In many cases non-professional actors are alot better - they can actually give a more honest performance.

uh....okay, and I can build my house with non-professional carpenters, because they have more of a passion for the nails.

But I didn't mean experienced vs. little experience or even none, a good director can bring it out of anyone, what I meant was....he should pay them.

I think it is great that he is using actors that are not famous -- will make the film more realistic and moviegoers will not get distracted by the fame and will concentrate on the subject matter at hand...

Sorry to bump but I read an interview that Gibson did with Entertainment Weekly discussing why he hired the non professionals actors and I thought yall would enjoy. He says, "It's much easier to believe a character who doesn't have any baggage." Check out the whole interview -- really good. I am really excited to see Rudy Youngblood...

Here it is:

http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1...612|1_,00.html

Oh and check out the pictures! They are amazing!

AXiD670, overall the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive...it is 82% positive on Rotten Tomatoes which is awesome. And here is a positive review on The Variety -- enjoy:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117...goryid=31&cs=1

so did anyone see it? I am goign to see it tomorrow. It got number one in the box office -- way to go Mel

I'm a little late to this discussion, but whatever. I saw this movie today with a friend, and I must say that It was "ok."

I had REALLY REALLY wanted to see this, so I kinda had high expectations for this movie, and it really didn't live up to all my expectations.

Historical wise--its pretty accurate. Mel Gibson is really good about trying to keep things as accurate as he can with dress, language, makeup, etc.

Personally, IMO, I would have liked him to be a little bit more accurate with the Mayan "physique." I mean I would have liked them to have a little bit more of a flattened/sloped head which was very distinctive of the Mayans.


Plot wise--there really was none. (Without giving too much) there really isn't a lot of background. I really was riveted to see what would happen to the characters, but at the end of the movie I was left a little clueless. I felt like there was something missing, something that needed to tie the whole movie together....hence me saying there was no plot.

If I was to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, i'd would really give it around a 6. Its not bad, but I would have liked it have more of a substantial plot than what it had.

Since there was always a question as to how the Mayan civilization really did "vanish" and fall, I think this movie would have been better if Gibson had tried to answer that question. Setting the time period after the Spaniards had already arrived....i think that would have given it enough of a plot to make it go to a 10 or 11 on my scale! lol.

Mel Gibson, like Tom Cruise, is batshit crazy. Why do people pay money to keep assholes like this in business? No, really. I want to understand.

Because, Gibson can still make a great movie.
Tom Cruise can't.

I pay only for the good ones and Apocalypto is one of them. If anything happens to Mel it'll happen at the studio level, not the consumer.

I really enjoyed this movie.

The plot was kind of weak, but the character development really made up for it.

Yeah, it wasn't a "plot" movie. It was about the people and the action.

I think I would have liked it a little more if the actual drawing and stuff where correct. I noticed a lot of stuff that he mixed up with the Aztec and/or Inca (more Aztec). (I really like to learn about Aztec/Maya/Incas)

So, actually, I think we all now know that is not the central theme of this movie.
But, like you, I do believe that all forms of media are reflective of the person responsible for the movie, TV show, article, column, etc.
Which is why I don't patronize films or shows or music groups who use their fame to tell me what their politics are and why I should believe them.