Apocalypto (Maya)
Movie Review
"Apocalypto (Maya)"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B
Rating: R
Released: Friday, December 8, 2006
Directed by:
Cast:
"Apocalypto" is a crazy film. It is the work of a crazy person, a raving lunatic whose name is Mel Gibson. Even without his Jew-bashing escapades earlier this year -- and honestly, is it possible to TOTALLY disregard that when viewing his work now? -- Gibson's latest would still seem bizarre, almost unique in its mixture of over-the-top bloodletting, ambitious storytelling, and lowbrow slapstick humor.
Slapstick humor? In an action-oriented tale of survival in 15th-century America? How does THAT fit? Well, it doesn't, really, but that's part of Gibson's fascinatingly insane mentality. Gibson likes Three Stooges buffoonery and bawdy sex jokes, and thus so do the Mayans in his movie.
Mel is fond of the violence, too, as his two most recent directorial works -- "Braveheart" and "The Passion of the Christ" -- have amply demonstrated. Not just violence, either, but torturous, graphic violence, performed by malicious villains who want to see their victims suffer. "Apocalypto" is chockablock with such mayhem, though Gibson is occasionally restrained in the way he shows it, often cutting away rather than depicting it unflinchingly. Still, though: plenty of violence. Make no mistake. In one laughably crude shot, we see things from the point of view of a head that has just been severed and is bouncing away.
Performed in the Mayan tongue (with English subtitles) by mostly non-professional actors, the story's hero is Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), a young husband and hunter whose wife (Dalia Hernandez) is pregnant with their second child. When their village is ravaged by another tribe, Jaguar Paw hides the missus and their son in a pit and rejoins the fight, only to be captured with his fellow men and dragged back to the opposing tribe's compound of temples and pyramids, where ritual sacrifices are on the agenda.
The second half of the film has sparse dialogue and focuses on a "Most Dangerous Game"-style hunt through the forest, with Jaguar Paw attempting single-handedly to defeat his enemies and save his family like a pre-Columbian Rambo. These scenes are thrillingly shot, just as the temple sequence is nightmarish and gory, and the ravage of the village is intense and unsettling. No question, it's an entertaining motion picture, an expensive production with cheap sensibilities (more violence = more fun) that manages to be both artsy-fartsy and just fartsy.
So what's the point? Who knows. There are hints of parallels to modern times, vague suggestions of things that might have caused the Mayan decline, and some strange sexual metaphors in the playful early scenes involving one of Jaguar Paw's hapless tribesmen. The violence is repellant, and it's hard not to become disgusted with Gibson's arrogance and megalomania: It's his money, and he'll by-gum make this historical epic as vulgar and whacked-out as he wants. I say let him. It's fascinating to see what a millionaire does with his money when he doesn't care what people think anymore.
Grade: B
Rated R, abundant strong violence, some of it very graphic, and some sexual references and a subtitled F-word
2 hrs., 16 min.; in Maya with subtitles
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 16 comments
December 8, 2006 at 3:23 pm
wow Eric, you sure do hate that Mel, dontcha!
December 9, 2006 at 3:42 pm
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.
December 9, 2006 at 9:55 pm
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.
Just so you know, I'm not a Mel Gibson.
December 11, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Whatever. There is no such thing as an objective review. At the beginning of the review Eric wrote that he questions the possibility of disregarding Gibson's personality problems when reviewing his work; i.e. that he's prejudiced against Mel. It's right there in the text, so that you can read the review knowing that it's been colored by an opinion exogenous to the whole movie reviewing process. A lot of us find it entertaining, and can separate opinion of the director from opinion of the movie. Stop your whining - he gave the movie a B for crying out loud.
December 14, 2006 at 5:14 am
This movie was powerful. It is in my top 5 this year. How Eric could have given Casino Royale a higher mark is amazing. This movie was an A or A- and Bond was a C at best.
December 14, 2006 at 5:22 am
Clearly Rob D is insane, anti-semetic, or anti-british.
Although this movie did make it into my top 23 movies I've seen in theaters this year.
December 14, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Just because Mel Gibson might be anti-semitic has nothing to do with the entertainment value of the movie. I dislike most celebrities views on the world. That doesn't stop me from enjoying a great movie or television show. I have nothing against the British and I even love poker. Bond was boring and predictable. Apocalypto was exciting and emotional. It wasn't even close. My top 5 movies for the year are Apocalypto, Borat, Thank You for Smoking, Lil Miss Sunshine, and The Departed (in no particular order).
December 20, 2006 at 12:51 pm
"Just so you know, I'm not a Mel Gibson."
Do they come in variety packs or something?
