Apocalypto

So you've posted 5,898 times while drinking?

You may want to start attending meetings.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

 

I disagree with the AA credo. I think it's bullshit.

Full control of everything is the one, true goal.

 

I'm more concerned with what they end up doing with the money I spend on their work than I am in what they say when they're drunk. Actors/directors who are publicly vocal and financially vested in causes I find repulsive, I am less likely to spend money on their work because I know it'll end up supporting a cause to which I am opposed.

 

kenneth turan didn't like it

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-apocalypto8dec08,1,4916658.story

 

No desire to see this movie at all.

Have never really given much of a shit for Mel.......

 

Apocalypto should be judged on its own merits.
It's a very good movie. Not an epic, but entertaining from start to finish.
I just wonder how it would be viewed if someone else had made it. Reviewers who get caught up in their personal views on Gibson and don't give the movie a fair shake in the process are not worth reading.

 

That's an interesting thought. Has any producer done so under an assumed name? Something along the lines of Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman? If one could find a way to do it, it might provide an interesting view of the work. I mean, let's face it, any movie done by a big-name in Hollywood is going to be framed by whatever baggage that name carries.

 

FWIW, Metacritic is a better compilation site because it doesn't include so many Web reviews, many of which I like, but still throw off the tomatometer because quite a few have agendas.

It's a mean piece of business, and it's going to make its 100 million before it's done. Once the word gets out that it's an action flick - and that's all it is - and one long chase through the jungle, viewers will shrug off Gibson's politics and go.

 

The problem with that idea is that directors, actors, producers, etc. need to make bank in order to maintain their Hollywood clout and get their next film made, get their next role, etc. So, if the choice comes down to knowing if a critic would give the film a different review based on who made it, or cashing in on your name to draw people to the theater, we all know which will win every time.

 

Mel Gibson is a sick fuck if only for the various he has created to kill people in his movies. Apocalypto was a savage, brutal, sickening flick. I damn near walked out during the first scene when they were passing out parts of the wild pig. That said, I stayed put and mostly enjoyed it. B+

 

Gibson is hardly the first person to make violent movies.

 

Granted. But he's one of the best at it. I spoke with tongue firmly planted in cheek.