ROTTEN TOMATOES: Trailer Bulletin: Apocalypto Comments

Trailer Bulletin: Apocalypto

by Scott Weinberg | December 21, 2005

Summary

That unpredictable ol' Mel Gibson has some a new movie brewin'. It's called "Apocalypto," and it looks like it hopes to be a big player in next summer's movie wars. Check out the brand-new trailer right here. Back to Article

(1-29 of 29 posts) | Reply

FluxCapacitor writes:
on Dec 21 2005 02:16 AM

This. Looks. Majestic.

Bring it on.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Dec 21 2005 05:02 AM

Gibson proved with The Passion that great stories don't need translation. This has an orginal look to it and one I'm sure will be a welcome respite from the upcoming parade of crap such as Miami Vice.

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 21 2005 06:23 AM

[b]Lamonites![/b]
I wonder if Mel Gibson has read the Book of Mormon…

For those who might not know, the Book of Mormon is an account of the American continent from 600bc to 400ad. It explains the origins of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas, and later Native Americans. After Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, He appeared to these people on the American continent. And that’s why when Cortez came from Spain on his white horse and gleaming armor the people mistook him for their god returning, because just like to the people of Jerusalem, Christ told them that he would return. And that’s why the Mormon church has millions of members in Central and South America, many of the people recognize the Book of Mormon as a history of their people. The Book of Mormon explains how many of the American continent’s indigenous people are actually descended from ancient Israel, which makes sense if you look at the art and architecture (i.e. Pyramids). The Book of Mormon also explains how they, unfortunately, became idolatrous, blood-thirsty people. 400 years after Christ appeared to them, the last of the Christians became extinct through war.

(Reply to this)

FluxCapacitor writes:
on Dec 21 2005 07:50 AM

Interesting info, Sokvieta, thanks for that.

As far as I know, Mel Gibson has said that he wants to keep the picture free from European faces, so that pretty much rules out Cortez and the Conquistadors, etc - I think he wants to portray an internal struggle. However, he DID say that this was to be a 'mythic' adventure, so maybe you're onto something with the appearance of Christ. It will certainly add an unexpected twist to the story. Besides, I thought The Passion was a brilliant piece of filmmaking... and I'm fiercely secular.

This film could be the one to beat for Oscars '07.

(Reply to this)

privatepilesleftnipple writes:
on Dec 21 2005 09:08 AM

HAHA

sounds like another lie the christians concocted to convert en mass.

and you actually fell for this horse tripe?

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 09:19 AM

Or more specifically Mormons invented that the overwhelming majority of christians reject you ignorant jerk

(Reply to this)

FluxCapacitor writes:
on Dec 21 2005 09:53 AM

I disagree with it as a representation of the facts, but find it mythically interesting (that statement pretty much sums up my attitude to most of the Bible).

While I am fascinated and moved by mythology, I believe that it is just that: mythology. That's why The Passion worked for me as a film, but would never have got me into church.

I'm going to wait and see what Gibson does, and how he does it. There's nothing to say he'll even touch on Mormon, so it's all up in the air - but it looks like he's been making a powerful film.

(Reply to this)

casual_viewer01 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 10:18 AM

[b]SOKIVETA WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??????[/b]
Sokiveta-

