User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 427 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 70 out of 427
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. EthanP.
    Dec 16, 2006
    2
    The logic in this crapfest was so half-baked that it's a wonder there were no random cuts to 1970s porn. [***Spoilers***]: Anyone who has played hide and seek should wonder why it's possible to hide in one's best friend's back yard for half an hour without being found, but it's impossible for a forest-wise Mayan to find reasonable cover *anywhere in the entire The logic in this crapfest was so half-baked that it's a wonder there were no random cuts to 1970s porn. [***Spoilers***]: Anyone who has played hide and seek should wonder why it's possible to hide in one's best friend's back yard for half an hour without being found, but it's impossible for a forest-wise Mayan to find reasonable cover *anywhere in the entire Mayan land,* without, of course, letting a single splash of blood fall just as your nemesis runs under your tree-top hiding place so that it may later be discovered and immediately ascertained by one of your cohorts that the blood must be from you and that you must be hiding in the trees. Because even though those cohorts have just been party to bloody sacrifice, any one of them will easily spot a drop of blood and know for sure that it's from you and your tree-hiding. Run in a straight line for 48 hours(!), and only when we do this scene with the arrows pointing directly at you should you run back and forth in an evasive way. But the arrows will still eventually hit you and all your friends. Because these are skilled Mayan bad guys, until certain scenes in which they've decided not to throw any sharp objects in your direction, which coincidentally occur when you've stopped your running to look back and ponder/taunt your rivals and would be putting yourself in imminent danger had the evil Mayans not decided that it would be a good moment to cease fire and just look at you. And, by the way, they all run at the same pace as you, which happens to be the exact pace at which a jaguar runs. And during a downpour so bad that it fills a good-sized pit faster than a swimming pool, European dingies remain fully afloat. Expand
  2. RobertH.
    Dec 11, 2006
    3
    Mel's report card: For using indigenous language and "unknown" actors: A. For giving us yet another chop-chop action flick like "King Kong" or any of its pals: a bit fat So What? For cynically and pretentiously disguising the whole thing as some sort of historical meditation: F.
  3. Matt
    May 23, 2007
    1
    I think it is really really important to note that, while Mr. Gibson might have set out to portray the Mayans, he actually portrayed the Aztecs. It frightens me that no one has picked up on this yet. The Mayans fell 500 years before the Spanish came to Mexico. The Mayans did not cut open people's hearts, the Aztecs did. The Mayans did not have a big city. The Aztecs did. The MayansI think it is really really important to note that, while Mr. Gibson might have set out to portray the Mayans, he actually portrayed the Aztecs. It frightens me that no one has picked up on this yet. The Mayans fell 500 years before the Spanish came to Mexico. The Mayans did not cut open people's hearts, the Aztecs did. The Mayans did not have a big city. The Aztecs did. The Mayans did not participate in the Flower Wars (taking prisoners for the purpose of sacrificing them, as depicted in the movie) the Aztecs did. I could go on. Expand
  4. KristenH.
    Dec 14, 2006
    3
    This film was terrible!!!!! The most historically inaccurate movie I have ever seen! The only good thing about the movie were the costumes. The Mayans were not the barbarians that Mel Gibson made them out to be. Get the facts straight, you anti-mayanist! I want my money back.
  5. Julien
    Jan 12, 2007
    3
    It's so violent that we finish by thinking that Mel Gibson is a sick person. His last movie is not even interesting because of its bad direction, and its stupid story. Hopefully we can save some good moments of action in the jungle for example, but it's not enough to say that "Apocalypto" has to be seen. At least it's not worse than "The Passion".
  6. AnaC.
    Jan 6, 2007
    0
    Blood and gore. Nasty movie.
  7. askanir
    Jul 21, 2007
    3
    i watched 15mins, where the mayans were sacrificing the last of the other tribe and ended when the young man was up in a tree with a cougar, i literally vomited and was physically sick. i have yet to bring myself to watch the rest.
