Apocalypto

Gibson has balls. To have the nerve to make a movie that ends up basically as one big chase through the ancient history of the Maya civilization, you have to have them. Although a bit more editing might have been an improvement, I am basically pleased with Apocalypto. And not forgetting Horner’s excellent music, too. (07/12/2007)

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)

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)

It's not the ideal film. The script, despite its compelling point, works with unrealistic clichés taken from another genre. But to Mel's credit, he has turned many eyes of the world to this part of world history. There are never enough of these events. With the help of the original language, non-actors, and incredibly fascinating sets, he has achieved a true goal. Now there may be a wave that will eclipse even sword-and-sandal films, charting all those civilizations that have always been overshadowed for filmmakers by stereotypical antiquity. (04/01/2011)

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)