i don't see what NY Time's problem is. until very recently human brutality was a normal part of life. Mel Gibson doesn't cover it up like other movie makers, but displays it very graphically and realistically.

Apparently none of these self-righteous critics have ever made a mistake. I hope they give Mel an Oscar, just for all the controversy it will create

I'm looking forward to seeing this.

Peter Travers (Rolling Stone) gave it a fair and unbiased review.

http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/...008/apocalypto


I won't even mention THIS site's review. Oops, guess I just did.

WOW!!! This sounds awesome! I might have to go see it this weekend. I don't think it's playing too many places around here though.

Embarrassingly bad reviews by the DVD Talk crew, in my opinion (in regard to the reviews themselves, not the film). Perhaps they are going for irony by ranting about Gibson's ranting.

They all agree that he brings nothing new to the table, however, which makes me even less interested in seeing it.

I liked it .... the last thirty minutes was definately 'thrilling' and the hyped violence/gore wasn't too cringe inducing, except one scene



the ending felt a little hamfisted,



but all in all quite entertaining.

I would liked to have see this in DLP, since the film was shot with HiDef cameras, but no one in the DC area is presenting this as such.

CHUD had a funny synopsis of the movie:


Here’s my pitch for an Apocalypto video game, which also serves as a synopsis of the movie:

We begin the game with a training level so you can get used to the controls. You’re country Mayan Jaguar Paw, and you’re hunting tapir in the Central American jungle. You have to run, jump and use ingenuity and the natural environment to trap the animal, which you eat in a full motion video cut scene. Then, in another cut scene, evil city Mayans show up, burn your village, kidnap you and your buddies and leave your wife and kid stranded in a deep hole. You get taken to the Mayan city and escape – now you must run through the jungle, avoid pitfalls like quicksand, mean animals and waterfalls, while knocking off your city Mayan pursuers. At the bottom of the screen is a timer – it’s your wife and kid in that hole, which is rapidly filling with water. If you beat the game on Medium you unlock Mel Gibson as a playable character.

Saw the film this afternoon and loved it.

But either I've just become desensitized to it or everyone is going overboard with their exaggerations of the violence in the movie given the director (which I think is the case), because I didn't find it to be nearly as overly violent as it's being made out to be. Sure it's violent, which is to be expected given the subject matter, and sure there are some gory moments, but after everything I've read and heard, I was expecting it to be a bloodbath and it was far from it (which was a good thing). At many times it actually felt very restrained as if Gibson was attempting to limit the violence (again, given the subject matter).

Hell, I would at least rent that!

Say what you will, but Mel Gibson has a wicked sense of humor who punctuates many scenes with these little bits of human vices that reminds us that humans are humans, no matter what the time period is, or the societal framework, there is this baseline of human conduct for selfishness that is totally contradicted by selfless acts of a protective nature, and the propagation of family lines, but it is what makes us human.

It's an amazing look into a past Mayan civilization from an outside tribe from the forest, but the past reveals a lot about us now, and that's the real kick in the pants about the film using this glimpse into Mayan life, rituals, engineering, and superstitions, and still creating human drama out of it all. The film is brutal, and vicious at times, but it balances it with a importance of community and bonding that shows the impact of social aspects of human relations.

If you get queasy over blood, and gutting of animals and humans, and more, then this is not the film for you, but the savagery shown is steeped in lore and their perceived relationship with their deities, and their requirements for satisfying them. You could even draw metaphorical similarities to today's way of life in spots as well.

I think the pacing was pretty good for a film that runs about 135 minutes, and the camera work is very good is more spots, but there are action sequences that have spliced-in video camera footage that makes the action look like it was filmed at 30 frames/second which is jarring when the rest of the footage is 24 fps. But it's not a big deal, just a directorial decision that seemed odd on my first viewing.

The choice to use unknowns for the characters in the film pays off because you simply believe that these are characters from the time period in question and just accept their characters as-is with no personal baggage from familiarity with known actors. Mel Gibson is in good form as director, and you could tell he really had to direct the performances and all of the coordination required to really sell us the landscape of the Mayan population as this living, breathing organism with its own pulse as a whole society.