  8. Jul 15, 2011
    0
    I know now why the Mayans went extinct. They were nothing but a bunch of wild, bloodthirsty animals. Praise the Lord, or the Spanish, for bringing some civilization to that part of the world. The Arab world with their death cult and suicide bombings and their medieval superstitions is next, the last realm of barbarism.
  9. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    Netflix gave this a recommended 4 stars out of 5 so I thought I would watch it. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I have no idea how movie critics gave this pretty good reviews, while other great movies get **** ones. In case it didn't show up already, I've got some mild spoilers here. I've got two huge beefs with this movie, aside from everything else that is wrong with it.Netflix gave this a recommended 4 stars out of 5 so I thought I would watch it. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I have no idea how movie critics gave this pretty good reviews, while other great movies get **** ones. In case it didn't show up already, I've got some mild spoilers here. I've got two huge beefs with this movie, aside from everything else that is wrong with it. Firstly, half of the movie revolves around the main characters being shackled up and just walking around. About as exciting as it sounds. Secondly, the main theme behind the movie is to be unafraid in the face of danger and be courageous. This is all well and good, and the main character realizes this towards the end of the movie and is capable of doing some incredible things. That's great, and would work really well in most movies, but with the situations that the main character was already in, HE WOULD HAVE DIED ABOUT 100 times over earlier in the movie if he didn't have fear as a motivator. If he would've been courageous and stood his ground and fought, like the central theme implied, the movie would end 15 minutes in, 20 minutes in, take your pick. This really destroyed any point of the main theme coming together at the end for me. Aside from this, I was facepalming about once a minute during the last 30 minutes of the movie. Not to say that some of the stuff at that juncture of the movie wasn't well done, but there was so much wrong with it that I only kept watching to see how much more this movie would f*** up. I would not recommend this movie to anyone and have no idea how the hell it was ever justified to be made Expand
  10. MarkD.
    Dec 7, 2006
    0
    This movie was awful. Although the early parts of the film created an excellently crafted vision of a lost world, the film quickly degenerated into pointless torture-porn. The film sacrificed continuity, drama, and plot in the interest of pressing a polished vision of misery that was neither entertaining or educational, and seemed to have less purpose than what you see in a horror movie This movie was awful. Although the early parts of the film created an excellently crafted vision of a lost world, the film quickly degenerated into pointless torture-porn. The film sacrificed continuity, drama, and plot in the interest of pressing a polished vision of misery that was neither entertaining or educational, and seemed to have less purpose than what you see in a horror movie gore-fest. I have no problem with violence in films, and in fact the most distasteful scenes weren't intrinsicly violent, but I couldn't get the image of Mel Gibson masturbating in the back of the theater (I saw an early screening that he personally introduced) to the relentless misery of both the characters on screen and the people in the theater. Expand
  11. JavierD.
    Nov 5, 2007
    4
    I expected something more historical, regarding the fall of the great Mayan civilization. Instead I got this Hollywood bloody movie, filled with blood, organs and lots of dead. Yes the cinematography is good, but the plot is just terrible (maybe ok argument for violent 13 year olds, but not a deep movie at all).
