Cinematical

I agree with him. Of all the people in Hollywood he is one of the few who follows his own vision of what he wants to make without subservience to studio marketing gurus. He risks his own money and people are free to see or reject his movies on their own merits.

If people don't want to see his films because of what they think of him, they should state it and be done with it. But to subject the film to impossible standards that few if any other films are subjected to is a form of ethical cowardice and hypocrisy.

I also believe that even if he does no win the Oscar for best director he deserves it. I could not believe how he took a bunch of non-actors, including children and turn them into a great action film ensemble. The idea alone seems like madness, to carry it out is a form of genius.

Reply

Judge the art, not the artist. Simple as that.

Reply

The situation has been blown out of proportion so much, it's ridiculous. He's already apologized about it, so just stop writing about it.

Reply

What?? "Mel Gibson is sick and tired of being called to account for his behavior." How stupid is that?? 'called into account' for getting drunk, being a human and reacting badly in a private scenario???

Oh wait. You must be Jewish, right? Just another whiner trying to make a mountain out of NOTHING! A drunks statements. Mel is an alcoholic, look it up "allergic to alcohol" What you, and the rest of the self righteous whiners are doing is like holding a kid responsible for swelling up when stung by a bee. Get over it already!

And this: "....director of flagellation epics"?? What? What are you trying to say, exactly? Do you know exactly what 'flagellation' means? Have you looked it up? "To whip' basically. Nothing else. Using it as an ajdective? Not a very good usage, not a good parallel drawn there. No whipping in Braveheart at all. Torture, yes, but no whipping.

Education is a good thing. Go get some.

Reply

I am sick and tired of authors like the one writing this post trying to feed off of Mel's fame. Enough already! I think it's high time you guys get over this Mel-bashing 'cause guess what, the childish perpetual rant is hurting the Jewish image and whoever thinks is being pro-semitic by contributing to it!

Reply

jim has watched one too many lethal weapons.

Reply

I agree with the fact that the movie should be judged on its own merits. As an African-American, I can be offended by Michael Richards comments, but I can also still laugh at Kramer on Seinfeld. He too, apologized. If Richards, ever does another series or a movie, I have a choice to support it or not. But if I do choose to see something he's done, and then review it, I'll be reviewing his performance as an actor and comedian and his racist ranting will not factor into it.

Unfortunately for Mel, a lot of people cannot separate their personal feelings from their professional opinions.

Reply

Hess thinks in a box.

Reply

Perhaps he was talking about James Rocchi and that NY Times movie reviewer. Not that they were the only reviewers who reviewed Apocalypto through the lens of Mel's outburst and difficulties six months ago. Mel did apologize, repeatedly and at length for quite a long time, he still hears the same questions and deals with the same self important folks who see nothing else but that one event of his life. He expects folks like Ryan making derogatory slaps at him personally. Flogging remark - ha ha, very witty. But at least Ryan didn't take those snide remarks and try to wrap them up as a movie review. That Mel Gibson did movie people reviews about a movie is no bit surprise nor an indictment. That he doesn't find it all amusing to hear the same questions over and over shows that he's as human as the rest of us. Surprising I know, but I think I've heard him even admit to being human. And in all of that, there's even an exceptional movie he's just released.

Reply

I think Gibson seems to love playing the victim card a little too much and should grow up. Now, anyone who criticizes his newest movie is out to get him, despite the majority of its reviews being positive.

Every time he's opened his mouth in an interview, he really comes across as paranoid. Those who didn't like "Passion of the Christ" or appreciate his drunken tirade have pretty much shunned him and they have a right to do whatever they want.

Personal issues aside, I find it funny so many people are jumping up to defend his filmmaking ability. Although his films are visually striking, they are consistently crude in their storytelling and, dare I say, childish in their mentality. And it's not like he's the first filmmaker who's been called on getting off on the violence in their films.

It feels like he wants everyone to apologize to him when he was the one who acted like an ass in the first place. Gibson should stop trying to play the martyr and people should stop encouraging him. It's getting embarrassing.

Reply

No one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes...even you.

Reply

I thought Apocalypto was exciting but in a kind of grisly sense. Gibson likes to liken his film to a popcorn flick but what popcorn flick begins with a quote by Will Durant, goes to the trouble of presenting native speakers of Yucatec Mayan and then plunges its audience to so much over-the-top gore. Action films are not unknown for going over the top, and Quentin Tarentino's Kill Bill franchise pushed that envelope right off the table. But in those instances, the gore is presented as a kneejerk rush, not as a morality tale drenched in blood.

Gibson may be the first to hybrid the morality tale with the sensibilities of a slasher film, and then try to pass it all off as popcorn entertainment - but I just don't buy it. Rape, torture, beheadings and assorted carnage are not the stuff of a popcorn film. This stuff really is a bit fetishistic.

Even when I found the action compelling, I had to remind myself "It's only a movie," not simply because of the excesses but because my brain kept wanting to disengage from a production that strains the willing suspension of disbelief. Gibson wants to set this story among the Mayans, because that would allow his final scene involving the Spanish. But the Mayans of that time were already out of the game, having gone into decline 500 years before, and the real culprits of the region - the Aztecs - aren't mentioned. Gibson's history is so bad, it's distracting. In a purely popcorn film, we might cut him more slack, but the more pretentious he made this flick, the more readily he set it up as a dartboard.

Reply

People don't want an apology,
they want to know exactly what they
truly believe in reference to their comment. If your a racist give
specifics and stop the apology
nonsense.

Reply