I understand that I’m opening the floodgates to endless opinion, yet I can’t keep quiet in this.

This would be the second time I’ve given Mel my hard earned money and both time have walked out completely disgusted with flat, gratuitous and one-dimensional display of human savagery. I went into this move in hopes of having some kind of interesting portrait of a lost people brought into contempory storytelling. No dice.

I can swallow allegory, parable and a film with an obvious agenda if done with sensitivity, intelligence and clarity, but I can’t sit back and be bludgeoned with this retarded exploitation in order to illustrate a singular idea that Man is doomed to exist in hell, with his only hope laying in the salvation of Jesus. P-U. 2:20 minutes of people being hacked to bits.

This just reeks of social conditioning that states the world have to sides good and evil, and yes my friend you can take you pick. Either you’re with us, or you’re against us.

Let me give a brief summary of the emotional terrain I was forced to confront. The first 30 were spent in a nauseous state of disbelief that anyone would feel the need and or justified to subject people to this kind of display. I decided not to walk out and wait around for the layers of story to start being pulled back…. and waited.

These emotions started turning to anger and compounded disbelief and I was clearly not alone. About 1:30 into it I say 15% of the audience could no longer stomach the absurdity and began taking pop-shots unable contain themselves. This started a new point of view running through the crowd and ran its course until credits rolled. People were laughing and felt so worn down by the onslaught that then had to retreat into the only place they could – complete disbelief.

Mel’s idea of good directing is apparently to just keep turning up the volume and raise the stakes and chase that stupidity with more and more blood. The apparent reason that he felt justified to subject people to this was to elevate and give a forum for his own beliefs, so that they might have center stage and preach the “good word”.

I think he has completely lost it… never again.

Just what I was expecting. Thanks for saving us two hours and a few bucks. Mel can stick it.

I totally agree with y'all. Mel's agenda to proselytize people through his narrow-mindedly conceived scripts is nauseating. I find those movies so idiotic that I see them as great works of comedy. The Passion, I thought, was just hilarious. I'm sure Apocalypto would make me piss myself from laughter.

What a shame -- if your review is accurate.

I love that kind of history and would love to see it done well.

I know some Mayan groups have taken shots at Gibson for portraying it as a 'savage' society but actually, you know, it was. Like most civilizations including our own it was a culture that embraced violence as well as achievements.

I saw the movie this night (only opened this week in Belgium).

I thought it was an okay film, nothing more.
Not as bloody as people said, I think Braveheart comes very close.
It's nowhere as bloody as The Passion.
Acting was fine. Script was so so, very simple, but I only expected a chase movie, so that was what I got. I thought the build up of the Maya tribe was very well done, in a half hour you got to care about these people (I did).
I just thought the movie had some pretty unbelievable twists, and it wasn't THAT exiting as I thought it would be.

And I also think Mel Gibson overdid it with The Passion, although that movie had some good things going for it too. But Apocalypto is WAY closer to Braveheart then it is to The Passion. It's a pretty normal, mainstream violent action movie. Not the blood and gore people say it is. It's still pretty 'Hollywood' - violence.

Was Apocalypto shot using video as opposed to film?...just saw it on DVD...thought it was pretty good, but it looked as it it were not filmed in 35mm...the movie appeared to have a video look.

Never saw Passion. But I can't figure out why Mel's earlier movies are so much stronger than apocalypto. It's like he keeps setting Braveheart to different cultures and it keeps getting worse.

Next year: Igarajajuk, eskimo warrior.

Was Apocalypto shot using video as opposed to film?Some portions of Apocalypto were shot on 16mm film, some portions were shot on 35mm film and some portions were shot using Genesis HD. See Apocalypto (2006) - Technical specifications (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472043/technical)

I purchased the film a while ago on Bluray and Ive watched it several times..i loved it and its still one of my favorites to show how good bluray can be..I particulaly like the humour early on in the film so no regrets here but perhaps it appeals to my choice of films after a long week ie not having to think too much..cheers john

I don't buy into any religious or political arguments about this movie. I have never seen Baraveheart or The Passion and I don't understand why Mel is a Hollywood star. I bought this because the titles here on BluRay are very limited. But I am in shock and awe - and disgust. I do not know what to make of this movie, but it moves me. And the aesthetics blows me away. So Chris's reference to the IMDB subpage where it says Digital/35mm/16mm blows me even more away. Can we accomplish this? Yes we can. With the technology where it is at now, and all the combined tips at these pages, we too can make epic movies. Hollywood is here... The future is now...

Ps:And I have played around alot with the trailer - downloaded from MovieMaze - Film, Kino, DVD, Trailer, Poster, Wallpaper und News (http://www.moviemaze.de)