Trailer Bulletin: Apocalypto
That unpredictable ol' Mel Gibson has some a new movie brewin'. It's called "Apocalypto," and it looks like it hopes to be a big player in next summer's movie wars. Check out the brand-new trailer right here.
"Co-written by Gibson and Farhad Safinia, "Apocalypto" is a heart stopping mythic action-adventure set against the turbulent end times of the once great Mayan civilization. When his idyllic existence is brutally disrupted by a violent invading force, a man is taken on a perilous journey to a world ruled by fear and oppression where a harrowing end awaits him. Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for his woman and his family he will make a desperate break to return home and to ultimately save his way of life."
--
Mr. Gibson is, of course, the well-known actor turned director of "Braveheart" and "The Passion of the Christ."
"Co-written by Gibson and Farhad Safinia, "Apocalypto" is a heart stopping mythic action-adventure set against the turbulent end times of the once great Mayan civilization. When his idyllic existence is brutally disrupted by a violent invading force, a man is taken on a perilous journey to a world ruled by fear and oppression where a harrowing end awaits him. Through a twist of fate and spurred by the power of his love for his woman and his family he will make a desperate break to return home and to ultimately save his way of life."
--
Mr. Gibson is, of course, the well-known actor turned director of "Braveheart" and "The Passion of the Christ."
Related Items
| Movie: | The Passion of the Christ |
| Celeb: | Mel Gibson |
(1-20 of 29 posts) | Reply
on Dec 21 2005 02:16 AM This. Looks. Majestic. Bring it on. (Reply to this) |
on Dec 21 2005 05:02 AM Gibson proved with The Passion that great stories don't need translation. This has an orginal look to it and one I'm sure will be a welcome respite from the upcoming parade of crap such as Miami Vice. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 06:23 AM [b]Lamonites![/b] I wonder if Mel Gibson has read the Book of Mormon… For those who might not know, the Book of Mormon is an account of the American continent from 600bc to 400ad. It explains the origins of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas, and later Native Americans. After Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, He appeared to these people on the American continent. And that’s why when Cortez came from Spain on his white horse and gleaming armor the people mistook him for their god returning, because just like to the people of Jerusalem, Christ told them that he would return. And that’s why the Mormon church has millions of members in Central and South America, many of the people recognize the Book of Mormon as a history of their people. The Book of Mormon explains how many of the American continent’s indigenous people are actually descended from ancient Israel, which makes sense if you look at the art and architecture (i.e. Pyramids). The Book of Mormon also explains how they, unfortunately, became idolatrous, blood-thirsty people. 400 years after Christ appeared to them, the last of the Christians became extinct through war. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 07:50 AM Interesting info, Sokvieta, thanks for that. As far as I know, Mel Gibson has said that he wants to keep the picture free from European faces, so that pretty much rules out Cortez and the Conquistadors, etc - I think he wants to portray an internal struggle. However, he DID say that this was to be a 'mythic' adventure, so maybe you're onto something with the appearance of Christ. It will certainly add an unexpected twist to the story. Besides, I thought The Passion was a brilliant piece of filmmaking... and I'm fiercely secular. This film could be the one to beat for Oscars '07. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 09:08 AM HAHA sounds like another lie the christians concocted to convert en mass. and you actually fell for this horse tripe? (Reply to this) |
on Dec 21 2005 09:19 AM Or more specifically Mormons invented that the overwhelming majority of christians reject you ignorant jerk (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 09:53 AM I disagree with it as a representation of the facts, but find it mythically interesting (that statement pretty much sums up my attitude to most of the Bible). While I am fascinated and moved by mythology, I believe that it is just that: mythology. That's why The Passion worked for me as a film, but would never have got me into church. I'm going to wait and see what Gibson does, and how he does it. There's nothing to say he'll even touch on Mormon, so it's all up in the air - but it looks like he's been making a powerful film. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 10:18 AM [b]SOKIVETA WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??????