I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.

Awesome movie! I loved it, not as good as Braveheart, but better than Passion of the Christ. Mel Gibson is a great lunatic genius.

If you like Tintin and the Temple of the Sun, Conan the Barbarian, and Predator, you should like this movie.

For those who have seen the movie is it really that good?

This is one of the bloodiest, rawest movies I've seen in a long time, probably since Saving Private Ryan. The gore isn't extreme, but it is very realistic, and many times the camera doesn't seem to care if it shows it or not: very clinical.

I think some of the first half could have been cut. Once you're in the Mayan city, this movie goes from an 8 to a 10 on the adrenaline meter. I've never held such rapt attention for an hour on a movie without any dialogue since Baraka.

I don't think this movie is awesome. For gorehounds, going to see this for the gore is sort of missing the point - just go rent another Guinea Pig Experiment video. But, much like Gibson's other violent movie, Braveheart, the violence in this makes sense. It's a very good movie, and it has its flaws, but they are minor. On some very twisted level, Gibson has made the family movie of the year.

I have to ruminate on this and as usual I'll come back to talk about it more.

And Apone, it's worse.

wow, I have to say that the reviews by Jamie Rich and Brian Orndorf are rather pathetic. Subtitles are now a symbol of "self-importance?" And "anti-semitic A-hole" is a valid criticism of a film director?

wow...so butt hurt you had to email me too eh?

Please enlighten us...would you instead have had the Mayans speaking English?

I'm not exactly a Gibson fan, and disliked Passion immensely, but your criticisms of this film are laughable. I wonder how different yours and other detractor's views would be were it not for his run-in with the law. My guess is very. That reeks far more of self-importance than subtitles.

What you said wasn't even quoted verbatim, as it was changed to reflect him and him alone, when you clearly meant both reviews. What do you think of that?

I think you didn't read what I said very carefully. I clearly mentioned both reviewers and pointed out one particularly specious criticism of the film by each.

I'll say this about the DVD Talk reviews:

The only one that seems biased and drunk-Mel-centered is Jamie's. Brian, all your points are valid, but to me, it didn't make me dislike the film. I think Eric's review is spot on: "The violence is repellant, and it's hard not to become disgusted with Gibson's arrogance and megalomania: It's his money, and he'll by-gum make this historical epic as vulgar and whacked-out as he wants. I say let him. It's fascinating to see what a millionaire does with his money when he doesn't care what people think anymore."

This is pretty much just exploitative cinema on the highest possible budget.

#1 on Friday with $4,950,000. Not a huge opening day, but at the same time not terrible considering the obstacles it faced.

Agreed. This doesn't begin to compare to kill bill, underworld and blade series', Dawn of the dead, bad boys 2, etc.

Overall I liked it. My biggest complaint was the digital camera look. It feels like you're watching a tv documentary.

*** (out of four)

Opening quote to the film promises an epic chronicling the downfall of the Mayan civilization…ultimately it rings disingenuous and seems to serve no purpose except to perhaps pardon Christianity’s butchering of the native population by showing that they too were not averse to savagery……..all delivered via this - an immensely bloated, gory, hollow, and derivative re-working of Cornel Wilde’s “The Naked Prey” (1966) - with visual cues that might have been lifted from “Too Late the Hero”, "Behind Enemy Lines", “Predator”, “First Blood”, “Amistad/Roots” and likely more. Verdict….skip it (or at least wait for bargain-priced DVD). And just to put it out there, despite his recent public meltdown, I was still a big fan of Mel Gibson (at least prior to seeing this film).

I do think Mel's point of the film is this:

More thoughts:

Considering how much Gibson devotes to bringing forth new life in the wake of adversity in this film, it does make you wonder why people can support Gibson is asking people to take another look into themselves and act on what's true in their hearts, not on a popular notion of the "right" course of action. That he can do this by showing us the past, it forces us to look at the brutal truth of the effects of such beliefs in the present.

Artman: The difference is those movies were fantasy. While this is a period piece and is somewhat sylized and costume heavy, the violence feels a bit more "real"...



All said, the part that made me cringe the most was: