Angry Letter: ‘Apocalypto’
Here is an e-mail I received in response to my review of “Apocalypto.” The writer did not sign his name, but his e-mail address says “xtopher.” Of course, when I replied to it, the e-mail bounced back as undeliverable, so perhaps it’s a fictitious address. Still, we’ll assume his name is Christopher, or Xtopher, if he prefers.
I read your review of ‘Apocalypto’ and wanted to let you know that the movie did quite well for it’s first weekend, $14.1 million from Friday to Sunday. [Even if $14.1 million really were a great opening-weekend score, which it isn't, and even if financial success meant a film was good, which it doesn't, it would still be a moot point for this e-mail, considering I LIKED the movie and gave it a B grade.]
I get the feeling you don’t like Mel Gibson at all. Am I wrong? I’m thinking your movie review is waaaay biased by your hatred toward the man. Are you Jewish? Did you hate him before the “tirade” earlier this year? Sounds like you hated Passion as well. Pretty obvoius that the way people went out to see Passion it was abviously well received by audiences. I suspect this one is pretty good too.
Let’s look at your personal attack comments:
It is the work of a crazy person, a raving lunatic whose name is Mel Gibson.
it’s hard not to become disgusted with Gibson’s arrogance and megalomaniaAs I said your waaaay too biased to review this movie.
Next!
Now, I have a policy of not debating the content of movies with people who have not seen them. But this letter is more about Mel Gibson than it is about “Apocalypto”; plus, Xtopher’s sentiments were echoed by a few people who posted comments on the review on this site. To wit:
Mercy, Eric. You seem to hate Mel like he does the Jews. I can’t help but compare you to mother who is excessively dissapointed in her boy’s work. Why all the references to what Mel likes? I did not see slapstick humor in the previous two movies you noted. Futhermore why on earth would you spend your opening lines on belittling the man instead of examining the movie. Why? I can’t help but think that this movie was reviewed with the blinders of prejudice on… Whatever they are. Okay, here it is. I dont know what to think of the movie because you just sound angry and nonprofessional. That’s all.
And:
Judge the film, not the character of the man who made the film, Eric. It is very obvious that you are biased and extremely emotional towards the man, hence, you lost you objectivity. Your feelings about Mel and your rational effort to analyze and critique the film are all mixed up. I find it unacceptable. You are consumed by the “mindless” words of a man in drunken stupor. So I feel sorry for you.
I guess I didn’t do a very good job expressing myself if this many readers got the wrong idea from the review, so I’ll elaborate now. Before seeing “Apocalypto,” I had no strong feelings about Mel Gibson one way or the other. I got that he was anti-Semitic from his now-legendary DUI incident, and I was amused by that whole trainwreck. But honestly and truly? No strong opinions about him. Just another celebrity, albeit a rather fascinating one in recent months.
And then I saw “Apocalypto.” My description of Gibson as crazy, arrogant, megalomaniacal, and loony is the result of THE MOVIE. It is not how I felt about him before; it’s how I felt about him after watching the movie, which makes it perfectly suitable fodder for a film review. Watching the movie, I thought: My goodness, this is the work of a crazy person! And I think if you watched “Apocalypto” without knowing who made it, you’d think the same thing: Whoever made this film is NUTS!
So “why all the references to what Mel likes”? Because it’s a review of a movie that Mel made, for crying out loud! Would it not be relevant in a review of a Michael Bay film to say that Michael Bay likes making stuff blow up? Or to mention in a Steven Spielberg review that Spielberg has often used fractured families and poor father-son relationships as fodder? When a director has themes that have recurred in his previous movies, it’s quite appropriate — expected, even — to point them out when they appear again. This is especially true if, as in “Apocalypto,” the director has wedged one of his favorite themes (i.e., slapstick comedy) into a place where it doesn’t fit, to the detriment of the movie.
No, there is no slapstick comedy in “Passion of the Christ” or “Braveheart,” nor did I say there was. (I cited those two films as examples of violence — and actually, it’s been too long since I saw “Braveheart” to recall if maybe there wasn’t some frat-brother type of jocularity among the Scottish in the early scenes.) But there is in many of the films Gibson has starred in, and he’s mentioned numerous times in interviews that he’s a fan of the Three Stooges and all that. I don’t think Gibson’s fondness for slapstick comedy is a matter of dispute, and since it’s so out-of-place in “Apocalypto,” it seemed useful to mention it. It’s in there not because it works, but because Gibson likes it.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
I have yet to see the movie, but based on your review I would have guessed that you would have given it less than a C-. Of the six paragraphs in your review, only one of them had anything positive to say about the film. When I finished reading, I was a little surprised that it had received such a high rating from you.
I love your movie reviews, Eric, but I have to admit that after reading the one for Apocalypto, I still didn’t know whether or not you liked the film.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
There IS some awesome fratboy humor in Braveheart. Not an exact quote, but here goes:
“We’ll make sticks, longer than a man.”
“Some men are longer than others.”
“Ah, your mother’s been telling you stories about me.”