  12. Andrew
    Jun 25, 2007
    2
    I like the guy who said "I can't see how anyone could find fault with it." Maybe you should take some time to read the myriad bad reviews it got, since they all are spot on. This movie is a travesty. I thought I'd learn something about Mayans. Instead, it's like some primitive version of Hostel. Not to mention this film is grounded in as much fact as the Star Wars movies I like the guy who said "I can't see how anyone could find fault with it." Maybe you should take some time to read the myriad bad reviews it got, since they all are spot on. This movie is a travesty. I thought I'd learn something about Mayans. Instead, it's like some primitive version of Hostel. Not to mention this film is grounded in as much fact as the Star Wars movies are. (Anyone saying this movie is historically accurate probably hasn't touched a history book since high school.) If you're naive and enjoy violence and gore, by all means, take in the craptacular train wreck that is Apocalypto. Expand
  13. ArleneC
    Jul 4, 2008
    0
    I watched this last night on a friends recommendation (I didn't really fancy watching it otherwise) and despite a promising first 5 minutes of the Tapir hunt and the meeting with the refugee tribe, it suddenly went into comedy mode when the hunters went back to the village with the sex-obsessed mother-in-law and the prank played on her daughter and son. From then on it was just I watched this last night on a friends recommendation (I didn't really fancy watching it otherwise) and despite a promising first 5 minutes of the Tapir hunt and the meeting with the refugee tribe, it suddenly went into comedy mode when the hunters went back to the village with the sex-obsessed mother-in-law and the prank played on her daughter and son. From then on it was just downhill. The violence in the film didn't really bother me, I didn't find it gratuitous (like in Passion of the Christ) there was a lot of blood and the sacrificial scenes were a bit too long Expand
  14. js
    Dec 10, 2006
    1
    Wow...this movie begins with dialogue and situations that seem more appropriate for an "American Pie" film and believe me, it's all downhill from there. The film tells you NOTHING about the Mayan culture and has zero plot. The last hour is an extended chase scene and anyone who has seen an action film will be able to predict the outcome. If I can prevent just one person from seeing Wow...this movie begins with dialogue and situations that seem more appropriate for an "American Pie" film and believe me, it's all downhill from there. The film tells you NOTHING about the Mayan culture and has zero plot. The last hour is an extended chase scene and anyone who has seen an action film will be able to predict the outcome. If I can prevent just one person from seeing this film, I will have done my job. Expand
  15. LowellK.
    Dec 10, 2006
    3
    More violence and less story than "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". A complete waste of your time and very disturbing for the faint of heart. This is not a date movie of any kind.
  16. noodlenozzle
    Dec 24, 2006
    2
    For real? A freaking full moon appears on the same night following a total solar eclipse. If you knew anything about astronomy, you would immediately be able to discern that this is impossible. Then, add some more cheesy special effects, no substantial plot, and then to top it off, time traveling Spaniards. Stay away! If you already bought the tickets, don't go chasing bad money For real? A freaking full moon appears on the same night following a total solar eclipse. If you knew anything about astronomy, you would immediately be able to discern that this is impossible. Then, add some more cheesy special effects, no substantial plot, and then to top it off, time traveling Spaniards. Stay away! If you already bought the tickets, don't go chasing bad money with good money by wasting your gas and overpaying for snacks to see this movie. Give those tickets to the shredder. Expand
  17. Enrique
    Dec 6, 2006
    2
    Mayan world is reduced as a kind of S/M, gory Jurassic Park. Silly, bombastic fiasco. Good cinematography and interesting cast though. Gibson, like Tom Cruise, is clever enough to get sorrounded by talentous people to boost his projects, but is too heavy handed, shallow minded and basically dishonest.
  18. LolaLorber
    Dec 8, 2006
    0
    A new low in films. It's "Braveheart" without historical significance and "Passion" without spirituality, though it dabbles in both, and it represents as brazen an act of career suicide as I can recall from a star director. If he were a first-timer, he'd never work again. It is a terrible movie.
  19. joez
    Jan 1, 2007
    2
    instead of any context/story, the film's focus is on exhaustingly long scenes of drawn out violence. by the time the movie delivered its punchline almost every theatre goer had already given up on finding any meaning in it. instead of gripping their seats, people were gripping their cell phones and jackets just waiting for the debauchle to end.
  20. MauriceV.
    Jan 29, 2007
    0
    Just a morron would think that the most intelectual and respectful of the prehispanic cultures is as savage as they were depicted... Yup... Mel Gibson is that stupid. But that's what you get when you mix a crappy director who cares nothing about historical facts, and the comercial vibe to create another worthless action unwitful spoil just to fill the producers hands with money fromJust a morron would think that the most intelectual and respectful of the prehispanic cultures is as savage as they were depicted... Yup... Mel Gibson is that stupid. But that's what you get when you mix a crappy director who cares nothing about historical facts, and the comercial vibe to create another worthless action unwitful spoil just to fill the producers hands with money from the usual morbid mob who love the baths of blood and gore for no special reason nor plot....
