Good movies that don't fit the Hollywood stereotype

I quite like Apocolypto. He's not in it, but he directed it.



The reason I think it goes against the hollywood stereotype is that the natives, the Maya, are not depicted in a positive light. They are brutal as fuck. The forest people (who are not part of the Maya empire) are portrayed as being "good" but the Maya are entirely bad in this movie. There's not a single redeeming thing about them (except possibly that the father loves his son). At the end of the movie when the white people show up, you are frankly primed to be glad that they're about to conquer the Maya.

And even the forest tribes, even though they're good people, they're not portrayed in the way that hollywood normally portrays natives - that is to say, they aren't shown to be magical ultra-spiritual perfect beings who are in every way better than the white man.

The problem is that film got pretty much everything wrong about history. The Mayas never practiced human sacrifice as depicted. That was more common with the Aztecs centuries later. There was no Plague in the Americas at that time since that brought over by the Europeans centuries later. The film is set in about the 11th century, about 500 years before the Spanish arrived. At this point in time Spain was under Muslim control. I literally laughed out loud when I saw apparently time traveling Spanish Conquistadors landing on the shores.
 
Last edited:

Hell_Is_Like_Newark

Kingfisher
Gold Member
The problem is that film got pretty much everything wrong about history. The Mayas never practiced human sacrifice as depicted. That was more common with the Aztecs centuries later. There was no Plague in the Americas at that time since that brought over by the Europeans centuries later. The film is set in about the 11th century, about 500 years before the Spanish arrived. At this point in time Spain was under Muslim control. I literally laughed out loud when I saw apparently time traveling Spanish Conquistadors landing on the shores.


I had the similar issues with the movie.. however it didn't bother me that much since I was able to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie as a complete work of fiction.

I wasn't able to do that with another Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot". That one set my hair on fire with the fallacies.
 
I had the similar issues with the movie.. however it didn't bother me that much since I was able to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie as a complete work of fiction.

I wasn't able to do that with another Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot". That one set my hair on fire with the fallacies.
I enjoyed Apocalypto as well as a fictional story. I LOVE old classic Westerns even though I know the historicity of these films is complete BS. To me Westerns going back to the old dime novels of the late 19th century are kind of the American mythology, a bit like old Greek mythology. Expect Westerns are rooted in real American history with exaggerations, tall tales, and myth sprinkled in.

As for The Patriot I don't really understand why Mel Gibson makes such blatantly ahistorical "historical" films? Braveheart was also a historical mess as well.
 

Hell_Is_Like_Newark

Kingfisher
Gold Member
I enjoyed Apocalypto as well as a fictional story. I LOVE old classic Westerns even though I know the historicity of these films is complete BS. To me Westerns going back to the old dime novels of the late 19th century are kind of the American mythology, a bit like old Greek mythology. Expect Westerns are rooted in real American history with exaggerations, tall tales, and myth sprinkled in.

As for The Patriot I don't really understand why Mel Gibson makes such blatantly ahistorical "historical" films? Braveheart was also a historical mess as well.
Braveheart I enjoyed the same reason I did Apocalypto .. except back then back then I knew little of the real history (dating myself.. I saw Braveheart in the theater).

Another one that drove me nuts was a "historical" piece called 'Elizabeth' about as the title suggest.. Queen Elizabeth. The movie turned her into some PC spouting social warrior. For fuck's sake, the woman had her lovers executed when they became annoying for her... Some how I doubt she had any sympathy for the armies of Mohammad (as implied in the movie) or other woke nonsense.

Not to derail the thread further...

A (relatively) non-PC movie in the Western genre is 'Unforgiven' by Clint Eastwood. Eastwood's character unable to run from his past as a drunken killer.. despite trying made for a tragic, yet entertaining story.
 

911

Peacock
Catholic
Gold Member
The problem is that film got pretty much everything wrong about history. The Mayas never practiced human sacrifice as depicted. That was more common with the Aztecs centuries later. There was no Plague in the Americas at that time since that brought over by the Europeans centuries later. The film is set in about the 11th century, about 500 years before the Spanish arrived. At this point in time Spain was under Muslim control. I literally laughed out loud when I saw apparently time traveling Spanish Conquistadors landing on the shores.

You're wrong, you've probably read some (((review))) thrashing Apocalypto because it was Catholic dissident Mel Gibson's work, and did not bother to fact check it.

