Mel Wins Friday: #1 'Apocalypto' Bigger Opening Weekend Than 'Braveheart'

Deadline Hollywood Daily ^ | December 8, 2006 | Nikki Finke

[Mel Gibson]

Call it a Hollywood shocker: Mel's Apocalypto will have a bigger weekend opening than his Braveheart. Despite scandal, an R-rating, subtitles because of an ancient dialect, no stars, and direct competition from movieland AAA-listers Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, Gibson's Mayan epic won Friday's matinees and evenings, I'm told. At first, box office gurus were warning me that the weekend victor among three very competitive films all opening against each other would be too close to call. cameron_jude.jpgBut now I've learned it looks certain that Apocalypto will win the weekend -- bearing out my reporting back on December 1st when I was told that early tracking showed Mel's movie (playing in 2,465 theaters) would edge ahead. Tonight, I'm told Mel's movie took in nearly $6 million Friday for what's expected to be at least a $15 mil, and possibly $16 mil, weekend total -- exceeding Disney's hopes for the box office gross. That easily beats Mel's Braveheart, which made $9.9 mil for Fri-Sat-Sun when it opened in 2,037 theaters during Memorial Weekend back in 1995 ($12.9 mil for the four-day holiday) and went on to make $75.6 mil in the U.S. and $210.4 mil worldwide, helped by winning the Best Picture Oscar. Based on today's matinees, the No. 2 spot went to Sony's The Holiday (in 2,610 playdates), a date movie from director-writer Nancy Meyer, known for capturing that man-woman zeitgeist. The studio's hard work to deftly market this PG-13 debut (also starring Kate Winslet, Jack Black and Jude Law) obviously paid off because the movie earned $4.5 mil Friday despite all the rivalry. In 3rd place was Warner Bros' Blood Diamond (in 1,910 theaters), an African-set action-adventure pic. Important to note that this film is playing in 500-to-700 less theaters than the other two films...

[Bernard]

That's why I don't. It's like comparing baseball players from one generation to another - everybody gets to pick their winner, then use a formula that proves it!

[Irisshlass]

Referring to Christ's words to his Apostles after his resurrection.
After His resurrection!
John 21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

[firebrand]

You missed it, DCPatriot. The slave seller says, "No sale," and then slits her wrist. You see her walk off, lean for strength against a wall, blood starting to pool at her feet. One of the more subtle murders in the movie, but quite pertinent to Gibson's beliefs about the value of life, even the lives of those who are too old to be useful.

[firebrand]

Maybe not church groups, but for those who can bear the reality, this is a deeply Christian film.

[DCPatriot]

Wow! Thanks for pointing that out.

I thought he simply cut the rope from her wrists.

I can't understand it....I wasn't looking at my $20 popcorn or $6 diet coke either. ;^)

[firebrand]

I never heard of born again in the bible.

Maybe you never heard it, but it's there. There's no rule against Catholics reading the Bible.

[firebrand]

There is distinct shouting of "Allah!" when all the beheading and heart-yanking is going on--or right after they call it quits for a while, I think.

There are a lot of these English "meaning clue" sounds in the film. "Slowly" (when the threat is made to flay someone alive), "Showoff" (when someone aims several blowdarts accurately), "Alone" (when the son rushes from his dry spot to the mother who is starting to go into labor a few feet away). I'd like to see it again just to try to pick up more of them.

[Dave W]

Your reply is pseudo-intellectual snobbishness and of no defense. Others have made the same point without giving away the ending. You are of the ilk that gleefully goes around telling others the ending of movies so others will think you are in the know. It makes one feel important and that you know something others don't. Most are through with that after high school.

Reviewers accomplish the same thing, but they don't feel a need to give away the ending. They have the ability to communicate without resorting to ruining the movie for others. Yes, you have ruined the movie for me.

[Cvengr]

The more history I read and the more I grow in fellowship with Christ, the more convinced I become that if history as been revised as much in the last 400 years as it has in the last 40, then the conflicts between beleivers in Christ in the New World and those tribal structures that existed prior to the 1500s were mainly a conflict between unbelievers and different groupings of believers, carnal Christians and unbelievers themselves, all in an attempt to pursue a new worldly order, in many respects independent of faith in Christ.

Where faith in Christ existed, I suspect the conflict was that much greater in all domains, bodily, rationally and spiritually.

