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.

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.

That title says it all.

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

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

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.

HOORAY!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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

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.

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

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.

"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?

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.

<joke>

What, you didn't like the movie?

Are you a Jew?

</joke>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

(Gracias, Matty.)

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.

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.

Well said Jesse M., you are so right.

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.

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.

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

It was a GREAT movie.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

T,

you are a douchebag with nothing to say.

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

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.

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.

"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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.