NationStates Jolt Archive

Has anyone seen that that movie already?

I have a friend who saw it. She said she liked it, but her husband can't stand the subtitles.

I have a friend who saw it. She said she liked it, but her husband can't stand the subtitles.He uses subtitles again? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypto

Yep, subtitles.

Well, the characters do speak in an obscure language that the majority of the target audience has little familiarity with.... subtitles seem like a necessity.

No I have not seen it, but I do hope to buy the DVD.

It was a terrible movie.

Basically, it was a big set up for the deus ex machina at the end where the hero is saved at the last minute by the arrival of conquistadores and christian missionaries bearing very large crosses.

The movie has some very well rendered gory violence, but if you see it for that, leave after the hero kills the main bad guy to avoid throwing up upon realizing it is a christianist "look how savage the silly pagans are" vehicle.

The movie has some very well rendered gory violence, but if you see it for that, leave after the hero kills the main bad guy to avoid throwing up upon realizing it is a christianist "look how savage the silly pagans are" vehicle.

They should just continue the movie a couple of years so that people thought "well, that wasn't much of an improvement either"

It was a terrible movie.

Basically, it was a big set up for the deus ex machina at the end where the hero is saved at the last minute by the arrival of conquistadores and christian missionaries bearing very large crosses.

The movie has some very well rendered gory violence, but if you see it for that, leave after the hero kills the main bad guy to avoid throwing up upon realizing it is a christianist "look how savage the silly pagans are" vehicle.Well, since it's a Mel Gibson movie, I would not expect anything else...

It was a terrible movie.

Basically, it was a big set up for the deus ex machina at the end where the hero is saved at the last minute by the arrival of conquistadores and christian missionaries bearing very large crosses.

The movie has some very well rendered gory violence, but if you see it for that, leave after the hero kills the main bad guy to avoid throwing up upon realizing it is a christianist "look how savage the silly pagans are" vehicle.

My friend did not mention this part. I will have to ask her about it. I do want to see the movie even knowing the bias that Mel has towards people, culture that are not Christian.

I thought it was a great action movie. Basically every negative review I've seen of it seems to disregard the fact that it's an action movie. In other words, see it if you like action movies, but go to the library if you want to study Mayan culture. That's about it. Outstanding special effects/costumes, no real political statements (which some people seem to need to be entertained).

It has a very political message. "The Mayan were horrible, and corrupt, and their civilisation was on the brink of implosion when the Europeans arrived...the ensuing slaughter and general mayhem were not only deserved, but in the best interests of the savage Indians."

What really pisses me off about this movie is that it is the FIRST movie in the Mayan language, carrying a message that demeans, demonises and misrepresents the Mayan culture. Yes yes, one can expect little of a disgusting anti-Semite like Gibson, but this is EXACTLY why our communities are fighting tooth and nail for control over our languages...who gets to use them, and for what purpose.

It's bad enough hearing about how fucking 'savage' your people are, in English, or Spanish, or some other foreign tongue...hearing it in your OWN language? I'm not sure you can understand how disturbing that is, for indigenous people, considering how few are the opportunities to hear our languages outside of our communities.

What really pisses me off about this movie is that it is the FIRST movie in the Mayan language, carrying a message that demeans, demonises and misrepresents the Mayan culture. Yes yes, one can expect little of a disgusting anti-Semite like Gibson, but this is EXACTLY why our communities are fighting tooth and nail for control over our languages...who gets to use them, and for what purpose.

I thought the Mayan civilization was in serious decline years before the conquistadors arrived. If you are truly a mayan, I can understand your concern, but the idea of having control who gets to use your language...

I thought the Mayan civilization was in serious decline years before the conquistadors arrived. If you are truly a mayan, I can understand your concern, but the idea of having control who gets to use your language...

I'm not Mayan, I'm Cree...

That the movie is totally historically inaccurate is just one small part of it. The enduring racism of the portrayal, made to look 'authentic' by using the Queqchi Maya language...THAT is what bothers me most...I don't go to Hollywood for history lessons anyway.

Yes, we should absolutely have control over how our languages are used, especially when our languages are in danger of dying out. Would you, at the last gasp, want your mother tongue recorded for posterity ONLY via a movie that demonises your culture?

Here is an interesting article (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1217-24.htm) about some of the problems with this movie. Why does it matter? The Maya never disappeared...they are still going strong, despite the constant, unrelenting attempts to massacre them...and assimilate those that managed to survive. Look to Guatemala to see how the Mayan culture has been targeted, how the Maya have been violated, attacked, and politically repressed...and now, there is a movie, a shining example of just why all those things are OKAY because really, they are descended from disgusting savages anyway...

