Tramuzgan's top 11 films of the 2000s

Yes, I know we've done a list like this a while ago, but this is a redux of a cringy list I made when I just joined mofo. A friend suggested I redo it to see how my taste has grown and changed, and it seemed like a good idea to me.

To preface the list - I haven't seen every last movie of the 2000s, and those I have seen do indicate that this wasn't the best decade for cinema. The entries on this list won't be the prestige bait you saw on my list of russian films. Expect more blockbuster-type flicks and random movies that I appreciate for one reason or another.

The films are ranked by how strongly I recommend them, with some allowance for personal biases like nostalgia. The movie's historical or cultural context has no bearing on the rankings.

One honourable mention I have to give is to the 2004 Iranian film The Lizard, which has some of the best comedic acting and line delivery I've seen in my life, but the story overall feels like something you have to be iranian to understand. Because of that, it's not really my place to talk about it.

#11 - Tom Yum Goong

In 2003, a small team in Thailand made an action flick titled Ong Bak: Muay Thai Warrior, which quickly soared to popularity thanks to the amazing stunts and combat performance by its star Tony Jaa.

In 2005, they made the same film, but bigger, and called it Tom Yum Goong.

That's basically what you get, they share the same basic story of a rich gangster stealing a culturally important object from Tony Jaa's village, and him going to town for 2 hours to retrieve it. This one, for all its bigger budget, has higher highs, but also lower lows. The story drags in places, and certain action scenes are poorly executed. That boat chase, especially, suffered from really bad editing.

But the high highs still make the film worth watching, and then some. Tony Jaa was a sight to behold in Ong Bak, from his monkey-like agility and parkour skills, to the fights that actually did feel like fights - physically intense and with serious injury as a constant possibility. (unlike its chinese counterparts, these films made use of feints, more scrappy and underhanded technique, and actual hits with pads hidden underneath the clothing). In Tom Yum Goong, that still applies, but with bigger sets, more mooks to pummel, and more props to play with. It should go without saying that given a better ring/jungle gym, Jaa would preform significantly better. Seeing him beat up 3 guys in a shady underground club is pretty awesome, seeing him fight off 20 guys in a train station while dodging electric railing and people trying to run him over with motorbikes for 7 straight uninterrupted minutes is 10 times as awesome.

Another cool touch is that Jaa starts off overpowered, wiping the floor with all the mooks, but meets his physical match halfway through the film and by the end the whole power dynamic is flipped and he ends up the scrappy underdog, winning by the skin of his teeth against seemingly invincible bosses and squads of human monster trucks.

Overall, it's just a high quality asian martial arts flick.

__________________
I'm the Yugoslav cinema guy. I dig through garbage. I look for gems.

Been a while since I've seen it, that's the one with the Elephant if I'm not mistaken. I know this film as The Protector and have it at #69 on my all time Martial Arts top 100.

__________________
Entertainment Log
Letterboxd profile

Idiocracy - the story of an unremarkable man who finds himself in a future where society is comprised of nothing but idiots - is a satire with a strong reputation (for better or for worse), a personal nostalgic favourite, and perhaps most importantly, a work of Mike Judge, the creator of Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill.

It is known as ''the comedy that became a documentary'', and while I don't agree with that as I find the social commentary a bit dated and ''Bush era'' (but still with some flashes of brilliance), I do agree it is still one of the better satires around, and for reasons that are very typical of Mike Judge.

If you're a fan of Beavis and Butthead or KotH, you'll quickly pick up on all his signatures. Caricature characters, natural-flowing comedy that's just stupid people being stupid, and a subdued, but still giggly tone. The jokes come very quickly and consistently, and they're generally funny, and don't overstay their welcome. Everyone's got their favourites, from ''Brawndo contains electrolytes'', to ''welcome to Costco, I love you'', or ''Excape! Excape!'' and a smorgasbord of other gags that just stick with you. This being a sci-fi movie, and therefore giving the team more liberty when it comes to set design, a lot of the jokes are visual. Many just come from how stupid-looking the everyday appliances of the future are.
Fun fact: they had the characters wear Crocs, because this was before crocs became cool and they thought they were so stupid-looking that they'd never catch on.