[/b] Sokiveta- Wow, I had no idea the calender turned back to 16th century, when the Catholic Church elaborated the ridiculous theory you are talking of. The theory of the lost tribe of Israel was a Catholic patch to justify the obvious challenge that the existence of the New World presented to Judeo-Christian mythology. By the way, this theory has been widely discredited by anyone that was born with a brain in the 20th century. It is embarassing and irresponsible that you attempt to pass off the mere superstitions of a religion as archeological and historical fact. While you are free to believe whatever myths you wish to invest yourself in, it is unacceptable that you come into a forum and misinform those who have no idea about Latin American history. To begin with, evidence proves that the origins of the Mayan civilization date back to 1500 B.C. The Aztec civilization moved away from their homeland of Aztlan in 1100 A.D. The Inca empire wasn't formed until 1438 A.D. As you can see, none of the dates match 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. timeline that you have provided us with. Isn't it convenient, everyone, that the book of mormon justifies that there were no Christians in America because they were killed off? It is also rather impressive that no evidence whatsoever of Christian worship can be found in any account of the time. My argument could be dimissed by suggesting that some civilizations have disappeared without leaving any trace behind. However, one is prone to ask the following. If all evidence of christianity prior to the arrival of the conquerors was destroyed, what evidence sustains the claim you make that christianity existed in pre-colonial America? How do you know that the last Christian died 400 years after the arrival of Christ? Can you produce any concrete evidence that supports your arguement? I bet you can't, but I suspect that you are the kind of person that would scoff empirical evidence and label facts as stupid things. Christianity, sokiveta, did not appear in America until it was brutally impossed, as it was everywhere else, by the conquering Europeans. Many local myths and dieties were distorted by the conquerors to ease the transition into Christianity. Which in turn facilitated the political and social control of the europeans over the newly conquered people. Now, Sokiveta may argue that there are accounts that say that a white man left the continent as he arrived and told the Americans to await for his return and that this man was none other than Jesus. Well, that isn't true. The figure that would fit the bill of a deity bound for a return is one of the incarnations of Quetzalcoatl (An incarnation that may have suffered from distortions by Catholic priests trying to shape him after Christ.) Quetzalcoatl is a deity that is often represented by Aztec culture as a feathered serpent. Quetzalcoatl is a difficult figure to dicuss because of the complexity of the American religions. Each civilization in which Quetzalcoatl is featured has a different interpretation, role, and name for him. Even the term "him" should be carefully used. Some myths imagine him as a dual deity that was both the god of the wind and the earth. Then there are a few historical incarnations. To make matters more difficult, there was a variant of the myth that approximates the judeo-christian god in that the man left and was bound to return. One should remember that the Spanish documentarians (mostly priests) modified several myths to adapt them to those of the Christian faith. Thus, some legends have been heavily altered. For more information on the myth, refer to Now, there is NO HISTORICAL PROOF that the Aztecs actually greeted Cortez as Quetzalcoatl. Recent historical accounts suggest that this is a myth created in the 16th century. Even those who suggest that Moctezuma II treated Hernan Cortez as if he was Quetzalcoatl, would say that this was a strategy to deal with the invaders. Much like el Dorado or the Foutain of Youth were used to distract the Spanish conquest in other areas of America. You lie when you say that there are millions of mormons in Latin America. There are, in fact, less than 3 million out of 600 million Latin Americans And finally, idolatrous? blood thirsty? What gives you and your sect the right to pass judgement on a civilization? After all, the institutions of Christianity lack a history of violence right? Oh wait, they dont (the crusades, the inquisition, the witch trials, the conquest of America, etc.) Christian history is not free of bloodlust and the desire for violence. Nietzsche quotes Tertullian and Thomas Aquinas in the Genealogy of Morals to show that part of the reward of heaven is to be able to see the tortures that the damned undergo. I'm not saying that modern christians expect the same, but that doesn't mean that this bloodlust is not part of their history. And idolatry? (Angels and Devils? Virgins giving birth? Saints?) Explain to me the difference between aknowledging the statue of a pre-colonial deity as a god and praying to a cross? As far as I can tell, the only difference comes in the name given to the object. Besides, wouldn't you consider that the true difference between the so called truths of christian myths and other religious mythologies is that you choose to take one as fact and the others as