    Now Mayans and spanish men... well grabing a history book won't hurt anyone, then we can all know that the periods of time don't fit actually...that, and the already mentioned farfetched scenes shown all along this suplex of a film.. But ... hey... it is another fact that Gibson's brain is sort of death... so it was something really predictable. It's not worth watching at all.
    Collapse
  21. j
    Jan 6, 2007
    4
    oh. my. what a pile of s**t. visually amusing...but the plot? usual mel stuff. man loses (or is threatened to lose) his family. man goes on rampage and faces great adversity, often dying in the process. the end. please watch The Patriot, Braveheart and now this....wonder if it is even historically accurate - find it hard to believe the Mayan culture was soo primitive.
  22. FrankL.
    Feb 3, 2007
    4
    It is about time that history be treated with respect. This film is one dimensional in its overbearing dependence on violence. It is hard to love nature if we look through Gibson's eyes. He is on a mission of conversion and uses all the tools available to him to convince all of us that his history and observations are true. He has failed to make a balanced and poetic vision of the It is about time that history be treated with respect. This film is one dimensional in its overbearing dependence on violence. It is hard to love nature if we look through Gibson's eyes. He is on a mission of conversion and uses all the tools available to him to convince all of us that his history and observations are true. He has failed to make a balanced and poetic vision of the Maya culture. Expand
  23. AndreaV.
    Feb 9, 2007
    1
    So much violence is just pornographic. There's nothing left after you watch it, just angst. The only positive aspect is the actor Rudy Youngblood (despite the fact he is not even Mayan) who trasmits feelings to the audience in a great way.
  24. ReneV
    Jun 24, 2007
    0
    Horrible, violent, disgusting.
  25. AlanK
    Sep 12, 2008
    0
    A racist piece of Catholic propaganda about how the "barbaric" Maya needed to be saved by the Spanish priests bearing crosses that you see at the end. Also utterly predicable from start to finish. One of the very worst films I have ever seen.
  26. JohnAchorn
    Dec 12, 2006
    4
    Beautifully shot, great sound track and acting... relentless violence to what end? Another Euro-centric vision of history, totally inaccurate in historical context; much of the action is predicatable... too much stretches one's believability to create another Gibson super man.
  27. LucianoS.
    Dec 22, 2006
    2
    Disappointing from beginning to end, If you like action "Blood Diamond" is a much better choice. Historically inaccurate, this movie is nothing more than any action film like Rambo or any of the Steven Seagal movies. The plot was poor, the action predictable, the characters not well developed, and the Sequences at the great Mexican Pyramids where not impressive at all. There are far Disappointing from beginning to end, If you like action "Blood Diamond" is a much better choice. Historically inaccurate, this movie is nothing more than any action film like Rambo or any of the Steven Seagal movies. The plot was poor, the action predictable, the characters not well developed, and the Sequences at the great Mexican Pyramids where not impressive at all. There are far better movies out there today or even at the video store. I have loved other Mel Gibson Expand
  28. PR
    Dec 22, 2006
    2
    A pukka shell necklace of cliches strung on a formula. I know less about the Maya now having watched it.
  29. CatMeta
    Dec 9, 2006
    0
    An orgy of violence, dead of any real human connection or character, which gets boring quicky. Interesting that the obscenity of killing goes on for two hours, yet there is not one woman's nipple visible among the near-naked people, not one breechclout out of place. (God forbid bodies do anything but kill or be killed.) The whole thing is puerile. The audience laughed for much of the An orgy of violence, dead of any real human connection or character, which gets boring quicky. Interesting that the obscenity of killing goes on for two hours, yet there is not one woman's nipple visible among the near-naked people, not one breechclout out of place. (God forbid bodies do anything but kill or be killed.) The whole thing is puerile. The audience laughed for much of the second half during the supposedly exciting parts; this movie is that soulless, and that silly. Expand
  30. MiroDeHoyos
    Jan 21, 2007
    0
    I think the historical background has been modified, there is no such history like that. Mayan civilization was one of the most advanced civilizations in the history of humanity. They were really inteligent, great astronomers, great mathematicians, and very respectful in their sacrifice ceremonies, and this is not shown in this movie.