Another brilliant joke was casting Terry Crews as the president of the United States. Judge was always great at celebrity cameos in King of the Hill, and he did not disappoint here. President Camacho is an absolute icon. And for those who don't know, there's a second celebrity cameo: The Time Masheen as well as various computers are voiced by Tom Kenny, the voice of Spongebob.

The key to why Idiocracy is as good as it is, besides all the lulz, is how it avoids all the common trappings of satire. For example, while it makes fun of all the dude-bro cultural items like fast food or pro wrestling, it never goes the other way and starts suggesting what we should be like instead. It doesn't patronize you or talk down on you. If it went on suggesting we should all get tattoos of seaweed and stop eating meat, it would not attain the following that it did. I guarantee it. It is reinforced in the scene where the protagonist reflects on how the world maybe got this way because of people like him. It may not sound like it, but it felt very sincere.

I should also note that I have a personal history with this film - it is definitely one of the most memorable flicks I saw as a little kid, and when rewatching it later, it introduced me to the idea that comedy can make you self-reflect. It was the first movie that influenced how I behaved in daily life. Finally, it is the first movie I ever reviewed on the Internet. (not on mofo, though. On some other site.)

That definitely did help get it on the list, but in truth, you don't need personal history to enjoy Idiocracy. If you like Mike Judge, you'll like Idiocracy. If you're not already a fan, it's as good of a place as any to start.

The only criticism I have is that the female lead isn't funny.

Armin made it onto my old list of top 10 ex-Yugoslavian films, and it's one of the entries on that list that I have gained more appreciation for as time went on.

It's a simple - some may say, insubstantial - drama about a father taking his son to audition for a part in a german movie about the Bosnian war. It's got a handful of interesting themes, like father-son relations, ambition and accomplishment, dynamics between rich and poor nations, and so on, and simple and thin as it may be, it does work. What propelled it to being good enough to make this list are the two lead performances.

The father and son, played by Emir Hadžihafisbegović and Armin Omerović respectively, are both among the more poignant characters on the list. The son, despite being the one who wants to audition, seems the least interested in seeing the project through, as his unchanging poker face and understated voice may lead you to believe, but quickly you pick up on the fact that he's actually just nervous and apprehensive. That puts it on the father to push him at every turn, willing to suffer endless embarrassment and breathe down anyone's neck, all for the sake of seeing his son do better. The fact they both look and act rather unassuming - they feel like people you may know in real life, not ''hollywood-pretty'' or ''hollywood-dramatic'' - adds to the believability. It's impressively well-executed and makes the movie well worth your time.

While most people would call Spider-man 2 a childhood favourite and one of the best superhero movies, I'd go the extra step and say it's actually great, no need for qualifiers. After the first movie got the origin story out of the way and gave the director Sam Raimi some warmup, the sequel was given the right circumstances to tell its own coherent story, and remained on the ball from beginning to end.

The story itself is rather standard fare for this character - him being unable to balance his daily life with his superhero life, and the appearance of the dangerous freak ''Dr. Octopus'' making matters even worse. it's equally about teenage angst as much as it's about the web-swinging power fantasy. The main thing that sets this film above the rest is its high amount of confidence and enthusiasm. There's a geeky, corny air that you can't separate from the character of Spider-man, it's in his premise, his world, and his design, and this movie not only doesn't shy away from it, it tailors itself around it in its entirety. It fully embraces the teenage melodrama, utilizing everything from camera angles and sound design, to even self-deprecating jokes to portray how Peter feels every time he disappoints a friend or fails to make an appointment (Tobey Maguire was also a great choice for an actor, his slightly goofy poker face has just the kind of nerdy awkwardness that Peter Parker needs). And you don't laugh at it, you feel along with it, because the fact that it's over the top doesn't detract from the fact that it's solid drama with solid character arcs. It's so indulgent in its geeky sci-fi concepts like ''a man with robot tentacles'' that it devoted what boils down to a 7-minute horror short to introducing it. The classic horror-inspired camera angles, fast zoom-ins and zoom-outs, and generally camera tricks that are the visual equivalent of saying ''Excelsior!'' make it so that you can't help but to geek out along with it. And it doesn't get overwhelming or overstay its welcome - they knew things like this are the most effective when given proper setup, only appearing when it's appropriate. You'd never think a lighting strike behind a castle would give you goosebumps - it's such a cheesy cliche, right? But by God, it does here.