Wow, I had no idea the calender turned back to 16th century, when the Catholic Church elaborated the ridiculous theory you are talking of. The theory of the lost tribe of Israel was a Catholic patch to justify the obvious challenge that the existence of the New World presented to Judeo-Christian mythology. By the way, this theory has been widely discredited by anyone that was born with a brain in the 20th century.
It is embarassing and irresponsible that you attempt to pass off the mere superstitions of a religion as archeological and historical fact. While you are free to believe whatever myths you wish to invest yourself in, it is unacceptable that you come into a forum and misinform those who have no idea about Latin American history.
To begin with, evidence proves that the origins of the Mayan civilization date back to 1500 B.C. The Aztec civilization moved away from their homeland of Aztlan in 1100 A.D. The Inca empire wasn't formed until 1438 A.D. As you can see, none of the dates match 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. timeline that you have provided us with.
Isn't it convenient, everyone, that the book of mormon justifies that there were no Christians in America because they were killed off? It is also rather impressive that no evidence whatsoever of Christian worship can be found in any account of the time. My argument could be dimissed by suggesting that some civilizations have disappeared without leaving any trace behind. However, one is prone to ask the following. If all evidence of christianity prior to the arrival of the conquerors was destroyed, what evidence sustains the claim you make that christianity existed in pre-colonial America? How do you know that the last Christian died 400 years after the arrival of Christ? Can you produce any concrete evidence that supports your arguement? I bet you can't, but I suspect that you are the kind of person that would scoff empirical evidence and label facts as stupid things.
Christianity, sokiveta, did not appear in America until it was brutally impossed, as it was everywhere else, by the conquering Europeans. Many local myths and dieties were distorted by the conquerors to ease the transition into Christianity. Which in turn facilitated the political and social control of the europeans over the newly conquered people.
Now, Sokiveta may argue that there are accounts that say that a white man left the continent as he arrived and told the Americans to await for his return and that this man was none other than Jesus. Well, that isn't true. The figure that would fit the bill of a deity bound for a return is one of the incarnations of Quetzalcoatl (An incarnation that may have suffered from distortions by Catholic priests trying to shape him after Christ.) Quetzalcoatl is a deity that is often represented by Aztec culture as a feathered serpent. Quetzalcoatl is a difficult figure to dicuss because of the complexity of the American religions. Each civilization in which Quetzalcoatl is featured has a different interpretation, role, and name for him. Even the term "him" should be carefully used. Some myths imagine him as a dual deity that was both the god of the wind and the earth. Then there are a few historical incarnations. To make matters more difficult, there was a variant of the myth that approximates the judeo-christian god in that the man left and was bound to return. One should remember that the Spanish documentarians (mostly priests) modified several myths to adapt them to those of the Christian faith. Thus, some legends have been heavily altered. For more information on the myth, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl as a starting point.
Now, there is NO HISTORICAL PROOF that the Aztecs actually greeted Cortez as Quetzalcoatl. Recent historical accounts suggest that this is a myth created in the 16th century. Even those who suggest that Moctezuma II treated Hernan Cortez as if he was Quetzalcoatl, would say that this was a strategy to deal with the invaders. Much like el Dorado or the Foutain of Youth were used to distract the Spanish conquest in other areas of America.
You lie when you say that there are millions of mormons in Latin America. There are, in fact, less than 3 million out of 600 million Latin Americans (http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsstatistics.htm)
And finally, idolatrous? blood thirsty? What gives you and your sect the right to pass judgement on a civilization? After all, the institutions of Christianity lack a history of violence right? Oh wait, they dont (the crusades, the inquisition, the witch trials, the conquest of America, etc.) Christian history is not free of bloodlust and the desire for violence. Nietzsche quotes Tertullian and Thomas Aquinas in the Genealogy of Morals to show that part of the reward of heaven is to be able to see the tortures that the damned undergo. I'm not saying that modern christians expect the same, but that doesn't mean that this bloodlust is not part of their history. And idolatry? (Angels and Devils? Virgins giving birth? Saints?) Explain to me the difference between aknowledging the statue of a pre-colonial deity as a god and praying to a cross? As far as I can tell, the only difference comes in the name given to the object. Besides, wouldn't you consider that the true difference between the so called truths of christian myths and other religious mythologies is that you choose to take one as fact and the others as ficitons? For those of us who do not believe in anything, the difference between them does not exist. They are both fictions. So please, everyone, ignore what he is saying and do not let his ignorant view of Latin American History shape your own. Sokiveta is the kind of person that would have you believe that the world is 4,000 years old and that evolution is a lie. Sokiveta, I will leave you with the words of a far wiser man than me.
"Every sect, of every kind, is a rallying point for doubt and error. Scotist, Thomist, Realist, Nominalist, Papist, Calvinist, Mlinist, and Jansenist are only pseudonyms." Voltaire, On Sect, Dicctionaire Philosophique

