APOCALYPTO --- Mel Gibson's Latest - Page 5

Nathan V · 12-07-2006, 07:12 PM

It's digital (I assume you knew that already though). He's using the Sony Genesis that Singer used on Superman. Interestingly, Todd McCarthy said it was the most film-like he's ever seen digital look. I'm still trying to figure out why he chose to do this in 1.85 though. That comingsoon article linked above talks about him using it.

Regards,
Nathan

**HTF Ads**

Nicholas Martin · 12-08-2006, 01:27 PM

Why do people still give a damn about what some drunk said to a bunch of cops months ago? Of all the things to get worked up over, after all this time...Perhaps there's nothing else to talk about so this is dragged on and on. (The DVDTalk reviews are ridiculously biased.)

See the movie for its own merits, and if it's not your thing, don't. I have never seen a film like this before, and that's why I want to see it - it just looks so interesting. I wish they could have gotten footage of the cow over the waterfall that Gibson keeps talking about.

Colin Jacobson · 12-08-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin

Why do people still give a damn about what some drunk said to a bunch of cops months ago? Of all the things to get worked up over, after all this time...Perhaps there's nothing else to talk about so this is dragged on and on. (The DVDTalk reviews are ridiculously biased.)

I have no problem with someone boycotting Gibson's flicks because of their disgust with his behavior. However, if you're reviewing the film, his outside actions shouldn't affect your rating of the movie. Of course, since I have absolutely no desire to see this one, that's easy for me to say, but I think that's the way to go. Review the art, not the artist...

Chuck Mayer · 12-08-2006, 02:31 PM

As I've said before, the true affront Gibson made was driving drunk, which is illegal. Not the crap he said, which is LEGAL (if despicable). If I didn't see films by people who abused alcohol or drugs, I wouldn't own a TV or a DVD. What Gibson did barely even registers in Hollywood.

As for the film...I was hoping for more. It's visually amazing, but in the service of an action film. The setting is inspiring, but the story is mediocre. Still, kudos to Gibson for taking a chance. Worth seeing.

unotis · 12-08-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk Tsai

Kelly, did you read Gibson's apology? He stated that he was sorry to have made anti-Semitic remarks. If we are going to separate the Gibson's attitudes and behavior from his work, let's also be honest about the man himself.

Everyone in Hollywood apologizes for everything real or imagined just to stem some bad press at one time or another.

What he considers to be anti-semitic remarks might be extremely mild compared to what alot of people would assume to have been said.

I don't know his reason to have apologized and none of us really know what was said, heck they could say that he screamed that Bugs Bunny is the cause of all violence among pre-teens and his cartoons should be banned! That makes as much sense as the anti-semitic statements that are claimed (without any real proof) to have been said.

But, again I think it is Hollywood going after him because they just don't like him, just like they don't like Steven Spielberg

Mark Walker · 12-08-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth Paxton

I can agree with that.

So I suppose I agree with Olmos, you have to separate the individual from the work. Being a nice guy doesn't mean I have to like your crappy film, so why should I have to hate a great film made by someone I dislike? Even more so when the person isn't featured in the film.

I agree with this. John Huston was a first rate A-hole if you ask me,
but many of his films are glorious: I cannot imagine having not seen them
just because the director was proud to be a homophobe.

mw

Kristian · 12-08-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk Tsai

Seeing the ads on tv and latest trailer in theaters, many of the shots look very unlike film. This could be an intentional artistic choice(see Michael Mann), the ads not reflecting the quality of the prints, or an oversight by the filmmakers. Any opinions on this so far?

I thought the look of the film was very inconsistent. Some shots did look stunning and film-like, but a lot of the action scenes looked very digital and not in a good way. The attack on the village at the beginning was the most glaring example of this.

The movie as a whole is a mixed bag. The first act is a bit like a gross-out comedy, the middle recalls The Passion in its unrelenting brutality and the climax makes for an exciting action picture. I'm still not sure if the good outweighed the bad, but it's certainly worth seeing, if only once.

Patrick Sun · 12-08-2006, 07:54 PM

Say what you will, but Mel Gibson has a wicked sense of humor who punctuates many scenes with these little bits of human vices that reminds us that humans are humans, no matter what the time period is, or the societal framework, there is this baseline of human conduct for selfishness that is totally contradicted by selfless acts of a protective nature, and the propagation of family lines, but it is what makes us human.

It's an amazing look into a past Mayan civilization from an outside tribe from the forest, but the past reveals a lot about us now, and that's the real kick in the pants about the film using this glimpse into Mayan life, rituals, engineering, and superstitions, and still creating human drama out of it all. The film is brutal, and vicious at times, but it balances it with a importance of community and bonding that shows the impact of social aspects of human relations.

If you get queasy over blood, and gutting of animals and humans, and more, then this is not the film for you, but the savagery shown is steeped in lore and their perceived relationship with their deities, and their requirements for satisfying them. You could even draw metaphorical similarities to today's way of life in spots as well.

I think the pacing was pretty good for a film that runs about 135 minutes, and the camera work is very good is more spots, but there are action sequences that have spliced-in video camera footage that makes the action look like it was filmed at 30 frames/second which is jarring when the rest of the footage is 24 fps. But it's not a big deal, just a directorial decision that seemed odd on my first viewing.

The choice to use unknowns for the characters in the film pays off because you simply believe that these are characters from the time period in question and just accept their characters as-is with no personal baggage from familiarity with known actors. Mel Gibson is in good form as director, and you could tell he really had to direct the performances and all of the coordination required to really sell us the landscape of the Mayan population as this living, breathing organism with its own pulse as a whole society.

I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.

I do think Mel's point of the film is this:

Spoiler:

Tim Glover · 12-09-2006, 04:18 PM

Just got back from seeing this. It's a film that's hard to rate and really describe. In short until I get my thoughts more coherent

....

Extremely effective, brutal and tough to watch at times, meaningful...visually one of the most intimate I've seen.

I don't think there can be much doubt that Mel Gibson is among the top directors around today. The action moments and the film's pacing....is really, really strong.

Like I said, I went in thinking it would be a bizarre film experience and I got that. Bizarre yes, but expertly executed, and I was on the edge of my seat throughout.

The film was so strong visually that it could have worked without the subtitles.

It's one I doubt I want to see again soon inspite of how great it is...it's worth your time.

9.5/10

unotis · 12-10-2006, 01:42 PM

Well, those naysayers in Hollywood have failed again, the movie opened to be number one this weekend.

Not as big as his last film but alot more then the haters in Hollywood predicted it could possibly do, they thought after all what is the chance that a movie with a bunch of no names starring, about an obscure civilization dubbed from a spoken obscure language could not make any money at all, especially after they marketed it with Mel Gibson's name (after all how could it? this time we really stuck it to him after the alledged anti-semitic statements)?

Again, people proved that the media hype does not decree what and what we won't watch.

Nicholas Martin · 12-10-2006, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unotis

Again, people proved that the media hype does not decree what and what we won't watch.

Which is what happened to "Snakes On A Plane", unfortunately. A prime example of media hype backfiring on a movie.