Spidey 2 doesn't seem like something that should be appearing on top 10 lists, and I get that not everyone would enjoy it in the same amount that I did, but if any of what I said right now sounds appealing to you, I urge you to give it a shot. It's a kids' movie you may gain new appreciation for.

A russian-made biopic detailing Genghis Khan's life up to the foundation of his empire, Mongol is an easy sell for fans of movies like Braveheart, Ben Hur, or even Conan the Barbarian. It sticks to the basics as far as historical epics go, and executes them well, and that's an approach I will always respect.

Movies about swords, horses, tribal leaders, manly friendships, falling and rising, defending your honour, and fighting against all odds. In this, you can see the difference between an idea that's played out, and an idea that's classic. ''Played out'' means it can never replicate the same impact that made it popular after being done enough times. ''Classic'' means it can always replicate that impact when it's done well, and sincerely. And Mongol does feel like that - sincere. Similar to the movies I listed in many ways, but not like it's chasing their clout. It's got plenty of its own to bring to the table, from the fantastic dialogue that effortlessly imbues its characters with depth, to its exotic and gorgeous setting, to its well-made and endlessly entertaining horseback action, to its solemn, yet human tone.

Movies also considered for this spot were Lord of the Rings and Gladiator, because they use the same approach of doing the basics right. I wanted to pay homage to this idea, because when you're a guy who likes to talk about movies and other media, it's good to have something like this around to remind you of how a movie can just pull its own weight without trying to be edgy or having any pretense to changing the world. A movie needs a plot, so Mongol has a good plot. A movie needs a hero, so Mongol has an inspiring as hell hero. A movie needs writing, so Mongol has outstanding writing. It's as simple as that.

And it's in Mongolian!

The 2000s weren't the best decade for cinema, as I said, but one bright spot, as far as the mainstream is concerned, was Pixar. They delivered many a great kids' film, and the one I still enjoy the most is The Incredibles.

Part of Pixar's schtick at the time was to push their movies to generally be more intelligent than what's expected of a kids' movie, pivoting away from Disney's brain rot and japanese cringe and towards something you can rewatch and enjoy as an adult. The Incredibles is no exception - as a kid, you see the superheroes and expect a cool action cartoon, and you get it - but you also get an interesting story on family relations, excelling vs fitting in, and living up to one's potential. It is the only good ''deconstruction'' story that I have seen/read so far (Watchmen sucks. Sorry.).

Years after a series of conflicts and mishaps has left superheroes outlawed, people with superpowers (supers) are forced to blend into normal society, much to their chagrin. Ex-superhero Bob Parr, now a middle-aged husband and father, is given an opportunity to relive his glory days when he's called upon by a shady benefactor to perform dangerous missions.
For a film that has family relations as a core theme, it gets a lot of mileage out of the fact that the family members all feel true as what they are. The depiction of how a father behaves, how a mother behaves, how a 10-year-old boy behaves, everyone's lives and responsibilities... it's all very relatable. They're like living archetypes. And they're all given their due attention, not one of them is a paper cutout. It went for an idea as finicky as superhero deconstruction, but with a strong core like that, it pulled off every theme and character arc it went for.

What completely eluded me until recently is that every character's superpower is a metaphor for their role in the family. Super strength for the burden-carrying father, elasticity for the mother who's stretched on all sides to meet everyone's needs, random transformation powers for a baby with infinite potential, and so on. Very clever, Pixar.

Tying on to the main theme, the main villain, Syndrome, is written like a worst-case scenario of someone who had a bad family life. A jealous, ankle-biting, infantile narcissist, he is one of the better movie villains out there if just for how effortlessly hateable he is.

I even think the animation has aged decently well. The art style and cinematography are rock-solid, the 60s-esque stylization and lots of smooth futuristic tech help mask the technical limitations, and it can imbue its characters with lots of personality. For exmaple, Bob's boss, in one of the early scenes, is hilarious to watch.

