Apocalypto

Gibson obviously doesn't like his characters very much for reasons unknown. Jaguar Paw goes through hell, sees his friends die and, badly wounded, fights for his bare life on land, under waterfalls or in deadly swamps, only for the sake of a simple mainstream story and to satisfy a popcorn audience hungry for blood, action and convenient clichés. It must be admitted that we all have at least a bit of such a viewer in us and that Apocalypto is a unique Hollywood adventure that is not boring, is loaded with adrenaline and brings a glimpse into a now mythical stage of human history that we have never seen before. Mel's laudable intentions, backed by an attempt at heavy naturalism and crowned with undeniable formal precision and efficiency, starting with the ancient language and believable actors and ending with the aggressive music, editing and attractive setting, are nice, but in the end they stand out terribly negatively and the targeted authenticity is undermined by the unnecessarily overblown "cinematic" brutality, the too conspicuously digital sequences (especially the monkey fight over the abyss was completely out of place), and finally the story itself, which is far too contrived to appeal the masses and relies on a kind of supernaturalism thanks to which the protagonist always escapes alive despite less than zero odds. It's great to watch and I'm very glad that something like this could be made, but next time it would need a more distinctive, less trite concept... 80% (06/02/2012)

A distinctive work by a distinctive artist. What I like about Mel Gibson is that despite the journalistic statements about "sadist Gibson", he still goes about his business, ignores all critics and keeps his creative freedom. He doesn’t spare violence here either, but unlike The Passion of the Christ, it is kept within tolerable limits (like the battle scenes in Braveheart). For example, the scene of the double sacrificial heart-cutting is quite subtly depicted, and its media criticism is completely out of place. If I am telling a story from the time of the late Mayan empire, it would be strange to omit this quite common practice. Aside from Gibson's light allusions to the manipulation of crowds and the depiction of the decadence of society, a concomitant phenomenon of the decline of great empires, looking for some kind of insight here is completely pointless. The whole film is constructed as a kind of ancient narrative of hunters somewhere by the fire, who, with typical male vanity, show off where they killed who, who they escaped from or who they saved. In this respect, the film is absolutely great and I don't really care about the lack of an idea. Moreover, Gibson's direction is imaginative, the make-up and adornments of the protagonists and the visuals of the Mayan metropolis scene are a triumph of cinematic art design. Mel did not disappoint again and continues to be for me a breath of fresh air in the stale Hollywood production :o) (05/02/2007)

It was pretty nice to hear a language other than English in a big American film, otherwise, Apocalypto was a disappointment. A lifeless and simple story stretched to an unnecessary length. Only the urban scene was interesting, at times it felt as if Cameron had found inspiration here for the Na’avi. I don’t think Gibson should feel very confident in his directorial qualities, I didn’t see even a hint of genius in Apocalypto. (04/08/2010)

Apocalypto can be seen as either an über-brutal adventure ride or an ideological banquet. The latter is heavily favored by Gibson's pro-Christian bigotry (ingeniously hidden here), the consistent depiction of the decline of the Mayan empire, which refers to the cause mainly in terms of social differences, and the finale with the arrival of the ships that so unwittingly save the protagonist, and it's hard not to notice the Christian symbolism in this scene. So it's not hard to see that Mel Gibson is currently a radical left-wing Catholic and for a long time that's the only thing to take away from the film. Fortunately, I'm reviewing this from a first-person perspective and thus, except for the unwatchable digital camera for me, I was supremely satisfied. Still, if Apocalypto is telling us between the lines that the Conquistador massacres were the best thing that could have happened to South and Central America, then still, points for courage -) (23/10/2010)

When I was 11, I read an incredibly comprehensive 8-part series about Tarzan and I completely fell in love with that world full of adventure, battles, and mysterious creatures. Back then, I dreamt that someone would make a movie that could visualize all that magic, adventure, action, and suspense. I think Mel Gibson could handle such a task admirably and that it would even be amazing. The problem is that Apocalypto presented itself as a real story set in the pre-Columbian era of indigenous cultures and at least the advertisement claimed that the viewer would learn a lot about these cultures. That is not the case at all. Apocalypto is a film that uses this setting as mere background for a very simple action-packed and quite bloody story about the raid and annihilation of a village. Native Americans did not fight or live like this. However, it is colorful, reasonably exotic, and dynamic. Gibson seems to be an average actor, excellent producer, and marketing wizard, but a problematic director. I would accept the film at least in its simple action-packed form, if it was also able to lighten up a little, but it takes itself too seriously and I cannot forgive that. Overall impression: 65%. (23/10/2007)