turbo_torben

One can easily smell trouble when Mel Gibson is releasing a new epic movie based on historical events. Braveheart formed quite a buzz, regarding the violent battles and the somewhat arrogant description of the English king (and his homosexual son). Passion of the Christ proved to be a little too explicit when describing the suffering of Christ.

With Apocalypto more trouble is sure to arrive at the doorstep of Gibson's home. Of course there is the obvious political metaphor, comparing the Maya civilization with the United States. The Maya empire was destroyed from within, and according to the metaphor USA will do the same.The fear theme is primary: The priests are controlling their people with fear, and by doing so they can get away with barbaric actions. - USA's international politics are sure to be mentioned, when the debate will start to roll.

But then again, it's also a movie, and should be reviewed as one. It is a masterpiece. Plain and simple. One should be warned though; considering Braveheart and Passion of the Christ, one can expect a very violent a ruthless movie. And it is! I wouldn't be surprised if some people will leave the cinema during this movie.

It's a very tight and linear story, but that gives the plot a lot of strength. The atmosphere is remarkable. The spoken language is no problem what so ever, and after just a few minutes people will not be viewing a movie... They will be in it, holding their breath. It can be regarded as a 'clever' movie, or it can be regarded as an action packed roller-coaster, through the dark jungle. Anyone will be more than pleases, both up-market audience and the mainstream audience.

Being a James Ellroy-disciple the knowledge of an adaption of the terrific novel filled me with a combination of fear and expectation: Fear... can it ever be as great as the book? Expectation... Curtis Hanson did an excellent job with L.A. Confidential, so why not? - And now I've seen the result of DePalma's work. First of all, don't even compare it with the L.A. Confidential movie. Black Dahlia is told in a radical different way, being much more synthetic, expressive and theatrical. This is not a very common way of telling stories in modern movies, however this method made me recall the typical 'over-acting' as seen in the 40's noir movies (like Double Indemnity). Was this intentionally? - Probably, yes. It feel a bit weird to begin with, but at the end of the show I had to admit: It works. The movie clearly tries to describe all the details from the book, which sometimes makes it loose its own breath. The original story had so many details, and took place over a very long period of time. This is one of the points where the movie sometimes stumble. It's simply trying too hard. One thing that is hard to criticize is the stunning visuals. The movie is absolutely beautiful, making every scene a work of art. The other highly successful point I would have to mention is Hilary Swank. She IS a femme fatale, by definition. Fans of the classic film-noir genre will most likely be more than satisfied. Keep a look-out for this one, and be ready to be thrilled.