The commercial got it right...image is everything, and image gets used against aboriginal people constantly to erode our rights, and justify continuing atrocities against us. This isn't just an action flick...it's a guilty conscience, soothed with stories of inherent evil conquered by god-fearing Christians.

Has anyone else seen it? Anyone loved it, so I can rip their heads off? hehehehe...kidding...

It was a terrible movie.

Basically, it was a big set up for the deus ex machina at the end where the hero is saved at the last minute by the arrival of conquistadores and christian missionaries bearing very large crosses.

The movie has some very well rendered gory violence, but if you see it for that, leave after the hero kills the main bad guy to avoid throwing up upon realizing it is a christianist "look how savage the silly pagans are" vehicle.

You taught me something that I would have otherwise never known (as per the fact that I was planning to never see it): That the movie has conquistadores.

Haven't seen it. But I heard there was lots of violence and blood in it, so I'm considering it. When it comes out on DVD or something, anyway.

Has anyone else seen it? Anyone loved it, so I can rip their heads off? hehehehe...kidding...

Ach, you violent savage! :p

Ach, you violent savage! :pYou long for the day I raze your village, haul you off in leather bindings, and make you my man-slave till the end of your miserable days...

What really pisses me off about this movie is that it is the FIRST movie in the Mayan language, carrying a message that demeans, demonises and misrepresents the Mayan culture.

ah mel gibson, simultaneously progressive and a fucking nazi. funny how the nazi side keeps winning out, no?

You long for the day I raze your village, haul you off in leather bindings, and make you my man-slave till the end of your miserable days...

I'll have your fingers running through my scalp before long.

You long for the day I raze your village, haul you off in leather bindings, and make you my man-slave till the end of your miserable days...

funny, that doesn't quite seem like you.

ok, just saw the flick. Boring, inaccurate, poor pictures.

Just Gibson churning out more Christian propaganda that takes no facts into consideration.

I thought the Mayan civilization was in serious decline years before the conquistadors arrived. If you are truly a mayan, I can understand your concern, but the idea of having control who gets to use your language...

Actually the Mayan culture splintered centuries before the spaniards arrived.

Has anyone else seen it? Anyone loved it, so I can rip their heads off? hehehehe...kidding...

Yep I saw it, and I liked it very much.

I think it's disingenuous to say the movie did nothing but portray Mayan culture in a bad light, and I also think whoever said the Conquistadores were there to somehow save the day completely misunderstood the whole point.

The movie opened with a few scenes of daily life in a Mayan village. They're portrayed as people. Regular, normal people. The pranks that people played on the one guy were hilarious, and it truly humanized these people. At one point they see refugees of another village escaping some as yet unknown invaders. It turns out those invaders are a war party from the city. This will become a symbol later.

It isn't made clear who the war party is, and when I first saw it I thought they were Aztec, but apparently I was mistaken. (Aztec architecture was used to portray their city, but that was not an accurate representation.) The beheading and sacrifices that were portrayed were historically in keeping with the rituals of the time.

I'll pause here a moment to say that there isn't anything unfair or dishonest about that. This is history. They took some creative license with the architecture and art and so on, but that doesn't make the movie an inaccurate snapshot of ancient Mezoamerican life any more than the movie Gladiator is dishonest by portraying the Roman conquest of Germania. Did it happen EXACTLY that way? No, but for purposes of the story, it's close enough.

The hero in the movie is a man, a hunter, motivated by the desire to save his family. Any person watching the movie should be able to easily relate to that. He's persued by a war party intent on avenging one of their own, and has to fight them in a sort of Rambo vs. the villains action sequence.

At the end of the movie he is chased until he, and his remaining persuers, see the Spanish approaching the shore. He returns to his family and they leave the area, knowing that trouble is coming on those boats. The end of the m ovie is melancholy since we know the culture will be wiped out by these invaders, and we leave this little family hoping they get to safety, but knowing that in time, there will be no more safe places. The flight of the family to escape the Spanish mirrors the flight of the other Mayan village when trying to escape the war party.

ah mel gibson, simultaneously progressive and a fucking nazi. funny how the nazi side keeps winning out, no?

I wasn't aware of the historical connection between the Nazis and the Maya.

Just Gibson churning out more Christian propaganda that takes no facts into consideration.

