DVD Talk review of 'Mel Gibson's Apocalypto' (Blu-ray)
05-31-07, 02:16 PM
#76
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
No offense, but that wouldn't make for very interesting film criticism.
Besides which, I think Daniel pretty well covered in his review that he didn't find the movie entertaining, that he did find it boring and annoying.
Besides which, I think Daniel pretty well covered in his review that he didn't find the movie entertaining, that he did find it boring and annoying.
05-31-07, 03:03 PM
#77
Retired
Originally Posted by Josh Z
No offense, but that wouldn't make for very interesting film criticism.
Besides which, I think Daniel pretty well covered in his review that he didn't find the movie entertaining, that he did find it boring and annoying.
Besides which, I think Daniel pretty well covered in his review that he didn't find the movie entertaining, that he did find it boring and annoying.
I just occasionally want to get a feeling for whether a movie I now little about is worth checking out or not. As such I usually just hit Rotten Tomatoes and see the general overall impression. But I do occasionally click on a review here, and when I do I really just want a nice, quick impression of whether or not it is entertaining and why. Not a bio of Mel Gibson, discussion of politics etc.
But again, I've never bitched about this as the reviewers here are volunteers and should have the freedom to write their reviews however they like.
05-31-07, 03:41 PM
#78
Banned by request
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
Daniel, I'm curious about your response to this as well.
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
Artman, I thought I answered the question sufficiently when I explained how I have done several reviews that start with information about the filmmaker or outside circumstances that lead to a better understanding of the context of the film. I even posted links to several. And in many places throughout this thread I have explained why I felt Gibson made himself inextricably linked to the material. You can't write and direct a movie without putting some of yourself into it. You just can't do it. Think of any strong writer/director, like David Lynch or Woody Allen. Could you watch a David Lynch or a Woody Allen movie without getting a glimpse into the psyche of David Lynch or Woody Allen? No, you can't. I don't see why it should be any different for Gibson. You mentioned Oliver Stone. He's a very distinctive writer/director and while I've heard WTC didn't feel quite like a typical Stone film, I'm sure if I watched it I could point out numerous scenes that only Stone could have done. To say that there's no way you could have known Gibson made Apocalypto until his name came up in the credits just says to me that you weren't paying attention. The moment the tapir gets bashed by the spike trap I could have told you it was a Mel Gibson movie.
05-31-07, 04:14 PM
#79
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
But he doesn't make clear that he didn't find it so because of his feelings towards Gibson.
05-31-07, 05:22 PM
#80
DVD Talk Legend
Not to start another "what's appropriate for reviews" diatribe, but I feel sorry for attacking Daniel's review after having just read David Walker's theatrical review for "Mr. Brooks". I'm not going to begin a new thread on it (because I don't think we need another one like this one), but please tell me that the majority here believes that the first two paragraphs have no place in a movie review.
I'm actually shocked someone hasn't stepped in and deleted it...it's borderline libel. As an Editor myself, I'd never allow that to be printed on a site I ran, "substantiated rumor" or not.
I'm actually shocked someone hasn't stepped in and deleted it...it's borderline libel. As an Editor myself, I'd never allow that to be printed on a site I ran, "substantiated rumor" or not.
Last edited by Shannon Nutt; 05-31-07 at 05:24 PM.
05-31-07, 05:33 PM
#81
Retired
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
Not to start another "what's appropriate for reviews" diatribe, but I feel sorry for attacking Daniel's review after having just read David Walker's theatrical review for "Mr. Brooks". I'm not going to begin a new thread on it (because I don't think we need another one like this one), but please tell me that the majority here believes that the first two paragraphs have no place in a movie review.
I'm actually shocked someone hasn't stepped in and deleted it...it's borderline libel. As an Editor myself, I'd never allow that to be printed on a site I ran, "substantiated rumor" or not.
I'm actually shocked someone hasn't stepped in and deleted it...it's borderline libel. As an Editor myself, I'd never allow that to be printed on a site I ran, "substantiated rumor" or not.
