Why did they hate it? ;_;

Why did they hate it? ;_;

the better question would be why do you care?

The director tried to make Americans read subtitles. Bad idea.

>giving so much weight to random people's opinions

You could watch this movie without subtitles and still understand it.

I know someone who did that accidentally and thought that's just how the movie was

It's overlying message of "these people were dumb cruel savages, so it's ok that we killed them all" didn't resonate well with decent human beings.

>random people
>not realizing that RT reviewers are part of the cultural elite, who choose whether a film fails or succeeds

>whether or not a film is a huge success or a failure determines if he love said film or hates it

>little girl suddenly appears "labala blah lee lah nlah lah...takila taki taki takila!"

Because it clashed with the journalists pre-existing notions of "the noble savage".

Turns out savages are just savage, there's no nobility there. Just look at modern africa. Least honorable part in the whole world.

...there are subtitles to this movie are you fucking joking me right now man? I just sat there and pretended to know what was going on. Jesus Christ why didn't anyone tell me.

It's wildly historically inaccurate and mixes events from 800 years of history and completely different cultures in a single film

Still great flick, though

Because "muh South Americans weren't bloodthirsty cannibal savages dey wuz good bois dat lived in harmony with nature"

(((they))) don't like to give him good reviews since he told the truth about (((them))) in a drunk rant to the cops

They didn't hate it, they hated Mel Gibson. I'm pretty sure this movie was released right after reports came about making making an angry drunken rant about Jews, so it was pretty much doomed.

That's not true. This claim comes up every time this movie is mentioned, but it was actually pretty accurate.

>Why did they hate it? ;_;
You know instead of asking this on an anonymous Ukrainian sock knitting forum you could just read their reviews to see why they didn't like it.

65% of critics liked it according to your picture.

melvin gibson went complete psycho with his depiction of Mayan civilization and culture. No better than the old days when native americans were used in 'creative' ways in hollywood

melvin gibson would receive less controversy if he was outright with this movie being fiction and fantasy

Historical accuracy went to shit. I don't know about you, but if I was a critic i'd get pretty mad at that too. Mayans and Aztecs? Same shit, they live nearby. Spaniards and Anglos? Same shit, live nearby.

And it's a shame, because it's otherwise a great movie.

>inb4 muh "IT'S FICTIONNN"

Aztecs are most famous for their human sacrifices and savagery, so I don't think that's it

The thing is that the movie isn't about Aztecs, it's about Mayans. They lived a few centuries apart and well apart in Mesoamerica. Aztecs did make human sacrifices, but Mayans did not. In fact, mayans were the most advanced civilization in pre-colonial America. They figured out astronomy, advanced written language, and complex math. He just got everything wrong or simply didn't care.

>Failing to mention that even if a movie is complete and utter garbage (MCU, Wonder Woman) they can create a narrative and endless shilling for the internet to follow, and even if someone reads nothing on the internet, they will be affected by the constant barrage of false information going through the air waves and thus shaping our reality into something that isn't true.

The Matrix is real bros