How wil you rate the movie apocalypto?

I haven't seen the movie but I've seen the full trailer and read the reviews. But if I were to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest, I'd say it's 8. When I finally get to watch it I would probably say 10, hehe. I'm really anxious to watch it. For younger viewers, I'm not sure, it's kind of violent.

I have seen the preview of this movie and it looks like it will be a very good movie.

I don't know because I haven't watched the movie. But I'll next week or so when I get time.

young viewers?

very much no so.

just no.

unless young to you is 21 with a strong stomach.

I'm not really into Mel anymore, so who knows if or when I'll see this movie.

If I'd have to guess I'd say it probably isn't good for the younger viewers just by the trailer.

I was a bit skeptical when I first heard the quote used for this movie by historian Will Durant: "A great civilization is not destroyed from without until it has destroyed itself from within."

I wasn't sure what to make of its implications--would the bottom line be that the Maya (and other civilizations in the south) were already set up for destruction before the Spanish invaders came? That seemed to offend my indigenous senses. However, now that I've seen the film, I can see how important this quote is to seeing the value in this film.

Firstly, this movie requires some thought after the fact. The more I chew on and digest it, the more value I see in it, whereas when the credits rolled, I wasn't sure what I thought.

Here's the thing: Apocalypto is not setting out to be visual primer on Mayan culture, but rather, it's setting out to (drum roll...) tell a STORY about human beings. Along the line of the quote's concept, what struck me the most powerfully was the contrast between what seemed to be a pocket of Maya land made into a city built upon subordinated people and ruled according to a hierarchy--and many scattered villages built on tribal identity and community. This is something you can look at throughout history--on any continent. As soon as people begin to assign classes to one another, some exalting themselves and subordinating (and even enslaving) others, the poison sets in (albeit slowly and maybe even subtly) and self-destruction has begun.

The story suggested that this destruction began with he breakdown of deep Maya value of family, selflessness, and fearlessness. Look at the contrast between Jaguar Paw's relationship with his father and son and the city ruler's family (think: fat son tugging on aloof mother's skirts). Consider Jaguar Paw's mantra about his father and his son--something passed on to him by his father in the beginning.

This particular discussion could go on and on, but the point is that little by little, the power-hungry had raised themselves up into the position of "conqueror"--mirroring what ultimately would bring further and more devastating to their land and people.

While one camp is all upset at the brutal portrayal of the "upper class" Maya city-dwellers and the other is sooo excited about claiming this movie to not be p.c. and portraying 'savage' behavior that somehow excuses the Spanish invaders, consider that perhaps both views are missing the larger story.

Think about the parts that bothered us most-- and then on second thought, perhaps the resident Yahoo expert on Mayan culture will see that the priest, ruler, and other elite were totally aware of what the eclipse was and had obviously timed things accordingly to establish support among subjects growing more and more desperate with each drought. Or--who's to say that the beginnings of plague suggested in the film was prior to the arrival of other invaders? Regardless of the actual time discrepancies that may be brought up, remember this is a concentrated story around a few themes--and that you may have to think the story over a bit more before dissing it.