1. It has no place in the review as it has nothing to do with Mr. Brooks.
2. It could be libel
3. Who the fuck wants to read a review when the person so cleary admits a bias against a person in the movie that will clearly shape his review? That's limiting the audience for that review solely to people that hate Costner. Lame.
05-31-07, 05:43 PM
#82
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: In the Universe.
Posts: 2,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personal feelings should never, ever coming into play when reviewing a movie. A film review, by nature, is a review on the film. For someone to start talking about how one personally feels about a particular actor or director in the movie is not something that should be in a review. This review has a tone of: “I hate Mel Gibson and that’s why this movie sucked.”
The review should discuss what the person liked or disliked about a movie and how pacing, acting, or how well the script was written. Bottom line: Is the movie entertaining enough to warrant my $10 bucks?
The review should discuss what the person liked or disliked about a movie and how pacing, acting, or how well the script was written. Bottom line: Is the movie entertaining enough to warrant my $10 bucks?
05-31-07, 06:00 PM
#83
Banned by request
By the way, my 4.5 star review of The Road Warrior can be found here: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=28357
05-31-07, 06:00 PM
#84
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by jiggawhat
Personal feelings should never, ever coming into play when reviewing a movie. A film review, by nature, is a review on the film. For someone to start talking about how one personally feels about a particular actor or director in the movie is not something that should be in a review. This review has a tone of: “I hate Mel Gibson and that’s why this movie sucked.”
The review should discuss what the person liked or disliked about a movie and how pacing, acting, or how well the script was written. Bottom line: Is the movie entertaining enough to warrant my $10 bucks?
The review should discuss what the person liked or disliked about a movie and how pacing, acting, or how well the script was written. Bottom line: Is the movie entertaining enough to warrant my $10 bucks?
For myself, I started my own review of Apocalypto this way - acknowledging I was well aware of the controversy surrounding Gibson, yet telling the reader I was going to attempt to put that aside in my analyzing of the film.
Assuming one can put aside any personal bias that may arise from Mel Gibson’s recent public embarrassments, it turns out that Apocalypto is a pretty well-made film. Its plot is just a tad too thin and a tad too familiar to categorize this as a “great” movie, but viewers who go in with an open mind should enjoy it quite a bit.
Actually, although I don't agree with Daniel's assessment of the film (obviously), I think he's done a pretty good job of defending himself in this thread, which is why I didn't counterpoint any of his responses.
Now that "Mr. Brooks" review, that's a horse of a different color...
05-31-07, 06:04 PM
#85
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
Not to start another "what's appropriate for reviews" diatribe, but I feel sorry for attacking Daniel's review after having just read David Walker's theatrical review for "Mr. Brooks". I'm not going to begin a new thread on it (because I don't think we need another one like this one), but please tell me that the majority here believes that the first two paragraphs have no place in a movie review.
I'm actually shocked someone hasn't stepped in and deleted it...it's borderline libel. As an Editor myself, I'd never allow that to be printed on a site I ran, "substantiated rumor" or not.
I'm actually shocked someone hasn't stepped in and deleted it...it's borderline libel. As an Editor myself, I'd never allow that to be printed on a site I ran, "substantiated rumor" or not.
.
05-31-07, 06:05 PM
#86
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: In the Universe.
Posts: 2,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
I agree that a reviewer should strive to do this, but also agree that it's very hard to look at any movie without having SOME bias (positive or negative) re: who made/is involved in the film.
For myself, I started my own review of Apocalypto this way - acknowledging I was well aware of the controversy surrounding Gibson, yet telling the reader I was going to attempt to put that aside in my analyzing of the film.
It was basically a way of telling the reader that "yes, I'm well aware how controversial Mel is right now" and "I'm going to try and not bring those issues into play for this review and hope you'll do the same if you choose to view it".
Actually, although I don't agree with Daniel's assessment of the film (obviously), I think he's done a pretty good job of defending himself in this thread, which is why I didn't counterpoint any of his responses.