This is still a movie for kids, mind you, so it was all made to be very digestible, at the expense of some flavour. I get that this may put some people off, but in the end, it is still a good story that pulled together the realistic and the fantastical in interesting ways, and with grace. And, to reiterate, a rare example of a deconstructive story done right.

I'm biased, shoot me.

A Wonderful Night in Split is my favourite experimental/arthouse flick. That is in large part due to the fact that it's local, but it is a stylish and fun gangster movie even ignoring that.

An episodic film following 3 plots, all revolving around drugs and taking place around a new year's concert in Split's historical centre, A Wonderful Night in Split is openly, and intentionally, style over substance. It ditches any pretense to serious storytelling (its 3 episodes feel more like anecdotes than movie stories), any grand commentary on the human condition, and (thank Christ) politics. The main motive of the film, imo, is affection towards the town. You can see that in its use of the most recognizable parts as its setting, cast that's mostly locals acting for the first time, major roles by local celebrities, characters that encompass every part of the community (from old ladies, to sardonic criminals, to desperate young junkie girls), and its full embracement of local dialect. All these things help give everyone lots of charisma, which makes their simple, anecdotal stories fully engaging.

The cinematography and sound design follow suite. It's shot in black and white, with a composition style inspired by classic noir films like A Touch of Evil, but with its own energy that helps make it much more than a simple wannabe. It frequently has the camera hover above the rooftops and trace a character's movement through the cramped streets, creating the impression of wandering the town drunk. The architecture of the historical town centre, which is very cosy in that typical southern european way, also helps the film build its own identity distinct from that of a typical noir. And, mirroring the tone of the characters, it's just more energetic and excitable, without giving up the sense that's inherent to noir - that all this is happening on the clandestine.
The sound design makes all the dialogue really sharp, it juts out at you from all the background clutter, creating the sense that the characters are on edge, really listening to what's being said, because it may just save their lives. The thumping score works to the same effect, and the pop music frequently heard in the background reinforces the aforementioned clandestine tone. While the characters are going about their business, everyone else is preoccupied with the concert. That's not to mention that even when he's just background clutter in a movie, Dino Dvornik never fails to get me to rock out. The singer himself is a major actor/character in the film, and while he's not half the actor his father was, he has charisma by the truckloads.

Finally, this is a movie of personal significance to me. I'm a creative type, and the problem a creative type in Croatia will typically face is that we don't think very highly of our ability to create. Due to most of our media, especially movies, being utter garbage, we've cultivated a morale-damaging consensus that whatever we make can maybe be good by our standards, but never good - period. It's a phenomenon that people from ''real'' countries like America or France often aren't even aware exists. Seeing not only a Croatian, but a Dalmatian movie crush so hard, and with so much confidence in both itself and the culture it sprang from, was very energizing, to say the least. I credit it with encouraging me to take up writing as a hobby. It's just a personal anecdote that doesn't say much about the actual movie, but I figured it's worth mentioning.

I questioned whether this bias is clouding my perception of the movie, so I rewatched it at least once a year since I discovered it. Ultimately, it holds up. The scientific method says: A Wonderful Night in Split is a great time.

Requiem for a Dream (2000): A Haunting Dive into the Abyss of Addiction

Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream" is not just a film; it's an experience – a visceral, haunting, and unflinching look at the harrowing depths of human addiction. Based on the novel by Hubert Selby Jr., the film is a masterclass in storytelling, blending the lines between reality and hallucination, hope and despair.

From the outset, Aronofsky employs a unique narrative style, fragmenting time and perspective to mirror the fractured lives of the protagonists. The rapid editing, combined with Clint Mansell's now-iconic score, creates an atmosphere of relentless tension. The recurring motif of the dilating pupil, a simple yet effective cinematic device, becomes a window into the soul's descent into darkness.

The story revolves around four characters: Harry Goldfarb (Jared Leto), his girlfriend Marion Silver (Jennifer Connelly), his best friend Tyrone C. Love (Marlon Wayans), and his mother Sara Goldfarb (Ellen Burstyn). Each character embarks on a tragic journey of addiction, whether it's to heroin, diet pills, or the elusive dream of a better life. Their individual stories serve as cautionary tales, painting a grim picture of the American Dream's underbelly.