Ecrasez l'infamie! -Voltaire making a call to arms against
(Destroy the infamy) the superstitions of the Catholic religion.
Further reading: Volaire's Dictionnaire
philosophique; Check out Nietzsche's
Twilight of the Idols, and take a look at
Sergei Eisenstein's October.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Dec 21 2005 10:24 AM

[b]What are you all talking about?[/b]
How did this unique little period movie on the Mayan civilisation suddenly turn into anything more than just what Gibson said it was? Christian converting? Mormon? Where is everyone getting this from? Just because he made The Passion, it doesn't mean Apocalypto is going to be anything more than what he said it's going to be; an action story set in the Mayan civilisation.
Good lord people, lighten up!

(Reply to this)

casual_viewer01 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 10:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#829190)
My reply had nothing to do with what Mel Gibson's movie may be. Sorry if there was any reason for confusion. The post was made in response to the views on Latin American History expressed by sokiveta. While this is may not be the best place for a reply of this kind (given that this is a board to discuss the trailer,) I thought it important that people who came to learn about the movie were not misinformed by sokiveta. There is no historical validity to the claims he makes and they are degrading to the history of the people of Latin America.

As for Mel Gibson's movie, I'll talk about only when I see it. Sorry again if there was any confusion about that.

(Reply to this)

bacci40 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 11:39 AM

[b]The world ends on oct 12 2012[/b]
at least according to the mayans...who were the first to understand the concept of zero....and somehow knew there was a black hole in the center of the galaxy

btw, if you stop frame the qt clip you will see.....a bearded mel 3/4 of the way through the clip

(Reply to this)

airsickmoth writes:
on Dec 21 2005 11:49 AM

What sokiveta forgot to mention was that the mormon history of Latin America comes from Joseph Smith, who read them to some guy off gold plates he put in a hat and only he could see. So you can make up your own mind on how accurate a history it is.

(Reply to this)

coh writes:
on Dec 21 2005 03:56 PM

[b]No Connection Needed[/b]
Passion and Apocalypto are TWO SEPERATE FILMS. Next up, the connection between Spielberg's ET and Close Encounters: Discuss!
Two seperate films people. Come on.

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 21 2005 04:21 PM

[b]Goodness...[/b]
Let me first clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that Mel Gibson's new movie follows the Book of Mormon in any way. Also, the Book of Mormon is a record that was started in 600bc and then passed down to each following generation until 400ad. In the early part of the 5th century, all of the records were compiled on to one large record made out of gold plates, a sort of 'readers digest' version of those 1200 years. The main point of the Book of Mormon isn't to explain the goings on of those ancient civilizations (and doesn't cover what went on before or after), but it simply testifies that Christ did live on the earth. It's meant as a second witness, companion to the Bible, that testifies of Christ.

Casual_viewer01, I'll be honest with you I didn't read your entire post, it was very long. After a while I thought you were going to start referring to me with terms like "...my opponent in this election..." But I’ll reply with a common mantra of this website, “don’t review something you haven’t seen.” Meaning, have you even read the Book of Mormon?

Anyway, I agree with dracus, lighten up.

As for the movie, I bet it’ll be good, maybe even like Braveheart.

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 05:35 PM

so is it possible that Gibson could become a champion of the American Left for making a film about an acient civilization that features no Europeans?

(Reply to this)

n_cruz69 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 06:37 PM

[b]LOL[/b]
I heard and saw that Mel Gibson appears in the trailer, smiling with a huge beard and a joint in his mouth seconds after they should the pregnant girl!!! IT IS FUNNY AS HELL!! if you do a frame by frame or just pause every second after that you will be able to catch it

(Reply to this)

mofojoe85 writes:
on Dec 21 2005 08:12 PM

In reply to this comment (#829195)
[b]Yeah...[/b]
Gotta get something off my chest really quick...Joseph Smith was a conman and unfortunately he fooled a lot of people...that being said the movie looks interesting and I definitely don't have any doubts in Gibson's directing ability.

