This sounds an awful lot like that movie.
It has native tribe people running around the jungle speaking their native language with subs.
There is a revenge and escape plot and there is supernatural - this movie has a monster or ghost warrior and Apocalypto had the solar eclipse and sacrifical magic stuff.
Any comments?
My thoughts exactly. I guess there really is nothing new under the sun?
The cinematography and the scenery is spectacularly lush in both films. Also they both use non actors, I guess for authenticity, but in Apocalypto everyone spoke in a natural way. In The Dead Lands everyone is speaking like a character from a Japanese opera. It's strange and a little annoying, truth be told. I found it really difficult to suspend my disbelief and get into the story because of the operatic way lines were delivered by people who aren't actors.
I thought the action scenes were way too John Woo Hollywood unrealistic for the kind of film this is. Did these native people really fight like that back in whenever period this was set? I don't think so. To make matters worse, the action was strangely unexciting and uninvolving. It felt like watching behind the scenes footage of stunt men practicing for their scenes in some other movie.
Out of fairness to all concerned, I add it's a very low budget film from a small country about aboriginals, so it was always going to have limited appeal but no one can say it doesn't look really nice. The cinematographer did a very fine job indeed and deserves most of the credit for making this watchable.
1. These people are actors. They don't have many credits because they're all from New Zealand, where our film industry isn't exactly thriving.
2. That language is a real language, Maori, spoken by the native inhabitants of New Zealand. The delivery of the lines are exactly how the Maori language is MEANT to be spoken.
Also, try watching 'What We Do in the Shadows' or 'Boy' for a better idea of good NZ filmmaking if you didn't like this one.
share1. These people are actors. They don't have many credits because they're all from New Zealand, where our film industry isn't exactly thriving.
2. That language is a real language, Maori, spoken by the native inhabitants of New Zealand. The delivery of the lines are exactly how the Maori language is MEANT to be spoken.
Also, try watching 'What We Do in the Shadows' or 'Boy' for a better idea of good NZ filmmaking if you didn't like this one.
No, they are not being over-sensitive. In fact, I thought it was a much more diplomatic reply than you deserved. I was personally very offended by your ignorant comments. Yes, you're damn right you should have checked their credits first. These men and women are damn fine actors and the language is hundreds, if not thousands of years old. It is well within your right to not like the film, the language or the acting style but if you make uneducated and frankly rude comments about it, it is my right to take offence at it.
shareNo, they are not being over-sensitive. In fact, I thought it was a much more diplomatic reply than you deserved. I was personally very offended by your ignorant comments. Yes, you're damn right you should have checked their credits first. These men and women are damn fine actors and the language is hundreds, if not thousands of years old. It is well within your right to not like the film, the language or the acting style but if you make uneducated and frankly rude comments about it, it is my right to take offence at it.
I took your advice and went back to your original post. Let's review if it really does make the ignorant comments that I was 'so easily offended by', shall we?
"Also they both use non actors, I guess for authenticity" First ignorant and offensive claim, easily rebuttaled by the fact that these are all actors.
"The Dead Lands everyone is speaking like a character from a Japanese opera." Second ignorant claim as the M?ori language and culture has nothing in common with the Japanese language and culture.
"I found it really difficult to suspend my disbelief and get into the story because of the operatic way lines were delivered by people who aren't actors." Reprise of both the first and second ignorant comments.
"Did these native people really fight like that back in whenever period this was set? I don't think so." Third (new) ignorant and offensive comment. Yes, all evidence suggests that the pre-colonial M?ori did battle in this way.
"To make matters worse, the action was strangely unexciting and uninvolving. It felt like watching behind the scenes footage of stunt men practicing for their scenes in some other movie." Not so much ignorant as offensive as it's mainly your opinion but I personally fail to see how the action in this film was "unexciting or uninvolving" [sic].
