So I’m wondering, reader(/s), what are your feelings about the upcoming Apocalypto? I’m sorry for asking for interaction. Is anyone planning on shunning the movie because now we know it takes two and a half beers to prove that Mel Gibson is an anti-semite... as opposed our former knowledge that he was an anti-semite before we had proof? Did anyone who saw The Passion of the Christ plan to not see Apocalypto because Gibson feels that the jews are responsible all the wars in the world? Does anyone who did see The Passion plan to see the Apocalypto as well? Are there any of you out there who never saw the Passion and have no intention of bothering with Apocalypto either? Is there anybody, other than myself, that said forget The Passion but are dying to see Apocalypto?

Okay, so here is my take:

I did not see The Passion of the Christ, nor will I ever bother to see it. Why? Because, prior to production of the Passion, due to a general universal knowledge that Mel Gibson was a jew hater, the son of an even bigger jew hater, and a devote follower of a religious fringe group within the Catholic church that refuses to acknowledge the Pope because the post Vatican II Catholic Church is too liberal (a.k.a. - the Church doesn’t blame the jews enough for the death of Christ), I opted not to bother with that movie - regardless of either negative or positive reviews. Frankly, I had no interest in an interpretation of the events leading up to the crucifixion by a jew hating freakazoid; not because I was personally offended by his crazy jew hating ways, but because I cannot understand the desire of anyone to bother subjecting themselves to the subjective, angry, hating muck that is at the center of someone else’s core belief system. I never bothered to see Birth of a Nation for much the same reason. I don’t have the emotional stamina to bother being offended that D.W. Griffith was a pre-integration black hating white american southerner. That isn’t to say the Griffith was not a cinematic genius, an innovative filmmaker or anything else; but I do know that he was a black hater and believed some seriously ridiculous propagandic bullshit about Reconstruction and the Klu Klux Klan, and I have no interest in watching his works that were influenced by all that nonsense. If silent movies didn’t boor the hell out of me, I would be more than willing to watch his other stuff - as opposed to having Martin Scorsese walk me through Griffith’s innovations in a documentary about boring silent movies.

Likewise, I fail to see the relevance of Gibson’s jew hating ways in a film about pre-Columbian Aztecs Mayans (same-diff), unless he somehow makes the argument that the jews were ultimately responsible for their downfall. The historical record makes this highly unlikely, and if he did, I am sure that some critic would give me a head’s up.

So, what I am left with are my own impressions of what Apocalypto could be, and based on many positive reviews and the previews that I have seen, that movie looks COOL AS SHIT. Of course, there are also many negative reviews, but in light of resent events, I really don’t even know if I can trust any of them, as there are so many subjective variables influencing film criticism, I have no way of knowing if these critics actually were not impressed with the movie, or if Gibson-hatred has sunken into the core of the subjective, angry, hating muck that is at the center of their own core belief systems... and frankly, neither do they. By and large, criticism is utter and complete nonsense. Take, for instance, critical view on an actor like Tom Hanks. For a decade, critics all thought he sucked, then all of a sudden he thought he was a god. Nowadays, everyone thinks he is fairly capable, unless you are an alterna/indie/asswipe, then you hate him for representing the mainstream. The very last variable that comes into play when criticizing Tom Hanks acting work is his acting ability. It is ALWAYS about general public perceptions and what an acting critic wants to think of himself. It’s the same thing with Ed Norton. Sure, I guess he’s good at what he does; but if he recorded himself taking a crap and uploaded onto Youtube, he would probably receive an Academy Award nomination. Does anyone remember his glowing critical accolades for his three or four scenes wearing a mask in Kingdom of Heaven? What the hell was that all about?! They could have put Corky from Life Goes On in that mask, had Ed Norton record voiceovers, and he would have received the same ridiculous praise. Something tells me that either of these two “geniuses” was exposed to be a racist, or a pederast, or a sexist, the critical analysis of their work would somehow change, regardless of whether or not their work was affected at all.

Anyway, obviously I’m just rambling here, but I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that if ANY critics are willing to stand up for Apocalypto, it is potentially three times better than what the overall critical assessment seems to say it is, seeing how he is the devil reincarnate and all. Is Mel Gibson a jew hating freak? Yes. Does Apocalypto look cool as hell? Yes. Do I trust anyone’s critical assessment of the film in light of recent events? No. Am I going to spend money to see it? Yes.

Will I ultimately be disappointed? Probably.