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 22 2005 12:38 AM

I don't want to send this forum into circles about everyone's opinion of Joseph Smith, but I will say that he was an honest man and he died for what he believed in. The only unfortunate thing about Joseph Smith is that there is a huge campaign of misinformation about him and about the Mormon church.

Anyway, I saw that frame in the trailer, the one with Mel Gibson. Man, that's hilarious! It's at 1:46 on the trailer, it's a single frame of Mel with his arm on one of the actor's shoulders, he has on a flanel shirt and you can see his watch. I looked at this trailer in HD and I think that he just has a normal cigarette, not a joint. But he does have a crazy beard, sort of like Capt. Lou, but without the rubber band (you probably have to be over 25 to get that reference).

(Reply to this)

casual_viewer01 writes:
on Dec 22 2005 12:58 AM

In reply to this comment (#829195)
It is obvious you didn't read the whole post because you are not the kind of person that would actually inform themselves before opening their mouths. a) I did not write a review of the Book of Mormon (although I will read it now to see if the absurdities you stated are in the book.) b) Dracus was under the mistaken impression I was talking about the movie and not about your post.
I was crticizing you for diseminating a false and disgusting interpretation of latin american history and culture. Of course you say lighten up, because it's not your culture that is being ridiculed. I would imagine you wouldn't lighten up if I started making up things about the mormon people and passed them off as facts to justify my own beliefs. Perhaps next time you write, you will care to inform yourself.

By the way,

This has nothing to do with Gibson's movie. I'm taking issue against a misrepresentation of latin american culture made in a post above.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Dec 22 2005 04:11 PM

[b]That's one take on it...[/b]
casual_viewer01 & sokiveta, if you've read the Book of Scientology, you'd know that the Mayans actually come from Planet Xerathon II of the Western Nebuli Cluster... Now, according to intelligent design, The Mayans were actually the off shoot of a panda (we know how much pandas love their shoots) or something like that (the Aztecs did, however, evolved from protozoa -- hence the constant discord). But, some historians theorize that the Mayans are actually decendents of the chinese, just like the native americans, or vice-versa, depending on which direction people crossed that "alleged" Bering Strait...

As for idolatrous and blood-thirsty people, who the heck wasn't back in the day (for that matter, who the heck isn't now)?

(Reply to this)

Vinny Vega writes:
on Dec 22 2005 04:20 PM

In reply to this comment (#829201)
[b]Grey[/b]
As for idolatrous and blood-thirsty people, who the heck wasn't back in the day (for that matter, who the heck isn't now)?

Those neutral Swiss bastards. And Ralph Wiggum.

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Dec 22 2005 08:53 PM

[b]Anthropology[/b]
Casual_Viewer01, it seems like I might have offended you, and if I did I'm sorry.

In response to Bane of Anibus's comment, a lot of anthropologists believe that the only way Native Americans got to the North American continents was through the Bering Strait, from Asia. And on the same note, a lot of anthropologists used to believe that the Pacific Islands could only have been inhabited by people traveling East, from Asia.

I myself am from Fiji, in the South Pacific, and so I was very interested to find out that, only using the primitive style of boat making and navigation that was found over 2000 years ago in South America, a scientist was able to prove that it would have been easy to travel (West) to the South Pacific Islands from South America. He proved it by doing it. Now, I've studied art history, and any art historian will tell you that there are a lot of similarities between ancient Egyptian art, South and Central American art, and South Pacific art. Now, on the flip side of that, Asian art was very isolated and didn't really spread until recently (meaning the last 500 years).

Now, Casual_Viewer01, the Book of Mormon doesn't mention Mayan, Aztec or Incan civilizations by that name, nor does the Momron church, those were just my words and my assumptions. The Book of Mormon does, however, take place between 600bc and 400ad on the American continents, and the people who kept those records give accounts of finding civilizations that were there prior to their ancestor’s arrival. The Book of Mormon also mentions groups of people that built ships and migrated West on the open ocean (the Pacific Ocean).

Oh, and when the Book of Mormon talks about a group traveling from Jerusalem to the American Continent, it's not referring to a lost tribe of Israel; in fact, because such good records were kept by those people, they can clearly trace back their lineage to Joseph, son of Jacob (Israel).

