Pajiba

I'm trying to avoid the section of this review most rife with spoilers because I may well see this, especially with similar cultures fresh in my mind from having read Gary Jennings' Aztec. From your opening, however, I will generally agree. There's something about Gibson that makes me resent him less for this, perhaps it's that his bearing has less of the shit-don't-smell-I-smilingly-acknowledge-my-near-deity-status quality of some of the others, but nonetheless he seems to make epic pictures of simple scope. You see a huge long movie, it makes you feel good (or at least emotional) at the end, and you think "wow, I've seen SOMETHING here." But then as soon as you look closer the movie comes apart before your eyes and becomes a dumb action flick with no more complicated or interesting message than "the triumph of the human spirit." This applies to Gibson, Spielberg, Cameron, and a host of others. I love dumb action movies from time-to-time, I just don't like having them sold to me under the pretense of something meaningful.

Fabulous. Well said and succinct. As much as I LOVE Braveheart (and I do love it), Mel Gibson is out of his mind.

Mel has suggested that even his wife is damned if she does not get right with God by adopting his exactly correct version of Christianity. So what chance do these poor Mayan buggers have in the long run? I am not sure why Gibson is interested in a story that is nothing more than a very brief prequel to a very long eternal damnation. But it does make the pain here seem brief and mild.

I'd like to thank you for your public service in seeing that movie so I, for one, don't have to. *salute*

That title says it all.

1. Please do not put the words "Mel Gibson" and "Werner Herzog" in the same analogy or indeed in the same paragraph. Thank you.

2. "Jaguar Paw's quest summarily becomes escape, rescue, and revenge."

This fascinates me. It's like the holy-roller version of the 70's rape/revenge genre. "I Spit on Your Temple Altar"? MB is about as subtle as he is self-aware, I suppose.

3. Chuck: word on the Internets Street is that MB was interested in this story/setting because of his religious agenda: show the Mayans as brutal monsters who really needed the softening hand of Spain's/Portugal's God. Apparently the colonists arrive towards the film's end but their arrival is never developed (so says a few reviews I've read, anyway, so consider this hearsay); if this is the case, in the MB ideological context it bolsters this argument.

4. I am now sitting back and waiting for the "Mayans were peaceful pre-Columbus/No they weren't" discussions which would have inevitably cropped up with or without my post because they've cropped up everywhere else. (I'll have to sit that one out myself, because I'm not well-versed enough in pre-Columbian American history and culture to take a position either way).

I have no desire to see this movie, in part because I'm a total wimp when it comes to violence, but also because the story (as well as Gibson's casting choices) perpetuates cultural stereotypes.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061218/shorris

"the story (as well as Gibson's casting choices) perpetuates cultural stereotypes."
Stereotypes? Because they were (are) Indian/Native American/Whatever PC term applies here or because they could be vicious? The Mayans were brutal and violent. So were the Spanish, the English, the Catholic Church, the Nazis, the French, the Pilgrims, and so on. That's not a stereotype, that is a fact.

Gibson is crazy for wanting or needing to glorify violence, I suppose, but audiences are crazy for shelling out $10 at a theatre to see any and every other action and horror flick that comes out. Blowing stuff up and stabbing people in the eyes (subtitles or not) is equally as distatesful, regardless of the "artistry" involved.

I love Mel and his movies. He is a visionary.

-Interesting that you should bring up the 70s "rape/revenge" sub-genre, ranylt. the first thing I thought of when reading the line "inhumanly sadistic villains who revel in inflicting agony" was early Wes Craven, namely "Last House on the Left."

-I find it interesting how Gibson seems to perpetuate both extremes of the sterotypes associated with non-western "primitives": that of the bloodthirsty savage and that of the benign, gentle, simpleton without a care in the world. Take from that what you will.

-Pajiba, what the fuck is up with the "Sampson Blinded" ad? Assuming you get to choose what ads you run, why would you take advertising dollars from what looks like (following an admittedly quick scan of the website) a very angry, bigoted, right wing nutjob?

Publisher's Note: Jesus, Matt, you're right. I never checked that site before approving the ad. Total wackjob. I won't approve any advertisement for the site again. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with it until the ad buy runs out. I'd encourage everyone not to visit the site, but I suspect it will only have the opposite effect. At any rate, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Yeah!!!! all that violence and fun so abruptly interrupted by the spaniards, a bunch of opportunistic fuckers that just brought unknown diseases and a more sophisticated form of violence named Catholicism.

Not that I´m complaining, if it wasn´t for those motherfuckers i wouldn't even exist.

I can´t hardly wait to see this movie, must be my spanish genes.

Alarmjaguar-
Was it perpetuating stereotypes when Gibson portrayed William Wallace-era English and Scottish people as blood-drenched savages with legalized rape and brutal torture?

Just about everybody was brutal and savage back then by our standards. The way to deal with the fact that Western history glosses over some of the West's savagery is not by attempting to build an equally false picture of the indigenous peoples in the lands they invaded.

HOORAY!

I don't even think it's necessary to argue about whether or not the portrayal of the Mayans was "too savage and violent". That debate would spin on into eternity, and be pretty boring.

I have a better idea--let's argue the reviewer's original thesis, about Mel Gibson's santy or lack thereof. Much more entertaining, if you ask me.

Great review. Would not see movie. Would not have anyway, but I appreciated having my suspicions confirmed so succinctly. Why must violence-horny fake "visionaries" wrap their perversions in beauty? It's demeaning to both the beauty and the perversion.

Just be honest, Mel. Make a snuff film.

I will see this during to satiate my monthly bloodlust. And face it people, most dominant cultures, from all over the globe have been brutal, that's how they got to be dominant, they're still doing it.

