Patman

Loved the mist.

Also, it wasn't pokes, the poison on the backside was enough to lace the tips with poison from the frog.

Nick Martin

I AM ON YOUR SIDE, and I was referring to Orndorf not quoting what you said verbatim. He changed your words in his reply quote to apply to him and him alone.

Artman

As it should. Personally I found those 'fantasy' films much more disturbing.

Brent L

I'm so right there with ya though.

I find it funny that some people are questioning the language used and the subtitles.

Dr. DVD

Saw it. Thought it was interesting, and it also had some stuff never really seen before in a movie, so I have to give it *** on that alone. I will say that if Mel Gibson says he's not anti-semitic, then I would believe him. However, if he said he did not have penchant for brutal violence, I would have to call B.S. The man seems obsessed with coming up with new ways to depict grisly death and torture with each passing movie. He needs help.

CaptainMarvel

Or the inhumanity of Christian cultures, such as in Braveheart? Guess leaving that out makes his point less flawed.

toddly6666

Gibson is a great director. Who cares about him personally. As if he's any worse or better than any other famous actor or director? I think that George Lucas is still worse than Gibson, because Lucas actually insults his fans with his lies (he had those prequels in mind the whole time, he lost the original prints, etc.), prevents the existence of a 4th Indiana Jones movie, his original trilogy tampering, and the way he releases them on dvd format.

Gibson at least entertains, makes great films, and releases them normally on DVD.

sixerb

see below

sixerb

yeah, just in time for his next cash cow (HD) he releases the original trilogy untampered with so he can milk it (US) again with HD versions...

al_bundy

the whole saga starting with a VHS only version of PTM was classic. what is funny is that the carbon blobs on theforce.net and other SW forums bought the whole story like it was gospel

poor george with thousands of people working for him has to do everything himself

Zodiac_Speaking

I loved this movie. Such a briskly paced 140min movie. It's Braveheart-lite, but who cares, it was an awesome movie. A must see in a month of must-sees.

DVDTalk's 2 out of 3 reviews were horrible and not because i didn't agree with them. Its not like we're watching a movie directed by Ted bundy or Adolf hilter, Mel made a mistake but who doesn't when their drunk..I'm sick of these high standards we set celebrities to. They're human. He had a problem drinking (which many can relate) said something stupid (who hasn't?) and apologized. No need to keep attacking.

About the violence issue. Who cares? These past three films were mopvies based in a past which was more brutal in everyday life than us 21st ceturyers known. Every director was a theme he comes back to time and again.

Anyway,

Grade: B+

bhk

Yup, he lets the frog go and it hops away.

Really enjoyed the movie. The digital look bothered me a little. The plot hole that bothered me the most:


The violence and gore was much more realistic and seemed a natural part of their world not the over the top crap of Kill Bill(where one person could kill or maim more than 50 armed people).

redskull

There was an even bigger goof in the movie that I noticed:

Corvin

For anyone worried about the violence: you can see the gratuitous stuff coming, and it's nothing a glance towards the ceiling cannot fix. I had to do that several times.

Geofferson

I saw a late showing of this last night and enjoyed it quite a bit. What I appreciated the most was the casting of all these unknowns. I can't think of another movie where the facial expressions played such a dominant role in a story...very well done.

Finisher

Wanted to watch it again when it was over. Two or three films a year elicit that reaction from me in the theater.

The unknown actors were natural. You're not associating the actors with prior film roles. I think subtitles in general help performances, as you're not focusing on line delivery. Story was simplistic yet powerful. Virtually every scene felt necessary. Music was atypical James Horner but effective. Second half essentially turns into 'The Naked Prey' but was well handled. Apocalypto is up there with 'The Last of the Mohicans' and 'The Road Warrior' in terms of pure action.

Only real negative for me was the digital camerawork. Film looks better than digital.

candyrocket786

I agree....

I wanted more as I was leaving the theater....hell maybe even a sequel.

mdc3000

I loved it. It was extremely well put together and the acting was really top notch... also, I can't think of hardly any other movies like it out there. Very unique and kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time. The digital look was distracting in the first scene, but then I settled into it and it was fine. Regardless of his personal issues, Mel Gibson sure knows how to direct a damn good movie.

BuddhaWake

HAHa. So I take it you didn't like it? It wasn't bad and I didn't think Mel was saying that "thank God the Europeans came" but rather than all on the top fall type of thing. Like the Mayans were at the top of the world at that time, where the dominant force in the area which covered large parts of mexico and central america but their society collapsed and not only because of the europeans. It was hard to see but in the film they mentioned and showed a famine (corn crops being all dried up) and this is critical because the Mayans were loosing the capability to maintain themselves due to large populations due to anexation and expansion of their surroundings, a class system that worked the captured and lower classes to death, corruption and as we saw in the film religious grand standing. Just like other societies that have collapsed and will colapse, the idea that they were chosen by God and that they will stay on top forever is what I think Gibson was saying. After all, the Incas where chosen by God, the Mayans where chosen by God, The Europeans were chosen by God and all these powerfull societies have colapsed (at least in the powerfull way they used to be). All these things were undertones to the film since after all its an adventure film. Overall I think Gibson had a slight political agenda and not a religious one but since we know him for his religious believes we automatically do the math that way. This is my take on it and also is based on last week's Entertainment Weekly interview with the mad director. I thimk we can all agree that the guy is a bit crazy.

movielib

Ha, ha I didn't notice that. Good catch.



I also thought there were a few contrivances in the plot which were unnecessary.

Nevertheless I thought it was riveting for the most part and seemed to go by much faster than its 2:19 running time. May even deserve a Best Picture nomination in this weak year but shouldn't win.

mytzplyx

I agree about the DVDtalk reviews. For a second I thought I was reading a review about a Mel Gibson documentary rather than a Mel Gibson movie called Apocalypto.

Nick Martin

I don't know quite how to take that, but I can't wait to pick this score up.

atlantamoi

I'll give it a B. Enjoyable for what it was. Few hokey moments, but overall it was interesting (I enjoy historical flicks even if there are liberties taken with reality). All this talk of violence bugged me at first, but it wasn't any worse than Kill Bill. I dunno, I always seem to shrug this stuff off knowing it's only a movie. The ear scene in Reservoir Dogs is light years more disturbing than anything I saw yesterday.

The Bus

Oh, good. I had my hands over my face and was looking away until well past the end of that scene.

Bruce

I am kind of in the middle I guess.

I thought the movie was pretty good, but not great - I enjoy learning about other cultures, past and present.

I also appreciate what Gibson did with the casting and OSL. Most other film makers wouldn’t have the balls to pull casting unknowns and using subs. Hell, they didn't even use japanese actresses in Memoirs of a Geisha.

Also, the violence was extremely overhyped. Yes, it was violent. But no more then most any other hard-R movie in recent years. And not as violent as a few (SPR, Kill Bill, etc.)

Also, being shot on video kinda bugged me as well - but it did give it a documentary "feel."