The mooning of the British
The rock throwing contest
The potty-mouthed Irishman
December 11th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
You come across in your review and in this response in exactly the same manner in which you describe Gibson. You are so self absorbed and obviously enjoy writing as if you are the end all source of truth when it comes to movie reviews. You like to read your own writing as much as a politician loves to hear himself speak. And so, I hope it makes you feel good. Like most ‘journalists,’ you editorialise, giving little facts, but a lot of emotion. Learn to give proper reviews and maybe people would actually give a damn.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Yeah, I really should stop editorializing so much in my movie reviews. I mean, who wants to read an opinion in a review?
December 11th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Dear Keith,
You are an idiot. Every movie reviewer’s job is to give his or her OPINION of a film. Whether someone likes a movie or not is entirely subjective. I suppose movie critics could just critique the lighting and special effects and stuff, but that would be stale and boring.
Love,
Brandon
December 12th, 2006 at 2:23 am
I tend to favor a Barthesque review: separate the work from the author. It’s cliche and sloppy to explain every piece of art as an absurd combination of the artist’s bents. Give them piece itself its due by critiquing it on its own merits, independently from the director, the writer, the best boy, etc.
That doesn’t mean I’m going to write a nasty letter to anyone who isn’t as Barthesque as I am when it comes to criticism.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:30 am
# Eric D. Snider Says:
December 11th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
“Yeah, I really should stop editorializing so much in my movie reviews. I mean, who wants to read an opinion in a review?”
OHHH!!!! SNAP!!!!!!!
December 12th, 2006 at 6:11 am
I don’t always agree with Eric, but I appreciate that his opinions are expressed in an honest & unfiltered way. I really wouldn’t want him to critique movies in a more calculated way — wondering what’s “fair” and “appropriate” to comment on. I just want to know what he thought & felt while watching the movie, simple as that. And like or not, he left Apocalypto thinking that the guy who made it was crazy.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:17 am
I like the way Eric writes reviews, because even though at least half the time I like movies that he doesn’t and won’t even see the ones he likes the best, I can tell by the review if I will like it. He tells just enough about it that I can make a pretty good guess as to whether it will appeal to me or not. Obviously a movie critic has to state his own opinions, and it’s up to the reader to decide whether that particular opinion matters to his or her movie enjoyment.
I still like Mel Gibson, but I have no doubt that he’s crazy.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Take-home message: have an opinion, but don’t tell me about it unless it reinforces my ideas. And even then, make sure to make it entirely non-confrontational. On second thought, just let me do the talking.
You wouldn’t want to offend me, now would you?
December 12th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I agree that I was surprised to see a B after reading the review, but that doesn’t bother me.
I also agree that it is OK to talk about Mel Gibson in connection with the movie since all the marketing for the movie proclaims his name more than the movie. It is not Apocalypto, but MEL GIBSON’S Apocalypto; so they are obviously trying to push him as much as the movie. As far as I’m concerned, the guy is free to be reviewed since his name is now in the title of the movie.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Andrew D–That was great!
December 12th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Referring to the original angry letter: Didn’t you give “Passion” an A?
A very quick search of your movie reviews tells me that, yes, you did. Ah, unfounded accusations.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:43 am
The Philadelphia Weekly just got around to reviewing Apocalypto today. From the title: “A Beautiful Mayan: Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto is a visual marvelâ€â€that at times borders on deranged.” (Yes, “A Beautiful Mayan.” We do love puns in Philadelphia!)
The opening sentence: “Mel Gibson might be a cretinous, bigoted drunkard … but he’s also a fascinating filmmaker.”
The last line of the review: “With its burning intensity, ghastly visions and general air of relentlessness, Apocalypto is most thrilling whenever it feels like the ravings of a lunatic. ”
Like Eric, The Philadelphia Weekly gave the film a B–a perfectly good rating except in a world of overinflated grades where anything less than an A- gets an angry call from a parent (or a fan).
So Eric’s review is not that anomalous, it would seem.
And as far as any “personal baggage” that spills over into a movie review, aren’t we all just waiting for Tom Cruise’s next movie? Not to see the movie itself, of course–just to read how his certifiable insanity will figure in what the critics will write about it.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I support Eric 100%… why would you read a review unless you wanted someone’s opinion of the film. Otherwise, why bother reading them. Why attack Eric for writing his reviews, which aren’t forced on people.
I agree with Brandon– Keith is an idiot…
Lastly, Mel Gibson used himself and his celebrity to advertise this movie, so if there was ever a movie in which the director’s personality and persona were fair game for a review, this is it. DEAL WITH IT PEOPLE.
Mel Gibson is clearly a lunatic and this film confirms it. I’ll still keep seeing his movies because he is talented. However, I’ll always buy a ticket for a different film and sneak in so he doesn’t get credit for my $.
December 13th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Now that I’ve seen the film, I tend to agree with Eric’s review.
Storywise, this film doesn’t have much going on. In fact, the plot could be summed up in about three sentences. But it was still good.
While the film was highly enjoyable and fascinating to watch, the only real thing that can be discussed about it is the film-maker’s mentality.