ficitons? For those of us who do not believe in anything, the difference between them does not exist. They are both fictions. So please, everyone, ignore what he is saying and do not let his ignorant view of Latin American History shape your own. Sokiveta is the kind of person that would have you believe that the world is 4,000 years old and that evolution is a lie. Sokiveta, I will leave you with the words of a far wiser man than me. "Every sect, of every kind, is a rallying point for doubt and error. Scotist, Thomist, Realist, Nominalist, Papist, Calvinist, Mlinist, and Jansenist are only pseudonyms." Voltaire, On Sect, Dicctionaire Philosophique Ecrasez l'infamie! -Voltaire making a call to arms against (Destroy the infamy) the superstitions of the Catholic religion. Further reading: Volaire's Dictionnaire philosophique; Check out Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols, and take a look at Sergei Eisenstein's October. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 10:24 AM [b]What are you all talking about?[/b] How did this unique little period movie on the Mayan civilisation suddenly turn into anything more than just what Gibson said it was? Christian converting? Mormon? Where is everyone getting this from? Just because he made The Passion, it doesn't mean Apocalypto is going to be anything more than what he said it's going to be; an action story set in the Mayan civilisation. Good lord people, lighten up! (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 10:37 AM In reply to this comment (#829190) My reply had nothing to do with what Mel Gibson's movie may be. Sorry if there was any reason for confusion. The post was made in response to the views on Latin American History expressed by sokiveta. While this is may not be the best place for a reply of this kind (given that this is a board to discuss the trailer,) I thought it important that people who came to learn about the movie were not misinformed by sokiveta. There is no historical validity to the claims he makes and they are degrading to the history of the people of Latin America. As for Mel Gibson's movie, I'll talk about only when I see it. Sorry again if there was any confusion about that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 11:39 AM [b]The world ends on oct 12 2012[/b] at least according to the mayans...who were the first to understand the concept of zero....and somehow knew there was a black hole in the center of the galaxy btw, if you stop frame the qt clip you will see.....a bearded mel 3/4 of the way through the clip (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 11:49 AM What sokiveta forgot to mention was that the mormon history of Latin America comes from Joseph Smith, who read them to some guy off gold plates he put in a hat and only he could see. So you can make up your own mind on how accurate a history it is. (Reply to this) |
on Dec 21 2005 03:56 PM [b]No Connection Needed[/b] Passion and Apocalypto are TWO SEPERATE FILMS. Next up, the connection between Spielberg's ET and Close Encounters: Discuss! Two seperate films people. Come on. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 04:21 PM [b]Goodness...[/b] Let me first clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that Mel Gibson's new movie follows the Book of Mormon in any way. Also, the Book of Mormon is a record that was started in 600bc and then passed down to each following generation until 400ad. In the early part of the 5th century, all of the records were compiled on to one large record made out of gold plates, a sort of 'readers digest' version of those 1200 years. The main point of the Book of Mormon isn't to explain the goings on of those ancient civilizations (and doesn't cover what went on before or after), but it simply testifies that Christ did live on the earth. It's meant as a second witness, companion to the Bible, that testifies of Christ. Casual_viewer01, I'll be honest with you I didn't read your entire post, it was very long. After a while I thought you were going to start referring to me with terms like "...my opponent in this election..." But I’ll reply with a common mantra of this website, “don’t review something you haven’t seen.” Meaning, have you even read the Book of Mormon? Anyway, I agree with dracus, lighten up. As for the movie, I bet it’ll be good, maybe even like Braveheart. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 05:35 PM so is it possible that Gibson could become a champion of the American Left for making a film about an acient civilization that features no Europeans? (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 06:37 PM [b]LOL[/b] I heard and saw that Mel Gibson appears in the trailer, smiling with a huge beard and a joint in his mouth seconds after they should the pregnant girl!!! IT IS FUNNY AS HELL!! if you do a frame by frame or just pause every second after that you will be able to catch it (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 21 2005 08:12 PM In reply to this comment (#829195) [b]Yeah...