Human sacrifice in Maya culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sculpture in the Great Ballcourt at Chichen Itza depicting sacrifice by decapitation. The figure at left holds the severed head of the figure at right, who spouts blood in the form of serpents from his neck

During the pre-Columbian era, human sacrifice in Maya culture was the ritual offering of nourishment to the gods. Blood was viewed as a potent source of nourishment for the Maya deities, and the sacrifice of a living creature was a powerful blood offering. By extension, the sacrifice of a human life was the ultimate offering of blood to the gods, and the most important Maya rituals culminated in human sacrifice. Generally only high status prisoners of war were sacrificed, with lower status captives being used for labour.[1]


Human sacrifice among the Maya is evident from at least the Classic period (c. AD 250–900) right through to the final stages of the Spanish conquest in the 17th century. Human sacrifice is depicted in Classic Maya art, is mentioned in Classic period hieroglyphic texts and has been verified archaeologically by analysis of skeletal remains from the Classic and Postclassic (c. AD 900–1524) periods. Additionally, human sacrifice is described in a number of late Maya and early Spanish colonial texts, including the Madrid Codex, the Kʼicheʼ epic Popol Vuh, the Kʼicheʼ Título de Totonicapán, the Kʼicheʼ language Rabinal Achi, the Annals of the Kaqchikels, the Yucatec Songs of Dzitbalche and Diego de Landa's Relación de las cosas de Yucatán.

A number of methods were employed by the Maya, the most common being decapitation and heart extraction. Additional forms of sacrifice included ritually shooting the victim with arrows, hurling sacrifices into a deep sinkhole, entombing alive to accompany a noble burial, tying the sacrifice into a ball for a ritual reenactment of the Mesoamerican ballgame and disembowelment.


(((Critics))) hated this film because it was blacklisted actor-director Gibson's work, they were butthurt because it was objectively one of the best films from that decade, and one which showed the truth instead of the false noble savage narrative, as the pre-Columbian tribes were absolute savages who practiced human sacrifice on a large scale.
 
Last edited:

WhatAccent

 
Banned
I believe Mel Gibson is known for favoring spectacle over accuracy in his historical film directing, the Passion being a notable exception. I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge but would be intrigued to hear about it from a forum member.

I haven't seen Elizabeth. Was Cate Blanchett the star? It disappointing but not surprising how south that film had apparently gone, given they had a great female lead, much like with Saoirse Ronan as Mary Queen of Scots. Saoirse Ronan is my favorite actress for her hard work and commitment alone, but revisionist history is inevitable with film in fiction. It worked for House of Cards for a while though.
 
You're wrong, you've probably read some (((review))) thrashing Apocalypto because it was Catholic dissident Mel Gibson's work, and did not bother to fact check it.

Human sacrifice in Maya culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sculpture in the Great Ballcourt at Chichen Itza depicting sacrifice by decapitation. The figure at left holds the severed head of the figure at right, who spouts blood in the form of serpents from his neck

During the pre-Columbian era, human sacrifice in Maya culture was the ritual offering of nourishment to the gods. Blood was viewed as a potent source of nourishment for the Maya deities, and the sacrifice of a living creature was a powerful blood offering. By extension, the sacrifice of a human life was the ultimate offering of blood to the gods, and the most important Maya rituals culminated in human sacrifice. Generally only high status prisoners of war were sacrificed, with lower status captives being used for labour.[1]


Human sacrifice among the Maya is evident from at least the Classic period (c. AD 250–900) right through to the final stages of the Spanish conquest in the 17th century. Human sacrifice is depicted in Classic Maya art, is mentioned in Classic period hieroglyphic texts and has been verified archaeologically by analysis of skeletal remains from the Classic and Postclassic (c. AD 900–1524) periods. Additionally, human sacrifice is described in a number of late Maya and early Spanish colonial texts, including the Madrid Codex, the Kʼicheʼ epic Popol Vuh, the Kʼicheʼ Título de Totonicapán, the Kʼicheʼ language Rabinal Achi, the Annals of the Kaqchikels, the Yucatec Songs of Dzitbalche and Diego de Landa's Relación de las cosas de Yucatán.

A number of methods were employed by the Maya, the most common being decapitation and heart extraction. Additional forms of sacrifice included ritually shooting the victim with arrows, hurling sacrifices into a deep sinkhole, entombing alive to accompany a noble burial, tying the sacrifice into a ball for a ritual reenactment of the Mesoamerican ballgame and disembowelment.


