Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

[Freddy]

Anyone see this mass of blood and distortion of history? After searching for historians' and anthropologists' viewpoints, I have not read a single review that says the film is historically accurate. Film critics tend to like the fictional story, which I found completely unrealistic. Gibson manages to paint the Mayan Civilization as an extremely violent lot without any cultural achievements. Mel should stick to making slash and torture films and stay out of history. Aparently, he skipped class too many times. But hey $40 million of his own money can buy him films whether they are accurate or not!

[Buffy]

My understanding is that the main goal of this movie was to present a Christian-friendly parable of savages being oppressed by other godless savages being "saved" by the arrival of the Spanish which ends the movie. It was the subject of a very heavy word-of-mouth campaign with lots of positive "pre-reviews" in various Christian publications, which is supposedly why it got such big numbers the first week. The majority of MSM reviews I've seen though have been lukewarm at best(SF Chronicle, LA Times), with more than a few side articles (like this one) covering the atrocious lack of historical accuracy in the film.

 

Its one thing to liven up a story line in a historical drama with minor changes, but wholesale misrepresentation of history while at the same time making it look as real as possible (e.g. doing all the dialog in ancient Mayan) does a real disservice to everyone. Andy people wonder why education is in such dismal shape.

 

What's also amusing has been the meme in the media in the last couple of days that Mel's anti-semitism or fundamentalism is the reason why the awards might snub the movie. It of course wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the movie really isn't all that good!

 

Mel's the next Tobe Hooper,

Buffy