  31. GabrielaI.
    Jan 25, 2007
    2
    Totally unrespectful of magnificent Mayan civilization. Gibson obviously has no idea about this people.
  32. LARADOE
    Jan 30, 2007
    1
    Having recently been in Mexico I decided to see this film. If it did not have some pretentions to being some comment on life as we know it either now, or in the time of (as Gibson would have it) "some" of our ancestors it might just be mindlesslyand in some ways unprecendently cruel and crude however because it opens with a comment about how societies collapse it sets itself up as havingHaving recently been in Mexico I decided to see this film. If it did not have some pretentions to being some comment on life as we know it either now, or in the time of (as Gibson would have it) "some" of our ancestors it might just be mindlesslyand in some ways unprecendently cruel and crude however because it opens with a comment about how societies collapse it sets itself up as having meaning. It does not have any meaning beyond evoking profounding visceral responses that knock any possible thinking through out from after the first ten minutes. To call it flawed honours it , to me it is a brutal travesty that apparently enobles the hegemony that ruled thereafter.It is more disturbing to think about it because then you realise there is no comprehensible message. Only good for dieters - eating is not to be recommended either before, and out of the question afterwards. Expand
  33. BobC
    Jun 12, 2007
    1
    Despite the somewhat hopeful ending, this movie belongs on the dung-heap of movieland for the shamefully unbalanced presentation of the Mayan culture. Mel Gibson's pathologic disdain for this non-Christian civilization is graphically and brutally displayed without any balancing scenes of positive societal attributes except from the "primitives". Shame on you Mel.
  34. DavidQ.
    Jun 8, 2007
    2
    Only a deeply religious person could do violence this unrelenting, cruel, and perverse. Moving from the blood-spurting-out-of-the-head scene (with the camera right behind the blood spurts, to catch each one) to the underwater birth scene, all of this shortly after the jaguar-ate-my-face-off scene, is, to be blunt, embarrassing. I could forgive all of this if the movie had any "poetry" of Only a deeply religious person could do violence this unrelenting, cruel, and perverse. Moving from the blood-spurting-out-of-the-head scene (with the camera right behind the blood spurts, to catch each one) to the underwater birth scene, all of this shortly after the jaguar-ate-my-face-off scene, is, to be blunt, embarrassing. I could forgive all of this if the movie had any "poetry" of violence about it, but it was all pretty standard. There were, in fact, numerous scenes that I swear were shot on video. The actors were uniformly great, the costumes and makeup exceptional as well. But after a while, such pointless and not especially well-crafted sadism wears thin. What was the point? The same story could be told with Kurt Russel escaping a post-apocalyptic New York. I loved Braveheart. What happened to Mel? Expand
  35. TedJ.
    Dec 10, 2006
    3
    This movie was great in conception, cleverly marketed, and, ultimately, really disappointing. The previews gave Apocalypto a sense of mystery and grandeur... it seemed to be so much more than the simplistic adventure film it is, where the hero must save his family by outrunning and outwitting the bad guys. The obscure dialogue and historical context are secondary garnishes that add This movie was great in conception, cleverly marketed, and, ultimately, really disappointing. The previews gave Apocalypto a sense of mystery and grandeur... it seemed to be so much more than the simplistic adventure film it is, where the hero must save his family by outrunning and outwitting the bad guys. The obscure dialogue and historical context are secondary garnishes that add nothing to a film rife with trite plot elements and ridiculously stupid dialogue. (i.e. at one point a character looks upon a poisoned comrade and says "He's f...ed," ostensibly for comic effect.) The cinematography is effective, but not incredible--the best moments were used for the previews. What really annoyed me was the film's overall lack of subtlety. The film seems to blatantly impose an ultra-conservative's perception of modern America--wicked, corrupt, in decline--onto that of the falling Mayan civilization. In the ten minutes we are shown the great Mayan cities, the citizens are portrayed as cariacatures of corruption: you have the rich, idle, apparently drunken, shit-talking debutantes; the fat, spoiled Mayan prince; the sadistic soldiers, the mute, corrupt leaders. The oft-mentioned violence in this film is indeed pervasive, but apart from a few scenes, this film holds nothing to the genuinely compelling carnage evident in a film like "Old Boy." In Apocalypto, the violence comes across as dressing to a sad dish, and it gets boring. Apocalypto certainly has moments, but it's nothing special. It's worth seeing, but for the wrong reasons. Expand