December 27, 2006 at 4:01 pm
WHATEVER U CARZY LUNATIC.I LOVE THIS MOVIE AND IF YOU HATE MEL OR THE MOVIE KEEP IT TO YOURSELF CUZ NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO HEAR IT.I THINK IT HAS BEEN THE BEST OF THE YEAR AND I GIVE IT AN A+++++++++++++ SO 4GET YOU!!! I LOVE THIS MOVIE AND DONT EVEN THINK ABVOUT TALKIN BAD ABOUT RUDY CUZ I LOVE HIM AND ILL FIGHT ANYONE IF I HAVE TO SOOOO JUST SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND GO TALK BOUT SOMETHING ELSE!!!!
January 11, 2007 at 6:29 am
"It's right there in the text, so that you can read the review knowing that it's been colored by an opinion exogenous to the whole movie reviewing process"
Yes... but just beacuse he tells us doesn't make it a good review: it's useless to anyone who wants to know if it's a good movie or not (unless they hate Mel too), because we KNOW that his opinion has been deeply influenced by "exogenous" factors.
Disappointed Eric...
January 25, 2007 at 4:36 am
Eric, you remain my most trusted critic. But we all strikeout once in a while. From my view, you did that here, not in giving the film a B, but in make your review of Mel Gibson's movie more about you and less about Mel Gibson or his movie. I found the review, therefore, a disservice, whereas I'm usually always grateful to read your thoughts on any film.
Why are people saying, "Well, another psychotic installment from Mad Mel"? This is lazy, irresponsible, ad hominem criticism. I can understand why people might give Mel a bad rap for his views or public image. But what the hell does that have to do with the film? Too many people merely chock up a story as all explained through any given writer/director's psychology. "Oh, Mad Mel's got blood on his mind." ("That Sigmund Freud must have thought about sex all day long.") Bringing the personal lives or worldviews of the writer, director, or the cable schlepper is pure bad criticism. Indeed, there may be and probably is a connection between artist and art, but Barthes was right: you've got to separate story from storyteller if you're going to give the story an honest review.
Case in point: I recently wrote a review of The Banquet (a Chinese version of Hamlet), which I liked. Just tonight I talked to another Chinese friend about it. "The acting was great," she said. "Most of it was all great. But I thought the director made such a bad decision in casting the man and the woman." She was referring to Zhang Ziyi and You Ge, the man who played the king.
"Oh?" I asked. "What was wrong with the king? I thought his performance was great."
"Yes, his performance was good," she said. "But did you see it in the movie theater?"
"No," I said. "I saw it on DVD."
"If you saw it in the theater, you'd see that everyone was laughing the moment the king came on screen. That actor is a comedy actor, and everyone thinks of him in that way. Wouldn't you laugh too if Ben Stiller or Jim Carrey tried to play a serious role?"
"Of course not!" I said. "I would be totally curious to see the result of their hard work, and whether I thought it worked in the film or not!"
And what of Zhang Ziyi? What did my friend say about her? "Chinese people don't like her. Sure, she looks beautiful, but she has no class. Can such a person play a queen?"
Anyway, one way of looking at art is as the child of its creator. But the only honest way to judge it on its own terms is by separating the two.
The Mayans at the time lived in a (Nietzscean) master morality society. It was therefore normal for a leader to know his place, and the village idiot to know his place, and for sexual norms to be less prudish (than under a "slave morality" system).
There were a few cliches in some scene set-ups. ("Is there danger? Is there danger? Whew... no danger. Aaagghhh! Danger!") There are also some special effects that are, let's say, unconvincing. (I won't tell you what they are because maybe you won't notice and then it won't matter.) (Okay. It was the jaguars. How can you be afraid of stuffed kittens?)
Characterization? Great. Acting? Great. Story? Rather simple, but nonetheless thrilling. What great directing on Mel's part with such an inexperienced, previously untrained cast.
April 13, 2007 at 5:17 pm
LOL, you die-hard people sure make me chuckle. I'm gonna state right off: I did not see this movie. Nor do I intend to ever see this movie, so don't get confused. I saw real Mayans and real temples and pyramids, not that it's so special or anything. Ahem, anyways:
If Eric wants to bash Mel Gibson on his OWN PERSONAL WEBSITE (notice all my caps) he is certainly free to do so. May I refer you to our nation's Bill of Rights? Secondly, saying that Eric's bias toward Mel Gibson taints the review is a no-brainer. Not to drag politics into it or anything, but if our former President, (Clinton) can lie under oath, what makes anyone think he wouldn't attempt any other illegalities while in office? It would be tainted, now wouldn't it? Duh. Plus, there are a gazillion other reviewers out there and if you can't handle someone's opinion you can certainly find someone who starkly agrees with you and you can move on with your life and leave us who just want to snicker at Mel Gibson free to do so. I guess my point is: DONT BASH MY MAN ERIC CUZ U WUOLD BE RONG ADN IF U DONT LIKE WUTS COMIN FROM HIM THEN GO AWYA AND RITE UR ON STINKIN REVEIW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 22, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I really enjoyed "Apocalypto". I don't know that I would consider it a "must see" movie, but it was an interesting look at ancient life in mezo America as translated by someone who really has no clue of what that life was really like. I would like to hear what the anthropologists have to say about how accurate it might be.
