hyped garbage

Best movie ever!

The first must-see film of the year.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It's a shame some movies aren't judged simply on their own merit, if that were the case, I believe this movie would be regarded much differently. This is a masterpiece, original, and a well-directed epic piece of work. Although it does receive a high IMDB rating of 7.8, it most certainly should have been more well-received and better represented at the Academy Awards and all other awards for that year. I am NOT a Mel Gibson sympathizer and am not aligned with his political views or his anti-Semitic leanings, both of which I believe negatively impacted this movie's chances at the Academy Awards. This film should have been nominated for more than just the three nominal awards it did receive. In addition to those three, it most certainly should have been nominated for Best Movie, Best Director, and Best Editing while the omission of any acting nominations is also conspicuous. Raoul Trujillo, Gerardo Taracena, and Rudy Youngblood all gave absolutely top notch performances, most noticeably Trujillo and Taracena whose menacing and antagonistic characters were extremely believable and convincing.

Not often I watch a film that utilises an uncommon language...in fact this is probably the first. The dialogue extensively consists of Yucatan Maya and is used brilliantly to recreate a once great civilisation. It depicts the journey of a Mesoamerican hunter named Jaguar Paw whose entire tribe is mercilessly slaughtered and captured. They traverse the rural jungle and become prisoners to an almost civilised Mayan city who's culture and ideologies consist of ritual sacrifices. You see that 18 rating on the cover? Yeah, justified. This is relentlessly savage. I'm no expert on Mayan civilisation but the primal depiction and bloody savagery was completely believable. There's one scene that consists of beheading prisoners and letting the heads roll down the stairs of a colossal temple. Beautifully disgusting. There's only one director crazy enough to pull off this, Mel Gibson. Say what you want, there is no denying that he can direct the heck out of a film. His artistic integrity and attention to detail is one that allows films like this and 'Passion of the Christ' to be aimed towards mainstream audiences. The indigenous cast was revelatory and all of them took to their roles whilst preventing it from looking like a cosplay. The makeup and costumes oozed authenticity, some of those ear and nose piercings were eye watering! The chase sequences were adrenaline fuelled and well executed also. The major problem is the story, it's far too basic. It started off well, establishing character hierarchy within the tribe and how they interact with each other. Then Gibson chooses to focus on the savagery at an expense of losing the character focus. The third act literally consists of running with minimal dialogue, it's a tonal shift that didn't work. Think of it as 'Home Alone' but in a 16th Century jungle. Having said that, all the technical aspects outweigh the weak narrative to create a visceral artistic vision that is not for the faint hearted. Too many cut out hearts in one film...

You know how films centred around ancient or distant cultures always seem to be subject to a Hollywood projection? It's an attitude, a pervasive contrivance and adherence to trivial convention that kills any sense of credulity about the film. Well this film doesn't have that, in fact what it has instead is a whole lot of novel thinking about the way its narrative develops and how it is conveyed.That's not so say the film doesn't have its touch stones, for instance the Tapir scene early in the film, acknowledges well trodden proverbial ground as does one of the major plot points of the film. Thing is though, these incidents are woven into the narrative as a means to connect with the audience not tagged on cos the writers ran out of ideas.The other thing this film has is immersion, it's remains believable throughout, whatever is happening on screen. That's impressive because some of the action scenes would stretch credibility in a less well crafted context.

Gibson obviously has fetish for quasi-historical movies. He sets historical stage and plays fictitious events on it, but so convincing that it is easy to believe they really happened. He's good actor, but much better writer and director. Also, improvement in his movies is evident. He started with typically Hollywood spectacle Braveheart in 1995. Decade later he made hideous The Passion of the Christ, but improvement in directing and production is huge. And two years later we get Apocalypto that overcomes both predecessors beyond comparison. Although it is less historical than previous two, it is much more believable and stronger. I'm anxious to see if the newest Hacksaw Ridge is even better.8/10