  36. FlorenceR.
    Dec 10, 2006
    0
    Nothing but blood and gore. I don't think the Mayans were that bloodthirsty and I know they weren't that stupid as to not know about an eclipse of the sun. The last half of the movie is nothing but a chase through the jungle with the occasional scene of more blood and guts along with a guy with a hole through him from a spear that he removed himself. [***SPOILERS***] So Nothing but blood and gore. I don't think the Mayans were that bloodthirsty and I know they weren't that stupid as to not know about an eclipse of the sun. The last half of the movie is nothing but a chase through the jungle with the occasional scene of more blood and guts along with a guy with a hole through him from a spear that he removed himself. [***SPOILERS***] So he's bleeding and sweating while for what seems like more than a day ( for him I mean ) with no water or food, then he eventually goes over a falls equal to Niagara, survives that and later gets an arrow through the neck and survives that to keep on running. Come oooooooon ! Enough already ! What a complete waste of my money. I wouldn't sit through it again it they paid ME ! Expand
  37. GeoffB.
    Dec 12, 2006
    3
    A waste of $8.50 and 2 hrs of my life. There is very little to this movie. Pay only to see it on video if you have nothing else to do. As some have declared this movie to be "Wonderful" and "Amazing", I declare it to be very unwonderful and definitely unamazing.
  38. Rev.R.
    Dec 18, 2006
    4
    I was watching a remake of the "Naked Prey". The photography was sensational, and the suspense outstanding. I felt Gibson could have done everyone a service with a movie revealing the reasons one of the most sophisticated cultures vanished (yes barbaric, but they must be understood in their historical context) . Instead, the Mayan civilization is portrayed as a blood-thirsty cult, I was watching a remake of the "Naked Prey". The photography was sensational, and the suspense outstanding. I felt Gibson could have done everyone a service with a movie revealing the reasons one of the most sophisticated cultures vanished (yes barbaric, but they must be understood in their historical context) . Instead, the Mayan civilization is portrayed as a blood-thirsty cult, allowing them to be used much as "leather-face's" family is a great backdrop for the violence of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". The priests even smile when participating in the violence. For centuries primitive religions have offered blood to the gods in hope of appeasing them; the Mayans were no different. To use a primitive religious belief to set up a violent thriller is hard, for me, to watch. This movie will make money because Gibson knows how to keep you on the edge of your seat. But, it is money that violates the contributions of a people and their heritage who did far more than butcher people. Expand
  39. KimM
    Dec 26, 2006
    2
    It's too bad. I could have gone home being amazed with the production, Mel's visionary direction of the actors, and Mel 's decision to explore the topic of the apocalypse (or maybe Mel would prefer I say, 'an' apocalypse') via a rich story of the Mayan civilization. Instead, I left the theater thinking about how much gratuitous violence Mel felt was necessary It's too bad. I could have gone home being amazed with the production, Mel's visionary direction of the actors, and Mel 's decision to explore the topic of the apocalypse (or maybe Mel would prefer I say, 'an' apocalypse') via a rich story of the Mayan civilization. Instead, I left the theater thinking about how much gratuitous violence Mel felt was necessary to drive his point home. Now, don't get me wrong, folks. I don't have a problem with seeing violence and gore. I just don't have to see blood pulsing out of yet another man and out of yet another orifice to get the message. Whatever it was, Mel. I actually left the theater with the impression that this movie was possibly inspired by Mel's experience(s) with episodes of alcohol induced delirium tremens. What a waste of an afternoon, Mel. Expand
  40. DylanC.
    Dec 4, 2006
    2
    This movie was absolutely ridiculous. It is a comedy version of rambo but with mayans. There was a point about half way through the movie at which the whole audience turned on it because of how stupid some of the scenarios are, but at least I got a good laugh out of it.