Now that "Mr. Brooks" review, that's a horse of a different color...
For myself, I started my own review of Apocalypto this way - acknowledging I was well aware of the controversy surrounding Gibson, yet telling the reader I was going to attempt to put that aside in my analyzing of the film.
It was basically a way of telling the reader that "yes, I'm well aware how controversial Mel is right now" and "I'm going to try and not bring those issues into play for this review and hope you'll do the same if you choose to view it".
Actually, although I don't agree with Daniel's assessment of the film (obviously), I think he's done a pretty good job of defending himself in this thread, which is why I didn't counterpoint any of his responses.
Now that "Mr. Brooks" review, that's a horse of a different color...
I agree that it's nearly impossible to have some bias, but I think this kind of bias has no place in a review.
05-31-07, 06:31 PM
#87
Retired
Originally Posted by jiggawhat
I agree that it's nearly impossible to have some bias, but I think this kind of bias has no place in a review.
If someone is that opposed to an actor, director etc. they should state that they can't offer a fair review and have the site give it to someone else.
05-31-07, 07:19 PM
#88
DVD Talk Hero
Here's a hint, leave stuff like gossip, rumors, Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch and Mel Gibson making bigotted remarks while drunk to the entertainment rags. This stuff has no place in DVD/film reviews regardless of the reviewers hatred for a director or actor.
Last edited by eXcentris; 05-31-07 at 07:22 PM.
05-31-07, 09:49 PM
#89
Retired
Originally Posted by eXcentris
Here's a hint, leave stuff like gossip, rumors, Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch and Mel Gibson making bigotted remarks while drunk to the entertainment rags. This stuff has no place in DVD/film reviews regardless of the reviewers hatred for a director or actor.
Especially when the crap is rumors that belong in the tabloids like the Costner bit.
06-01-07, 12:10 AM
#90
DVD Talk Reviewer
If you really didn't like something, I still can't even really believe why zero stars could be credited (or not) here. I mean it's even admitted that there is at LEAST one aspect of the film to admire, such as the cinematography.
Now we're going a bit more into my opinion here, but how did this take what made Passion the film it was... and ruin it? There was more of a 'film' here than Passion. Passion was just a recreation of events, of how they possibly could have been. No other story really, just the final hours of Jesus with minimal effect besides the horrible violence inflicted in The Passion. Don't get me wrong, I understood what the effect of this movie was supposed to be and I think it pulled it off nicely but as far as a film goes... meh. Not really a masterpiece.
Apocalypto although also not a masterpiece has some qualities to be admired. Sure, there's no depth to the story and it's all pretty predictable... but in the end, yes, enough money and good enough filmmaking behind what could be a turd in someone elses hands, could end up being good. This is why we have the term 'popcorn flicks' for those movies with high budgets, crappy stories, but plenty of eye candy to keep us watching. Apocalypto had no agenda. I don't know how it seemed Gibson's life troubles leaked into this film.
With the filmmaking here, it's almost like you're there. The cinematography is beautiful. And these alone don't deserve at least a half of a single star? I probably wouldn't have even bothered to post at all if it wasn't for the fact that even though qualities were admittedly decent about the film, zero stars were still given. I just don't get it.
I also don't think Gibson was really trying to make the Mayans out to be cruel and terrible people. I really think he was just trying to put a spin on things, through the view of the tribe in the jungle... to them, the Mayans would have been horrible monsters... and that's how they were shown in the film.
Now we're going a bit more into my opinion here, but how did this take what made Passion the film it was... and ruin it? There was more of a 'film' here than Passion. Passion was just a recreation of events, of how they possibly could have been. No other story really, just the final hours of Jesus with minimal effect besides the horrible violence inflicted in The Passion. Don't get me wrong, I understood what the effect of this movie was supposed to be and I think it pulled it off nicely but as far as a film goes... meh. Not really a masterpiece.