Just from looking at how the Mayan frescoes depict their warriors and generals I would guess that the war party was under-dressed for the occasion. They tended to wear more elaborate amor and warfare was more organized and on a larger scale. From what I understand of Mayan culture, blood sacrifice was more the duty of the elite and tended toward self-sacrifice in the form of blood-letting, rather than the sort shown in the movie, which seemed to mimic what is known about the Aztecs, rather than the Mayans. That seems to be a major fault of movies about Native Americans made by non Natives, they really don't understand cultural differences and adopt a one cultural custom applies to all sort of attitude.
The movie was bloody, but then ancient life around the world was bloody. People didn't have any respect for any life in the eastern hemisphere. In the western hemisphere they were practical about their respect for other living things, but were often ruthless in their warfare against enemy tribes. There is a whole psychology there that would be considered sociopathic and cruel in today's society that was pragmatic and fully integrated with the attributes that are considered values in today's society. So yeah, any attempt to accurately depict ancient life in any culture is going to be gruesome.
I really don't care that Mel Gibson was the director. I really don't care about his behavior to date. From what I understand he made some derogatory remarks about the Jews while he was drunk which were inspired by their alarmist reaction to his movie, "The Passion". If anyone should have been alarmed about that movie, it should have been the Italians.
The Romans have been getting off the hook for executing what they viewed as a dangerous element of society that could have sparked a zionist movement independent of any control of the accepted rabbinical elements of Hebrew society. The Romans could make deals with the Sanhedrin, who wanted no quarrel with the Romans that would destroy their society; what could they do with a radical upon whom no social controls could be exerted? Such is the political pragmatism of the day.
The controversy of "The Passion" has nothing to do with "Apocalypto". As for "Braveheart", it had its historical and cultural inaccuracies too, but it was a good movie. Movies are what they are, movies, not a step back in time so that we can actually view the events of the time.
I would recommend "Apocalypto" to my friends and acquaintances, and I sat through the entire movie without fastforwarding the DVD. I can't say the same for a lot of other movies I have watched. My thumb is up on this one.
June 29, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I just watched this on DVD this week, and I enjoyed it very much and had to watch it again with the commentary. An engrossing story with terrific acting, direction, camera work and cinematography, and great detail throughout in the sets and costumes and makeup.
I have to take some issue with the slapstick comment... There was no slapstick in the film, at least not how I think of slapstick. Yes, Mel Gibson is a Three Stooges fan, but there was none of that kind of stuff going on that I recall. There was the practical joking in the early scenes... the one guy got punk'd, in essence... but that's not "slapstick". And it went to the character of the villagers, that they're not just mindless savages... they have camaraderie and a playful sense of humor and similar trials and troubles and jokes as we do now. And of course, all of that joking around was gone once the attack on the village started. No more humor at all from that point... well, a couple of mildly amusing things about the bad guys interacting with each other. If the captured guys were bonking each other in the heads with the long poles they were strapped to while marching to the temple, then that would have been slapstick, and totally inappropriate under the circumstances... but there was none of that.
But I totally agree about Mel's apparent violence fetish. Now, that being said, I think that 90% of the violence in the film was justified. The heart-removing and head-rolling sacrifices at the temple are consistent with the setting (the commentary goes into detail about how many things were derived from what is known of the Mayans), and some of the other things are fitting for the circumstances. But then once in a while there are things that are just kind of gross and gratuitous in a horror movie kind of way, like the guy who gets hit in the head and there are blood sprays coming out as he's dying. I suppose it's likely that might really happen with that kind of a harsh blow to the head, but it just felt like gore at the time.
Mel has shown with this and The Passion and Braveheart that he can make great movies that include violence that is meaningful to the impact of the film, but also, he seems to go way overboard with that each time. But anyway, kook or not, he's made some of the most unique and involving films of recent years, so I'll applaud him for that.
October 30, 2007 at 9:28 pm
ouch...my head hurts!
apocalypto and casino royale were both good films sheesh!!!!
October 3, 2008 at 8:06 am
eric didn't exactly say not good. he just said crazy movie made by a crazy person.
its not the greatest movie, but its good. it is also very extremely weird. the ending had one of those unexpected, where i didn't predict it would go in predictable direction. it just seemed like a everyone dies movie. and it caught me off guard when they lived.
(gotta love grave digging old movie comments)