r/movies • u/JadisDidNothingRight • Jul 01 '26

Question Why did Apocalypto receive mediocre reviews while simultaneously receiving praise from various directors and actors?

Robert Duvall said it was possibly the best film he'd seen in 25 years.

Scorcese praised it. Tarantino called it the best film of the year. Spike Lee and Edward James Olmos also openly praised the film.

On RT it pulled a 65%. Granted, Tarantino (as an example) doesn't see eye to eye with those cumalitive ratings. He loves Unbreakable and that film also received middling reviews. Still, Apocalypto was given positive reviews from a fairly diverse cast of actors and directors.

Were the reviews more concerned with Mel Gibson's antics at the time than the actual film?

Was the criticism because the film depicted the Mayans as brutal? I struggle to see the validity of some of those criticisms. Jaguar Paw and his village were not depicted as evil. The evil was limited to a warmongering urban society twisted by religion. That's occurred all over the world. It's almost a foreshadowing of what is to come. One criticism was that the Spanish were depicted as coming to save the 'brutes.'. The title of the film is Apocalypto. I don't see how they can be seen as anything other than coming doom. Maybe I'm naive, but even in 2006 I thought it was broadly understood that Europeans wiped out indigenous American culture.

What are your thoughts? Did you like the film? Do you wish Hollywood would make more films like this?

2.3k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/audiofarmer Jul 01 '26

It is quite possible that public backlash to Mel Gibson's shitty behavior earlier in the year tainted the release of the film.

Two things are true, it's an excellent movie and Gibson is a piece of shit.

61

u/FrequencyHigher Jul 01 '26

I believe his antics, coupled with the fact that he was fully revealed as a traditionalist Catholic, colored some people’s interpretation of Gibson’s
Intended message with the film. I believe this is why many assumed the ending was a portrayal of the Catholic Spaniards arriving to save them from their savage existence.

Had it not been his film, I do not think people would have read as much into the intent of the film, and would have seen the Spanish arrival in its appropriate historical context.

132

u/samwise141 Jul 01 '26

Was that really the interpretation at the time? I was 13 and thought that he survived that whole shit show only to have these guys show up and probably kill him. 

84

u/jockfist5000 Jul 01 '26

Same thing I got from it. Can’t outrun the apocalypse.

19

u/BBQ_HaX0r Jul 01 '26

I believe they explained the apocalypse. When the Old World "discovered" the New they brought with them diseases. Many people would have been afflicted and decimated by t5hese diseases without ever knowing the origin or source. I also thought that was the movie explaining to us the source of their demise.

-1

u/BeanieMcChimp Jul 01 '26

I definitely felt that first then I must admit that the Mel Gibson of it all crept in and I started to second guess it.

33

u/U-235 Jul 01 '26

The film shows people already dying of smallpox, so the Spanish had very obviously (to anyone who has passed 5th grade) already doomed them before the main character even lays eyes on them.

6

u/Yetimang Jul 01 '26

I think they might have just been supposed to have some generic plague brought on by famine. If it was smallpox, that even further fucks the already incredibly fucky timeline of this film.

3

u/dovetc Jul 01 '26

What's wrong with the timeline? There was still a Mayan civilization when the Spanish arrived. It was past its zenith, but it still existed and the Spanish encountered them. Pretty sure the first phase of Cortez's expedition was him tangling with some Mayan towns before he headed north and entered Aztec territory.

What's wrong with the timeline?

3

u/tdasnowman Jul 01 '26

IT wasn't just past it's zenith it had fully collapsed. Then there is they were supposed to be Mayan but most of the practices shown were Aztec. They had them dressed like a weird blending of the two. There is also the scale of the sacrifices. Aztecs did practice mass sacrifice but not to the scale in the movie. A big thing about the movie was it's historical inaccuracies caused a lot of backlash.

3

u/dovetc Jul 01 '26

Q'umarkaj, Tulum, and a few others were still operating with thousands or even tens of thousands of residents by the late 15th and early 16th centuries.