(Reply to this)

Cicatriz writes:
on Dec 23 2005 01:52 AM

[b]SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE IN TRAILER!!![/b]
If you pause the trailer at 1:46 you see a picture of Mel Gibson with a beard smoking a cigarette. Heres a screenshot. If you don't believe me look for yourself.

http://img356.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screencapapocalypto9ix.jpg

(Reply to this)

renny2077 writes:
on Dec 23 2005 01:54 AM

A movie set in the Mayan Civilization....how often do you see that? - Way to go, Mel. I bet this movie's gonna be awesome.

(Reply to this)

simplifyinco writes:
on Dec 24 2005 11:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#829184)
[b]sokiveta's spelling problem[/b]
OK, sokiveta, how about learning how to SPELL the name of the mythical race called Lamanites. As in Laman, you remember, that fictional idea Joseph Smith created whilst his head was buried in his hat peering at his ubersecret "peep stones".

Perhaps it's all the secret handshakes, with their accompanying secret passwords connected to your secret marks sewn into your secret underwear that's blocking your ability to spell correctly. You know, all those secret things you silly mormons practice in your silly secret temples. Or perhaps it's the concept that you believe that you actually have to give angels at the gates of heaven, or "veil", those very same secret handshakes and passwords to get in . Maybe THAT'S what keeping you from spelling well.

I dunno what it is, actually, but you're a dimwit that's in a cult and you need help.

As for Gibson, he's also a brainwashed dolt for believing in the myth of Christ, and his zealous practice of that mythology is quite disturbing. Perhaps he'll be able to get past his and this nation's obsession with god and move on to some decent filmaking. I am hopeful that this new film won't include a cameo by Jesus, talk about a buzzkill.

e

(Reply to this)

the_shadow writes:
on Dec 28 2005 07:43 AM

can't believe they kept quiet about this movie for so long. great trailer and creepy music... what could possibly go wrong?

(Reply to this)

5elements writes:
on Sep 19 2006 09:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#829207)
[b]Interesting time period piece[/b]
I consider it quite a challenge for a film maker to do a period piece in ancient america.....

compared to European history there is very little known about this time period....

Also, I am interested in what the Mormons will say about it finding parallels with their book....

Seems like a fascinating topic to cover...

I feel bad for Sokiveta.com that a few people on this board are disrespecting him and his belief....

It's simply uncalled for. I look at it as the same as people being anti-sematic.....there is no need for that....

Sokiveta is however wrong on one account.....he said that the Book of Mormon doesn't cover anything before or after 400 bc and 600 ad.....from what I understand there is a story in the book about the "Jaredites" that goes back thousands of years before that which also takes place in the American continent.

What fascinates me is the detailed stories of religious wars that the natives of ancient America had in the Book of Mormon.....seems like this movie focuses on a time period of war that may have taken place around the same time......

So whether you believe it's true or not it could very well be an important source of inspiration for a filmaker covering a similar theme of ancient American war.

I'm sure there is satire in this movie that draws parallels to the wars of today....specially in the middle east...

(Reply to this)

crimedog1286 writes:
on Dec 13 2006 11:13 AM

In reply to this comment (#829195)
[b]Hey, I DID Read That Book![/b]
I've read the Book of Mormon, and I've seen Apocalypto. They actually share something in common: Both are figments of fertile imaginations. The similarities end there. At the end of Apocalypto, I was exhilirated and entertained, and I could imagine that exact story playing itself out in real life, many centuries ago. At the end of the BofM, I was somewhat less enlightened. It's an unbelievable concoction with no historical or archaeological support whatsoever.

At least Mel admits he didn't need supernatural nocturnal visitors or a "Urim and Thummim" for his fable. He made it up out of his own head

(Reply to this)

Salsassin writes:
on Dec 29 2006 10:00 AM

In reply to this comment (#829184)
[b]Oh What a bunch of Hogwash[/b]
The Mormon claims have been disproved quite succinctly. Caral pyramids date at the same time as the earliest Egyptian pyramids. So much for one predating the other.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Braveheart

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links