Did you see this movie, or did you miss the point on purpose?

I refuse to support Mel Gibson and the movie sounds like it would piss me off anyway if it truely does make the Mayans look like savages being saved from themselves by Christians.

Did you see this movie, or did you miss the point on purpose?

Quite frankly I just dislike both Christianity and Gibson. Thats all I need. (Along with a lot of other things)

Yep I saw it, and I liked it very much.

I think it's disingenuous to say the movie did nothing but portray Mayan culture in a bad light, and I also think whoever said the Conquistadores were there to somehow save the day completely misunderstood the whole point.

The movie opened with a few scenes of daily life in a Mayan village. They're portrayed as people. Regular, normal people. The pranks that people played on the one guy were hilarious, and it truly humanized these people. At one point they see refugees of another village escaping some as yet unknown invaders. It turns out those invaders are a war party from the city. This will become a symbol later.

It isn't made clear who the war party is, and when I first saw it I thought they were Aztec, but apparently I was mistaken. (Aztec architecture was used to portray their city, but that was not an accurate representation.) The beheading and sacrifices that were portrayed were historically in keeping with the rituals of the time.

I'll pause here a moment to say that there isn't anything unfair or dishonest about that. This is history. They took some creative license with the architecture and art and so on, but that doesn't make the movie an inaccurate snapshot of ancient Mezoamerican life any more than the movie Gladiator is dishonest by portraying the Roman conquest of Germania. Did it happen EXACTLY that way? No, but for purposes of the story, it's close enough.

The hero in the movie is a man, a hunter, motivated by the desire to save his family. Any person watching the movie should be able to easily relate to that. He's persued by a war party intent on avenging one of their own, and has to fight them in a sort of Rambo vs. the villains action sequence.

At the end of the movie he is chased until he, and his remaining persuers, see the Spanish approaching the shore. He returns to his family and they leave the area, knowing that trouble is coming on those boats. The end of the m ovie is melancholy since we know the culture will be wiped out by these invaders, and we leave this little family hoping they get to safety, but knowing that in time, there will be no more safe places. The flight of the family to escape the Spanish mirrors the flight of the other Mayan village when trying to escape the war party.Excuse me, but this is definitely not an accurate display of Mayan history. Maya never hunted down villagers for sacrificial rituals. Only royal and aristocratic blood was spilt as a sacrifice to the gods. I also was confused about the geography in the movie and the hero's ability to outrun a jaguar and to run at all for two days with severe wounds. I was even more confused that a day after the solar eclipse there was a full moon.
On top of that most of the movie I thought I was looking at a bad police video. The quality is just poor.

I was even more confused that a day after the solar eclipse there was a full moon.


You just don't understand the Mayan calendar. :p

You just don't understand the Mayan calendar. :pWell, I understand that it starts in 3113 BCE, the year of the Flood. :p

On top of that most of the movie I thought I was looking at a bad police video. .

If there was a swarm of guys with clubs around a lone darkish looking guy on the ground, I could see why you might think that.

If there was a swarm of guys with clubs around a lone darkish looking guy on the ground, I could see why you might think that.I meant the picture quality of the movie. And I was referring to police videos in general, not specifically US American ones... :)

Excuse me, but this is definitely not an accurate display of Mayan history. Maya never hunted down villagers for sacrificial rituals. Only royal and aristocratic blood was spilt as a sacrifice to the gods. I also was confused about the geography in the movie and the hero's ability to outrun a jaguar and to run at all for two days with severe wounds. I was even more confused that a day after the solar eclipse there was a full moon.
On top of that most of the movie I thought I was looking at a bad police video. The quality is just poor.

You do understand that this is an action movie and not a historical documentary?

Oh wait, I know what it is. Mel Gibsom made the movie so it must be utter crap, but Kingdom of Heaven gets a pass on even greater historical inaccuracy because Ridley Scott made it. (Even better, Kingdom of Heaven portrays Christians as bloodthirsty territorial beasts.)

And it's funny that you acknowledge the sacrifices were made, but downplay it because it was rich folks that got sacrificed. I guess it's only bad when commoners get whacked, right?

Quite frankly I just dislike both Christianity and Gibson. Thats all I need. (Along with a lot of other things)

So your reasoning is that you don't like Mel Gibson and you don't like Christianity, therefore Apocalypto must be a bad movie.

Ironic, since I don't think Christians were portrayed in a particularly good light in this movie, being symbolically compared to the aggressive war party, and Mel Gibson isn't actually IN the movie.

