Apocalypto

[sarcasmguy126]

Yes, it is indeed about four years old, but I just watched this movie with my brother and a friend last night. I cannot describe it in just one word, so I'll describe it in quite a few: it is probably the most exciting, brilliant, beautiful (and yet also disturbing and disgusting) movies I have ever seen in my 19 3/4 years. The human sacrifice scene particularly was (or could be construed) as a commentary on how our society (like the Mayan one) has become a culture of death, with the abortion especially, but also with stuff like euthanasia. I just wish the men wore less revealing loincloths, but I guess that tribe just dressed that way, heehee.

BUT, three scenes I REALLY could have done without:

1). The man bashing his head open on a rock after leaping from the waterfall.

2). The close-up shots of the jaguar mauling the man's face.

3). The blood spraying on and off from the villain's opened head (er, partially-revealed brain).

Mel Gibson did a phenomenal job on this film, and it is indeed not only a superb chase movie, but a tremendous movie, period. One of the best I've ever seen! But certain scenes in this film show that restraint would have worked very well here. After it was over, my brother said: "That was definitely not a popcorn movie!"

But that's just my opinion.

Comments, other opinions?

Edited December 18, 2010 by sarcasmguy126

[kafka]

I basically agree with what you said. Too graphic, violent, grotesque at certain points, but some great elements. Personally I can go without this type of movie at this point in my life.

[CatherineM]

I also liked it, but could only watch it once. It was so intense.

[sarcasmguy126]

Oh, it was intense, but the intensity is what makes it enthralling and engaging, I think.

P.S. Mel's next film is rumored to be one about Vikings, starring Leonardo DiCaprio. Hmmmm....

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='sarcasmguy126' timestamp='1292705823' post='2193365']
Oh, it was intense, but the intensity is what makes it enthralling and engaging, I think.

P.S. Mel's next film is rumored to be one about Vikings, starring Leonardo DiCaprio. Hmmmm....
[/quote]

DiCaprio pulled out of talks after Mel's recent poopstorm.

[Brother Adam]

The film is even better if you know anything about Our Lady of Guadalupe.

[MithLuin]

Yes, Mel Gibson's penchant for brutal violence is a bit disturbing. Because...unflinching cameras lend a bit of a pornographic feel to the whole thing rather than simply honesty about violent events. I was okay with Braveheart. Parts of the Passion bothered me. And Apocolypto [i]*shudder*[/i] - yea, he takes it a bit too far there. I remember some critics pointing out that [i]The Passion of the Christ[/i] was evidence that no film would ever earn an NC-17 rating strictly for violence.

[sarcasmguy126]

I thought that the NC-17 rating was reserved for movies with graphic sexual content.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='sarcasmguy126' timestamp='1295448062' post='2201775']
I thought that the NC-17 rating was reserved for movies with graphic sexual content.
[/quote]

Gotta love America, two people having consensual sex is so much worse then watching someone die in agony.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Semper Catholic' timestamp='1295448850' post='2201782']
Gotta love America, two people having consensual sex is so much worse then watching someone die in agony.
[/quote]

The violence is staged, the sex is real. However, I agree that movies should qualify for NC-17 for violence.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1295556064' post='2202305']
The violence is staged, the sex is real. However, I agree that movies should qualify for NC-17 for violence.
[/quote]

No. The sex is not real unless you are watching a hardcore porn(even in softcore porn, the sex is just staged, FYI that is the difference between the two)

[MithLuin]

That was the commentator's point - the old X rating strictly was for sexual content. The NC-17 rating was meant to cover films that had sexual content (for instance, full frontal nudity) that weren't porn, but were still way too hardcore for a normal R rating. He was pointing out that [i]only[/i] sexual content that was over the top for R would get the higher rating - not over-the-top violence.

I can't think of any X-rated or NC-17 rated films that I have seen (to my knowledge, I never have watched one), so I can't really comment if there is any difference. I guess most movies that have really hard core violence also have sex scenes. I'm thinking of stuff like...American History X (though that is R-rated, of course). The Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' has full frontal male nudity, but not in the context of a sex scene. It's rated R. [i]*shrug*[/i]

I think that violence can be pornographic because, well...I guess it depends on the type of violence. But I do know that there is something...not healthy...that makes such scenes entertaining and appealing. i mean, sure, a lot of it is meant to be horrifying. But... It's not just Mel Gibson movies that do this. I think [i]Red Dragon[/i] is a great movie, but all the violence in that is very feral and intimate. It disturbs me how awesome I think the opening scene of that movie is!
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYCWM7qi4P0]the beginning couple minutes of this video montage[/url]

[Guest Iota]

I'd like to see this movie.