In the archaeological community this movie got A LOT of bad reviews and negative comments. There was even a article in the magazine "Archaeology" about how Mel Gibson did a terrible job portraying the Maya.

But honestly..he wasn't that far off. The Maya weren't farmers and peaceful people (some were, but not all of them). They did a LOT of stuff with blood. It was sacred to them. Some of the scenes in the movie may be a bit too much. I say that it could have been a lot worse in some parts.

There is a famous painting from the Mayan site Bonampak that shows people being held captive. Several of these men have had their fingernails removed and their fingers are bleeding. Tell me that isn't harsh!

The only problem I have with the movie is.. the Spanish arriving at the end of the movie. The Maya that are in this movie are more of the late Classic Maya and the Spanish didn't make contact with them for another 600 years nearly.


But then again..this a movie. And you have to understand that. Most people in the archaeology community seem to have forgotten how to use their imagination. If it weren't for imagination I don't think there would be an archaeologist.

I like this movie!

Having some Mexican-Indian blood in me, I've always been interested in what I could read about the Aztecs and Mayans and others. But never did I achieve as elaborate a vision in my head, try as I might, as Mel Gibson has with the beautiful Apocalypto. Is it accurate? I've more than just strong doubts in at least one case, but like all good fiction, it probably tells more truth, despite its inaccuracies, than a dozen scholarly tomes. The movie is engrossing and, even more difficult, plausible and quite evocative. I would have bet any amount of money that this movie was impossible to make. And though some have complained that the film's ending involves an historical inaccuracy, I think there was more than enough reason to put it in.

There's a strong story that reminded me of other Third World folklore I've read, only better. In a lot of ways these people could have been North American Indians, but somehow that's not much of a criticism. And Gibson's recent PR problems only highlighted, for me, how it took an Australian-reared actor to make an exciting film about natives before Columbus. Clearly Hollywood is incapable of even conceiving of such a movie, much less bringing it brilliantly to life. Hollywood has an agenda and very narrow perspectives. It's agenda has no room for illuminating the humanity of non-Westerners, and there's too much relying on the same old set of sensibilities and intuition. I think if Hollywood is up in arms it ought to be because Gibson is making them look inept.

But as to this particular subject matter, there's no doubt in my mind that what fascinates most Anglos about the Aztecs and the Maya is the idea of human sacrifice. Gibson depicts the ritual as having an element of frenzy to it, and he may be right, but what is more convincing to me, at least, is his idea of what a village raid must have been like. His point by point reconstruction is pretty compelling, and I'm quite sure he could make some early American military raids on Indian villages so vivid and unforgettable that grown men would cry. I only hope he does, but as to this film, I would have depicted the human sacrifice with a nod toward a notion most Anglos find completely foreign, namely that these people understood that gain often entails pain, and they were willing to pay the price. Was it really so unreasonable that these people thought God might want them to create pain, and not just endure it, to gain His favor given that life entails so much struggle anyway? That willingness to endure pain clearly survives today, not the desire to create it in others, and that's the only point I would have added to this wonderful film.

Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" is not a normal movie but a big make-up movie…

From the moment the film starts to the moment it ends you feel you are transported into the ancient Mayan civilization, seeing full body tattoos, body art, multiple piercing and jewelry… It is a very exciting motion picture to look at, so strange to watch… It has the esthetic that began to appeal and it fills you with wonder…

Our hero Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) is a cunning hunter whose father requests him not to tell of what he saw in forest today… He is warned to strike fear from his heart and not to bring it into the village…His wife, Seven (Dalia Hernandez) is pregnant, and their small son, Turtles Run (Carlos Emilio Baez), live modestly in a village surrounded by a tranquil rain forest...

After a night of frivolity, the peaceful existence of this small community of hunters collapses when savage outsiders begin torching and burning everything in sight killing most and taking away dozens left…

Going undetected, Jaguar Paw hides his wife and child in a deep, waterless well promising to return when the attack has passed… However when he is captured by his fearsome aggressors, he is tied to a pole and marched with his friends and fellow villagers to a forsaken land, stone-built, where the earth bleeds…

A fortuitous switch provides Jaguar Paw with an unexpected opportunity to escape and get back to his family in peril… But for that he has to make his way home through a killing field and a dangerous jungle, racing against sadistic captors hot on his trail…

"Apocalypto" transports the viewers to a strange and unreachable world, to a civilization in decline, to an infernal vision of a city and its inhabitants, to shocking images of human barbarism which has always existed throughout the ages…

The story is set in the pre-Columbian Maya population: one village is brutally overrun, its residents either slaughtered or abducted, by a ruling tribe that needs slaves and human sacrifices. We focus on the capable warrior Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), although Gibson skillfully sketches a whole population of characters--many of whom don't survive the early reels. Most of the film is set in the dense jungle, but the middle section, in a grand Mayan city, is a dazzling triumph of design, costuming, and sheer decadent terror.