And yes, Mel has gone off the deep end and it's fucking hilarious.

It is a pitty Fran Rich or the folks at EW can't or won't end their movie reviews like our buddy Phillip Stephens here has - because taht would be hilarious.

I'll watch this movie

By the way there is no film called"I Spit on Your Temple Altar"

please don't compare mel gibson to werner herzog for any reason, any time, ever. i might have to compare paijiba to used toilet paper.

"By the way there is no film called __I Spit on Your Temple Altar__."

No. No, there isn't. And thank the gods for that.

For once, BarbadoSlim, I agree with you completely.
I hate to repeate myself, especially in the same thread, but I think it's worth it this time: I highly recommend the book Aztec by Gary Jennings.

"He has the eye of Werner Herzog and the brain of Michael Bay."

Much as it does seem horribly, painfully wrong to be mentioning MG with WH in the same sentence, you are absolutely right.

One more plug for Aztec -- that is a fantastic book -- gives you a marvelous appreciation for Meso-American culture and is a ripping good yarn to boot. Knocks Michener into a cocked hat - bet he wishes he could knock off sweeping historical sagas like that! Oh, wait...

Mel's place in Malibu must be crawling with squirrels, because he is a total nutjob.

A much as I love Pajiba, and all its worthy commenters, I'm going to hve to disagree on most counts with this one. I saw the movie last night, and I have never seen an audience so quiet filing out of the theater. Say what you will about M.G's obvious nutcaseness, the man knows how to make a thriller. I walked out of the theater feeling like I had burned calories just watching the thing. One of the most intense films I have ever seen. Granted, if you didn't like the gore of Braveheart, skip this, because after seeing what happens to the majority of the baddies, you'll want to go tell Edward Longshanks to go change his Depends and leave the fighting to the real men. To those who accuse Mel of portraying Mayan culture as brutal...no shit. Like every other advanced culture of that time period, certain social and war practices were cruel, even vicious. Look up the Inquisition if you want some really creative ways to torture people. While I do suspect Mel goes to bed at night with a copy of Hostel tucked under his pillow, lets not disparage a truly visionary film just because the director is slowly going off the deep end.

I loved Braveheart so so much. However, by the time Passion of the Christ came out I had read that Mel's a far-right-wacked-out-hardcore-Christian, and that somewhat tainted my view of the movie. Now, with his infamous drunken sugartits/anti-semitic/alcoholism incident, I think I'll find it even harder to see a film of his without inferring racial subtexts.

Violence, violence, violence. Everyone loathes the violence in Apocalypto. Where were the posts criticizing the violence in Hostel or Saw or films of that ilk? The Matrix, with bullets falling everywhere, is as violent as anything out there. People want to jump on Mel Gibson for his recent ignorant remarks and single out the extreme violence in this movie. What should be criticized and changed is the glorified violence in all movies. That said, I'd still like to see the movie at some point.

Thank you for this insightful review. It's usually hard to see where exactly the work of controversial figures like Mel Gibson stands, and the review made it very clear.

I can't believe I'm the first one to see this, among all the grammar nitpickers reading pajiba:
"The captives are led away and driven to the city, the center of a decadent society that demands copious human sacrifice to stave of the waning of its power." The italicized "of" should be "off" instead.

That said, carry on. :)

Shite, I italicized the wrong "of." Sorry about that. :P Should be "...stave off the waning..."

Editor's Note: Good catch, pj. The offending "of" has now been corrected.

Dan, people aren't really complaining about the violence in the film, so much as they are about the fact that it basically falls under the same umbrella of those brainless gorefests that you've already mentioned, only under the disguise of something halfway meaningful or artistic.

When you go into Hostel/Saw/whatever, you know exactly what you're getting into: Paper-thin plot, one-dimensional characters, and a SHITLOAD of blood. But at least they're honest about it.

Ranylt, since the Maya told the future by driving stingray spines and knotted cords through their tongues and penises, you'll never hear an argument from me about whichever culture's more savage. Even the Romans practiced human sacrifice at times.

I saw the Passion of the Christ, and recognized it for what it was - a snuff film. Mel loves Jesus so much he had to drag out the horror of his crucifixion for what seemed like almost Wagnerian lengths.

I would chalenge Mr. Gibson to bring forth his skills at depicting brutality to two subjects:

1. the Holocaust

2. slavery in America

He might actually do the world some good.

This review made me really upset, and I generally really love this site... This, in my opinion, is probably one of the best movies I'll ever see in my lifetime. I'd like to bump artweth's statements. This movie was insanely historically accurate, and I LOVED that. I've grown up studying this culture, and it was so wonderful to have a visual representation of it. I could go on, but I thought the movie was completely wonderful, and you don't have to base your opinion on what the director's intentions may or may have not been. You judge it on how you interpret it. I could care less about Mel Gibson, this movie was awesome.

Well Braveheart was of the same idea, so I'm not surprised Apocalypto is just that way. It's not so much the barbarism and violence as is the celebration of it in the film (judging from the preview, I probably will never see it even though its historically accurate and sounds actually quite well done). At first I thought that it was the whole civilization vs. indigenous savagery argument, that the heathens must be saved and all that rot, but it looks like it goes well beyond it by insinuating that even civilization is barbaric in its intentions and especially in its execution. Then I thought it was just plain racist, but maybe there's something more to it. However, I do think Mel revels in cinematic violence, it's what makes him so damn Christian.