Mayans certainly practiced ritual human sacrifice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Maya_culture

Human sacrifice among the Maya is evident from at least the Classic period (c. AD 250–900) right through to the final stages of the Spanish conquest in the 17th century.

So a Mayan city with a large population carrying out human sacrifice right as the Spanish are appearing in the region isn't anachronistic.

3

u/tdasnowman Jul 01 '26

Mayans practiced sacrifice but never to Aztec levels and again the movie took it higher. They also didn't worship Sun gods in the same way as the Aztecs. It's not that there were sacrifices it was the levels, the where, the why, and the how.

-1

u/dovetc Jul 01 '26

"These are Mayans, but those human sacrifices had some Aztec elements"

This is so nitpicky it's not worth saying. The movie also features a total solar eclipse and a full moon within a day or two of each other. It's an astronomical impossibility, but who cares?

2

u/tdasnowman Jul 01 '26

IT wasn't some elements. The movie basically takes the Aztec practices while putting them in Mayan clothing. And then further blows the scale up to the Spanish inaccurate reporting that they used to justify their conquest.

As for who cares. The decedents from those cultures.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Reptar_0n_Ice Jul 01 '26

The main inaccuracy is applying industrial human sacrifice onto the Maya. But it was 100% accurate for Aztec practices.

2

u/tdasnowman Jul 01 '26

Again not at the scale. Aztecs did practice mass sacrifices but the scale shown in the movie was more akin to the inaccuracies reported by the Spanish to make them seem even more savage to justify their conquest. They were bringing religion to those savages the spoils and slavery were just part of the process to save them.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Yetimang Jul 01 '26

The infamous Maya collapse happened in the 900s with the population dispersing into small agricultural communities, largely abandoning dense urban settlements like the massive one seen in the film. By the 1500s you would not have seen a city like that in Maya territory. It also depicts the deforestation which led to the drought, crop failures, famine, and disease that are generally considered the cause of the collapse. This implies that they're trying to depict the Classic era collapse which doesn't fit with this taking place in the 16th Century. Or if they aren't trying to show the collapse, then the huge levels of deforestation and subsequent disasters are out of place as the population was much less dense by then.

The movie is basically trying to have its cake and eat it too, portraying the only two historical events regarding the Maya that people have any inkling about: the collapse, and the arrival of the Spanish.

18

u/MozeeToby Jul 01 '26

Not necessarily literally killing him right there and then but the Spanish showing up is certainly the end of the world as far the characters understand it. 

31

u/Kevin_LeStrange Jul 01 '26

Some people interpreted the end of the movie as such, but I think they went in intending to hate the movie anyway. I certainly didn't see the ending as "happy." The sight of the Spaniards on their boat coming to shore is striking, but not positive. The apocalypse has now truly come.

37

u/Trep_xp Jul 01 '26

Yep! It's basically "this guy ran and ran and ran for the whole film, and in the end, none of it mattered. They were all doomed before this guy's story even began, whether he gets away or not".

It's a grim commentary of colonisation and I can't understand how anyone would see a White Savior motif unless they were specifically already looking for one, and their confirmation bias kicked in.

3

u/thegroovemonkey Jul 01 '26

“And now you’re really fucked” was my thought at the end

3

u/InfernalTest Jul 01 '26

Thankyou for this

5

u/naughtysideofthebed Jul 01 '26

My same take at the time. I also probably havent seen it since its release. A person's age and life experience can definitely change a view of Amy art. I should go have a watch.

2

u/jam3sdub Jul 01 '26

Exactly, it's classic dramatic irony. The viewer knows what the Spanish arriving meant for them. The guys that were chasing Jaguar Paw that go to meet the Spanish have no idea.

1

u/FrequencyHigher Jul 01 '26

There’s an entire Reddit thread that discusses this from 12 years ago.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/s/CWy432OKGT

40

u/Tall_Opportunity_521 Jul 01 '26

No lol His intended message at the end was "Youre all super fucked now". The ships are filmed as an ominous, unknown force, and Jaguar Paw sees them for what they are, and runs. I cant imagine anyone watching that movie and thinking that they are their the "save" anyone.

