Apocalypto

Ein unglaublich actionreicher Indianerfilm, der nicht langweilig ist – falls Sie Popcorn dabeihaben. Die tiefere Gedankendimension wurde in den Film künstlich eingefügt. Sie und die selbstzweckmäßige Gewalt haben dem Film geschadet. Apocalypto hätte entweder ein ausgezeichneter Familienfilm oder ein hervorragendes existenzielles Drama sein können. Seine Brutalität schließt aber das Kinderpublikum aus und das platte Thema wird den Erwachsenen nicht gefallen. Man hat oft mit der digitalen Kamera gearbeitet. Das hat dazu geführt, dass die visuelle Seite des Films billig wirkt. Die Dynamik und der Schnitt sind super, mit den Filtern hätte man mehr spielen können, was dem Gesicht des Films geholfen hätte. Dem Gesicht, das aus Die Passion Christi ein audiovisuelles Prachtstück gemacht hat. Apocalypto ist ein aufregendes Erlebnis. Nach ein paar Tagen wird aus dem Film jedoch eine Farce, die man schnell vergisst und die ihr Ziel verfehlt hat. (06.02.2007)

A distinctive work by a distinctive artist. What I like about Mel Gibson is that despite the journalistic statements about "sadist Gibson", he still goes about his business, ignores all critics and keeps his creative freedom. He doesn’t spare violence here either, but unlike The Passion of the Christ, it is kept within tolerable limits (like the battle scenes in Braveheart). For example, the scene of the double sacrificial heart-cutting is quite subtly depicted, and its media criticism is completely out of place. If I am telling a story from the time of the late Mayan empire, it would be strange to omit this quite common practice. Aside from Gibson's light allusions to the manipulation of crowds and the depiction of the decadence of society, a concomitant phenomenon of the decline of great empires, looking for some kind of insight here is completely pointless. The whole film is constructed as a kind of ancient narrative of hunters somewhere by the fire, who, with typical male vanity, show off where they killed who, who they escaped from or who they saved. In this respect, the film is absolutely great and I don't really care about the lack of an idea. Moreover, Gibson's direction is imaginative, the make-up and adornments of the protagonists and the visuals of the Mayan metropolis scene are a triumph of cinematic art design. Mel did not disappoint again and continues to be for me a breath of fresh air in the stale Hollywood production :o) (05.02.2007)

It was pretty nice to hear a language other than English in a big American film, otherwise, Apocalypto was a disappointment. A lifeless and simple story stretched to an unnecessary length. Only the urban scene was interesting, at times it felt as if Cameron had found inspiration here for the Na’avi. I don’t think Gibson should feel very confident in his directorial qualities, I didn’t see even a hint of genius in Apocalypto. (04.08.2010)

Mel Gibson has definitely left the mainstream and after boldly stepping out with his religious opus, he confidently follows his own cinematic path, disregarding critics, audiences, and dollar expenditure/revenue. Yet while Jesus Christ’s last few hours carried plenty of emotion (in whatever way) to every viewer, regardless of any religious or social feeling, the end of the Mayan civilization is a bit more difficult. The simple story of a journey to hell and back is based on the viewer's mere perception of an audiovisual orgy, without any deeper emotional feedback. In order to fully appreciate the hour-long (!) sprint through the rainforest, Gibson should have focused more on the relationships between the characters in the initial exposition, and not just mindlessly joke about one of the protagonists' lack of potency. Also, the film’s form loses steam as the minutes go by. The use of the digital camera didn't work (the entire thing would have looked much better and more cinematic using classic film material) and Horner's music is slightly monotonous towards the end. Still, there is nothing boring about it and I applaud Gibson's efforts to make Hollywood tell stories in a different way. (06.03.2007)

When I was 11, I read an incredibly comprehensive 8-part series about Tarzan and I completely fell in love with that world full of adventure, battles, and mysterious creatures. Back then, I dreamt that someone would make a movie that could visualize all that magic, adventure, action, and suspense. I think Mel Gibson could handle such a task admirably and that it would even be amazing. The problem is that Apocalypto presented itself as a real story set in the pre-Columbian era of indigenous cultures and at least the advertisement claimed that the viewer would learn a lot about these cultures. That is not the case at all. Apocalypto is a film that uses this setting as mere background for a very simple action-packed and quite bloody story about the raid and annihilation of a village. Native Americans did not fight or live like this. However, it is colorful, reasonably exotic, and dynamic. Gibson seems to be an average actor, excellent producer, and marketing wizard, but a problematic director. I would accept the film at least in its simple action-packed form, if it was also able to lighten up a little, but it takes itself too seriously and I cannot forgive that. Overall impression: 65%. (23.10.2007)