(Warning, I saw a prescreening, so there are spoilers like crazy here)
Thank you, thank you, for giving an honest review of this piece-of-crap movie. It bothered me on so many levels, I just thought it was an expansive, technically beautiful movie with a formulaic and thin plot. But at the same time, I was violently angry at myself for sitting through all two and a half hours of it.
And although you can try to explain things away by saying it was Mayan mythos and capturing the culture, everybody knows that the Aztecs were the ones with the (very specific) human sacrafice. Mayan civilization had been on the decline for centuries by the time the Spaniards came. When it came the the violence and everything, I have to say that my theater was giggling nervously by the end, it was so over-the-top. And yeah, every culture is violent, and we can't claim the moral high ground, but how is showing a spear go through the back of somebody's head and out their mouth either artistic or innovative?
And in addition to being obsessed with violence and torture, what's with Mel Gibson and women? All the female characters in this movie were 1) cackling, body-painted rich women 2) shrewish mother-in-laws 3)submissive "noble savages" who depend on their men for everything.
In conclusion, this movie is (pun intended) overkill.

This isn't some cheesy horror flick, it's a historically accurate depiction of the Mayan civilization at it's end. News flash - Human relations at the end of a civilizations are never at their best. I don't know why anyone would not expect to see harrowing brutality in a movie depicting this.

If a director can capture and the visceral intensity of war, I say kudos to him. If the depiction of bloodshed is done tastefully, as a part of a whole artistic endeavor, I don't see why it should be considered distasteful.

Maybe Mel has a fixation with violence, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he's just a great damned director who wants to express what life is like at an extreme. But you know what? I really don't give a fuck! If I'm watching a movie that enthralls me, I'm not going to sit through it wondering about the personal life of it's creator.

It's called separating the motherfucking art from the motherfucking arist.

Mel Gibson's views on the role of women in any society can be summed up by two words: sugar and tits.

Kelly summed it up quite nicely.

I may be the only one, but this review makes me kinda want to see the moves. When I first saw that trailer, I wasn't that interested. But knowing that this movie is a two and a half hour gorefest with little or no plot makes it more appealing. While the comparisons to films such as Saw are true, the realistic setting, at least to me, adds to the terror that the over-the-top premise of Saw can't attain. MG quite possibly is a raving mad man with a sadistic obsession with violence, but if that obsession leads to an engaging film, which it appears to have done, we should try to forget about sugartits (at least for the duration of the movie)

And to BarbaboSlim, I don't think I want Mel Gibson's take on the Holocaust, Can you imagine what Schindler's List would be like with Mel at the helm? I'm not sure I want to.

Actually, the Mayans did practice human sacrifice, Claire. If you go to Mexico, you can see those deep natural wells where they threw in human sacrifices. Also, the Mayans did engage in brutal activities. Go to Chichen Itza and walk the grounds, look at the inscriptions/carvings, speak to a real Mayan about his/her cultural history. You'll see and hear that brutality was practiced. This movie is obviously focusing on those aspects. The fact that this movie's whole purpose seems to be the violence confirms Phillip's thesis that Mel is "batshit" insane. However, props to Mel for using a cast of actors of indigenous backgrounds. This type of casting in now way "promotes stereotypes". Instead, it breaks through the "white wall" of Hollywood casting departments.

On a different topic:
I wish that there was a post dedicated to the collective ramblings of Gina. She's always good for a laugh.

Maybe it speaks to how much I've been "desensetized" by media, but I didn't find the gore in Apocalypto to be excessive.

Regarding the whole separation of art/artist concept:

Isn't most art considered in the context of the artist? I mean, doesn't knowing something about the artist usually help you intepret their art? Otherwise, why, for example, would a gallery identify the artist to those viewing the art (I realize the gallery itself would need to know the identity)? Not to say that one isn't free to separate the two, but I always assumed that many people don't. Thus, it's doesn't seem abnormal to do it in this case. Besides, this isn't the first review that has framed the director or producer or writer in the context of the film and their opinion of it. Why the hostility about this particular review?

If the link posted upthread is accurate, then the main actors cast for the movie weren't indigenous. And really, for a movie like this, who the hell was Gibson gonna cast? George Clooney? Brad Pitt? Mira Sorvino? Paul Walker? I wouldn't call it breaking through the white wall. When Rudy Youngblood is cast in "mainstream" films regularly, then I'll be more hopeful.

There are still real Mayans around? Because I was taught that the actual Mayans practically all died out, and what was left was a variety of tribes descending from the remnants of the Mayans, which were infinitely inferior to the actual Mayan race in all its majesty, and thus, aren't really "real Mayans".

Where did I learn this? In school. In Guatemala.

I love how fucking silly this film is. My fav aspect is how the Gibson keeps one-upping already poor situations. It isn't enough that a woman is drowning in rainwater, she must also give birth during this ordeal. Also, I love imagining the Gibson pitching particular scenes to his comrades - "okay, then this panther bites this guy IN THE FUCKING FACE and probably rips some of that shit clean off his skull". I hope he does a sequel to this, where the conquistadors really fuck shit up, and one of them fights a giant python in a pyramid or something.

"There is no film I Spit on Your Temple Altar"
This was a reference to the incredibly brutal rape/revenge movie "I Spit on Your Grave". ranylt was being clever by taking the title of one movie and applying it to the content of this one. Get it?

Gibson's slow mental collapse doesn't interfere with the greatness of the movie, it makes the movie!

Mel's trancended sanity. He's a train wreck in progress. You don't have to reconcile his movies with reality anymore! In the absence of a reality check, this shit has to be taken on its own merits.

Let's see how far he can take this thing before he gets into recovery and does his inevitable dignified-Holocaust-movie pennance. For now, it is what it is. There's a kind of zen inherent in losing your shit to this degree.

