Mel Gibson is a strange duck. I don’t mean the craziness, or the anti-Semitic remarks, or any of that. This is a movie review, after all, not a column in People. If you want dirt, gossip, or snark, go somewhere else. I’m here to talk about his work.

First, credit where credit’s due: the man is a very skilled filmmaker. He gets solid performances from his actors. He writes good dialogue. His movies are beautifully composed. And they are always interesting. He’s no hack, and he’s certainly not interested in turning out the same old garbage that most studios put out. He is a man with a vision, and he does not compromise in telling it. There’s something to be said for all of these traits.

But it’s hard to tell what that vision is. It’s a very violent one, for starters; I know a few people who refuse to see any more Gibson movies because of their graphic violence. Apocalypto is indeed as violent as anything Gibson’s done, though because he acts with the conviction of an artist his work never comes off like the torture-porn that passes for horror movies these days. So his vision is graphic but not exploitative; a fine line to walk. Combine this with his adherence to original languages (Aramaic in The Passion of the Christ, Yucatec in Apocalypto) and I’m tempted to say he’s a man who wants to show the truth of life as he sees it, warts and all. Whether you think he’s successful or deranged depends on your point of view.

And he has painted a convincing portrait of Mayan life in the time before first contact with European civilizations. There’s been a lot of noise made about the various “box office suicide” choices Gibson has made, casting unknowns and giving us another movie completely in subtitles. But marketers routinely underestimate audiences; the presence of a big name in a film like Apocalypto would be distracting, and I’ve never needed more than a minute or two to adjust to subtitles. The use of Yucatec only makes the reality of the film that much more persistent.

But it’s not what you expect. The trailers paint Apocalypto as a grand study of a civilization’s collapse, filled with ominous portents and cryptic visions. No central character is identified. But what Apocalypto actually is is a grim action movie, given more to footchases and tense peril than sweeping portraits of a whole country.

Not to say there aren’t glimpses of a great society that is nonetheless dying. A young tribesman named Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) has his whole world turned upside down when slave traders raid his village. He and everyone he knows is sent in caravans to the heart of the Mayan Empire—everyone except for his pregnant wife and child, trapped and hidden in a large hole in the ground. Apocalypto is most effective in its first half, beginning with its fascinatingly personal look at Jaguar Paw’s village, through its razing, to the deadly march to the capital and the fear-mongering priests who rule it. I wonder if the more zealous of Gibson’s newer audience will appreciate the message that religious mania kills a society stone dead as effectively as any drought or plague ever could.

From there, Apocalypto becomes far more conventional, even routine. Jaguar Paw escapes, pursued by the head slaver. And it’s a chase. Interesting, intricate, with a few surprises and the appropriate tension… but again, to what end? If we’re meant to draw lessons about the follies of dying societies, why don’t we see more of those follies in action?

This isn’t to say I didn’t like the movie. And neither am I a big fan. I can’t recommend it and yet I can’t tell anyone not to see it. It’s too serious to be a straight action movie and too basic to live up to the lofty promises of its trailers. My ambivalence is not a stamp of approval or a dismissal. Know that Apocalypto affected me. Also know I’m no closer to understanding why than I was when the credits rolled.