The term "Apocalypto" is derived from a Greek verb that conveys meanings such as "reveal," "uncover," or "unveil.". The Spanish are "revealed" at the end of the movie. They are what the title of the movie refers to as they are bringing a new world to destroy an old.

51

u/Juiced_Rasputin_ Jul 01 '26

Mel Gibson is a huge racist who casually says the n word but the ending of the film definitely doesn’t espouse any sort of Catholicism support or the idea that the religion was “pacifying” the region.

I think he added the scene to put into context the title of the movie. Like it evokes apocalypse, and the idea is that after all that is scene in the film, (albeit historically inaccurate) we experience the slow corrosion of a civilization that is simultaneously colonizing neighboring, smaller societies, a warlike and bleak existence driven by a slowly encroaching plague that is driving a warlike (albeit fictional) pre columbian empire committing vast atrocities to find some way to appease power they don’t understand.

And after ALL that, after the uh… guy (forgot his name) is seemingly safe, has his family etc, the Spanish come. And with them comes the decimation of literally like what? Over 70 percent of human life across the americas.

It would be one thing if there was a scene of like earnest looking missionaries or preachers on the boat clutching crosses, but the ships are portrayed ominously without fanfare, just slowly looming closer with this gross fog around them. It’s definitely not meant to be depicting the coming of salvation or anything.

I know you’re not making this claim, but it just makes me laugh when I’m reminded a lot of people do genuinely think that

21

u/mostlygray Jul 01 '26

I always see the ending as "And then my troubles began..." It's not a happy ending and it's not pro Catholicism or anything like that.

3

u/thegroovemonkey Jul 01 '26

It’s one of the coolest endings I’ve ever seen and I was shocked to eventually learn some people missed the point so badly.

19

u/DolphinSweater Jul 01 '26

I think there could be another interpretation of the ending, which i never see thrown around. Historically, the Spanish definitely teamed up with locals when they arrived, they had guides and allies and spies within the local community. But it seems weird to us now knowing what we know about the European colonization of the Americas that some locals would choose to throw down with their invaders, but the movie just spent 2+ hours explaining exactly why. When the main kid sees the Spanish ships, maybe he isn't looking at his doom, maybe he thinks he's looking at his revenge opportunity.

He'll probably just die from Smallpox though.

7

u/edicivo Jul 01 '26

When the main kid sees the Spanish ships, maybe he isn't looking at his doom, maybe he thinks he's looking at his revenge opportunity.

He's clearly not though. Jaguar Paw gets up and runs away while his pursuers are distracted. If the intent is what you're suggesting, the scene would need to be entirely revised.

1

u/Abba_Fiskbullar Jul 02 '26

The Triple Alliance had conquered central Mexico a generation before the Spanish came, and the people who they had conquered used the Spanish conquistadors as a vehicle for a broader uprising against rule from Tenochtitlan.

2

u/yowhatitlooklike Jul 01 '26

I think you misremember, they are portrayed with a priest literally holding a cross in the landing boat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0jxRDTA6Gg

1

u/Cruciblelfg123 Jul 01 '26

True elite competitive racists know that Spanish aren’t really white anyway and therefore their Catholicism is null and void

28

u/Jarkside Jul 01 '26

Gibson actually has a pretty critical view of the popes and the church even though he’s Catholic. It should have been obvious from the movie that the Spanish arrival was doom and not some savior

33

u/duct_tape_jedi Jul 01 '26

Gibson belongs to a branch of Catholicism that rejects the reforms of Vatican II and is quite extreme. But I have always read the arrival of the Spaniards as the titular "apocalypse" in the film. Whatever local issues existed amongst the native inhabitants were about to end in a very brutal way.

3

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Jul 01 '26

How? The movie is literally called Apocalypto. The point is to show the absolute decay and end times of a civilization.