I went to see this last night. For me it felt like Mel got drunk halfway through and stayed that way. About the middle of the movie the story totally fell apart for me. It felt like someone put the three Stooges in loin cloths and had them run through the jungle. My husband and I spent an hour discussing all the plot holes, loose threads, and things that could have made the last 30 minutes a lot more believable.

What's sad is that I loved the characters at first, but had completely lost interest in them by the end.

About separating the art from the artist--I hate that fuck Mel Gibson, and don't want to stuff any more money in his pockets. Besides, he'll just spend it on booze anyway.

<joke>

What, you didn't like the movie?

Are you a Jew?

</joke>

Azraelle: to quote the article from the Nation "There are more than a million Maya in Mexico, and more than 100,000 of them are monolingual Yucatecan Maya speakers."

However, props to Mel for using a cast of actors of indigenous backgrounds. This type of casting in now way "promotes stereotypes". Instead, it breaks through the "white wall" of Hollywood casting departments.

Grouping all indigenous people IS a stereotype. The Sioux are not Mayan and are not Incas and so on. So because Gibson chose not to cast any Mayans in his main roles he perpetuated the stereotype. He disrespects them, and their cultures.

Mr. Gibson and his violent platitudes bore me to tears. After going to see The Passion of the Jesusheart I sincerely wished I'd spent that time watching March Madness on T.V. Needless to say I won't be wasting any holiday good-cheer-having time on another boring epic starring Mel's friends blood and guts. Find a new dead horse to beat Mel, this one is pulp.

You're right Andrea, it's much more respectful to cast Daniel Day Lewis as a Mohican, or Anthony Hopkins and Stuart Wilson as Spaniards. At least Gibson did about the best he probably could have. As someone noted, almost all of the Maya as they were in this era are gone anyway. What would have made it more respectful, Samuel L. Jackson yelling "The Spaniards are coming, muthafucka!"? Perhaps movies about any given race should not be made if we can't find people of exactly that race to play every person in the movie. Or are you suggesting that if you can't get that particular race, every actor should be selected from a random race... or even gender. Let's have a woman play, like Peter Pan or something... oh, wait. People are way too uptight about this stuff. It's obvious that he was trying to make a serious picture that neither lampooned the Mayans nor hid their blemishes.

Phillip - Good review, great title.

Dustin -

Re: the Sampson Blinded ad

As you predicted, I immediately disregarded your plea and clicked on the Sampson Blinded ad. After a quick 5-minute scan, I find he is as much a right-wing nutjob as Maryscott O'Connor is a left-wing nutjob. It's your perogative to not accept ad money from those whose views are different than yours, but he's not so far out there so as to be in "paranoid wacko" territory. He is an Israeli (English apparently is not his first language) writing from an Israeli perspective (and seemingly an Orthodox one, but I'm about as Jewish as a BLT with extra bacon, so I could be wrong there). He does have some radical viewpoints (especially to those of us in the US who don't have to live surrounded by hostile neighbors who want to see us dead), but not irrational ones. If you are going to strongly encourage your readers to not visit the site of a paid advertiser, I hope you at least have the decency to return his money.

Daniel Day-Lewis was not cast as a Mohican. He played Hawkeye, a white frontiersman and good friend of Mohican Chingachgook.

i've disliked the mel way before his drunk rant... let's not forget his homophobe reproductive tirade from years back... however, went to this movie (not a "film") last night and it was amazing. the attention to detail, the action, the escapism... it was riviting. tho the script was obviously a sinch, and defaulted to yet another chase-flick... i love apocolypto, and hate mel gibson.

Oh GAWD these comments are funny; I just had to quickly post that this review was excellent, but Kelly's comment about what Mel Gibson knows about women ("...sugar and tits")just killed me! I JUST wiped the tears from my eyes...

Appreciate the correction, kummov. I've never seen the movie and just assumed. At any rate, Hollywood has a long history of casting against race.

Hawkeye: also known as Natty Bumppo. Nothing to add, I just love saying and typing that name. Natty Bumppo, Natty Natty Bumppo.

I'm sorry, continue.

I can't help but wonder how you would have reviewed this movie if it had been directed by an unknown. Your review seems hell bent on ripping it because it happened to have been made by MG. I saw it this weekend and I was blown away. I was awestruck by the beauty of it, and made to feel on a very deep level for the characters. After it was done I wanted to pierce my septum with a chunk of bone, tattoo my forehead, and run through the jungle in a loincloth. This was a great movie and I loved it. The gore? Whatever, pussies. It functions with the plot of the movie, and as someone mentioned it was probably pretty accurate for the time period depicted. So, it's supposed to be a flaw that the protagonists are finally vanquished in brutal ways? The entire theater was an eruption of "YEAH!" s. This movie was unlike anything I've seen, and I encourage everyone to go see it...regardless of who made it...Apocalypto stands on it's own. Or you can be blinded and miss out because you don't like Mel Gibson.

I don't understand all the criticism concerning the violent content. There wasn't any more blood in this film than there was in say, "Gladiator" or the first 25 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan". And to address the scene where a man's heart is removed from his chest while still beating. I recall a similar scene in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"

I could not have summed it up better than Phillip Stevens. Mel Gibson is batshit insane. This is what happens when a pycho actor/director has enough money and influence to spew his particular brand of porno-sadism in the name of history/religion or whatever grandiose excuse he can come up with it. The scary part is that a large portion of the American public is eating it up.