I refuse to support Mel Gibson and the movie sounds like it would piss me off anyway if it truely does make the Mayans look like savages being saved from themselves by Christians.

It doesn't. Christians are portrayed as yet another set of invaders that will anhilate the local culture. Hence the reason the hero takes his family and flees from them at the end.

People keep ignoring that part. I guess they do that because it makes it harder to beat up on Mel.

You do understand that this is an action movie and not a historical documentary?

Oh wait, I know what it is. Mel Gibsom made the movie so it must be utter crap, but Kingdom of Heaven gets a pass on even greater historical inaccuracy because Ridley Scott made it. (Even better, Kingdom of Heaven portrays Christians as bloodthirsty territorial beasts.)

And it's funny that you acknowledge the sacrifices were made, but downplay it because it was rich folks that got sacrificed. I guess it's only bad when commoners get whacked, right?It's a movie about Mayan civilization. I expect it to be accurate. There was no need for Gibson to mix basically everything up. If it was supposed to be just another action movie, the nwhy all this crap with trying to use Mayan language?
And as for the sacrifices: it was the job of the nobility to protect and advance society and it was completely natural that in hard times they offered their blood to the gods in exchange for divine patronage and for leadership.

Actually the Mayan culture splintered centuries before the spaniards arrived.

The great Mayan cities had been abandoned for a while for unknown reasons, but there were a lot of smaller cities and villages still rocking on, or whatever Mayans did back then.

I wasn't aware of the historical connection between the Nazis and the Maya.

not the maya. mel gibson.

It doesn't. Christians are portrayed as yet another set of invaders that will anhilate the local culture. Hence the reason the hero takes his family and flees from them at the end.

People keep ignoring that part. I guess they do that because it makes it harder to beat up on Mel.

Funny, it looked to me like the cross-bearing christians came in at just-the-last-minute to save the hero.

Taken in a vacuum, or taken in context of a filmmaker who isnt a christianist maniac, your analysis might hold up. Realistically, it doesnt.

No honest person can ignore the fact that mel gibson has made christian propaganda before (the passion) and that he has no qualms about expressing his distaste for other religions (the jews, namely).

The movie is rife with christianist imagery, from the savage, cackling, sky-worshipping pagan murder-priests to the focus on pregnancy and birth.

It's not actually Gibson making these films. It's actually Saddam. Somebody just kidnapped Mel in 2003 and placed in a hole in Tikrit for the Americans to find.

Gibson
http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/14cnd-saddam.7.274.jpg

Saddam
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/Melinapocalypto.jpg/800px-Melinapocalypto.jpg

It's not actually Gibson making these films. It's actually Saddam. Somebody just kidnapped Mel in 2003 and placed in a hole in Tikrit for the Americans to find.

Gibson
http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/14cnd-saddam.7.274.jpg

Saddam
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/Melinapocalypto.jpg/800px-Melinapocalypto.jpg

You win this plane of existence.

You win this plane of existence.I iknow, aren't you glad that you now know Gibson will have been executed within a month. And that Saddam can continue to oppress the masses through the medium of film.

I iknow, aren't you glad that you now know Gibson will have been executed within a month. And that Saddam can continue to oppress the masses through the medium of film.
I know I'm glad. :)

In addition to being an anti-Semite, a drunk, a religious fanatic, an under-talented actor, and a pretentious director, Mel Gibson is also a plagiarist. Apparently, I was thinking about this in my sleep, because I woke up this morning with the clear knowledge of where I'd heard the "Apocalypto" story line before. It's from the 1960's Beatles movie "HELP." It's true. "HELP" is all about savage pagans chasing Ringo around because he has the ring that denotes the chosen sacrifice to their dark Eastern deity. It is explained that the chosen are "slaughtered, jolly, with a knife" and that "all are happy to go," but Ringo isn't happy, and the chase goes around the globe, until Ringo finally gets the ring unstuck from his finger and slips it to Leo McKern, leader of the cult, and the sacrificers turn to chasing him instead.

So, to those who have seen "Apocalypto," does it include a cult member lagging behind and trying to catch up while shouting in a panic, "I'm going to miss the sacrifice!" And is there a lost channel swimmer who pops up out of random bodies of water throughout the movie to ask, "White Cliffs of Dover?" If not, I won't waste my money.

Whats the acting like? And the script? Cinematography? Plot? I dont care about Gibson, or about accuracy. I want to know if its a good movie.