Apocalypto: the Review

by Clark

hoberman.jpgOK, I have to admit up front that after seeing South Park’s take down on Mel Gibson I’ve never been able to see him in quite the same way. After his recent “legal troubles” it seems like Trey and Matt nailed it. They even thought recent events proved what they had said. But realistically even if Gibson has an odd masochistic streak that sees redemption and judgment coming only through extreme violence one has to judge the film on its own merits. So here they are.

First the general review. Is it a bad movie? No, not at all. It’s about on par with your typical action movie. Is it a great movie? No, not at all. Despite Gibson trying to make it into this political statement it is really just a “turn off your mind” action movie that happens to be in Mayan. Pretend your watching one of the old French Luc Besson movies before he headed into irrelevancy or a good old Toshirô Mifune movie. (If you don’t know who Toshirô Mifune is I suggest going to rent Seven Samurai or the Samurai trilogy)

The problem with the movie is that it clearly wants to be more than it is. Now Gibson can achieve this. The Passion of the Christ worked not because it was kind of pointless violence against a person shown over and over again but because it brought home to religious people what Jesus meant. Context was everything. Braveheart was at its heart an old school big canvas action movie and it worked brilliantly at that. This one is basically an Arnold Swartzenegger flick dressed up as an art house film. Indeed all Gibson and Farhad Safinia have done, from what I can see, is take Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom with Jared Diamond’s blockbuster non-fiction hit Collapse and make it a foreign language entry to the Academy awards. (Mediocre films have done well in the past: witness Crash) If you’re curious as to how strong the Diamond parallels are, check out John Hawks.

A warning, while I’m going to try to not give anything away, if you hate any information about a movie before you see it you might wish to stop reading now. But I figured it might be nice to list a few homages to past films that Gibson included.

First up everyone has heard of the human sacrifice scenes. I went into the film with some trepidation. Is the gore factor going to be over the charts? Is this going to be like Peter Jackson in his New Zealand days? I hope not since while I can handle some violence in small doses the huge gore factor is distracting. For three reasons. One it’s icky and over the top. Second it’s typically done so poorly that it draws one out of the “illusion” that one’s watching “reality.” (i.e. you just laugh at the puppetry or cheesy ballistic gel painted up to look like a person — I’ve watched too much Mythbusters to take it seriously any more) Thirdly, leaving things off screen to your imagination is usually far more shocking and seems more horrifying and real.

So how did Gibson do? Well actually the human sacrifices in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom were far more graphic. There we and Indy got to see the knife, the opening of the chest and the heart being removed along with its being put on the coals to smolder. Here we see the knife descending and the raising up of the heart but nothing else. Yes, we do get quite a few decapitations. But let’s be honest, at least one Nazi got decapitated in every Indiana Jones film. But Gibson doesn’t manage any melting or exploding heads. So he’s down of Indy (or Scanners). I will give him credit though for adding more vein to the removed heart. Oddly that grossed me out more than the heart. I don’t know why. Reminded me too much of Grey’s Anatomy. (The book, not the TV show)templeofdoom

Plus I missed the temple inside the volcano. (Can I say for the record that just never struck me as the best architectural design? Of course I say the same about mansions on mud hills in California…)

There’s an other scene in the movie, which I’ll not give away so as to keep the suspense. But I guarantee you’ll say to yourself at that point that our hero, Jaguar Paw, is about to go Swartzenegger on the asses of his pursuers. (I can say that much since that’s in all the ads) I won’t give the film away, but Gibson does follow nearly point for point a certain film where Swartzenegger goes primeval on an alien bug. The difference in this film is that Gibson ought win awards for shaking things up by turning the bugs against the villains in the most original use of an insect I’ve seen for some time. Oh, and frog. We can’t forget the frogs.

There are a few other interesting “borrowings” from other films. But I’ll save them since I don’t think I can relate them without giving too much of the film away.

Oh, one other Indiana Jones parallel. (No, not that they both are filmed in Mexican jungles and there’s no giant boulder chasing Jaguar Paw in this one — hope that didn’t spoil anything for anyone. And no the Mayans don’t launch into a Gershwin musical. Although I have to admit that would have been something to see…) It’s rather a kind of dinner party, much like Indiana Jones had to face prior to his visit to a remarkably similar temple experience. I won’t give too much away since the menu items are slightly different. But it’s undoubtedly the grossest part of the movie. (As it was with Indiana Jones, oddly) Wait for it…

15 Comments

  1. Oh, and Gibson ought win award for most unbelievable mauling by a hand puppet. Once again I’ll not give things away, but I have hand puppets I “maul” my son with that look more realistic. Of course he laughs when I do it. The Mayans tend to get a little more upset.