Azraelle,
the reason you learned what you say you learned in Guatemala, is because the government in Guatemala has an agenda. how many Mayans have been massacred in Guatemala and continue to be oppressed in Guatemala? A LOT. This type of perspective is often pressed by the colonizer/brutalizer of indigenous peoples. Look at that crap known as Dances with Wolves: it is meant to perpetuate the idea that the "noble natives" are dying out, and that a new breed of noble white man will take on their best characteristics and carry them into the future (but he'll be even more awesome, cuz he's white).

In defense of the Mayan culture, sure they were bloody as all get out and lots of people died, but they carved a remarkably advanced civilization out of a cultural void. Many of their human sacrafices were willing participants. Their world was not a perfect one, but they created beatiful art and archetecture and were a complex and deeply spiritual people. I won't see Apocalypto because I am a wussie and all that blood will make me cry, but I hope that all that was wonderful about this amazing culture was not washed away in the vicera.

Mayans still exist, my great-grandmother was Mayan. She used to speak the language until she was forced to only speak Spanish. It makes sense why the Guatemalan gov. would refuse to recognize Mayans. It has to do with politics and land. Those in control of the government have the power to write history the way they want or else if they recognize the Mayans they would have to recognize their right to land. BTW - This movie is about Mayans so why are people talking about Aztecs? If this was a movie about the Chinese we wouldn't be talking about the Japanese culture? People - look at a map, Aztecs were in the Mexico City area and their civilization was much later than the Mayans.

i must be getting old. the polarization of this discussion is surprising, and it's oddly amusing. my art appreciation habits were set by the 1980s, b.c.c. (before political correctness). sure-- if i find someone repugnant, i don't have to buy what they're selling, but my view of what they are selling, particularly if it's art, is independent of my view of *them*. i'm allowed to like the work of T.S. Eliot, Picasso, Polanski, Hemingway (etc.), even if they aren't model citizens. take the work on its own terms, people. if davinci was an anti-semitic, womanizing, serial murdering, child molesting republican, would his masterpieces cease to be any good? (hell no, i'm not saying mg is davinci.) how much can we possibly know about every artist before we consume their art (not "his or her art") anyway? or do we just not look at art until we know if we agree with the artist about politics, race, religion, animal rights, gender issues, gay rights and global warming? sorry, but that's fucking retarded.

Hey!

Do you know why the orange stopped?

Because it ran out of juice!

(Gracias, Matty.)

Speaking as a descendant of the subject of this flick -- my great-great grandma was Mayan Indian -- I am frankly disgusted that Hollywood gave the greenlight to a major film about such an important culture to a clod like Gibson. This subject matter would have be great in the hands of Ridley Scott, John Boorman, and others who have shown an affinity with epic adventure. But Mel Fucking Gibson??? Who the hell gave this shitheel permission to desecrate my ancestors?! I barely got through the first half hour of the JC snuff film (and sadly those initials are not of sanctimonious prick Jim Caviziel); will Mr Gibson be giving us an accurate portrayal of the Spanish Inquisition or the truth about Christopher Columbus, whose purported holiday is pointedly ignored in my family. No, probably more nosegays to the divine Catholic church who finance most of his horseshit.

When I say I hate Mel Gibson, it's not just because he's a sexist anti-semite. It's because he's a hack.

He sucks. I haven't wanted to see anything he's directed since I saw the dreadfully over-rated Braveheart with it's beautiful fight scenes and idiotic everything else.

Didn't anybody else crack up when Mel Gibson rode into the princess's room on his big phallic horse to save the kingdom with his manly fertility?

I liked Gallipoli and The Year of Living Dangerously in spite of him, and haven't really enjoyed his flaming, pedantic crap-fests ever since.

So any movie with some color in it or told from the perspective of the culture being showcased gets an automatic F? Pussies.

Hey man, isn't this site about reviewing movies and what not, or do psychoanalyze directors as well?
Cause that makes what someone said about your type of reviewing true, which was, "a bunch of hollywood butt kissers", so I guess you are.

On the issue of historical accuracy, I think a lot of the commentators here have the Maya confused with the Aztecs. The Aztecs did practice human sacrifice on a huge scale, capture thousands of random people from neighboring cultures to kill every year, etc.; however, I've read several comments on this movie by actual Maya scholars (see tinyurl.com/y3ab8n and tinyurl.com/ya5kd7 for example) which explain that the Maya did *not* do anything like this, at most they would sometimes sacrifice kings and a few other high-ranking leaders of cultures they were at war with. Considering Mel has the Spanish arrive at the end of the movie, whereas in real life the Maya culture had collapsed and all their cities been abandoned about 300 years earlier, I'm actually sort of confused about why Mel didn't just use the Aztecs instead, it would have allowed him to make an equally bloody movie while actually being reasonably accurate historically.

Well said Jesse M., you are so right.

Jesse,
I'm not confusing the Maya with the Aztec. They both practiced human sacrifice (as did the Inca). Chichen Itza is a Mayan site, not Aztec. Who cares if they practiced human sacrifice? That doesn't make them any less civilized (big cities, complex buildings, infrastructure like roads = civilization). At one time (according to a Mayan who was informing me about his history), the Maya decided to kill off Aztec invaders, and anyone whose blood was "mixed" with Aztec blood. So, they chopped off the heads of anyone who was taller than a certain height (because the Aztecs were tall, and the Maya short).

I haven't seen the movie so I don't know how accurate the review of this movie is but I have to agree the review does seem a bit tainted because of the obvious dislike for Mel Gibson, which, I'm not contradicting.

However, people are not only starting to judge Mel Gibson on what his intention was but on what he hasn't even done yet. Seriously? I read someone hating him because of how he is GOING to portray the spaniards. Kudos on mind reading.