"I add it's a very low budget film from a small country about aboriginals" Bordering on ignorant and offensive again. This film is only 'very low budget' from a global scale, taking into account much older, wealthier film industries such as Hollywood and Vancouver. Also, New Zealand isn't that small a country. Literally speaking, it's larger than many of European countries including the UK and is well into the top third of countries by area. Economically, it is in the top sixth GDP per capita. It is one of the most influential elite 'core countries' as defined by World Systems Theory, and a whole host of other attributes too (as well as being the inarguably best rugby players in the world.) So to refer to NZ as a small country is somewhat belittling.
I hope you can see that you did, indeed make some of the offensive comments I claimed you had and it is my right to be as offended by them as it honestly makes me. As an analogy, if I called a person fat, stupid and ugly, I wouldn't then be able to tell them they were over-reacting when they got offended.
You have called me ignorant because I posted an honest opinion of your movie. You are oversensitive and I find it offensive.
I took your advice and went back to your original post. Let's review if it really does make the ignorant comments that I was 'so easily offended by', shall we?Yes by all means, let's do that.
"Also they both use non actors, I guess for authenticity" First ignorant and offensive claim, easily rebuttaled by the fact that these are all actors.I accept your claim they are actors but I'm saying they aren't professional actors. I say this based on their performances. It's clear they have little experience, or perhaps none at all.
"The Dead Lands everyone is speaking like a character from a Japanese opera." Second ignorant claim as the M?ori language and culture has nothing in common with the Japanese language and culture.Disengenuous much? I compared the way the actors delivered their lines in this movie to the way characters in a Japanese opera deliver their own. It's all very OTT and theatrical, not the more natural way of other cultures.
"I found it really difficult to suspend my disbelief and get into the story because of the operatic way lines were delivered by people who aren't actors." Reprise of both the first and second ignorant comments.How is this ignorant of me? I struggle to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story when inexperienced actors are saying their lines in what seems to be an OTT and operatic way.
"Did these native people really fight like that back in whenever period this was set? I don't think so." Third (new) ignorant and offensive comment. Yes, all evidence suggests that the pre-colonial M?ori did battle in this way.I don't know how to respond to this because I'm not a scholar of these people. All I can say is the fighting moves seemed very Hollywood and John Woo-like.
"To make matters worse, the action was strangely unexciting and uninvolving. It felt like watching behind the scenes footage of stunt men practicing for their scenes in some other movie." Not so much ignorant as offensive as it's mainly your opinion but I personally fail to see how the action in this film was "unexciting or uninvolving" [sic].Watch those "sics" -- you have made many errors in your own posts, but I don't feel the need to point them out.
"I add it's a very low budget film from a small country about aboriginals" Bordering on ignorant and offensive again.Really?
This film is only 'very low budget' from a global scale, taking into account much older, wealthier film industries such as Hollywood and Vancouver.So you're agreeing with me? Fine, but why argue about it in the first place when you're just going to admit I was correct?
Also, New Zealand isn't that small a country.That's not what Wikipedia says.
Literally speaking, it's larger than many of European countries including the UK and is well into the top third of countries by area. Economically, it is in the top sixth GDP per capita. It is one of the most influential elite 'core countries' as defined by World Systems Theory, and a whole host of other attributes too (as well as being the inarguably best rugby players in the world.) So to refer to NZ as a small country is somewhat belittling.This is becoming surreal. You're trying to argue New Zealand is a "big" country? Wikipedia says it has a little over 4 million people! One other thing: you do understand that almost no one outside of your country has heard of rugby? If not, you should, because it's not on the world's radar, and therefore a poor choice of subject to boast about in that regard.
I hope you can see that you did, indeed make some of the offensive comments I claimed you had and it is my right to be as offended by them as it honestly makes me.But I didn't make these comments you claim I did. You have taken offense because I gave an honest opinion of your movie and you didn't like it.
As an analogy, if I called a person fat, stupid and ugly, I wouldn't then be able to tell them they were over-reacting when they got offended.Is it your opinion of that person? Well it may not be nice, but it's valid if the person is fat, stupid and ugly. Even if they aren't, you're entitled to your opinion all the same.
Once again, trying to dig yourself out of it with yet more ignorant and uninformed claims. I shall say for the last time that these men and women are professional, experienced actors giving a true to life, moving performance telling one story of an ancient language and culture.