Perhaps the greatest history lessons of all from that time would be the manifestation of spiritual warfare between believers through faith in Christ and unbelievers at that time.

[SteveH]

I think too much is read into the arrival of the Spaniards. The movie really does not depict whether the Spaniards are good or evil. It just depicts them as arriving.

The more noticeable message was that of the "Noble Savage" being corrupted by civilization, in this case, Mayan civilization. For example, the forest tribe village life was depicted as one notch short of idyllic, while evidence of environmental pollution and its afteraffects on nature and humans were depicted substantially and repeatedly. In addition, there were depictions of many kinds of vice that civilization brought. Beyond this, I think at least some folks believe that Mayan civilization was in decline in the 1400s and early 1500s, with a lot of civil war in addition to or as a result of the posited negative effects of depleting the topsoil through excessive agriculture (note: I am not a historian so my views of Mayan history might be off).

So I think the message was more conventional and more politically correct than most others seem to. I saw it as somewhat of a departure from his immediately previous films in this regard. The message is that Western civilization could be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the decadent Mayan civilization if it does not learn from them. This is for me what the Durant quote at the beginning of the film seemed to portend to the viewer...

[Howard Jarvis Admirer]

I believe Mel does represent the Spanish as being good as he shows a cross being held by a priest in one of the boats as it arrives. Given Mel's Catholicism, the cross symbolizes being saved, which is what happens to Jaguar Paw when the Spanish arrive with their cross.

Also, the movie does destroy the "Noble Savage" myth. The Mayans were "uncorrupted" by Western Civilization or Christianity, from the liberal point of view, yet they engaged in horrendous and evil acts. The Spanish Catholics stopped the human sacrifices and cannibalism. Western Civilization is a clear improvement on what the average Mayan was enduring at the hands of the witch doctors and other Mayans.

I do think your interpretation of the Durant quote is correct. Mel believes that the West may be in danger of repeating the mistakes of the Mayans.

[dbehsman]

Both men are exhibiting an unhealthy obsession with violence, as far as I am concerned. I realize a lot of people don't agree with me, and that's ok.

Mark my words, though. Gibson one day will act so nutty even his staunchest defenders will finally realize that he's gone round the bend.

I don't have a problem with "violence" in the movies, so long as it is a legitimate part of a legitimate movie. Unfortunately for me, my knowledge of ancient Meso-American history is somewhat impoverished. For some reason, it just never sparked as much interest in me as did the history of ancient Rome, ancient Greece, World War One and Two, etc. However, if I recall correctly, the ancient Mayans were not holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" and hosting tea parties. Life for them was just a tad rougher. Bloody human sacrifices were a part of the lives of the Mayans, the Aztecs, and (I believe) the Incas. In order to tell the story of those people, the human sacrifices should be touched on at the very least.

What bothers me so much about the latest condemnation of Mr. Gibson is that it appears to be fashionable by the establishment elites to complain about the violence in his movies.

Why?

Where on earth were these same elites when the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out? Where have these elites been for all of the "Halloween", "Nightmare on Elm Street", and "Friday the Thirteenth" movies? Where were these same elites when Tarantino was making movies with bucket loads of fake blood? I believe that Tarantinos movies are far more gratuitous in the exploitation of violence than the "Passion". When the movie "Saving Private Ryan" came out, it proved to be far gorier and more bloody than anything that was depicted in the "Passion". Where were the protests of the elites then?

Once again, we're left with the question of the criticism of the elites. Why?

I believe that the elites are not really so angered or disturbed by the "violence" in the "Passion". I think the reason for their objections run far deeper and are far more profound. I think it's their anti-Christian bigotry shinning through (please do not think or assume that I'm necessarily including any FReepers in this statement). It was not the "violence" in the "passion" that bothered the elites. I think it was the Christ in the "Passion" that bothered the elites. When the movie proved to be a huge unexpected success, the elites went on the war path to harm Mel (not that he needs a lot of help mind you) and to harm everything that he produces. There has been a little war on Mel that has been going on for a while. I think that when the elites who control the vast majority of the media go on a constant drumbeat, many other people get sucked in to focusing only on the negative aspects of Mel Gibson's work.

As far as Mel acting like a nut, you are right. Mel is not a bad man, he just handles himself badly on occasion. Then again, considering the "lifestyle" that comes with the territory in Hollywood, I'm not convinced that it wouldn't drive all of us a little nutty too. I'm not blindly defending the guy, but I'm not willing to condemn him on what I consider to be flimsy criticisms.