    Comment by Clark — December 11, 2006 @ 11:59 am

  2. I like what Kenneth Turan wrote in his review for the LA Times which I quote in my blog:

    Gibson unblushingly intends “Apocalypto” as a clarion call warning modern man to watch his step or risk following the Mayas into decline and near-extinction. To this end he opens the story with a famous quote from historian Will Durant about the fall of Rome: “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”

    This is all well and good, but the reality of “Apocalypto” is that this film is in fact Exhibit A of the rot from within that Gibson is worried about. If our society is in moral peril, the amount of stomach-turning violence that we think is just fine to put on screen is by any sane measure a major aspect of that decline. Mel, no one in your entourage is going to tell you this, but you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. A big part.

    Gibson is continuing to lower our threshold of acceptability. Who really wants to see a tiger eating at a man’s face? Do we need to see it in order to be grossed out? Why not let our imaginations do the trick they used to do?

    I think a lot of filmmakers today jump the gun too much thinking they need to show all the graphic detail, to make it as “real” as possible, but they forget that filmmaking is an art, a form of entertainment, meant to stimulate our imagination. Why then show everything?

    Comment by Dan — December 11, 2006 @ 12:16 pm

  3. I assume you are all familiar with the recut version of the Apocalypto trailer?

    Comment by Supergenius — December 11, 2006 @ 12:22 pm

  4. There aren’t tigers in Mexico. There is a jaguar which is what I was alluding to my “most unbelievable mauling by a hand puppet.” It’s amazingly fake looking.

    I’m not sure I buy the “violent movies are the decline of civilization” bit myself. However I do tend to agree that movies like Saving Private Ryan that attempt to justify the violence still end up presenting it as entertainment. Gibson’s film is a tad more honest it that regard.

    Comment by Clark — December 11, 2006 @ 1:00 pm

  5. sorry Jaguar

    Comment by Dan — December 11, 2006 @ 1:38 pm

  6. I was disappointed when I heard about the gore because I really don’t like gory films. Indiana Jones I never thought of as gory. It’s so cartoony.

    Are you saying Apocalypto is cartoony?

    I think a good example of “less is more” when it comes to disturbing violence is the movie Rwanda, when two guys are driving down a street littered with dead bodies. They hit a bump and stop. You see the shapes of bodies lying on the road, but none of the gory blood. Then they have to continue on their way (fearing for their lives), and the bumping of the car over the bodies is so horrifying. (I hope I’ve recalled that scene correctly.)

    Comment by Susan M — December 11, 2006 @ 3:30 pm

  7. Susan,

    You did recall that scene correctly, and you chose a perfect example of where less is more. I really don’t need to see someone getting hacked with a machete. But the message of the movie was loud and clear, and the filmmakers let my imagination do the work.

    Comment by Dan — December 11, 2006 @ 3:48 pm

  8. Yeah, to me Apocalypto was pretty cartoony. The Jaguar attack stands out. But there are several other scenes. However the attack on the village is pretty vicious and Gibson uses a few cheap tricks to freak out the audience.

    *** SPOILER ***

    Like having the bad guys grab a baby from the arms of a mother they kill and shake the baby around by it’s leg. (If you look close it’s obvious a fake baby - but my wife screeched out in that scene)

    Comment by Clark — December 11, 2006 @ 6:41 pm

  9. There were no similarities to the Book of Mormon?

    Comment by annegb — December 12, 2006 @ 9:36 am

  10. annegb, ixnay on the ormon-may.

    Comment by Supergenius — December 12, 2006 @ 11:14 am

  11. I wonder whether Mel’s movie is as good as Hot Chocolypto.

    Comment by Supergenius — December 13, 2006 @ 6:56 pm

  12. While I have no intention to see this movie, I wanted to comment on one thing that really bothers me about Gibson’s 2 movies here(”Passion” and “Apocalypto”). Who gives a damn if they are mayan or israeli and Roman? I have no urge to read a damn screen for hours, i don’t care how realistic it makes the movie.. it’s in America, I want it in English.

    Comment by Josh L. — December 16, 2006 @ 12:30 am

  13. Actually, the Passion in “Israeli” would have been very interesting.

    Comment by Frank Fish — December 16, 2006 @ 8:02 am

  14. Oh, but I admit I loved this film.

    Comment by Rhapsidiomite — January 11, 2007 @ 9:37 pm

  15. Me too. It’s really good.

    Comment by Ronan — January 12, 2007 @ 7:33 am