I am allowed to voice my opinion on anything I want to, that's part of living in a free world, but if I voice an offensive and ignorant opinion, while I'm still in my right to do so, it doesn't make me any less of an a***hole for it.
Your attempt at dismissing the sports NZ excels in is so utterly naive as to be barely worth rebutting. As is your ongoing and belittling claim that NZ is just a small country.
And finally, "Now I get it," with a link to my own IMDb page? I know what's on my page already; it's my page. What does it tell you? That I too am a professional NZ actor so you can understand now why I'm not overly sensitive for getting offended when you insult the work of my friends and colleagues? Good. You may also see from my credits that I was in no way involved in this film so I don't understand why you keep referring to it as mine.
Maybe you would be a little more civil if we were having this discussion face to face. At least I hope so.
Oh my God, you're being such a hypocrite. My relatively negative opinion of this movie is "offensive" and "ignorant", but you attacking me for expressing my opinion isn't?
You seem to be defending every aspect of The Dead Lands solely because it's made by people in your adopted country.
My opinion is that it's a low budget but great looking "knock-off" of Apocalypto, with amateurish performances, and what seem to me to be exaggerated OTT line delivery, as well as unexciting fight scenes straight out of Hollywood formula.
That's my opinion based on what I saw and my own tastes. You may disagree with it and not like my opinion, but it's not offensive or ignorant because I mean no offense and I haven't said anything that isn't correct. My opinion is my opinion, just as yours is your own, and neither is correct or incorrect, it's opinion to which we're both entitled.
You think the performances were highly professional, and the line delivery realistic, and the fight scenes brilliant. Well, good for you. I think otherwise. Get over it, and get over yourself, and stop accusing those with differing opinions of being "offensive" and "ignorant" because it makes you seem like the childish and oversensitive offensive ignoramus.
Not everyone is going to blindly support the things you blindly support. This is life and you better get used to it.
This confirms for me that you have completely missed the point.
I honestly couldn't care less what your opinion of this movie is. I have not ever attacked your opinion. What I have been trying to address form the start is this:
"Also they both use non actors"
"delivered by people who aren't actors."
"The Dead Lands is a low-budget film made by inexperienced people."
"I'm saying they aren't professional actors."
"It's clear they have little experience, or none at all."
"inexperienced actors"
"it's a low budget movie made with non professional actors"
These statements are irrefutably NOT opinion. They are also irrefutably wrong. I also find them ignorant and offensive.
You are deliberately ignoring my point. I said the actors appear to be inexperienced amateurs. The reason I said that is because their acting isn't particularly good. In my opinion.
But I just took the time to go through most of the full cast list, where I learned for more than half the cast - actually quite a lot more than half - this is their first acting role, although some have previously worked as stunt people or other non acting positions.
Those with more acting credits have mostly been in short films and daytime drama ("soap operas"). A few have more extensive credits.
Now listen, I know you don't like it when I express my opinion about the quality of the actors, and the unexciting Hollywood/Hong Kong martial arts wire work, but you really do have to accept it as a valid opinion. I never accused anyone of murder or bigamy.
It almost seems as if you're extremely sensitive to any suggestion that the work of NZ actors may be lacking in some way. If so, you must grow a thicker skin, or else you'll never get anywhere in the business.
So for the record, my opinion once more:
The Dead Lands features excellent cinematography, highly unexceptional screenacting by a mostly inexperienced cast, and dull John Woo style fight scenes. It is a low budget feature from a small nation, so too much shouldn't be expected. I've seen much better movies, but I've also seen far worse.
End of opinion. Carry on with your nervous breakdown.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this film, as I have a strong interest in anthropology, native cultures, and preservation of their ancient oral histories and legends. I can trace my own family history back for more than a thousand years and well know the importance such tales can hold for those closest to them.
Incidentally, and contrary to your earlier stated opinion, the sport of rugby union actually is played competitively on a global scale. There are high standard organised professional leagues in almost every continent - Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, and Oceania. Representative international teams regularly compete in various tournaments, including at the Olympics. The sport is also hugely popular at amateur level too. Back when I was a UK schoolboy it was taught as our number one outdoor winter sport, with cross-country running as the alternative when the pitches were waterlogged and needed time to recover.