  41. MarcKrones
    Dec 9, 2006
    4
    As someone who liked "Braveheart" and loved "The Passion...", this film was a big disappointment. Lots of violence, but unlike the other two films, the violence shown here was extremely gratuitous and pointless...i.e., violence for violence sake. I thought the negative reviews for this movie were primarily driven because of so many people who now dislike Mel Gibson. But then I saw theAs someone who liked "Braveheart" and loved "The Passion...", this film was a big disappointment. Lots of violence, but unlike the other two films, the violence shown here was extremely gratuitous and pointless...i.e., violence for violence sake. I thought the negative reviews for this movie were primarily driven because of so many people who now dislike Mel Gibson. But then I saw the movie, and realized this film was judged on it's merits. Either a "4" or a "3" rating...I was in a generous mood giving this a "4." Expand
  42. JoeJoe
    Dec 9, 2006
    3
    Apocalypto is easily the most disappointing "Oscar Hopeful," so far this year. Instead of focusing on the true demise of the Maya Empire, it spent two hours depicting horrible violence and gore, which served neither to establish the internal strife mentioned at the beginning of the film, nor the turmoil in which conquistadors coming to the New World found Maya Civilization. The Apocalypto is easily the most disappointing "Oscar Hopeful," so far this year. Instead of focusing on the true demise of the Maya Empire, it spent two hours depicting horrible violence and gore, which served neither to establish the internal strife mentioned at the beginning of the film, nor the turmoil in which conquistadors coming to the New World found Maya Civilization. The unnecessary and excessive violence, coupled with a strong lack of true purpose (the movie may as well have been about one Amerindian Man's "Marathon," Run back to his wife, and forgotten the entire "Mayan internecine conflict," bit) make it seem as though Gibson was more concerned with making a movie to regain his good name than to wow both Hollywood and the Public with a great cinematic achievement. Expand
  43. James.
    Dec 16, 2007
    1
    The lead actor is great. The film is a piece of junk, depicting the Maya as absurd frat boys, is wildly inacurrate, and predictable.
  44. LuciaV.
    Feb 12, 2007
    0
    This was a terrible movie if you are looking for reliable information regarding the Mayan people and their advanced civilization. If you know that and are looking for a believable action film, it is an awful movie with all its implausible thrill scenes. Neither the hunters or the hunted behaved as knowledgeable forest dwellers. It made the characters look stupid at best. Those who liked This was a terrible movie if you are looking for reliable information regarding the Mayan people and their advanced civilization. If you know that and are looking for a believable action film, it is an awful movie with all its implausible thrill scenes. Neither the hunters or the hunted behaved as knowledgeable forest dwellers. It made the characters look stupid at best. Those who liked this movie must be as stupid as the director (who could not create a single credible scene) as they wax excitedly over big screen stupidity. I just hope no one uses this film to try to better know our southern neighbors. This film continues in the genre of demeaning, stereotypical racist caricatures of Mexicans or their ancestors. Expand
  45. AndresA.
    Feb 13, 2007
    0
    How many people are going to actually watch this movie and say: "okay, let's excuse the historic inaccuracies, since this is is just a fiction film" ? The same way people derived a strong anti-semitic message from "the Passion of the Christ", they will believe Gibson's message that this is actually what the Maya culture used to look like a thousand years ago. Sad indeed.