The movie itself is a triumph of brutality, as Gibson lets loose his well-established fascination with bodily mortification in a litany of assaults including impalement, evisceration, snakebite, and bee stings. It's a dark, disgusted vision, but Gibson doesn't forget to apply some very canny moviemaking instincts to the violence--including the creation of a tremendous pair of villains (strikingly played by Raoul Trujillo and Rodolfo Palacias).

The film is in a Maya dialect, subtitled in English, and shot on digital video (which occasionally betrays itself in some blurry quick pans). Amidst all the mayhem, nothing in the film is more devastating than a final wordless exchange of looks between captured villager Blunted (Jonathan Brewer) and his wife's mother (Maria Isabel Diaz), a superb change in tone from their early relationship. Yes, this is an obsessive, crazed movie, but Gibson knows what he's doing.

I've always been interested in what I could read about the Aztecs and Mayans and others. But never did I achieve as elaborate a vision in my head, try as I might, as Mel Gibson has with the beautiful Apocalypto. Is it accurate? I've more than just strong doubts in at least one case, but like all good fiction, it probably tells more truth, despite its inaccuracies, than a dozen scholarly tomes. The movie is engrossing and, even more difficult, plausible and quite evocative. I would have bet any amount of money that this movie was impossible to make. And though some have complained that the film's ending involves an historical inaccuracy, I think there was more than enough reason to put it in.

There's a strong story that reminded me of other Third World folklore I've read, only better. In a lot of ways these people could have been North American Indians, but somehow that's not much of a criticism. And Gibson's recent PR problems only highlighted, for me, how it took an Australian-reared actor to make an exciting film about natives before Columbus. Clearly Hollywood is incapable of even conceiving of such a movie, much less bringing it brilliantly to life. Hollywood has an agenda and very narrow perspectives. It's agenda has no room for illuminating the humanity of non-Westerners, and there's too much relying on the same old set of sensibilities and intuition. I think if Hollywood is up in arms it ought to be because Gibson is making them look inept.

But as to this particular subject matter, there's no doubt in my mind that what fascinates most Anglos about the Aztecs and the Maya is the idea of human sacrifice. Gibson depicts the ritual as having an element of frenzy to it, and he may be right, but what is more convincing to me, at least, is his idea of what a village raid must have been like. His point by point reconstruction is pretty compelling, and I'm quite sure he could make some early American military raids on Indian villages so vivid and unforgettable that grown men would cry. I only hope he does, but as to this film, I would have depicted the human sacrifice with a nod toward a notion most Anglos find completely foreign, namely that these people understood that gain often entails pain, and they were willing to pay the price. Was it really so unreasonable that these people thought God might want them to create pain, and not just endure it, to gain His favor given that life entails so much struggle anyway? That willingness to endure pain clearly survives today, not the desire to create it in others, and that's the only point I would have added to this wonderful film.

Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but he knows how to make an authentically real statement about the human condition. The movie is about civilization and how smaller is better. There are some rain-forest dwelling American natives, somewhere in America where there are jaguars and monkeys. Then there are some "civilized" natives, with a huge society of nobles, serfs, slaves and sacrificial victims who get their hearts torn out and heads chopped off on top of a pyramid, for the appeasement of their gods and for the sake of controlling and entertaining the "citizens." Our noble small villagers of the forest are ultimately hunted down and enslaved by the more organized, and totally vicious, pyramid builders. This is a story of how one of these villagers deals with the horrific trials that his captors heap upon him. The whole movie is in an ancient native language, subtitled in English, and it lends an air of excruciating authenticity to the happenings. One gets the feeling of being a time traveler, as this 500-year-old world seems so real, with every detail of weaponry, cookware, clothing, jewelry, labor practices, buildings, village characters, and sacrificial ceremonies so obviously researched that it made me feel uncomfortably like I was involved in it all. We are constantly getting the crowd's point of view of all the empire's activities and abuse of its captives and underlings. There is a lot to look at here, from God's beautiful nature to man's nightmarish creations, so it deserves to be seen on a big screen.

it is an awesome movie.after a while i have watched movie like this.i am just thinking that why this movie had not won an oscar.in my point of view after james cameron and steven spielberg the mel gibson is the best director.and in this film direction was just superb.mind blowing.in this movie it was totally real concept.and even stunts were awesome.mel gibson should continue his work like that.and should make movies based on real life.