3 ms·

Apocalypto by Mel Gibson? Huh.

• ekianjo 11y ago
  Yeah, I was thinking the same thing for that one. I'm not sure why he picked it. I don't think Gibson as a director made any memorable movie (some are decent but I can't see them being in such a list).
  • waterlesscloud 11y ago
    Lee picked it because it's exceptionally good cinema.
    • pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      Do we know this? Perhaps there's one scene that stands out; or he feels that the visuals are perfect but the story is terrible; or it's an example of how you can make great movies but still be hated; or ...
  • weego 11y ago
    I guess that's the problem with a list and no context. Without knowing what exactly he saw in it that he thinks an aspiring director should pay attention to then you can watch them, but to what end? The issue with being an aspiring anything is you likely lack the maturity and contextual awareness to glean knowledge from every experience.
• mozumder 11y ago
  Absolutely brilliant directing, and a good film to learn about staging. You know you have a great movie when you can turn the sound off and you're still captivated by the story. Lots of people think you can treat a movie like a book. They forget that cinematics are far more important for movie storytelling than narrative. If you want to write a book, then write a book. Don't make a movie if what you want is a book. Movies are different from books, and should be treated as such.
  • ekianjo 11y ago
    > If you want to write a book, then write a book. Don't make a movie if what you want is a book. It depends a lot on the book/plot/style. If your book is about self-introspection, for sure it's going to be difficult to make a movie out of it. But there are many books out there which can be translated reasonably well into movies. An extreme example, but the Odyssey from Homer antiquity had absolutely no comments on how the characters felt and all, and merely describes a series of adventures.
• Cyph0n 11y ago
  Keep in mind that the list is for aspiring filmmakers. Apocalypto was quite unique in its execution, but yes I agree that it wasn't a great film.
• ramblerman 11y ago
  I watched that movie without a trailer, context or knowing it was by mel gibson in a foreign country without english subtitles. One of the most captivating movies I have ever watched.
  • unfamiliar 11y ago
    This was my experience too. I saw it and loved it before I found out it was by Gibson and I was supposed to hate it.
• rpgmaker 11y ago
  Apocalypto it's a great film. Mel Gibson is an antisemitic jerk but the man knew how to make great films. Sadly, he dug his own grave.
  • sebular 11y ago
    Read this article for some perspective: http://deadline.com/2014/03/mel-gibson-career-hollywood-deserves-chance-697084/ http://deadline.com/2014/03/mel-gibson-career-hollywood-dese... In short, the man has had his share of troubles including alcoholism, and he had some extremely inappropriate outbursts in response to the negative criticism he received after making Passion of the Christ. But while a more savvy public figure would respond by going on a highly-publicized "apology tour" to repair his public image, he chose to address his problems privately and tried to make amends for his actions without bringing a film crew to capture every moment. Just because you weren't invited along for the spectacle doesn't mean it didn't happen. For comparison: filmmaker Woody Allen, who does a great job of publicly portraying himself as a lovably bumbling and nervous little guy, has been repeatedly accused by Mia Farrow's daughter of raping her when she was 13. He also cheated on Mia Farrow with her own adopted daughter, who was 21 at the time. Mike Tyson, as the article mentions, is a convicted rapist. Yet these men have done a better job than Gibson at repairing their public image, but this says nothing about what goes on in their hearts and minds. Everybody knows Roman Polanski is a child rapist, and that's why he fled the country. But Jack Nicholson was clearly involved in that incident as well, and even if he didn't rape a child, it's clear that at the very least he knew what was happening and in some capacity shared some responsibility. Again, he's one of the most beloved actors of our time. I'm not saying that just because those men got away with bad things that Mel Gibson should also be given a free pass. But you can't call him an anti-semite just because he was blackout drunk and said some nasty things about the jews at at time when his life was in the dumps. If the world was privy to every nasty and embarrassing thing you've ever said or done, what would we think of you?
    • rpgmaker 11y ago
      I have read my share of articles about Gibson's demise but I will read that one too. It's hard to fight the against antisemitic charge though, to say that he was really drunk is more an indictment than an excuse really. The way I see it all those Hollywood types are already very racist/sexist and there's no good reason to pretend that Gibson is an unique case somehow. Your comment is misdirected: I actually think it's a net loss for Hollywood that he isn't able to make the films he used to make when he was in his prime. I'd be glad if he is forgiven or accepted back again into the arms of mainstream Hollywood studios. The films he directed were among the very few high budgeted films that didn't predictably suck IMHO.
• VLM 11y ago
  Being a mandatory victim of the two minutes hate for political reasons doesn't necessarily imply anything useful about the product. For conformity reasons I'm well aware I am supposed to socially signal hatred of the guy, but as a movie I thought it was kinda impressive.