Apocalypto although also not a masterpiece has some qualities to be admired. Sure, there's no depth to the story and it's all pretty predictable... but in the end, yes, enough money and good enough filmmaking behind what could be a turd in someone elses hands, could end up being good. This is why we have the term 'popcorn flicks' for those movies with high budgets, crappy stories, but plenty of eye candy to keep us watching. Apocalypto had no agenda. I don't know how it seemed Gibson's life troubles leaked into this film.
With the filmmaking here, it's almost like you're there. The cinematography is beautiful. And these alone don't deserve at least a half of a single star? I probably wouldn't have even bothered to post at all if it wasn't for the fact that even though qualities were admittedly decent about the film, zero stars were still given. I just don't get it.
I also don't think Gibson was really trying to make the Mayans out to be cruel and terrible people. I really think he was just trying to put a spin on things, through the view of the tribe in the jungle... to them, the Mayans would have been horrible monsters... and that's how they were shown in the film.
Last edited by mzupeman2; 06-01-07 at 12:13 AM.
06-01-07, 08:38 AM
#91
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by jiggawhat
Personal feelings should never, ever coming into play when reviewing a movie.
Seriously, what?!
06-01-07, 08:41 AM
#92
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by eXcentris
Here's a hint, leave stuff like gossip, rumors, Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch and Mel Gibson making bigotted remarks while drunk to the entertainment rags. This stuff has no place in DVD/film reviews regardless of the reviewers hatred for a director or actor.
Last edited by Josh Z; 06-01-07 at 08:48 AM.
06-01-07, 09:30 AM
#93
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Josh Z
Here's a hint, a review is by definition an opinion piece, and Daniel wrote his opinion. No one's forcing you to agree with him.
06-01-07, 09:38 AM
#94
Cool New Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When did this website become about which reviewer can cause the most controversy on the boards?
You seem proud in your first message response that you sparked a discussion. But the big giveaway is that you gave it 0 stars. When does this site ever give 0 stars? I think I've seen it less than "DVD Talk Collector's Series." Somehow I can't imagine, even reading your review that this film can be THAT bad.
Your review until the "I hated it" didn't make the film sound THAT bad...just that it was gory and didn't work on the level of The Passion.
I've read and liked some of your other reviews. This one seemed only to exist to push buttons. Is it possible for a reviewer to troll?
You seem proud in your first message response that you sparked a discussion. But the big giveaway is that you gave it 0 stars. When does this site ever give 0 stars? I think I've seen it less than "DVD Talk Collector's Series." Somehow I can't imagine, even reading your review that this film can be THAT bad.
Your review until the "I hated it" didn't make the film sound THAT bad...just that it was gory and didn't work on the level of The Passion.
I've read and liked some of your other reviews. This one seemed only to exist to push buttons. Is it possible for a reviewer to troll?
06-01-07, 10:48 AM
#95
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by blindzero
You seem proud in your first message response that you sparked a discussion. But the big giveaway is that you gave it 0 stars. When does this site ever give 0 stars?
The issue wasn't so much getting 0 Stars but the question of why (were they personal reasons or strictly based on the movie itself) it got 0 Stars.
06-01-07, 01:19 PM
#98
DVD Talk Legend
I gave UltraViolet zero stars and heard not one single complaint about it.
06-01-07, 02:03 PM
#100
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the movie was wonderful, different and entertaining. I STRONGLY disagree with the review here, but I understand everyone has different tastes. I do think giving no stars is a bit much. 1 or 1.5 seems to be the norm for bad movies. Zero singles it out and creates threads like this one.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw it in the theater. I was entertained throughout. I didnt think about Mel once while watching it.
Im a bit biased since I go to mexico alot and have toured Mayan ruins numerous times. Their history fascinates me (even if its not completely accurate).
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars. I havent watched the Bluray yet, but should over the next couple weeks.
I was pleasantly surprised when I saw it in the theater. I was entertained throughout. I didnt think about Mel once while watching it.
Im a bit biased since I go to mexico alot and have toured Mayan ruins numerous times. Their history fascinates me (even if its not completely accurate).
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars. I havent watched the Bluray yet, but should over the next couple weeks.