But like fp said. You can't judge the art by the artist. If you did, than about 90% of every library would have to be burned. It's the same thing as censoring books, or is that o.k as long as you disagree with the writer? It's only upholding free speech when you disagree with the speech.

When I saw the trailer for this I was blown away by the images and intensity on the screen and realized "holy crap! I actually want to see this Mel Gibson movie!" From the trailer alone it's clearly not quite like anything I've ever seen before. But I probably will pass, and not (like my wife) because I don't want "that asshole" to have a dollar out of my pocket, but because of the torture-porn element which the review foregrounds.

Let's be a little more precise: blood, gore, whatever is one thing. "Violence" is a pretty amorphous way to describe stuff that can be anything from silly to literally sickening. But what really bums me out about a lot of recent movies is the totally shameless pleasure in simulating cruelty, getting off on showing people intentionally (even gleefully) causing people pain and severe distress.

That is just plain fucked up, and I don't want to live in a world with more of that. There is a difference between say Amoros Perros (plenty "violent" for short stretches) and Hostel. When I find out somebody "likes" torture-porn movies, I immediately wonder what the hell is wrong with them.

And unfortunately, Apocalypto sounds like a really amazing-looking torture-porn flick.

I'm not confusing the Maya with the Aztec.

I wasn't referring to any particular comment, as multiple people seemed to think the mass sacrifice aspect was accurate. And I'm not sure which comment was yours, since this seems to be the first one signed "Look,"

They both practiced human sacrifice (as did the Inca).

Yes, in fact I said in my comment that they did, but my point was that "The Aztecs did practice human sacrifice on a huge scale" while the Maya did not, and Mel depicted them doing these mass sacrifices (and emphasized their horrific aspect) in the movie.

Chichen Itza is a Mayan site, not Aztec.

I didn't say anything about Chichen Itza, I'm not sure why you bring this up. If you just mean that Mel intended the people in the movie to be Maya rather than Aztec, of course I realize this, the point is just about the inaccurate depiction of their sacrificial practices, and how multiple comments here seemed to think they were accurate.

Who cares if they practiced human sacrifice? That doesn't make them any less civilized (big cities, complex buildings, infrastructure like roads = civilization).

I also did not bring up the question of whether they were "civilized", so I don't know what you're responding to here either (I don't think that word has any well-defined meaning anyway).

At one time (according to a Mayan who was informing me about his history), the Maya decided to kill off Aztec invaders, and anyone whose blood was "mixed" with Aztec blood. So, they chopped off the heads of anyone who was taller than a certain height (because the Aztecs were tall, and the Maya short).

Well, many societies become more brutal in times of war...I wonder if there is evidence for this story or if it might be legendary or at least embellished, though.

I know someone begged not have Werner Herzog's name linked with MG's in any way, but thought you all should know there's a great article on Herzog in December's Harpers.
And whatever happened to part 2 of the Scorcese article?

Unnhhhhhhhhhhh...I meant the De Palma article....

Well, I just watched this a few hours ago; I agree with what someone said earlier about it basically becoming a chase movie, when all previous events seemed to lead to...I don't know, not that! The children in this movie were AMAZING; expressive, heart-wrenching, I lost my shit and the tears just fell. :) The characters overall were interesting, it just seemed like Sugar Tits threw too much random info about the culture, of whom I have no clue. Good movie, pointless though; weird ending, lame ending.

It was a GREAT movie.

Pussy. Your armchair psychology of Mel's state of mind reveals more about your biases than his. Also, I like to masturbate with Ponds Cold Cream Cleanser.

A-dub, who said "The gore? Whatever, pussies," is right on the money. People complaining about the gore are complaining about Mel. Saving Private Ryan was far more gory, and I also remember Gangs of New York as having about the same level of brutality as Apocalypto, but I don't remember a similar outcry.
As for comparisons to Hostel and Saw, Apocalypto's not even in the same league as far as gore, and quite frankly having seen Ichi the Killer and Cannibal Holocaust I can say that Hostel and Saw are like nursery school as far as gore is concerned.

Yes, I'm one of those people who likes horror movies--real ones, not safe shit like Scream. There will always be people who question the sanity/morality of people who like movie violence. Aristotle knew that experiencing the catharsis of shock and horror was healthy. Let's turn it around for a moment. Might it not be unhealthy for people to refuse to acknowledge that violence, even gory violence, is part of the human experience?

I think all aspects of the human experience can legitimately be looked at artistically, and that includes violence and sexuality, the two boogeymen in the closet of modern American culture (what two topics always get the word "gratuitous" thrown in front of them?). I know from my own movie watching experience that violence does indeed bring catharsis, and I really am smart enough to know that what I'm seeing is fiction and have no desire to imitate it or experience it in real life.

The upshot of all this is

a) if you don't like movie violence fine, but questioning the psychology of people who do is simplistic and essentially a prejudice against a differing opinion, something Christ knows runs rampant on the internet.

and b) Mel's movie isn't any more violent than a lot of shit out there that's not getting anywhere near the criticism. If you don't like Mel, fine, but try to take your dislike out of the equation. I think Roman Polanski's a piece of shit as a human being but was well deserving of his Oscar for The Pianist.

I have the suspicion that most visionary artists are probably assholes. Nice people get desk jobs and raise families. And yes, I consider Mel a visionary artist. I loved Apocalypto. Everything everyone here has said is true about it being an action movie with a simplistic plot, black and white characterizations and quite a few loose ends left untied, but so what? I haven't experienced a ride like this in a long time. Spectacle takes vision just as much as do intimate character studies. And whatever else his personal flaws may be, he's got balls of steel for putting a movie like this out there.

