Blood and guts at your local multiplex

In the last week I have caught, among other things, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and APOCALYPTO at the cinema, both of which are films by megastar actors who have gone on to establish themselves as talented directors. That's not the only connection though - there's also the fact that both are probably expected to appear on critics' 2006 lists and in various categories come Oscar time (the end of February if you're interested).

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is Clint Eastwood's latest effort, the first film he's directed since picking up his Oscar for MILLION DOLLAR BABY. Based on James Bradley's novel, it's the tale of the six soldiers who appeared in the iconic flag-raising photo at the WW2 battlefield on Iwo Jima.

I certainly don't see anyone winning any Oscars for their acting in this movie. That's not to say that they're bad, because they're not - but there isn't one character in the whole film that stands out as a true Oscar-worthy performance. That's not really a complaint I guess, since they all do well enough - but there's nobody with real presence. What the cast really lacks is someone like, well, Clint Eastwood.

In fact, the most interesting aspect of the casting for me was seeing a very brief appearance by David Patrick Kelly as President Harry Truman. To me, he'll always be Luther, the guy that shoots Cyrus at the start of action classic THE WARRIORS. For the rest of the movie, I couldn't shake the desire to have President Truman skulking across the screen banging some bottles together while shouting "Japanese warriors, come out to plaay-aay." (That makes sense if you've seen THE WARRIORS, honest.)

The battle sequences are all impressively staged - this is Eastwood's SAVING PRIVATE RYAN - although some of the shots of the navy fleet look a little too CG-aided at times, and some viewers may find the realism all a bit too harrowing. But the film isn't about the battle, or even about the famous photo - it's about what makes a hero, how people perceive them and how they perceive themselves. It's about how these men react to the status thrust upon them as a result of their part in one almost insignificant incident, and how they and their families coped with events afterwards.

It's a grand film, epic in scope and achievement, but my one complaint (and this probably me being cynical) is that it feels too much like it's been engineered for awards season. Obviously the film's release has been timed to coincide with awards season, but that's expected; more than that though, the entire film just feels to me like it's been created with Oscars in mind. I said the same thing about MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA last year and while Eastwood's movie is still superior to that one, it's not Eastwood's best and it certainly isn't the best of the year. Expect a few nominations but not too many wins.

APOCALYPTO is Mel Gibson's latest effort behind the camera. It's an action adventure movie for sure, but it's vastly different from most that you'll have seen. It's set hundreds of years ago for a start, and takes place against the backdrop of the fall of a Mayan civilisation (shortly before the Europeans came and changed the face of America forever). Not content with filming THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST in Aramaic, this time he's gone for authenticity again by filming his latest in the Mayan language. His movie might not be the most historically accurate (are they ever?) but you can't fault his dedication to the craft.

If the blood and guts during the battle scenes in FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS are likely to shake up your average cinema-goer, then get the sickbags ready for APOCALYPTO as once more, like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST before it, Gibson goes for some truly gruesome violence throughout. Again, it's probably authentic but it's really going to turn the stomach of people not used to watching such things.

In fact, in many places throughout the movie, I couldn't help but be reminded of Ruggero Deodato's CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. I know that comparing a work like APOCALYPTO to a notorious video nasty probably seems a little fasetious but, apart from the fact that I do actually think Deodato's movie has some merit, it's a fair comparison in places.

There's the spectacularly-photographed jungle setting; the tribal peoples; the animal killing (though thankfully, unlike Deodato's, Gibson's is faked); a scene in which a tribal village is ransacked and burned; and of course the attention to detail during several scenes of stomach-churning realistic violence (the only reason I've never covered CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST in my Gobsmacking Cinema series is that you'd probably be disgusted just reading about it).

I don't want to tell you much about the plot because I think it's best if, like I did, you go and see it without knowing what to expect. Suffice to say it's a story built around just a handful of characters and yet covers an entire civilisation - a truly ambitious and epic story that is just brimming with the magic of cinema. It takes a little while to get going (early scenes establishing the relationship between the tribesmen are rather dull compared to the rest of the movie) but once it all kicks off you'll be glued to your seat.

While Gibson again manages to remind you why films should seen on the big screen, there are a couple of problems. For one thing, some of the special effects look cheap and unconvincing - not too many scenes are affected, but certainly a couple of effects are noticably CGI.

Secondly, while THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST did a wonderful job of looking a whole lot more expensive than it was due to the top-notch cinematography, APOCALYPTO is occasionally let down during the action sequences when some light blurring reveals that, unlike previous efforts shot in by more traditional means, this movie was obviously shot on HD rather than film. For the most part the film looks incredible but these moments let it down (if you notice such things, and I accept that some people probably don't - what can I say, I'm a geek).

Overall though it's a hell of an experience. Gibson has once again proven himself an accomplished director with great ambition and integrity - in fact, if you recall my praise of George Clooney around Oscar time last year (or my "George Clooney lovefest" as one colleague branded it), I'd have to say that I admire Gibson for much the same reasons (regardless of whatever other problems he might have).

This isn't like anything you're likely to see in the cinema and I urge you to rush out and catch it now before it disappears - it might well remind you why you love movies but I don't expect it to be setting the box office on fire.

One hopes, however, that such artistry will be rewarded come Oscar time. I wouldn't expect this one to appear in any of the big categories but who knows, it might achieve the unusual feat that many expected THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST to manage, and get a nomination in the foreign language category (though it would be doing well to beat Spain's entry, which I assume will surely be VOLVER or PAN'S LABYRINTH).

Whether it's recognised by award nominations or not, APOCALYPTO is definitely something all movie enthusiasts should see. Films like this are why cinema was invented.

Coming soon... The Freakpit's favourite movies of 2006!