(((Critics))) hated this film because it was blacklisted actor-director Gibson's work, they were butthurt because it was objectively one of the best films from that decade, and one which showed the truth instead of the false noble savage narrative, as the pre-Columbian tribes were absolute savages who practiced human sacrifice on a large scale.
No., I did fact check. You need to reread my post. I said Maya did not practice human sacrifice AS DEPICTED (in the film). As depicted that was closer to what the Aztecs did. I did NOT say the Maya never practiced human sacrifice. That has just one aspect the film got historically wrong.
 

911

Peacock
Catholic
Gold Member
They did practice human sacrifices with heart extraction and decapitation, which were depicted in Apocalypto. Not only did the Mayas practice human sacrifice, but the manner in which those were carried are exactly as depicted in the film, Mel did do his reasearch:

"If the sacrifice happened through heart removal it took place in the courtyard of the temple or summit of the pyramid-temple. The person was painted blue and wore a headdress while being held down by four attendants representing the cardinal directions. The nacom, or official, used a sacrificial knife to cut into the victims chest and pull out the heart. He then would pass the heart to the priest, known as the chilan, where then the blood would be smeared onto the image of the god. Once this occurred, the body was thrown down the steps".

1609720472425.png

 
I believe Mel Gibson is known for favoring spectacle over accuracy in his historical film directing, the Passion being a notable exception. I haven't seen Hacksaw Ridge but would be intrigued to hear about it from a forum member.

I haven't seen Elizabeth. Was Cate Blanchett the star? It disappointing but not surprising how south that film had apparently gone, given they had a great female lead, much like with Saoirse Ronan as Mary Queen of Scots. Saoirse Ronan is my favorite actress for her hard work and commitment alone, but revisionist history is inevitable with film in fiction. It worked for House of Cards for a while though.
I understand that but why can't Gibson do both? I'm not saying historical films have to absolutely 100% historically accurate but when Gibson portrayed the Battle of Stirling Bridge without an actual bridge something is way off.

 
They did practice human sacrifices with heart extraction and decapitation, which were depicted in Apocalypto. Not only did the Mayas practice human sacrifice, but the manner in which those were carried are exactly as depicted in the film, Mel did do his reasearch:

"If the sacrifice happened through heart removal it took place in the courtyard of the temple or summit of the pyramid-temple. The person was painted blue and wore a headdress while being held down by four attendants representing the cardinal directions. The nacom, or official, used a sacrificial knife to cut into the victims chest and pull out the heart. He then would pass the heart to the priest, known as the chilan, where then the blood would be smeared onto the image of the god. Once this occurred, the body was thrown down the steps".

View attachment 28050

No, the time period of the film the Maya did not practice human sacrifice as depicted in the film. That came much later after they were influenced by Aztec culture. The video I posted in my previous post goes into this
 
I'm not wrong as I didn't write the Wikipedia page. I'm merely linking to it.
So you didn't even bother to fact check the wiki? Because we all know wiki is never wrong. In this case wiki is wrong. The Maya culture depicted in the film, large established cities, large scale agriculture is from the Classic Maya period which ended about the 10th-11th century. By the time the Spanish arrived those cities had been abandoned for centuries. To this day historians and archaeologists are not sure why the Maya society collapsed.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Watched “The Vanishing Of Sidney Hall” on a RVF recommendation. It’s not a Christian movie and has some very unwholesome language and themes. But I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite like it before. Glued to the screen from start to finish and I’m going to look for more stuff by that screenwriter and director.
 

Salinger

 
Banned
Watched “The Vanishing Of Sidney Hall” on a RVF recommendation. It’s not a Christian movie and has some very unwholesome language and themes. But I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite like it before. Glued to the screen from start to finish and I’m going to look for more stuff by that screenwriter and director.
A24 makes some good films. Sea of Trees was one of the best indie movies I've seen lately. Mississippi Grind is a cool film worth checking out. They're also the ones who produced Midsommar which others were talking about on here.
 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
Barry Lyndon
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Man Who Would Be King
Papillon
Strongly endorse all of these!
I don't find many modern films rewarding. Maybe Lord of the Rings was the last one, though I greatly enjoyed Ex Machina, a sci fi one.
So often they have this bizarre need to throw an unneeded plot twist in at the 75% mark, instead of just making the film.

I choose films based on their directors first, and sometimes the actor. Bill Nighy is a superb actor and I recently saw him in Hope Gap. It's a drama about an older couple facing divorce, not the type of film I would normally choose. But with Annette Benning as the spurned lover, they really did a great job of presenting the human side of love, loss, and what happens when one person chooses to end a marriage. Not the kind of film I would have enjoyed even a few years ago, but a good one. I fear the days when all screenwriting in Hollywood is done by millennials.
 
Top