Gibson has balls. To have the nerve to make a movie that ends up basically as one big chase through the ancient history of the Maya civilization, you have to have them. Although a bit more editing might have been an improvement, I am basically pleased with Apocalypto. And not forgetting Horner’s excellent music, too. (07.12.2007)

Es ist kein idealer Film, das Drehbuch arbeitet trotz seiner überzeugenden Pointe mit unrealistischen Klischees, die aus einem anderen Genre stammen. Aber es sollte Mel zur Ehre gereichen, dass er so viele Augen der Welt auf diesen Teil der Weltgeschichte gelenkt hat. Solche Aktionen kann es nie genug geben. Und mit Hilfe der Originalsprache, Nicht-Schauspielern und einer unglaublich faszinierenden Reise hat er dieses wirkliche Ziel erreicht. Jetzt könnte es eine Welle geben, die sogar die Sandalenfilme in den Schatten stellt und all jene Zivilisationen kartografiert, die für Filmemacher immer im Schatten der stereotypen Antike standen. (04.01.2011)

It’s a pity the content is so rudimentary, because Mel Gibson proves that he doesn't care about Hollywood's standards and does whatever he wants. The concept of Apocalypto is already interesting in itself since there hasn't been a film about an ancient civilization like this before – if at all – so you must await with anticipation to see what will unfold. It's quite typical of Gibson, with lots of blood, a structured plot full of action and dynamics, plus a subtle hint of some kind of mythology that serves more for visual enjoyment. The enormous temples in the city are truly impressive. The presence of the digital camera was also somewhat debatable and unnecessary, but overall the level of entertainment is decent. It's a shame that it lacks the emotional depth that Braveheart, for exmaple, had. (13.07.2007)

Gibson obviously doesn't like his characters very much for reasons unknown. Jaguar Paw goes through hell, sees his friends die and, badly wounded, fights for his bare life on land, under waterfalls or in deadly swamps, only for the sake of a simple mainstream story and to satisfy a popcorn audience hungry for blood, action and convenient clichés. It must be admitted that we all have at least a bit of such a viewer in us and that Apocalypto is a unique Hollywood adventure that is not boring, is loaded with adrenaline and brings a glimpse into a now mythical stage of human history that we have never seen before. Mel's laudable intentions, backed by an attempt at heavy naturalism and crowned with undeniable formal precision and efficiency, starting with the ancient language and believable actors and ending with the aggressive music, editing and attractive setting, are nice, but in the end they stand out terribly negatively and the targeted authenticity is undermined by the unnecessarily overblown "cinematic" brutality, the too conspicuously digital sequences (especially the monkey fight over the abyss was completely out of place), and finally the story itself, which is far too contrived to appeal the masses and relies on a kind of supernaturalism thanks to which the protagonist always escapes alive despite less than zero odds. It's great to watch and I'm very glad that something like this could be made, but next time it would need a more distinctive, less trite concept... 80% (06.02.2012)

Apocalypto can be seen as either an über-brutal adventure ride or an ideological banquet. The latter is heavily favored by Gibson's pro-Christian bigotry (ingeniously hidden here), the consistent depiction of the decline of the Mayan empire, which refers to the cause mainly in terms of social differences, and the finale with the arrival of the ships that so unwittingly save the protagonist, and it's hard not to notice the Christian symbolism in this scene. So it's not hard to see that Mel Gibson is currently a radical left-wing Catholic and for a long time that's the only thing to take away from the film. Fortunately, I'm reviewing this from a first-person perspective and thus, except for the unwatchable digital camera for me, I was supremely satisfied. Still, if Apocalypto is telling us between the lines that the Conquistador massacres were the best thing that could have happened to South and Central America, then still, points for courage -) (23.10.2010)

After watching it a second time after some time, I think that Mel Gibson is simply the right Hollywood rebel and visionary. What he achieved with this film is simply great. Completely unknown actors, a story that takes place in the past, but still action-packed and relatively faithful to the period, at least as far as I can judge as a layperson, and besides, it's not in English. That's just fantastic. This is the kind of realism that is captivating to me. (09.03.2015)

A brilliant Gibson epic that is perhaps overly naturalistic in places (which is so telltale Gibson), yet on the other hand could be considered rather realistic, given the context of the time in which it is set. Beyond that, there's not much to judge, as it's not a very convoluted or developed story, and everything else is purely professional (especially the masks and the cinematography). It was pretty good, but for some reason it doesn't at all tempt me to a second viewing. (24.05.2014)