Sep 28, 2007 02:16 PM
4232 Views
(Updated Sep 28, 2007 02:34 PM)
I watched this movie and experienced surges of exhuberation (wow, what a scene) as well as surges of disgust (ugh, can't you have shown that better?) and ended with a feeling of (well, some great features in this movie, but hey.. here are places where Gibson could have done a lot better).
The good:
Awesome cinematography, stages, makeup and special effects!The sound and background score is good! You often feel transformed to the times of that ancient civilization.
The movie begins with the very interesting statement (quoting a famous historian) “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” The cast has done a pretty good job, but I don't think the script gives the opportunity to demonstrate "brilliant" acting skills. Very good script/storyline - keeps you gripped.
Action sequences and the camera usage, the pursuits, the moving camera angles, the surprise elements handled pretty well.
*The bad:
*Gibson, however good his other movies might be, did not do his homework right! This movie is not, I repeat is NOT based on sufficient authenticated information. There are differences between Mayan culture and the Aztecs. Mishmash of sun worship and other jungle gods. My personal opinion is that Gibson goofed up in not giving a feeler of the ancient civilization in a wholistic way (ideally depicting briefly a century to century movement of the civilization and deterioration).
The lovely anti-climax (not going to tell more to break the interest) at the end of the movie needs elaboration, the context could have been highlighted to help relate to the historical event it refers to.
The beautiful quote mentioned in the beginning “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” in reality get contorted to "A civilization stooping to endless barbarism as a desperate means to alleviate famine".
Isn't there tooo much of a chase sequence throughout the movie? The chase itself was directed really good, but it became pretty rediculous to see a badly wounded guy run around like he was a self-healer, with only a grimaced face and no significant physical deterioration.
*The ugly:
*NOT for children(obviously, as also indicated 18A), NOT for the weak hearted, NOT really worth to watch with family, NOT for those who don'e like seeing gore as the movie is full of it. Gibson has made some scenes look really GROSS. I am not asking for masking of reality. I am asking for effective depiction of the same without making it look like an R-rated thriller type sold in shady backrooms. Some people are supposed to have puked after seeing "The silence of the lambs", this is far more crude and open depiction of flesh, blood and pain.
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION:
SEEit only if you enjoy great cinematographic deptiction of the ancient civilization and enjoy the action sequences that Mel Gibson is good in depicting. See only if if you enjoy action without getting into factual details or logical sequencing.
DONT SEEif you are disturbed by excessive depiction of flesh/blood and gore. And dont see if you enjoy the factual/informational details of a movie along with the action or if you expect to see brilliant unfolding of a plot. This movie has clearly been over hyped as the box office response showed. (In the top ten only for first couple of weeks and then vanishes out of it. But they are making good money since it has garnered ample momentum worldwide)
