Inappropriate tone 
The following comment seems inappropriate, given its placement in the article:
"On the other hand, in Maya rituals prisoners of war were in fact killed 'on top of the pyramid […] by having his arms and legs held while a priest cut open his chest with a sacrificial flint knife and tore out his heart as an offering.'"

That would be a perfectly fine thing to say if the previous sentence were something like "The portrayal of human sacrifice in the film has been criticized as inaccurate."  But the previous sentence is: "The film has been accused of fueling a stereotype of native Mesoamericans as bloodthirsty savages with few civilized achievements other than architecture."  By offering the human sacrifice description as an "on the other hand" the implication is that civilizations that practiced such human sacrifice were actually "bloodthirsty savages with few civilized achievements".  That's blatantly POV and inappropriate.

I suggest either (A) deleting the offending sentence, (B) moving it to a portion of the article that discusses human sacrifice in particular, or (C) adding a sentence prior to it quoting some specific criticism of the films portrayal of human sacrifice.   

A sentence prior to it would be fine; there should be something out there that contains criticism. — (talk • contrib) - 

 Inaccurate inaccuracies 
Read on the current Inaccuracies section:
"And the Spanish arriving at the end of the movie came a little too soon, as they actually arrived during the reign of the Aztec Empire, which succeeded the Maya."

That sentence had no sense. The Aztecs never conquered or killed off the Mayas. The Mayas where in fact the first Mesoamerican people who encountered the Spaniards on land - around 1510 - and the Spaniards actually knew about the Aztecs from the Mayas.

"The diseased little girl is often regarded as having smallpox. However, smallpox did not arrive in the Americas until the early 16th century with the Spanish Conquistadores. As the disease is not called by a modern name we cannot be sure what the intention was."

As there are Spaniards in the movie, it's sure that the movie doesn't take place before the 16th century. However, you can't guarantee what is the exact year. They are Spaniards, but they have not to be the first Spaniards in the Yucatan, just the first in the lands of the Mayan city-state that is shown in the movie. Spaniards with smallpox can have arrived in other part of the Yucatan and infect the people there, and later these people could extend the sickness to other regions through trade or war. The Southern Ming never visited Europe, but their Black Plague destroyed 1/3 of the European population, and the Incas fell on civil war because an epidemy of smallpox in Mexico extended to South America and killed the emperor and his heir. I suppose that you understand what I'm trying to say. The girl with smallpox it's just another element to support the idea that the end of the Mayan civilization is coming 

Why do you assume that they in the Yucatan?  Others make that jump based on the dialect that the director choose to use.  If language in the movie is the only thing that ties where the story takes place to the Yucatan then I would argue that Gibson only used the dialect because it is still a living language used by many of the extras in the cast.  I cannot see anything else in the film that cements the idea that this was a movie about the Maya in the Yucatan.  RDG