You do have to give Gibson credit for being gutsy enough to make popular films in dead languages. Personally I plan on either going to the movie and/or buying the DVD.

[DCPatriot]

Get a grip.

[SteveH]

I believe Mel does represent the Spanish as being good as he shows a cross being held by a priest in one of the boats as it arrives. Given Mel's Catholicism, the cross symbolizes being saved, which is what happens to Jaguar Paw when the Spanish arrive with their cross.

This interpretation is however only possible if one has foreknowledge of Gibson's Catholicism. To view the movie as self-repesentational, I think one should subtract that. (I state this with all due respect to and in full recognition of what the cross symbolizes in Catholicism, Catholicism, and Gibson's Catholicism.)

Also, the movie does destroy the "Noble Savage" myth. The Mayans were "uncorrupted" by Western Civilization or Christianity, from the liberal point of view, yet they engaged in horrendous and evil acts.

No, the noble savage motif (in my opinion) only applies to the jungle tribal Mayans, not the "civilized" Mayans. The jungle tribe did not practice those evils. (NB: by this time in history, I believe historians generally concur that Mayan civilization was in decline and Mayans no longer had a central uniting government or ruler. They had reverted back to city states or back to subsistence lifestyles in the jungle, depnding on the time and specific location.)

Western Civilization is a clear improvement on what the average Mayan was enduring at the hands of the witch doctors and other Mayans.

Mmm, well, just to take the devil's advocate view (apologies for the pun), the peaceful co-existence of the jungle tribe with their native ecology is shattered by the civilized but evil, industrialized Mayans. Without overly spoiling the plot for any future viewer-readers, the movie does depict that the peaceful, environmentally friendly jungle Mayans had a chance to embrace Catholicism and Western civilization, but in the end, they declined. So the ideal of the Noble Savage is upheld, at the expense of both Mayan and Western civilizations. The notion that "Western Civilization is a clear improvement on what the average Mayan was enduring at the hands of the witch doctors and other Mayans" is IMHO-- as much as one might be inclined to cheer it and/or Gibson-- a projection onto the movie rather than the main message that the movie itself contains.

[Mel Gibson]

Seasons Greetings to you all!

[Miss Marple]

Excuse me, but why in the world would you post something so rude?

No one said the movie should be banned, or that you should stay home. My opinion is just that: my opinion. Yours is different.

This incessant desire to treat evey disagreement as a battle in which all assets should be deployed is precisely what is making Free Republic far less pleasant that it used to be.

Now, I have things to do today, but try to imagine if the movie had been a flop and I had posted such a thing to you.

If I were you, I would ask the mods to delete that post, but then, I don't suppose you will.

[Mel Gibson]

If I were you, I would ask the mods to delete that post, but then, I don't suppose you will.

EXCUSE ME, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE US AS WELL AS WHAT IS HAPPENING TO FREE REPUBLIC. WHEN THE FUTURE GIBBONS WRITES THE BOOK ON "THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE US", POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WILL BE THE MAIN CAUSE.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS A FORM OF CONTROL OF SPEECH i.e. THOUGHT CONTROL!

[AmericaUnited]

So it BOMBED bigtime. What are you gloating about?! Am I missing something?

Underwhelming Opening for 'Apocalypto'
Saturday, December 09, 2006

By Roger Friedman

AP Gibson Film Underwhelming at Box Office Mel Gibson’s "Apocalypto" had a so-so opening last night, taking in $4.9 million according to boxofficemojo.com. This probably means it will take in around $13 million for the weekend, but figures won’t be certain until Sunday afternoon. It’s not good, and it’s not terrible. But at this point it would seem that the super violent action film, told in subtitles and ancient Mayan dialect, is not going to be a cultural phenomenon. It’s simply going to come and go. Other Gibson movies from earlier in this decade have also done much, much better. "Signs" and "We Were Soldiers," each released in 2002, did $60 million and $20 million respectively on their opening weekends. ...

[Mel Gibson]

Yeah, and the US is "winning" in the ongoing civil war in Iraq. I will bet that you whistle while driving past graveyards at night.

Seasons Greetings!

[Miss Marple]

Rudeness is NOT the opposite of political correctness. How old are you?