Well. Here's the deal, life might've been just like Gibson has tried to show it. Violent, macabre, and just plain nasty. Who can say that it wasn't exactly like this? Anybody?

Judging a movie is one thing, guessing what happened centuries ago is another.

I have a feeling that Gibson( sick shit that he is) might be right. Ancient history is filled with all manners of horrific tortures.

So unless you have confirmed evidence that he's wrong, I suggest that you keep your criticisms on a totally cinematic forum. IE bad filming, shitty plot etc.

later

Huck

I don't think anyone's mentioned this, but this whole review slash discussion makes me think of "The Simpsons" episode with Mel Gibson, the one where he remakes "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and places gratuitous amounts of gore in it (the best part being when he kills all of Congress). That episode was just excellent. I think if you can stomach seeing the American flag impale a senator, you can see anything. Sorry for the random tangent...I just couldn't get that episode out of my mind while reading this.

Ohh...I third or fourth the person who wrote that we should debate the sanity of Mel. Crazy is always fun to discuss.

You people aren't mad about excessive violence, you're mad about realistic violence.

someone said earlier, "This movie is about Mayans so why are people talking about Aztecs? If this was a movie about the Chinese we wouldn't be talking about the Japanese culture?"

You would be surprised. Also, one of the posters talking about the Mayan culture being inaccurately depicted is right. this movie WAS more reflective of the Aztecs and not of the Mayans. They're quite different if you're aware of the details, but to a lot of people, they all lump minorities into these general, braod (and often inaccurate) strokes.

Seriously, it's like making a movie about the American Revolution with George Washington speaking Polish and wearing German clothing. Hollywood does a good job at hacking all cultures- but ESPECIALLY non-Western ones. This is no exception.

i saw apocolypto last week, and i loved it. every second of it.

As I was reading this review, I was taken back to the early 90s when the same words were used to describe Squanto: A Warrior's Tale where the protagonist is captured, bound, sent to fight a bear, escapes, comes back to a dead village. Then again, I haven't seen this movie just yet, so I may or may not bite my words soon.

The first word in the second paragraph is "But", the first word in the third paragraph is "And".

Smushing as much obscure wit and grammar into a movie review as you do, it must be easy to overlook such assinine mistakes.

I've just returned from seeing this movie. I wish I had spent the same amount of time eating glass. First, beyond dull. It would have been an interesting Hallmark Hour but at two plus hours, merely boring. Secondly, the cinematography with rare but delightful exception was pedestrian. Thirdly, not so violent. Contemplating what I expected, this movie was far less horrific than anyone might have anticipated. Additionally, the protagonist was apparently an idiot savant: martialling all his cunning to escape and defeat his enemies while lackadaisacally delivering up all his loved ones. At best silly. Great costuming, though.

Dear Duck and Cover:

It's spelled "asinine" dearie.

T,

you are a douchebag with nothing to say.

(and that empty statement speaks worlds more than your worthless input).

ABCDEFG,

you make some good points, but i'm not sure if you're confusing the talkbackers'/posters' comments about the violence with the reviewer's.

the reviewer wasn't condemning the violence, nor was he shocked by it (trust me, i've sat next to him and watched all manner of hardcore gore flicks..."ichi", "cannibal holocaust", "cannibal ferox", "aftermath", "the beyond", "street trash", "nekromantik", and too many more to name)--and trust me, Mr. Stephens was not at all shocked by the gore in "Apocalypto".

i think his point was that the violence and brutality, while imporatant to the semi-accurate depication of the subject matter of the film, seemed to overshadow the overall impact of the film. it is, as in "passion", MG decided to get a hard on for bloodletting and let it take center stage just for shock's sake while forgetting that violence and gore is not why he was making the picture (although maybe it was).

violence can be both shocking and supportive to the storyline. look at "a history of violence". there are some moments in that film that, while not on even the remote same level as "cannibal holocaust" et al, were more disturbing and affecting than anything i've seen in quite a while. but you know cronenberg was not beating off to the monitor as he was filming these scenes. they were in the film to further the story and to add emotional impact to the overall storyline. they went as far as they had to in order to serve their purpose. when scenes go further than they have to, it is akin to "torture porn" (which, btw, i have no problem with...loved "hostel" and the like...).

i think what the review is saying is, don't piss in the potatoes and call it gravy...

Hey, Mel is no more violent than Steven Speilberg. The opening sequences from Saving Ryan's Privates is nasty with body parts being blown off and soldiers catching bullets in their heads. Its just that Mel sustains it better; because the ancient civilizations were barbaric doesn't make him "batshit crazy" as some of you have put it. If his outburst in Malibu with the cops is what you are pissed about then lay off the movie. The movie is not only historically accurate but beautifully shot. Alcohol is a strange truth serum, but it works really well; most people in this country harbor some negative edge about other cultures. It's human nature to debase and demoralize to build up the other side. I think if you are honest then most of the posters here are people who are in need of a reliable glazer, because many of thewindows in your house are broken from all the rock throwing going on here. Peace through understanding is a concept WE all should aspire too. To all the "Herzogites" out there he isn't all that great either.

"To all the "Herzogites" out there he isn't all that great either."

LOL. You'll notice that none of us "Herzogites" said word-one about MB's batshitcraziness-as-drawback in their postings (that would be other posters--please doona confuse).

We freaking know better, after all.

In total agreement, Mr. Stephens. Seen one Mel movie, seen them all.

Except for Passion of the Christ. But Jesus is so going to bitch slap us in heaven.

"Historically accurate"?