We're getting seriously OT here Peter, but I have to say a handful of nations doesn't equal a major sport. Of those countries who partake in something called the "rugby world cup", it appears the sport is played and followed by a small majority of the populations of the large majority of nations involved.
Only New Zealand and Wales appear to regard it as a national sport.
Anyway prof. Jinks, I hope you enjoy this movie more than I did. The cinematography is excellent.
you do understand that almost no one outside of your country has heard of rugby? If not, you should, because it's not on the world's radar, and therefore a poor choice of subject to boast about in that regard.
Rena Owen is a veteran actor in this movie. She worked with both G. Lucas and S. Spielberg and she was awesome in "Once Were Warriors"
shareShe worked with both G. Lucas and S. SpielbergThat's stretching things a bit far. She's had nothing but very minor roles in overseas films and television shows, usually amounting to little more than an extra. share
I watched once we're warriors in 2010 maybe? Just stumbled across it & watched it without knowing or hearing anything prior. One of thee most beautiful films I've ever seen & I've yet to watch it again. Talk about emotions!!!!! That was one of those rare gems you find & I'm talking about rare. Out of the thousands of films I've seen over the past 35+ years, there have been maybe a handful that made me feel so lucky to have found them,like i did when finishing once we're warriors. Maybe that's why I've been procrastinating about watching the sequel.
shareThe reviewer obviously meant that the lines were delivered in an overly theatrical and melodramatic style, "like a character from a Japanese opera". Only a fool would think he meant that the Maori sounded like Japanese. Incidentally, I have not seen the movie, but the trailer seems to support that view - of a badly over-acted film.
shareThey are simply poor actors, as most are in New Zealand. Very poor. Just look at Shortland Street, a soap which is the main training ground for NZ actors. Shockingly badly acted, by and large.
shareIt's not exactly like Apocalypto. It's a movie about tribal people, so they must be similar, right?
Non-actors? No no, they're actors from New Zealand. Sure you haven't seen their work but they are well known in new zealand, some even in other countries. To say they're not actors is very ignorant.
The speech is actually spot on. The speech is very formal, regal-like. It's much more authentic to how they spoke 200 years ago.
Did they fight like that 200 years ago? Actually, yes. Native Maori Warfare was primarily skirmish based, so the battles were always short and fast. They had to be agile due to the terrain. Fighting in a swamp is difficult, so they had to raise their knees up very high to be able to move swiftly.
The fight scenes came off as John Woo looking because the film had assistance from the XYZ stunt team. The same team worked on 'The Raid' films.
-Join us-
http://www.triond.com/rw/86365
Just shut it off half watched.
Apocalypto is way better.
Native people speaking a native language = Apocalypto.
Warped sense of logic there.
The premise is very different. In Apocalypto the hero and his people are taken as slaves and sacrifices. The hero has to escape to save his family before they die in that hole. He is hunted by a small band of the warriors who captured them. He alone uses his hunting skills to kill them one by one to make his journey home much easier.
In The Dead Lands, the heroes village is destroyed while he was away. This hero is a coward who has no skill in battle but he seeks his revenge on the raiders.
-Join us-
http://www.triond.com/rw/86365
He's not a coward. He's only 15 years old. He's a boy who becomes a hero by avenging his tribe.
shareAny comments you ask?
Yes. You are ridiculously misinformed and basing your opinions on a severe lack of knowledge. Your follow up post about wire work (there isn't any) and rugby show how truly ignorant you are.
Personally loved Apocalypto, but I found this film looked more stylish. Apocalypto's digital cinematography sometimes got in the way. It looked low grade in several instances, but it didn't necessarily take away from the overall impact of the film. Both are well directed, imo. The fight sequences in this film are unlike anything I've ever seen before. You can tell they've incorporated some sort of long lost cultural combat in the mix.
Action Hero's Anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Cpb61R-4U
That's a very accurate summation.
share