. They're all telling stories that come straight out of myth, via Joseph Campbell. We know what's going to happen, but it doesn't or shouldn't affect how we enjoy the "getting there."

In contrast, I guess you'd be looking at something like "Little Children" or "The New World" or "The Fountain." Not high concept, not at all predictable, but not as entertaining either. I love these movies, but they're not entertaining so much as thought-provoking.

Maybe you can only have one or the other - a high minded food for thought piece that eschews the standard story principles or a rousing action/adventure flick that ends exactly as you think it will.
 
Jared Meyer said:
Isn't that a hallmark of all "high concept" movies, though?
Click to expand...
Most definitely.

Jared Meyer said:
Maybe you can only have one or the other - a high minded food for thought piece that eschews the standard story principles or a rousing action/adventure flick that ends exactly as you think it will.
Click to expand...

I think that is the bottom line (and some movies fall in between somewhere). There is certainly a place for both types in society. I guess I just wish that people were more open to, and that there was more of a drive to make, the "high minded food for thought pieces". We need more art created for the sake of it being art. Perhaps money is the great spoiler of film.

P.S. I heart Joseph Campbell.
 
I have mixed feeling about Apocalypto although I agree with snodart's points. The film is not historically accurate and its ultimate message regarding the arrival of Christian Europeans smelled like the same old white man's burden-lets-save-the-savages-from-themselves bull sh*t. That the film cost $40 million (perhaps more) to make is obscene, and in the end I was unimpressed with the final product. But I enjoyed the violence, the sets, the glimpse into the Maya civilization. I also enjoyed Mel's clever portrayal of the Maya ruling elite as a bunch of manipulative, power-hungry frauds who were enamored of their own power and used religion/spirituality to maintain their authority and control over the masses. That's pretty much the character of all ruling elites in all societies. Some aspects of the story were just goofy though. For instance, the Maya Empire was suffering a drought, the corn had withered yet the rain forest around them was lush and alive! Que?! I thought the title, Apocalypto, which is Latin, was stupid for a film about the Maya shot in the Maya language.

But I like Mel. He's got big balls and is a great filmmaker. Apocalypto is probably my least favorite of his films though.
 
I was disappointed because I wanted an adventure through a beautiful and strange land where I got to imagine, with the filmmaker, what it the culture was like etc..

What I got was a chase movie. I think Mel Gibson is a great director, and I think lots of violence can be great fun. But why make a movie about the Mayan civilization that could have been just as effective had it been a modern car chase scene ... ? I don't get it.
 
At least with a car chase, you might have had a few explosions. Unfortunately, those Mayans didn't explode on impact.
 
Tlalconetl said:
The film is not historically accurate and its ultimate message regarding the arrival of Christian Europeans smelled like the same old white man's burden-lets-save-the-savages-from-themselves bull sh*t.
Click to expand...

Whare did you pull that out of? The what ultimate message? Less than 30 second shot of the European christians. You must be super perceptive. And as far as historically accurate, Ever heard of the Mayans? Ignore the sarcasm if you will, but give me a break!!!!
 
MOVIE STUNTS said:
Whare did you pull that out of? The what ultimate message? Less than 30 second shot of the European christians. You must be super perceptive. And as far as historically accurate, Ever heard of the Mayans? Ignore the sarcasm if you will, but give me a break!!!!
Click to expand...

I pulled it out of my super perceptive brain. This goes to the point Mars United was trying to make when he asked, "But why make a movie about the Mayan civilization that could have been just as effective had it been a modern car chase scene ... ? I don't get it."

Because this movie is saying something about the Maya civilization vis-a-viz Western Christian society that could not have been said had it been a modern movie--and if you don't see it, Movie Stunts, then you probably believe movies are just good fun entertainment. Wrong. Every movie has something to say--otherwise why make the movie? All media is propaganda--good or bad--designed to not just entertain but to influence people's perception of reality.

A lot of Indian people found Apocalypto very offensive. But it's a movie, and they shouldn't take it too seriously, right? Tell that to the Jews the next time The Passion comes up. The Passion was still in production and almost two years from being released when the Jewish community began condemning Mel and his movie. From what orafice where the Jews pulling out their rabid criticisms and attacks on Mel when they hadn't even seen the movie?!!! Were the Jews overreacting? Was the film anti-semitic? Was Apocalypto anti-Maya?? Does it matter to you?

Like I said. Mel's got big balls. I admire the guy; he's one of my favorite filmmakers. But Apocalypto was a dissappointment.
 
Tlalconetl said:
Because this movie is saying something about the Maya civilization vis-a-viz Western Christian society that could not have been said had it been a modern movie--and if you don't see it, Movie Stunts, then you probably believe movies are just good fun entertainment. Wrong. Every movie has something to say--otherwise why make the movie? All media is propaganda--good or bad--designed to not just entertain but to influence people's perception of reality.
A lot of Indian people found Apocalypto very offensive. But it's a movie, and they shouldn't take it too seriously, right? Tell that to the Jews the next time The Passion comes up. The Passion was still in production and almost two years from being released when the Jewish community began condemning Mel and his movie. From what orafice where the Jews pulling out their rabid criticisms and attacks on Mel when they hadn't even seen the movie?!!! Were the Jews overreacting? Was the film anti-semitic? Was Apocalypto anti-Maya?? Does it matter to you?
Like I said. Mel's got big balls. I admire the guy; he's one of my favorite filmmakers. But Apocalypto was a dissappointment.
Click to expand...

Wow, that was long winded! In answer to your question no, The Passion isn't anti-semitic (however not one of my favorite movies) Due to the obvious over embellishment of the torture of Jesus by the Roman's. Though of course if you are Jewish you will call it anti-semitic because you don't believe in the new testament.
APOCALYPTO
I don't think the 30 second or so shot of the "christians" had anything to say religiously in the film, {and was only there because of the fact that it did happen} (think columbus). The main character found it unimportant, and went back to his own life without any encounter. YOUR embellishment is that you felt it was "religious" in nature. I'm sorry if I didn't see the word Christian painted on their boats, (maybe your tv is better than my HD projector) And even if "christian" was painted on their boats (which there isn't) There was no christian message to be had there. SO I DIDN'T SEE IT BECAUSE IT SIMPLY DOESN'T EXIST EXCEPT IN YOUR OWN MIND. Now you will try to defend by saying that Mel Gibson is some kind of Christian, thus your thought system. hardly the rational to support YOUR statement about this film. :cheesy:
 
ZFarms said:
Apocalypto is my 2nd favorite movie of the year. The action and violence was part of the story. That's actually how the ancient Mayans did things. It's actually historically accurate, not done for the audience. And the endless out of control head squirt? A doctor who saw the movie and was asked about that, said with where the guy was bleeding from, it would bleed like that in real life. Everything in this movie is accurate to the real story of the ancient Mayans.

To each his own I guess...
Click to expand...


my 2nd favorite movie of 2007 also. i can see how based on the title and the concept how people probably were expecting something else though. some people expected it to be based on the 2012 mayan doomsday prophecy, some people wanted a visual history lesson....i'm glad i watched this without knowing what it would be about and with no expectations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top