[/b] Gotta get something off my chest really quick...Joseph Smith was a conman and unfortunately he fooled a lot of people...that being said the movie looks interesting and I definitely don't have any doubts in Gibson's directing ability. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 22 2005 12:38 AM I don't want to send this forum into circles about everyone's opinion of Joseph Smith, but I will say that he was an honest man and he died for what he believed in. The only unfortunate thing about Joseph Smith is that there is a huge campaign of misinformation about him and about the Mormon church. Anyway, I saw that frame in the trailer, the one with Mel Gibson. Man, that's hilarious! It's at 1:46 on the trailer, it's a single frame of Mel with his arm on one of the actor's shoulders, he has on a flanel shirt and you can see his watch. I looked at this trailer in HD and I think that he just has a normal cigarette, not a joint. But he does have a crazy beard, sort of like Capt. Lou, but without the rubber band (you probably have to be over 25 to get that reference). (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 22 2005 12:58 AM In reply to this comment (#829195) It is obvious you didn't read the whole post because you are not the kind of person that would actually inform themselves before opening their mouths. a) I did not write a review of the Book of Mormon (although I will read it now to see if the absurdities you stated are in the book.) b) Dracus was under the mistaken impression I was talking about the movie and not about your post. I was crticizing you for diseminating a false and disgusting interpretation of latin american history and culture. Of course you say lighten up, because it's not your culture that is being ridiculed. I would imagine you wouldn't lighten up if I started making up things about the mormon people and passed them off as facts to justify my own beliefs. Perhaps next time you write, you will care to inform yourself. By the way, This has nothing to do with Gibson's movie. I'm taking issue against a misrepresentation of latin american culture made in a post above. (Reply to this) |
on Dec 22 2005 04:11 PM [b]That's one take on it...[/b] casual_viewer01 & sokiveta, if you've read the Book of Scientology, you'd know that the Mayans actually come from Planet Xerathon II of the Western Nebuli Cluster... Now, according to intelligent design, The Mayans were actually the off shoot of a panda (we know how much pandas love their shoots) or something like that (the Aztecs did, however, evolved from protozoa -- hence the constant discord). But, some historians theorize that the Mayans are actually decendents of the chinese, just like the native americans, or vice-versa, depending on which direction people crossed that "alleged" Bering Strait... As for idolatrous and blood-thirsty people, who the heck wasn't back in the day (for that matter, who the heck isn't now)? (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Related Articles
Most Discussed
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: New Moon Shatters Records (182)
- Total Recall: John Travolta's Best Movies (92)
- Friday Harvest: The Road, Avatar, and more! (83)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (82)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (70)
- Critics Consensus: Flee From Ninja Assassin (45)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (22)
- Weekly Ketchup: Zombieland 2 in 3D? (18)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (16)
- Total Recall: Children's Book Adaptations (3)
Latest News
- Weekly Ketchup: Zombieland 2 in 3D? (18)
- Duncan Jones Reteams With Kevin Spacey (3)
- Friday Harvest: The Road, Avatar, and more! (83)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (82)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (70)
- RT on DVD: The Hangover, The Proposal, Glee (0)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (22)
- Total Recall: Children's Book Adaptations (3)
- Critics Consensus: Flee From Ninja Assassin (45)
- RT's Disney Animation Celebration --- A Walk Through The Magic Kingdom! (0)
Latest Interviews
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (16)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (11)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (21)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- RT on DVD: Wassup, Bruno (3)
- Scott Hicks Talks The Boys Are Back (0)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (15)
- Richard Kelly chats about The Box (2)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (21)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (8)
Latest Features
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (82)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (70)
- RT on DVD: The Hangover, The Proposal, Glee (0)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (22)
- Total Recall: Children's Book Adaptations (3)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (16)
- RT on DVD: Harry Potter returns, Bella heads to Adventureland (4)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (21)
- RT on DVD: Wassup, Bruno (3)
- Five Favourite Films with Ang Lee (34)
IGN RSS Feeds