apocalypto

joshtownsend said:
At the very end when they reach the beach, there's a focus pull that goes slightly off. Anyone else notice it? Not complaining at all though, I imagine it was a VERY HARD focus pull to do.
Click to expand...

I was paying close attention. That was a nice shot and tough focus pull. Very cool, IMO.
 
joshtownsend said:
I totally agree. I thought it looked great but then there would be a split second shot that looked video-ish. I wonder if they maybe used a varicam or something as a more mobile 'C'-cam or something.
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same. But since some of those shots literally look to be taken by a guy running handheld, and because of the extreme "video" HD look, my guess would not be something bulky like Varicam, but rather something very portable like the HVX.

Strangely, American Cinematographer this month (December) focuses on Casino Royale and doesn't cover Apocalypto. Perhaps the January edition will?
 
nycfilmmaker said:
biggest empire goes back and forth...up for further debate. discovery channel has them as the biggest
Click to expand...

Sorry. Wasn't refering to the size, but the manner of its demise.

The Mayans were (essentially) gone long before the Europeans showed up. The Toltecs more or less swallowed them whole.

And then the Chichimecs wiped them out.

And that brings us up to...um...around 1200, a good 300 years before Europe sneezed on anyone in that part of the world.
 
Yeah, the Chichimecan tribes were completely insane compared to the Mayans - gave the Spaniards a hard run for their money for about a half century.

Good thing Mel didn't do that story instead. They kicked a** ruthlessly and I don't know if Disney has the stomach for that brand of story.

e
 
Well, I too noticed the interlaced/progressive moments and it only appeared to happen during the beginning of the movie, where the main hunters are going after the boar, the rest was fine though. Very well shot. However, I think that they went too close throughout the movie, I would have liked to see a lot more beautiful wide shots. Getting so close like that all the time made me think "Wow, nice costumes and makeup on that guy... and that guy... and that girl... and, hey, that guy too...ect."

Movie-wise, I didn't like it very much. If it were on HBO or something down the road, I'd probably change the channel. This movie begs to be seen on the big screen because it really does draw you into the jungle as if you were there, but on the small screen it will just be "meh". Also, 3/4 of it was just the main guy running through the jungle, got kind of old pretty quick. There were a few gaping plot holes too that kind of gave you a "WTF?" moment each time.

Overall, it's a good one time viewing but there's nothing really to keep you afterwards for the DVD.
 
I saw the film this Friday and would have to say I was unimpressed. The movie wasnt bad, but it wasnt up to what I think the standards Mel is capable of.

The 270-360 degree shutter angle really pulled me out of the movie. It was only for a few scenes, but if you look you will notice them very easy. In saying that though the film was visually stunning. The Genesis does a great job and besides the few scenes of Video-ish look you cant really tell the difference between it and film.


Possible Spoiler

The main reason I was unimpressed with this film is because, I felt the story was extremely weak. The first 1:20minutes of the movie is showing some tribes life and them getting captured by the Mayans. Then the last 40 minutes of the movie one guy escapes and runs home to save his wife. The whole time being chased by the Mayans. Mel's previous movies have great stories that pull you into the movie within a few minutes. I know some will agree with this and some will disagree, but I was probably hoping for too much.
 
i think i am going to see this movie tonight. I don't care about what type of camera they used or if it looked like film or not. It's the story telling and directing I'm interested in. If every movie had to look like film then a hundred years from now, movies would still look the same. All movies should have a different look and style i think even if it means shooting differently then film.
 
Inoran said:
i think i am going to see this movie tonight. I don't care about what type of camera they used or if it looked like film or not. It's the story telling and directing I'm interested in. If every movie had to look like film then a hundred years from now, movies would still look the same. All movies should have a different look and style i think even if it means shooting differently then film.
Click to expand...


I don't think, except for maybe one person on this thread, that the non-filmlike shots actually took people out of the movie. They may have noticed them, but it didn't affect them to the point where they were like "oh man, that's video?? Screw this, I'm leaving". I think the true test of a good movie is if people are so into it that they don't notice any of the technical issues. The best films in the DVX footage section of this site, I go in seeing how good the DVX footage looks, and leave not caring at all, because I was just so into the story/movie. If people are picking apart certain varicam shots of this film, it might say something larger about the quality of the actual movie (although like I said earlier - I liked it).

Interesting tidbit.

Apocolypto was made for 40 million
The Holiday was made for 85 million
 
Last edited:
GenJerDan said:
Sorry. Wasn't refering to the size, but the manner of its demise.

The Mayans were (essentially) gone long before the Europeans showed up. The Toltecs more or less swallowed them whole.

And then the Chichimecs wiped them out.

And that brings us up to...um...around 1200, a good 300 years before Europe sneezed on anyone in that part of the world.
Click to expand...

IT is still not known, still up for debate, National GEographic the MOST reliable source there is becuase of peer research contributions, say different

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0313_030313_mayadrought_2.html
 
If you're talking about the tracking shots, they stated that they'd cleared long corridors through the jungle and paralleled the talent as they ran through.

e
 
I also went to see the movie and would recommend it. The one thing I noticed was yes it looked like video straight out of the gate. But then as the movie progressed the video look disappeared. It really seems like he switched cameras in the middle of the shoot (Maybe DP). Mayan City looked amazing and the early morning scenes looked amazing. the writting on the walls in the city really sucked (for the captives).
First running scene in the daylight really looked like a hvx (no offense) with out a 35mm adapter in a sunny day. It did make the running scenes seem more like he might run past you in the theater though. Good movie
 
Last edited:
Just finished seeing this film. Let me say I got completely lost in the world of the Mayan's that Mel created. The video thing did throw me a little at first, but as I accepted it as a style thing, I became immersed in the world. One thing I think that will get overlooked in this film is the acting. It was excellent! I'd give an oscar nod to the lead for sure! (I'm dead serious). His performance was so moving and real, I loved it. Overall, I totally recommend it, and yes, go see it on a big screen... it's get some amazing shots in that Mayan city... It was a good film.
 
I too thought the film was amazing. It was hypnotic.

The sequence in the Mayan city in particular got me. It was so surreal and visceral (the entire movie was visceral). Can you imagine walking up those steps to face the priests at the top? I haven't experienced anything like that in the theater for a long time. Mel Gibson is definately one of my favorite filmmakers. Say what you want about him, he is talented.

I agree with the comments on the acting. What was the name of the big bad guy, the leader? I thought he, in particular, was amazing.

Things did get a little crazy at the end of the third act, but overall I thought the film was incredible and would like to see more historical pieces like it.
 
I thought the acting was good too! It does make you think though. These people had never acted before and here they are completely convincing us that they live in this world of theirs. And here we are with the acting in all these studio movies from "professional" actors who have been doing this for years... and it's terrible.

I know some actors are going to kill me when I say this but... I think it proves that acting isn't that hard.

:)
 
c.g._eads said:
I know some actors are going to kill me when I say this but... I think it proves that acting isn't that hard.

:)
Click to expand...

Or... it proves with a good director, you don't need "star" actors.
 
But seriously, what other profession can you have no experience in at all and then, after a few weeks of practice, be just as convincing as people who have been doing it their entire lives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top