  46. BrennanM
    Jun 15, 2008
    0
    Oh gosh......how did so many people like this!?!? This movie was just sick! People are talking about how well it was done, and how powerful it was, yet....I seriously can't see any of that! It wasn't powerful, it was gross! Power and oppression is shown through scenes with characters and their losses, but this movie just replaced good acting with 10 minutes of head chopping! Oh gosh......how did so many people like this!?!? This movie was just sick! People are talking about how well it was done, and how powerful it was, yet....I seriously can't see any of that! It wasn't powerful, it was gross! Power and oppression is shown through scenes with characters and their losses, but this movie just replaced good acting with 10 minutes of head chopping! Seriously, I cannot repeat enough: This movie is not powerful, it's just an over dramatic gorefest. Expand
  47. jamesj
    Sep 28, 2008
    0
    I don't know--should have given this a 10, because I thought it was absolutely hilarious. I watched the whole movie and then watched it AGAIN, with the commentary on. It was that entertaining. I mean--a lot of people I respect really liked this movie. But I mean, first, there were historical inaccuracies you could drive a semi-truck through. In fact, I'm kind of surprised that I don't know--should have given this a 10, because I thought it was absolutely hilarious. I watched the whole movie and then watched it AGAIN, with the commentary on. It was that entertaining. I mean--a lot of people I respect really liked this movie. But I mean, first, there were historical inaccuracies you could drive a semi-truck through. In fact, I'm kind of surprised that wasn't included in the film! Gibson apparently had a hard time separating Maya from Aztec culture, not to mention one century from another. It's interesting that Mr. Cultural Understanding Gibson considered placing the movie's settings among the Aztecs, but dismissed it because of their brutality. (I think we of the 21st century have got to move past our gawking at Aztec brutality to really try and understand their historical cultures. I'm not sure, with our history of crusades and genocides and atomic weaponry and wars carried out based on lies--not sure we are equipped to dismiss any culture based on their "brutality") But, it's interesting that Gibson rejected the Aztecs, but then transferred all the most gory and brutal aspects of the Aztecs to the Mayans! I mean, Mayas did not carry out the mass sacrifices the Aztecs did. What's more, in terms of historical accuracy, urban civilization was hardly in full, or even half, swing when the Spanish arrived. But what's so hilarious about the movie is just how incredibly over the top it is. The ending! (Spoiler alert, I guess--but each time I watch it, it just gets funnier!) I mean, this dazzling foot race is going on while the guy's wife has fallen in a hole that's filling up with water, and then, in a birth sequence that is even more absurd than the sequence in Cronenberg's The Fly, where Gina Davis gives birth to a baby-sized maggot, she pops out a baby standing on tip-toes with the water having risen to her head, with her stretching her nose up for air! And, when I say that baby pops out, I mean, it pops out! Certainly one of the funniest moments of the film! And THEN, to top it all off, Jaguar Paws or whatever his name is, is being pursued by two Urban Maya intent on doing him harm only to suddenly run up on a Spanish ship coming into shore! Hoo boy, what a hoot! Definitely an entertaining film, but not in the way it was meant to be! What I can't believe is that folks like Robert Duvall, Edward James Olmos, and Roger Ebert all were enthusiastic to the point of hyperbole about this film. I mean--I respect all those guys...but maybe a little less than I had before! Maybe I'm just an idiot or something, but this film had me rolling in the floor with laughter! Expand
  48. ChrisH.
    Dec 22, 2006
    2
    I voted this movie a 2 in honor of the 2 scenes in the entire movie that were interesting. This movie was made for the lowest common denominator. The action is boring and the plot (what little there is) is predictable. I would recommend seeing this movie, but only to show how truly untalented Gibson is.
Metascore
68

Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 37
  2. Negative: 2 out of 37
  1. 88
    Gibson has made a film of blunt provocation and bruising beauty.
  2. The guy knows how to make a heart-pounding movie; he just happens to be a cinematic sadist.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    100
    Mel Gibson is always good for a surprise, and his latest is that Apocalypto is a remarkable film. Set in the waning days of the Mayan civilization, the picture provides a trip to a place one's never been before, offering hitherto unseen sights of exceptional vividness and power.