Movies / Movie Reviews

Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

By Geoff Hoppe
December 12, 2006 - 20:09

Nuts howdy, I stepped in jaguar doodie...

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ACTUAL CONVERSATION WITH AN ACTUAL APOCALYPTO VIEWER

Me: Hey, I just saw an amazing movie where a guy uses a series of semi-comical traps to expel invaders from his home and make it safe for his family—

Friend: Home Alone?

Me: …No—but really, this movie was great, it was a Mel Gibson flick all about an embattled underdog who fights an evil empire after they kill his loved ones and destroy his home—

Friend: The Patriot?

Me: No.

Friend: Braveheart?

Me: …well, no, but I am beginning to see a pattern Mr. Gibson should probably discuss with a licensed psychiatric professional.

Jaguar Paw, the film's hero. Mr. Paw was unavailable for comment.

If you haven’t already guessed, the movie I was speaking of was Apocalypto. If you also haven’t guessed, it’s an awful lot like Mr. Gibson’s other films.

Apocalypto, according to Gibson’s press releases, is about what makes civilizations rise and fall. It seems a lot more about how civilizations are built and function. The basic message seems to be that all civilization, in its higher forms, requires bloodshed and slavery to function and exist. Fair enough. Even the most civil societies have something of a dark underbelly. In Apocalypto, Mel Gibson shows us an advanced society dependant on sacrifice. He indirectly addresses the issue of decadence, but never delivers the cataclysmic money-shot the movie’s hype and publicity promise. Most of the movie is about Mayan civilization’s victims , not about Mayan civilization itself. The amount of time the audience spends in the Mayan city is short compared to the rest of the film. The supposed message of the movie thus comes off as an afterthought.

Mel and the Unholy Legions of Pillsbury.

One has to give credit where it’s due, however. Visually, Apocalpyto is beyond lavish. It’s a tapestry of stark, eerie colors that bring a dead empire to bloody, pulsating life. The costumes and sets that depict the Mayan city are truly amazing, and history teachers everywhere will wish all historical movies brought the past to life so vividly. The action of Apocalypto also gets a nod. Mel Gibson says on the film’s website that he wanted this to be a pursuit movie as well as a historical piece, and he succeeds admirably. Once the hero escapes from his slavers and into the jungle, it’s impossible to take your eyes off the action. There are also many satisfying elements that shouldn’t be overlooked, especially a Hollywood where post-modern wannabes sing the trite refrain of how nihilistic endings imply courageous drama. The good guy wins in Apocalypto, the villains get theirs, and vengeance is justly served. But…and you knew that “but” was coming…Apocalypto has a big, gushing, red flaw.

I love the Mayan people THIIIIS much!!!

When The Passion came out, there was a healthy minority who protested the film’s violence. Given the amount of blood our culture swallows greedily, such criticisms struck me as petulant whining. If Nightmare on Elm Street or House of 1000 Corpses can be passed off as “visionary” or “gripping,” isn’t it childish to say The Passion is too violent? Furthermore, if The Passion’s violence was historically accurate, then I saw no difference between it, and the honest violence of other historical films like Schindler’s List or The Wild Bunch. Criticisms that claimed Mel was sadistic seemed no more than an uncomfortable minority’s attempts to revenge themselves on a movie which had unsettled their worldview. I still defend The Passion’s unflinching view of ancient history, but there are moments in Apocalypto that make me wonder whether or not Mel does have a sadistic streak. I don’t object to Apocalypto’s violence as a whole, since a great deal of it mirrors The Passion’s concern with accuracy. However, the way certain acts of violence are staged seem over-the-top. An escaping prisoner isn’t just hit by a spear, he’s hit by a spear in the mouth. A beheading isn’t just depicted—when the victim is decapitated, the audience sees a point-of-view shot from the man’s severed head.

Moments like this are out of place in a movie that wants to be serious and historical. They belong, perhaps, in a slasher film, or one a cult movie where violence outweighs plot, but not in a movie that opens with a quote from genius historian Will Durant.

Orthodontia is timeless.

I’m about to address a big SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER so if you don’t want the movie ruined, hit that back button now.

Ok, here’s my big problem: at the end of the movie, the hero and his pursuers encounter three shiploads of Spanish conquistadores. Yet, the movie is about Mayan civilization. Last time I checked, Mayan civilization was gone by the time Cortes arrived in the 1500s. Also, Cortes didn’t conquer the Mayans, he conquered the Aztecs. Even the Apocalypto website says Mayan civilization disappeared around the 900s. Why, then, does Mel Gibson show a group of clearly sixteenth-century Spaniards appearing on the shores of tenth-century Guatemala? I’m no scholar of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, but something doesn’t add up here (seriously, something doesn’t—if you’re A) reading this and B) a student of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, drop me a line. I’d honestly like to know if I’ve missed something).

Apocalypto does have its strengths. But, it’s beneath a man who’s worked in Hollywood for twenty-plus years. This is a frenzied, fast-paced flick with loadsof potential it doesn’t live up to. There’s ambition, but it’s more than the men behind the camera can manage. It’s a “first movie” by a seasoned actor/director.   And that, dear reader, is worse than a bad case of Montezuma’s revenge.

Worth the money? Plotwise, no. But, if you enjoy grand Hollywood spectacles enough to spend ten dollars, you’ll get your money’s worth.

Geoff Hoppe can be reached at lake_isle@hotmail.com.

Last Updated: August 31, 2023 - 08:12