Apocalypto

This hyperactive indie flick is never boring even for a moment – as long as you have popcorn. The deeper intellectual dimension is only artificially grafted on and, together with the gratuitous violence, undermines the film. Apocalypto could have been either an excellent family film or a great existential drama, but it’s unsuitable for children because of its brutality and it turns off adults with its thematic shallowness. On top of that, the visuals look cheap due to the large number of shots filmed with a digital camera. The dynamics and editing are great, but the filters could have been put to better use, which would have helped the appearance of the film, giving it the look that makes The Passion of the Christ an audio-visual gem. Apocalypto is a thrilling experience, but a few days after watching it, you remember it as a forgettable farce that missed the mark. (06/02/2007)

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)

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)

Mel Gibson has definitely left the mainstream and after boldly stepping out with his religious opus, he confidently follows his own cinematic path, disregarding critics, audiences, and dollar expenditure/revenue. Yet while Jesus Christ’s last few hours carried plenty of emotion (in whatever way) to every viewer, regardless of any religious or social feeling, the end of the Mayan civilization is a bit more difficult. The simple story of a journey to hell and back is based on the viewer's mere perception of an audiovisual orgy, without any deeper emotional feedback. In order to fully appreciate the hour-long (!) sprint through the rainforest, Gibson should have focused more on the relationships between the characters in the initial exposition, and not just mindlessly joke about one of the protagonists' lack of potency. Also, the film’s form loses steam as the minutes go by. The use of the digital camera didn't work (the entire thing would have looked much better and more cinematic using classic film material) and Horner's music is slightly monotonous towards the end. Still, there is nothing boring about it and I applaud Gibson's efforts to make Hollywood tell stories in a different way. (06/03/2007)

It’s a pity the content is so rudimentary, because Mel Gibson proves that he doesn't care about Hollywood's standards and does whatever he wants. The concept of Apocalypto is already interesting in itself since there hasn't been a film about an ancient civilization like this before – if at all – so you must await with anticipation to see what will unfold. It's quite typical of Gibson, with lots of blood, a structured plot full of action and dynamics, plus a subtle hint of some kind of mythology that serves more for visual enjoyment. The enormous temples in the city are truly impressive. The presence of the digital camera was also somewhat debatable and unnecessary, but overall the level of entertainment is decent. It's a shame that it lacks the emotional depth that Braveheart, for exmaple, had. (13/07/2007)