It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Apocalypto Stinks

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:59 AM

It looks like this is the most gruesome thing ever to come out of Hollywood.
WHY would anyone make a movie like this? A movie that most of America couldn't stomach?

The Passion had violence but it was expected and it was really a meditation on the death of Christ. It was a portrayal of a real event. The violence was necessary.

But this? No, I haven't seen it. I was looking forward to seeing it but from the write up I doubt I'll bother.

BTW .. No, I don't think Passion was anti-Jew. Gibson definately is. But the movie wasn't. I have no idea what message he's trying to send with Apocalypto. This is definately a pyschological mystery.

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 11:13 AM
I thought Apocalypto was supposed to be about the Mayan prophecy about December 21,2012?
Apparently not.. :shk:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 09:15 AM
I'll form my own opinions rather than rely on the critics at fox news. LOL

The real violence is the spiritual one, the one that Christ died for.

Not so much the bodies destroyed by the SOA or the IMF, the hope for change and representation destroyed by them is far more gruesome.

Apocalypto - the Mayan's were destroyed by colonialist capitalism.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by clearwater]

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:32 PM
I'd probably still see it just because it looks somewhat interesting. The costumes and scenery look beautiful. Definitely not a fan of excessive gore though unless it serves a purpose, which is mainly why current shock-horror movies (which seem to be the popular norm) just don't do it for me.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:50 PM
lawl justifying gore cause it was about jesus.

I find that ironic.

I think apocalypto looks kew, even if Mel is a douche.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:49 PM
I wasn't so sure if I was going to see it or not but when I heard Apocalypto was gorey and violent I changed my mind.

But let's face it, there's nothing peacefull and sugar coated about cutting someone's still beating heart out and rolling his dead body down the stairs.

Either way, it's sounds good and I for one applaud Mel Gibson for finally putting some seriously atmospheric violence back into movies.

posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 08:56 PM
The movie is about how the Mayens used up and destroyed the enviorment around them, which lead to their demise.

Atleast thats what all the trade papers are saying

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 11:13 PM
I had second thoughts about seeing the movie because of the violence I saw in the previews on T.V. I went anyways, and I'm glad I did. There was about 30 people in the movie theater on a Saturday matinee showing (4:00pm). I thought there'd be more than that on the first weekend. Most everyone stayed for the whole movie, except for a couple in the back. I think the movie had 45 minutes left in it before they left.

The movie is deninitely grusome and there's suffering and sadness throughout the entire film. The re-enactment is amazing. All the actors were perfect with the roles they played.

The Maya city looked like the ruins of Tikal. You can tell that one of the major scenes is a reconstruction of the North acropolis, Great Plaza and Central Acropolis of the ancient city of Tikal. If you've seen Star Wars-A New Hope, then you've definitely seen the temple tops of Tikal (It's the rebel base at the end of the film.) What is interesting is that Tikal participated in great wars with the surround states. Tikal would make war with or have aliances with the surrounding states of Calakmul, El Peru, Naranjo, Dos Pilas and Caracol. Certain astronomical events would trigger an all scale attack on a neighboring state and they called it a "star war. It was common to sacrifice captives at the temples to appease certain gods. The Babylonians, Assyrians, Vikings and many other nations were just as cruel so don't think that the Maya were the only ones that cruel. When you see the movie, take note of all the temples and garb everyone is wearing. These objects were once real and they're all shown in mesoamerican books.

I think Mel Gibson did a fine job. He tried to incorporate their human sacrifices, their waring with surrounding peoples, their advanced sciences (I loved the ant thing), and their knowledge of the movements of the heavenly bodies into this film.

Don't take your date to this film. Remember you're there to watch an expensive documentary and learn some history and see some gore as well.

[edit on 9-12-2006 by lostinspace]

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:37 PM

I thought the movie was amazing, I saw it last night.
It's a glimpse into a mostly forgotten world.

I believe that review from Roger Friedman, was written out of hate. Hate for Gibson. I give Roger Friedman, two thumbs down.

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 06:32 PM
You know what I had the same hopes, I was looking forward to this movie because I thought it was about Mayan prophecy. And of course I was expecting some violence, but this just seems absurd. Mel seems more and more like a nut. Why does he appear so fixated on torture in his movies. Even Passion of Christ was a bit over the edge for me.
If you need to see gore that bad, there are some sites (which I won't mention) that I'm sure sickfs would enjoy.

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 08:11 PM

You saw the movie right?
There was quite a bit of violence. There was actually less than I thought there would be, based on some reviews,

I'm not so sure he's fixated.

I think he was just trying to portray an unwhitewashed version of how evil human beings could, ans can be to each other.