Ellen Burstyn's portrayal of Sara Goldfarb is particularly heart-wrenching. A lonely widow obsessed with a television show, she dreams of one day being a part of it. Her descent into amphetamine addiction, spurred by a desire to fit into a red dress for her imagined television debut, is both tragic and terrifying. Burstyn's performance, oscillating between manic energy and profound despair, earned her an Academy Award nomination and remains one of the most powerful depictions of addiction in cinematic history.

Aronofsky's direction is both bold and innovative. He doesn't shy away from showing the grim realities of drug abuse, from the physical degradation to the emotional and psychological toll it takes on the individual and their loved ones. The use of split-screen, especially during intimate moments between Harry and Marion, emphasizes the growing distance between them, even as they share the same physical space. It's a poignant reminder of how addiction can isolate and alienate, even in the midst of a relationship.

The film's climax, a montage of the characters' respective downfalls, is a tour de force of editing, sound design, and performance. It's a sequence that is both hard to watch and impossible to look away from, culminating in a chilling scream that encapsulates the agony of addiction.

However, "Requiem for a Dream" is not without its critics. Some argue that its relentless bleakness borders on the exploitative, turning the very real tragedy of addiction into a spectacle of shock and awe. While this perspective is valid, it's essential to recognize the film's intent – to serve as a stark warning, a wake-up call to the dangers of unchecked desire and the lengths to which one might go to achieve it.

In conclusion, "Requiem for a Dream" is a cinematic masterpiece that delves deep into the human psyche's darkest corners. It's a film that stays with you, long after the credits roll, forcing you to confront the uncomfortable truths about addiction, society, and the human condition. While it may not be for the faint of heart, it's a necessary watch for those brave enough to face its unyielding gaze.

__________________
https://cinemarcp.com/
Movie Theaters

This looks good. Thanks.

By the way, I think I've only ever seen two Croatian films:

'Murina', which is really interesting and an ethical type film about a girl who wants to disown her father.

'Safe Place', which is one of the best films I have seen this year. A really intimate, personal, ultra real, bleak study about suicide.

So from this outsider's view, I can only speak highly about Croatian cinema.

Another kids' movie? Yep. That's just how it turned out. Nostalgia was no factor in Fox making it this high, because I haven't seen it as a kid, though sometimes I certainly wish I have.

The plot summary is: an ex-thief fox pulls out of retirement for one big, final heist on three vicious farmers, and puts his whole community in jeopardy in the process. However, to give a general impression of Fantastic Mr. Fox, one must also mention that it was directed by Wes Anderson, as that'd clue you in to the tone and execution. It's unmistakably his film: the self-controlled and deliberate dialogue, jaunty music, and diorama-like set design are all there, but there's more to it. It's very distinct, even by his standards. It's a kids' film that hearkens back to an older style of children's storytelling, as evident by its stop-motion animation, use of animal characters that's more in line with a classical fable than with Kung Fu Panda, and warm, but nonetheless calm tone (There's no soyfaces or constant screaming. Thank Christ.), but somehow, its character arcs and dialogue put it equally in line with those comedy-dramas aimed more towards adults. It works equally well as both, each aspect boosting rather than interrupting the other, but you can't really call it ''generic'' in either. It's its own thing, no matter which angle you approach it from. Its high amount of character and integrity will leave an impression, and it'll go down as a movie that always does way more than simply meet expectations.

And it pulled off virtually everything it went for, I could go on forever about every individual cool or memorable aspect of this film. It's the kind of movie where with every rewatch, you appreciate it for some new reason. Be it the amount of detail in the animation and set design, or the personality imbued into the setting and its community, or the central theme of accepting the hand you were dealt and how it translates to the character arcs, or just the smorgasbord of small quirky moments, be it in the dialogue or the directing tricks.

Just like The incredibles, this is a kids' movie with enough substance to be enjoyed by adults. But it has more than just that: Fantastic Mr. Fox has character, and tons of it. Granted, it's not character that'll resonate with everyone, but it does make it a movie to be talked about, no matter what context it's brought up in.

