Reviews

This is one unique film: The Passion of the Christ meets Braveheart. This is a film that does not flinch, that is relentless in it's storytelling, that is brutal, honest and beautiful. Mel Gibson has taken yet another enormous gamble and has proved he is, strangely enough, a brilliant filmmaker. To tell a tale in ancient maya with it's original language is a huge risk simply because it can go so wrong so easily.

Yet, having said that, this is a film that has a major flaw: the script. The script feels dry and preachy. Which is too bad because each and every performance is brimming with passion.

The story deals with a small village in the jungles of central America. They are brutally attacked by the Maya and are brought back to it's capital. It's amazing that this small village has never made contact with this immense civilization, yet, geographically aren't very far. It is at least one day distance from each other. On this historic day, our hero is then saved by an extremely rare occurrence: a solar eclipse. Then we learn that his partner gives birth a few hours later (in a way that is completely preposterous) and, of course, the climax is such a whopper that I couldn't help but roll my eyes.

What I am trying to say is that it is clear to me that Mel certainly has something to say and will use extreme measures to make his point. What are the odds that each of these four major moments in this man's life all happened in less than 24 hours! How many times have you seen an eclipse? Had a child born underwater? Apparently encounter a huge civilization that your village has never seen before, yet they are very close proximity? And, this one day, come the Europeans. Come on Mel! Be a little realistic! This film could have been a masterpiece yet Mel decided to get too preachy and forgot the story he was trying to tell.

This is a film that should not be viewed alone. There is much going on in this film that it is bound to start a debate.

I saw this film with my spouse and what was interesting was that even though we both enjoyed the film, we still had a heated debate.

Before I get into that, I must stress the quality and professionalism of this film. Everyone involved proved to be up to the task in this challenging picture. Edward Norton and Phillip Glass are in peek form. The former shows skill, commitment and passion in his role; he is completely believable and often stunning in his performance. The music score in my mind could not have been more perfect. Like the film itself, it is mysterious, hypnotic, modern yet appropriate to the setting of the tale. The music at it's best isn't even noticed, rather heightens the mood and the suspense.

Though my wife and I agreed on all these points, she enjoyed the ending and resolution more than I. I found the weakest part of the film was it's climax: Eisenheim's disappearance from the stage and from Vienna. I believe that an explanation is needed here. An explanation of how Eisenheim is able to fool the entire city and escape completely unnoticed. This is a major plot point that is not clarified; instead, left in the dark along with all the other illusions. My wife disagrees. She argues that it is part of the mystery and a reveal would ruin the suspension of disbelief. In fact, if the filmmakers did explicate the illusions (particularly the phantoms), it would feel cheap and boring. She would have felt she was spoon fed the plot.

I think that in a film, when you build to climax, place your protagonist in peril, you need to explain how the character escapes. When James Bond or other super spies are captured, it would feel silly if the audience are not shown how he gets away. My feeling is, not revealing how he escapes demonstrates lack of creativity.

Oh well. Can't agree on everything.

However, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and would recommend it. It will certainly spark some debate.