'Apocalypto' Is More 'Mad Max' Than Mayan

Fox News ^ | December 01, 2006 | Roger Friedman

[AmericaUnited]

'Apocalypto' Is More 'Mad Max' Than Mayan

With the subtlety of several thousand flying mallets and arrows, here comes Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto," a two hour plus torture-fest so violent that women and children will be headed to the doors faster than you can say "duck" when the film opens on Dec. 8th.

Indeed, 'Apocalypto' is the most violent movie Disney has ever released, with so much blood spurting out of orifices that even Martin Scorsese would blush. If you've ever wondered what it would be like to see heads and hearts removed without anesthesia, then this is the movie for you. "Grey's Anatomy" it is not.

...

"Apocalypto" surpasses "The Passion" in every way as a movie about pain, flagellation and wounding. The grotesqueries are almost numbing, and at some point they become laughable. But all the while, you're thinking, what's the point here? If "Apocalypto" was supposed to be about that transitional civilization, where is it? After two hours and several minutes of squirming and covering eyes, you start to think that "Apocalypto" exists just to show violence for itself. The point is lost.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[AmericaUnited]

many of us who yearn for no-holds-barred depictions of past civilizations will enjoy this film

I think anyone who 'enjoys' this film has some serious issues, whether they realize it or not. I would say the same thing about those who 'yearn' to see the 'realistic gore' of a 100mph car crash site, rather than read about it in the paper.

[outinyellowdogcountry]

In fact, I am glad I didn't ever steel myself to see "The Passion of Christ." I firmly believe he marketed it in order to get a lot of people to watch something violent, and got his jollies thinking about all of those naive people being forced to watch it."

It is easier to believe what you want about the movie and Mel if you never saw it. I resemble that. I did see "The Passion of Christ" and it was moving to visually see what I could not imagine fully of all that Christ suffered, for me....and everyone.

[Polybius]

Mayan civilization ended around 900AD. Columbus didn't discover America until 1492.

The hegemony of the large Mayan city-states ended around that time period but that was followed up by the proliferation of smaller fiefdoms in the Yucatan during the Post-Classical period.

When the Spaniards came, the Mayan city of Tulum was still thriving and was the first Mayan city seen by the Spaniards.

[Miss Marple]

That's fine. I am not one who can watch very much violence, and I don't need to see the depiction in order to understand Christ's suffering and sacrifice.

I wonder why Gibson didn't make a movie about something insprirational or uplifting? I mean, we could use a good movie about Afghanistan, couldn't we? How about a good movie about the Duke of Wellington, Napoleaon, and Waterloo? Is he interested in the sacrfices of the martyred Catholic priests of North America?

WHY make a movie about a horrrible, long gone civilization that is extremely violent? Do we NEED to see hearts ripped out in order to believe it happened?

[SoCal Pubbie]

You make good points. I have always laughed at violent films being peddled as "anti violence" when in fact they often do not shock but rather become little more than pornography for those who love violence. In movies like The Passion or Saving Private Ryan the violence has a purpose. Perhaps this film does too, but I've suspected from the start that this one will tank. If Mel truly thinks Mayan bloodletting is a parallel to our "raping" the environment and losing brave soldiers in Iraq then I'm sure I was right.

[AmericaUnited]

True. One gets hundreds of millions of dollars, total film director/producer freedom, and what kind of movie is the first one to pop out? Very telling indeed!

[pbear8]

""This being Gibson, there's more to the film than the rush. It's impossible not to see parallels to our own cultured civilization, one that knowingly destroys its environment and sends troops to Iraq and aborts its children as human sacrifices.""

[Dr. Scarpetta]

very good point...

[avg_freeper]

In earlier times when the Mayan civilization existed much farther to the South they were much less violent. The ball game concluded very differently in those days.

The Mayans recognized they were having inbreeding problems and so at the end of the game the loser's king had to give up one of his sons to the winner. That son (or stud) was then adopted by the winner king and made a prince.

But at some point a 200 year war commenced between the 1st and 2nd most powerful Mayan empires pretty much wiping out most of the people and resources. What was left moved north and started a new civilization that was much more violent.

I only know all this because I just got back from a trip through a few Mayan sites in the Yucatan peninsula with an archaeologist guide.

[montag813]

I think anyone who 'enjoys' this film has some serious issues

You misunderstood. I meant yearns for accurate historical portrayals rather than fictionalization and sanitization.

[sionnsar]

Your thoughts?
It seems to me that a lot of critics panned Braveheart when it first came out.

Your question was not to me, but I'd be surprised if a Gibson movie ever gets a positive review now...

[SuziQ]

Seems to me he's showing the Mayans as they WERE, not as poor, waifish, vulnerable natives of Central America who were wiped out by the evil Europeans. If they were a violent people, as history shows they were, then why wouldn't the movie portray that, especially in a time of upheaval?

[SuziQ]

As pointed out by the reviewer, this movie has little to do with wanting to show case Mayan civilization and just an excuse to sell a blood/gore filled spectacle.

Is that the reviewer's opinion, to which he is entitled, or is that what Mel Gibson said he actually was doing?

[SuziQ]

This is complete misinformation. Mayan civilization was gone long before Europeans happened along.

The larger empire may have been gone, but there were still Mayans in smaller groups, some separate, some mixed in with other native groups in the area.

[SuziQ]

But they also spent an immense amount of time building their magnificent cities, with all that hieroglyphic writing carved in the stones, developed that beautiful and complex calendar, etc. I wonder how much time Gibson's movie devotes to that sort of thing.

This movie is about what brought about the decline and fall of the Mayan empire. What they'd done before was already done, same as with any movie about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. You may see displays of what they'd done before, but that wouldn't be what the film was about.

[Paradox]

Hollywood is going to love this movie, why? Because Mel is using it as an opportunity to bash the Iraq War. They will NOT be able to resist it. So what if they have to throw one of their pet beliefs under the bus (the Peacful Native), the opportunity to Bash Bush is just too great.

[fish hawk]

Talking this movie down tells me that it is going to be a terrific movie. I've learned, way back in the Siskal/Ebert days that you can't count on critics to get a true picture of a movie. Almost every film they liked, I thought stunk and every one they put down, I liked. If they don't like Mel's , I'm sure its a winner.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yes, but the question is why Gibson is only interested in covering the violent, gory aspects of Mayan history. Normal people are not obsessed with violence.

[Northern Yankee]

Agreed!