To start with, I have not seen Apocalypto. But the reviews I have heard from people around only leads me to believe that Mel Gibson has a big-time fetish with blood and gore. It is as if "Passion of the Christ" was not enough. Cutting men into pieces with blood sparying all around plus i hear there is a sequence of a human heart being taken out from a living person. What is this, is this movie in any sense or is this just some perverted soul's obsession with gore and blood.
Someone give Mel a piece of mind please !!!!
I don't know I probably should not be commenting without watching it, yet I will also not be able to go and watch it after what I have heard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I personally think that we should not comment based what we hear.. in fact, don't you think that such rise of emotions based on just what you hear lead to problems at times.. (everyone has different perceptions)
I agree with you and that was precisely what I had wrote. But the description of the scenes I heard and the fact that I heard it was almost a vomitting experience for some made me feel that probably the movie would have been better without the gore and I wrote just because I felt that Mel Gibson has gone overboard. Fact is: After watching Passion of Christ i thought, he did it to depict authenticity though personally i did not subscribe to the blood shown on the creen in that movie, but on hearing things about this, it makes me believe that it has less to do with the story and more with mel gibson. You can read it on the pretext of an outburst due to "passion of Christ".
have you sou seen Apocalypto by the way, is it that you find my sayings mispaced, if yes, i will gladly accept it because i have not seen it.
See you are missing the whole point. If I say that I have seen Apocalypto and say that "ok, yes I agree to what you say".. it'll again be that you base your thoughts on my perceptions.. My point was that your views should be your own, not based on what you *just hear* from others... Creating views on movies is still insignificant, but such an attitude is the cause of riots at times, because we just start believing what others say / believe.
What you say may just be correct for other things but for movies I guess it does not work exactly that ways.
We do listen to reviews from friends, TV/newspaper listings or even reviews on the Internet. After listening or reading those reviews we make a decision on whether such and such movie is worth watching. It will just be impossible if one intends to watch every movie and will be foolish also because it is from those reviews only that we try to gauge our interest level in such and such movie content.
Well.. I'd again say that perception differs.. Ok, based on review you get to know whether that'll be something you'd be interested in or not, but you cannot be sure if you'll like the movie.. For ex, recently the reviews for Ghost Rider were supposedly good, but the movie sucked big time (at least to me)!
But anyway.. it's just a difference of opinions, so just forget it ;)
Difference of opinion is OK. But then do you listen to reviews from friends. I trust a few friends' reviews whereas I don't trust other friends' reviews, similarly I trust reviews from certain websites/newspapers but not others. I have reached this stage by watching movies with good reviews and finding it bad or vice versa (fact is the vice versa thing is indeed rare). But I have found sources of reviews whose taste match mine and whose reviews I can trust, besides that the movie is filled with blood and gore is what is there in every review. That is all I said.
Post a Comment