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. (02/05/2007)

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%. (10/23/2007)

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. (01/04/2011)

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) (02/05/2007)

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. (03/06/2007)