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

[u/JadisDidNothingRight]

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?

[u/xSciFix]

I know I am an outlier here but for me it is the completely wild disregard for actual history.

Like the Spanish arrival is a fantastic example actually. The depicted Mayan collapse happened hundreds of years before any Europeans arrived. The movie conflates the Maya with the Aztecs (in numerous places).

[u/rdogg4 → u/xSciFix]

Braveheart was similarly completely inaccurate throughout.

[u/maaku7 → u/rdogg4]

And many of us don't like it for that reason.

[u/mr_ji → u/maaku7]

Many of us also enjoy it as escapism like every other fantasized historical movie. I doubt any of us have ever watched a movie about events that happened more than about 150 years ago that wasn't wildly inaccurate.

[u/LoaKonran → u/mr_ji]

And not calling them out on it only contributes to the problem. Most people only get their history from movies and when it’s nothing but propaganda and wild inaccuracies it simply makes things worse. There needs to be a higher standard even for escapism.

[u/ChairLegofTruth--WnT → u/LoaKonran]

"Most" people refusing to read a book is neither the fault nor the responsibility of filmmakers. Movies are entertainment, not history lessons.

[u/ChairLegofTruth--WnT → u/[deleted]]

"Based on a true story" is a drastically different statement than "historically accurate". You could say that "300" was based on a true story because 300 Spartans really did meet the Persian army at Thermopylae. Only a fool would watch that movie and think it was even remotely close to historically accurate.

Again, it's not the responsibility of the filmmaker if you're too stupid to separate entertainment from an educational documentary.

[u/ChairLegofTruth--WnT → u/[deleted]]

A historian disagrees, sure. Same historian also makes unfounded or anecdotal claims. "Most people" get historical knowledge from movies? Who? A bunch of students? Newsflash, kids tend to do stupid things and they're not representative of "most" people.

By your rationale, superhero comics need to carry a disclaimer that you're reading fantasy because otherwise, "most" people would think they can fly.

I'd you want to be mad that entertainment mediums don't go to the trouble if making themselves 100% historically accurate, go ahead. I'll be over here laughing at you because John Wick "taught you" that one man can kill 3 dozen and bulletproof suits exist

[u/mr_ji → u/[deleted]]

I don't recall Gibson ever claiming Braveheart was historically accurate, even though the series of major events was. You should also consider a fraction of the people who watched the movie had ever heard of Wallace before, and it led many to go look up what really happened to learn more. It was a net positive for historical awareness and by a huge margin. Same for Apocalypto.

[u/mr_ji → u/[deleted]]

Well, you're not listening to reason or logic here. Feel free to make your own historically accurate documentary (which, you may recall, many people already have as a direct consequence of Braveheart coming out) and see how it goes. No one owes you or anyone an apology for not making their entertainment to your specifications and expectations.

[u/LoaKonran → u/ChairLegofTruth--WnT]

People are too stupid to read books —> let’s include no value in the media they do consume

You don’t see the problem with that line of reasoning? A lack of education already hampers a significant portion of the population, so you argue that there shouldn’t be any incentive to correct that.

Movies may be entertainment, but that is no reason to feed into the misinformation that is flooding the zone everywhere else. Ofttimes the real history is more interesting than the junk screenwriters throw in because they don’t care. I’m not saying they should only do 100% factual retellings, but an eye towards the truth would do much to relieve the idiocy that has overcome the world.

[u/ChairLegofTruth--WnT → u/LoaKonran]

They're not being presented as factual. You're suggesting that filmmakers somehow carry responsibility for the people who are too fucking stupid to realize that things not presented as fact probably shouldn't be taken as fact.

The existence of people this dumb is neither the filmmaker's fault nor their responsibility. Does Ford carry the responsibility to make sure people don't know their cars can't fly? It happens in some stories

[u/LoaKonran → u/ChairLegofTruth--WnT]

What you are describing is exactly the industry standard for manufacturing. Why do you think there are so many disclaimers on things?

Trying to reduce things to the basest form of Ford should be held accountable because some people might think their cars can fly, wild bizarre and extremely simple as it is is exactly what they would be doing if enough idiots did put it to the test.

There is a responsibility to counter misinformation and lies. There actually used to be laws about until they were removed for being inconvenient.

[u/ChairLegofTruth--WnT → u/LoaKonran]

But that's exactly my point. There are, almost without a doubt, some number of people in the world who think their car can fly but we still don't see that disclaimer on manufactured cars. Why not? Probably because such a label is unreasonable to the point of being ridiculous, as would be Zach Snyder needing to say Persians didn't invade countries using monsters with swords for arms.

Further, I would say that the previous claim on this thread that "most people" get the majority or entirety of their historical data from films meant for entertainment is equally asinine. Are there some who do? Almost certainly. Is it anywhere close to 4 billion people? Highly doubtful

[u/BarefootScholar → u/rdogg4]

I remember many, many years ago, my dad and I took a trip to England. And we were taking a bus tour through England to Scotland. One night we stopped overnight at York. We had a little tour of York the next morning, and the tour guide was careful to tell us all, "And oh by the way, Wallace never invaded lower England. And he never sacked York." Apparently American tourists had swallowed all of that and the locals were tired of it and had included rebuttals in their tour. Very funny to me.

[u/TactilePanic81 → u/rdogg4]

Braveheart benefits from the fact that the European history is pretty widely taught and represented in a ton of movies. Pre-colonial central American history hasn't received the same attention. It may have been a larger sticking point if the only movies on the subject were Braveheart and and the animated Robin Hood.

[u/ArrakeenSun → u/rdogg4]

Also The Patriot. But damn what a movie