Imagine this: a russian film about two brothers going on a trip with their vaguely criminal, estranged father, laden with metaphors about our relationship and miscommunication with God. Sounds like a bit of a stereotype, doesn't it? It is, and it's also one of the best films the country has ever put out.

The Return accomplishes something that's quite rare in my experience: to be genuinely uncomfortable to watch from beginning to end, yet at no point did that detract from its quality. It's the kind of uncomfortable that piques your curiosity. Yes, the tone is cold, morose, and crabby, and the characters' inability to communicate makes you cringe, but it's not because of bad writing. It's because of three deeply flawed, human characters, whose inability to communicate is genuine. Rooted in their naiveté, prejudices, habits, and emotions. They are psychologically convincing, and that's also in part thanks to the actors. I don't know where they found this kind of talent, that they'd have not one, but two child actors pulling off roles that even most adults would be unable to get down.

The directing does its best to punch up the tone of the characters. Like I said, cold, morose, and crabby, emphasising it with shots with lots of empty space, and being filmed in a cold and humid area. One story element which works to the same effect is that we never find out what the purpouse of the trip is. We do see glimpses of it, the father talking to some associates and such, but on the whole, we're taking a backseat to this whole job, just like the boys. Their father's life is as alien to us as it is to them. The story gets its conclusion in other ways, and if it's not clear already, ways informed more by the characters than by the plot.

It's worth noting that this is the debut film of the auteur Andrei Zviyagintsev. The inexperience shows in places, but it's nothing too bothersome. It made big waves, understandably, and made him the man to be looked out for in the future. He'd make big waves again in the 2010s with Leviathan (2014) and Loveless (2017), but they don't quite hit the same spot. Smaller, safer ideas with an identical directing style make them feel like wimpy attempts at making the Return lightning strike again. But regardless of that, the original is not going anywhere. Raw, edgy, and hard-hitting. It's the movie that got me interested in russian cinema in the first place, and I would not deny anyone the opportunity to see it.

War takes the cake for the best film with the lamest title. It also takes the cake for my favourite russian film of all time.

Taking place in the Chechen war of 2001, and following two men trying to resolve a hostage situation, it takes on many mantles - the generic action film, the political film, the morose film on the human side of war - and somehow buries the competition in all.

The generic action film? War follows some similar beats you'd expect from a Sylvester Stallone or Roddy Piper movie, of a man being cornered by life, then arming himself to the teeth and proceeding to blow some brains out. You can't immediately tell so because of the style and the overall story, but it's true. All those things - the signatures of its director Aleksei Balabanov - complement those beats like you can't imagine. The gritty realism is portrayed through an almost documentary-like style. Background music is infrequent, it's shot entirely on location, and the characters are given a sense of having a life outside of the events of the film (e.g. you'll see the protagonist visit his home village, talk to his father, hang out with his childhood friends...). I frequently forgot that what I was seeing is fiction at all. That not only makes the characters' willpower and courage more inspiring, but lends a nerve-racking quality to the action scenes. You can tell they're in real danger of getting killed. Of course, that's a feeling you have to know how to handle, but this film pulls it off by not rushing into the action scenes - the vast majority of them take place in the final 30 minutes. It's an action flick that respects your intelligence and attention span.

The political film? Aleksei Balabanov is the man to talk to when it comes to these. A bad one will just bark platitudes at you hoping you'll like it if it agrees with you enough. Americans are very guilty of this, and the less said about serbs the better. A good one will imbue its story with the same values that inspired the political views, giving the whole thing consistency. So, War is about differenced between Russia and the West, even Russia and central Asia, with both scathing criticisms of its nation as well as patriotic chest-beating, but also rugged individualism, the unreliability of states and systems, the importance of fighting for what you value. It's all tastefully done and weaved smoothly into the story, and it's reassuring to see that someone at some point pulled it off.

