|
I have not seen Apocalypto but I have no doubt that it was good. Braveheart was excellent on so
many levels. It deserved every Oscar it got! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with you on Apocalypto being good, but how can you not think Mel Gibson was anything
special? I mean the Lethal Weapon movies were some of the best action movies ever. He was awesome in
Signs, The Patriot, and Braveheart. Mad Max was a little weird, but it was still really good. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The Decalogue in Gibson's Passion of the Christ was also mostly in a dead language, but it still did
not make the film very compelling. Apocalypto bears the hallmarks of Gibson's other films--it is
over-the-top and sensational. Apparently, Gibson feels that the only way he can get his point across
is if he clubs his audience over the head with ultra-violent scenes. Additionally, Gibson's
portrayal of the Mayan people is based on western tropes and stereotypes, which were traditionally
applied to most non-white, non-Christian peoples, including the notion that they somehow lack
ambition and are anachronistic. This is essentially the same portrait of the "savage" that we see in
eighteenth and nineteenth century novels on America's Indians and Canada's First Nations.
I found Gibson's romatic treatment of rural (in this case jungle) life to be both simplistic and
disturbing, and the Mayan characters in his film tend to lack depth of character. Gibson would be a
better director if he realized that a little subtlety can go a long way in films. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
13 May 2008 00:12
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