Am I the only history buff who knows that the Mayan civilization, as an EMPIRE, waned in the 10th century, not the 15th? Really, it's bad enough Mel had to exploit a fascinating people for the sake of dispelling his own blood-lust and political/religious rage. He didn't have to make such an obvious anachronistic error as well.

"The first word in the second paragraph is "But", the first word in the third paragraph is "And".

Smushing as much obscure wit and grammar into a movie review as you do, it must be easy to overlook such assinine mistakes."

"'assinine' mistakes"? can you even spell, douchebag?

before you start nitpicking, go back to fifth grade and learn a thing or two.

I liked Mel Gibson in Chicken Run.

I used to like Mel Gibson, but no anymore. Even before his tirades and behaviour he started becoming too sanctimonious and annoying in interviews.

That said, I don't get the big deal about this movie or any of the others. It's just a movie. Even if it's an art form it's still just a movie. It'll be forgotten in a few months. People have too many choices of what to watch.

That said, I think it does matter what directors, actors, artists, etc. do in thier personal lives. Especially nowadays when we learn too much about people. And that, unfortunately plays into why we chose the form of art or entertainment we chose. What people forget is that whether we speak of movies, paintings, music, or any form of art, the opinions of the public play a big part in how the art is received and what is communicated.
I love violent movies, I love cultural movies, I sometimes love poorly made, over the top movies, but I won't see this movie because I just don't like Mel Gibson. I have no interest in his work.

And that said, even if this movie is the greatest movie ever made, I doubt the majority of people who opt not to see it will shed heavy tears on their deathbed because they missed out.

I still haven't seen Casablanca and I feel fine.

I thought the costumes and the cinematography were amazing. Using the the Mayan languages was an example of re creation in movie making that I hope to see more of.

Mel has a history of making anti Imperial movies, Galipoli, Braveheart, the Patriot etc.. This was no different. A larger, more organized political society imposing itself on others not so well organized.

Allthough it appears to deter from the disease and slaughter the spanish brought with them, understanding the brutaility, religion, and politics of this civilization (not much different from any other organized society with a hierarchy), before the Spanish arrived,is a valueble piece of filmaking.

However, as most other Gibson historical pieces, and Hollywood in general, it was ruined by the by the Spanish arriving 500 yrs early. The Mayan civilazation disolved around 10 bc. Those were the Aztec's.

WOW, its the next day and i still have this movie in my head. love him or hate him mel puts out quality movies this one bye far his best

I loved this movie. It was like a mythological adventure story.

I saw the movie today. This movie was awesome! Lots of beautiful footage, action and gore. A strong lesson in family love and survival. Mel Gibson is a genious. Rudy Youngblood did an excellent job with the lead role.

Had to walk out. Could not endure it! Full of barbarism and violence and no real story line. Just bloody gross. Should have went shopping instead! Cleaning Toilets would have been a better way to spend your time then this gore. Why do people want to spend their time watching such a thing is beyond me. I used to like Mel Gibson, but have to question why after seeing The Passion and this movie. Either he is Sick in the head or if true the Mayans were. Either way it was just sick to watch and sick to create a movie like this. What a sick way to waste time!

Saw it. It was long, it was gorgeously rendered. It was hollow and trite and cliched. It was not particularly brutal, however. Nor was it much of what every one else is saying. It was not genius or amazingly told, it's innaccurasies are not to the detriment of the Mayans or their culture, though they are in service to the story.

The first half of the story was flawed. Gibson wants to show us the awe inpiring city and civilization that has been hiding in the wings, but he needs to get his hero free and running back home on a tight time table. Plausibly. You can see remenants of his ideas in the quieter moments as the villagers march to the city.

The second half of the story is flawed because Gibson wants to give us a 'contest of survival', ratcheting up the tension with the time table of the damsel in distress. Yet he also wants the hero to be focused on rescuing his wife and child, one necessarily suffers as a result. I won't even go into the climactic 'birth' scene which was about as trite as they come.

The Movie is flawed because Gibson just wants to tell us an incredibly intense chase flick, he's admitted as much in interviews, stripping the movie down to the bare essentials to do so... yet he can't let go without attempting to showcase the human condition, he can't dispense with the spectacle. Had he chosen to reduce the importance of the chase and build up the decay of the civilization he might have made a deeply moving film, had he cut the character studies out he could have made a truly madcap adrenalin rush of a film. As it is, the film works against itself.

As for the comments about his portrayal of women in this film I have to wonder if any of you even watched the film other than to look for specific moments to project your beliefs upon the screen? Is there a shrewish Mother-in-law? Certainly, only she can't remain a caricature. Observe her behavior in the city. Does Jaguar Paw's wife need rescue? Certainly, but not because she is a 'helpless sugartits'. In the course of her limited scenes she performs primative surgery on her injured son, hides them both from the slave takers, kills a dangerous ape with a stone club and attempts repeatedly to climb out the cenote, hindered by her nine months of pregnancy over and above being some 'helpless female sex object'. Sugartits indeed.

Does Gibson have issues? No doubt. Not that I care, I just watch the movies, I don't hang out with the man. But as a director, his only flaw here is that he can't decide if he's making a 'chase movie', as he claims in interviews, or showcasing the fall of a once great civilization, as the trailers claim. The two do not mix well.

Mel should have used the Vikings arriving at the end, it would have been more accurate timewise - they allegedly landed in America 500 years before the Spanish. It would sure explain why they have carvings of big, tall, pale-haired people in Mayan art.

This movie was amazing! From the fake ja-u-war to the running across a field and being shot at with arrows for sport, it was funny from start to finish....and when I say funny, I mean this was one of the very worst movies ever, ever! I would watch Little Man every day for a year over ever seeing this movie again. Really.