The film on the human side of war? We've all seen these, when it's about one meaningless soldier in a bigger conflict, and the effect it exerts on his psyche. Taxi Driver is one example. So is Balabanov's 1997 film Brother, his breakthrough hit. The reason War ranks so highly for me in this regard is that it lacks the depressing nihilism that so often plagues these. The two fight against impossible odds, but that's where they find purpouse - with an interesting twist that the soldier character has no stakes in the hostage situation, and is not even that close to the character who does. Rather, he joins him precisely because that's where he can find purpouse. They allude to that theme in the beginning, with the villain's speech about how the russians are losing because they're not fighting for their homeland (i.e. something that holds meaning). You also have to give the film credit for not overexplaining itself - the characters are a mystery to themselves and a mystery to us, until we think about them. It's not so desperate to be perceived as smart as to bark all the themes it came up with at every turn (there are multiple names I could name right now), instead, it just tells its story.

Overall, I just dig this movie's fighting spirit, I found it inspiring having seen it during the height of the covid pandemic, and having rewatched it many times since I can say it holds up outside of the circumstances of being seen at the correct time. When I say this is a movie to be remembered, I mean it.

Sorry this took a while. War is not an easy film for me to write about. Plus, life got in the way.

This will come as no surprise to people who know me, as Apocalypto is tied with An Event as my favourite movie of all time. A historical epic by Mel Gibson, following The Passion of the Christ and Braveheart, it's a survival story about a mesoamerican tribal hunter who gets captured by the Mayans to be sacrificed.

Right off the bat, what catches your eye about Apocalypto is its unique setting. Pre-columbian civilizations are not a common sight in big budget films, and even if they were, few could portray them as richly as Mel Gibson. No matter what setting, he's a director who wants you to feel like you're really there. The painstakingly crafted sets and costumes, as well as the use of dead languages, day-to-day habits, work, customs, technology, joys and troubles - everything you may witness as if you were actually transported to that place and time, you get to see here. If we're talking about films as a transportive medium, Apocalypto scores as highly as a film possibly can.
The perks doing this with an exotic setting are obvious. No matter what is going on, whether it's a battle, a journey, dialogue, or just some mundane tangent such as passing by a party of woodsmen downing a tree, the little specifics always catch your eye. You may see a typical market, but hey, someone's selling iguanas as street food! One of the villagers is talking about how eating tapir balls will restore your fertility, and you think, yeah, that's something those people would believe. But then it turns out, they were just pulling a prank on a guy, just like you might to your friends. It's this dynamic between the exotic and the relatable that both fascinates, and gives a comforting sense of universality - across all the cultures and time periods, some things really do stay the same.

The action follows the same philosophy as the setting. If one is meant to make you feel like you're really in the mayan times, the other is meant to make you feel like you're really witnessing someone fighting for his life. It's no surprise considering who the director is, but Apocalypto is a tour-de-force of unsanitized action. Death is frequent, and often ungraceful. The chase that makes up the final act of the film is shot on location, in a real-life jungle. The lead actor did his own stunts, and if there's any CG at all, I did not notice it. The gore effects especially deserve praise, by which I include the effects for inflammations and swollen tissue. I didn't doubt any of it for a second. While it does show some pretty sick scenarios - jumping down a huge waterfall, being chased by a black jaguar, running towards a corn field while being fired at for target practice - it is ultimately more about naked survival than wacky spectacle. The hero, rather than in invincible superman, is an ordinary young hunter who survives by the skin of his teeth, with ingenuity, sheer grit, and dumb luck. Spears, arrows, and stones fly by with a frightening sense of physicality, the victims ducking, zigzagging, and hauling ass at the speed of light. The hero desperately thinning his enemies' numbers from the cover of the jungle, using whatever tools mother nature provides him. When he finally meets eyes with them, your heart rate triples. if Mongol is a film that takes the basics set up by its predecessors and does them justice, then Apocalypto is one that both does them justice as well as assimilates them into its own vision, evolving them in the process. The best student is one that surpasses his teacher.

Finally, there's an aspect of social commentary that should not go unmentioned. It shows a merciless empire whose centres are all festering with greed and depravity, whose impending downfall is evident by the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores. It's easy to see what this all alludes to (especially considering this was shot when the war in Iraq was still fresh in everyone's mind), but what I like about it is how, again, it acknowledges the universality of it all. The opening quote - "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within" - is from a book about the Roman Empire. So, there's three empires in the picture, all following the same process. No matter how you view it, it's just a universal truth that'll be just as true in 500 years as it was 500 years ago, and as it is now. Ultimately, aren't universal truths what all great stories are about?