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 09:51 PM
I think we already know how evil humans are when you look at all the wars happening around us.
I was hoping this would be some kind of historical documentary, but it appears Mel decided to stray from the archeologists and those that have actually studied Mayan artifacts and do his own thing. Most likely for ratings. So I don't see how anyone calls this a documentary. It is infact fictitious:

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:41 PM
After thinking about the movie for a while now, I think the movie title is misleading and inacurate. The title Apocalypto indicates an end of a civilization. The Maya civilization did not see their end when the Spanish arived. The Maya civilization spanned from 400 B.C. to 900 A.D. and the Spanished arived around 1500 A.D. The Maya civilization was already in decline about that time. The movie should have been about what really caused their decline. It so happens that the Spanish came in contact with the Aztec Empire and not the Maya and their civilization spanned from 1350 A.D. to 1500 A.D. Even Montezuma (leader of the Aztecs) says that the giant pyramids of Teotihuacan was built by some earlier unknown civilization. It seems as though the movie should have dealt with the original civilization which started it all in Central America, whom the Olmec, Maya, Toltec, and Aztec were descended from. The highly concentration of pyramid temples in Central America seem to range from Mexico to Honduras which would indicate a governmental seat should have existed near by to hold all these cities together. I propose that the origin of the Maya come from an area east of the Yucatan. An area now under water. Today we know it as the Caribbean. The Atlantis legend could have sprung up from an ancient Maya disaster story. The Maya would have started their decline as they were disconnected from their central government (like D.C. is for the U.S.) and all the city states of Mexico would have eventually gone to war with one another and tore themselves appart over the centuries.

Apocalypto should have been about the sinking of Atlan and how the Maya city states dealt with the loss.

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:25 PM
What do you expect from an anti-semite ?? ( I mean Jew-hater!! Dont BS me about the ARabs)

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 09:46 PM
I didn't think the movie was intended to be a Documentary.
I just saw it as a movie. A story about how history repeats itself.

Those with the "power". Sacrifce those without it.
In this case the power was mathematics, and basic celestial mechanics.

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 03:19 AM
I'm sorry, I must have missed something - what the Hell does Mel's racism have to do with this movie?

Also, how would one make a movie about an incredibly violent culture without showing violence?

I mean, if the movie is incredibly violent and it sucks, I can agree with the criticism, but if it's a decent movie that happens to have a crapload of blood and gore and gruesome violence, so what? I don't care...

I'll see it, eventually...

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:43 PM
i doubt i will find myself watching this movie. I saw the commercial for it in theatres and it looks like WARCRAFT turned into a movie lol. Dont get me wrong, WARCRAFT is tight, but it turning into a giant melee or the same "units" doesnt intrigue me. Now WoW the movie would be something else.

Anyone seen it and say its good? i almost ended up watching this but we went to go see Rocky Balboa instead haha

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:36 PM
Great movie.

After thinking about the movie for a while now, I think the movie title is misleading and inacurate. The title Apocalypto indicates an end of a civilization.

I found the movie misleading also. still enjoyed it though.

There was quite a bit of violence. There was actually less than I thought there would be, based on some reviews,

I got the impression it was a gore fest with tasteless scenes of pure violence, it was detailed but was not particulary gory to the casual viewer.

The movie is deninitely grusome and there's suffering and sadness throughout the entire film.

totally agree with the "suffering and sadness" comment.

The movie is about how the Mayens used up and destroyed the enviorment around them, which lead to their demise.

I for one did not get that impression.

The accuracy of the film isnt very good, I am no expert on central American history but at the end where you see the Spanish boats at the shore was just blatantly innaccurate seen as the Mayan civilisation had dissappeared way before the Spanish reached central America.

These historical inaccuracies were the only blips for this movie IMO.

Good job Mel
but next time do a little more research

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:06 PM
I refuse to see it. After all those anti-semitic comments Gibson made, im boycotting his movies.

he's scum.

posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:23 PM
The opening scenes of the film was good ,where a group of hunters are disturbed by a group of people who want to pass through the hunters lands stating that there lands have been ravished.....!

This sets up in my opinion one of the best films made in the past 2 years.

I thought APOCALYPTO was a visual masterpiece ! disregarding the scenes of sacrifice but that scene were they entered the mayan city was very well done and convincing !

Though historically inacurate in place's the film was very fast paced and thought provoking. It stimulated my intrest in mesoamerican cultures which cant be a bad thing for a film to do.

Also the soundtrack was sublime !

The most disturbing scenes in the film which i found was when the mayans attacked the village in the beginning.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in