Mel Gibson Tagged Articles at Cinematical

With a title like Tree of Life, it had sounded like Terrence Malick's next project was to be in line with his last. It even was set to star his lead from The New World, Colin Farrell -- co-starring with Mel Gibson. But Tree of Life doesn't appear to be about Spanish conquistadors and such -- which is good, since The Fountain already covered that territory. Of course, the actual plot of Malick's script is unknown, and despite the fact that it was going to be shot primarily in India two years ago, the same locations might not be used now that the project is up and running once again.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Tree of Life could now star Heath Ledger and Sean Penn, who appeared in Malick's The Thin Red Line. The trade states the actors, as well as Malick, are in talks but that shooting is expected to begin in March. River Road Entertainment, which worked with Penn on Into the Wild and with Ledger on Brokeback Mountain is heading the project with the company's founder, William Pohlad, and Sarah Green (The New World) producing.

As I said, little is known about the film. THR mentions the usual "plot is closely guarded" irritant, and to rub in the annoyance tells us an insider could only say that it's a "complex drama." According to a bit of trivia on the IMDb, Tree of Life actually originated in the summer of 1978, when Malick began working on the project, which was then titled Q. Considered his most ambitious project, Q was originally a multi-character story set in the Middle East during World War I, but it also featured a prehistoric prologue with a Minotaur. Then, by the end of the year, the prologue became the whole film. Like The Fountain, it seems like the plot took place over a long, long time. Unfortunately, in 1979 the director and Paramount apparently had a falling out about money; after that Malick disappeared for twenty years.

Anyway, does it really matter what Tree of Life is about? The important thing is that we could get a fifth feature from Malick!

Okay, so George Miller is crazy enough to believe he can cast and shoot a live action Justice League of America film before the potential strike at the end of May, and now Moviehole reports that he's adding another flick to the mix; his long-awaited sequel: Mad Max 4. That's right, according to the site, the film is back on -- it has officially been green-lit, and the production offices have opened back up at Fox Studios in Sydney this week. Titled Mad Max: Fury Road, this isn't the first time the sequel has been attempted. The film was originally given a budget of $100 million, back when Mel Gibson was still attached to star, but conflicts in Africa (where the film was to be shot) pushed production into hiatus. For the past few years, Miller has been eager to re-start Fury Road, claiming back in March that he was still moving ahead, but without Gibson in the lead role -- opting instead for a "younger face."

Now, as Moviehole points out (via one of their very reliable sources), pre-production on Mad Max: Fury Road shall commence immediately, and there's also a possibility it will be released in theaters before Justice League. If two films aren't enough, why not throw on a third? Yep, aside from JLA and Mad Max, Miller has also begun pre-production on Happy Feet 2. Of course, the animated pic will take a few years to make, so I can't see that taking up too much of his time this winter. There's no word yet on what the Mad Max sequel will be about, but I imagine since Miller's looked at almost all of Young Hollywood for potential roles in JLA, he may have already found his Gibson replacement. What do you think about all this? Is Miller getting too far ahead of himself by taking on both projects at the same time? And, admit it, but don't you kind of wish that whole Justice League thing would just quietly go away? Personally, I'd much rather see a Mad Max sequel, regardless of Gibson's involvement. But that's me.

"I need to try to write this post without pissing off a whole mess of people," Erik said to himself as he read an article on the top 10 most powerful Christians in Hollywood. Yes, such a list does exist, and unfortunately this Jew is nowhere to be found on it. Let it be known that I have nothing against Christians, or any religion for that matter, but this list just cracked me up. Over on Hollywood.com, they've posted a list (compiled on BeliefNet.com) of the 10 most powerful Christians in Hollywood (however the original list contains 12). First off, I'd love to know their definition of 'powerful.' Powerful how? Like, the number one person on the list can talk to Jesus whenever he wants, however he wants -- and, like, the number four person on the list can only communicate with Jesus through text messaging? I don't get it. But do we really need to get it?

Why don't you go ahead and take a wild guess as to who the number one most powerful Christian in Hollywood is. Yup, Mel Gibson. He likes to drink, he likes to drive, and he likes to spit out Anti-Semitic remarks at the police officers who pull him over whilst drinking and driving (hey, why not combine two lovable past times into one -- it saves time!). Here are the other nine most powerful Christians in Hollywood: 2. Denzel Washington. 3. Patricia Heaton. 4. Tyler Perry. 5. Ralph Winter. 6. Angela Bassett. 7. Martin Sheen. 8. Martha Williamson. 8. Kristin Chenoweth. 10. Philip Anschutz. Okay, I can understand how Anschutz, the 31st richest person in America, might make the list, but how does Chenoweth (who's about to star in the upcoming Space Chimps) rank higher than him? How is she a more powerful Christian?

I'd still like to know how they define 'powerful?' Over on BeliefNet, here's their reasoning behind the list: "We chose them from dozens of candidates, in consultation with insiders and observers who are part of the Christian-Hollywood scene. Those who made the Beliefnet Power Dozen are here because they have the clout to choose their career direction, while keeping their faith and even injecting it into their work in subtle or not-so-subtle ways." So, then, why not say most influential? Most spiritual? Most loved? Why use powerful? What do you make of the list? Is Mel Gibson really the most powerful Christian in Hollywood?

Recently, director Quentin Tarantino said that he'd love to "make a cool sex movie that would take place in Stockholm, with a couple of Americans visiting a couple of Swedish friends ... just going out, drinking, having a good time, hooking up." Yeah, tell it to The Weinstein Co. -- I'm sure after Grindhouse, they'd love to take a chance on a Tarantino sex flick, considering the fact that it would almost certainly be rated NC-17. While Tarantino might be able to imitate other sexy directors to the best of his ability, we all know there'd be no originality and, most likely, it would stick to one level below porn ... but with a kick ass soundtrack.

With that in mind, Vulture put together a list of ten directors who would make an even unsexier movie than Quentin Tarantino -- going so far as to imagine how the directors themselves would pitch it. Among those on the list, we have folks like Oliver Stone ("It would take place in Vietnam, with a couple of American GIs visiting their friends . . . just going out drinking, committing atrocities, hooking up"), Paul Greengrass ("It would take place in London, Vienna, Prague, Bangkok, Sydney, and New York, with an international spy searching for the truth of his existence. In between waterboardings, he hooks up with his CIA handler"), M. Night Shyamalan ("It would take place in Philadelphia, with a guy having sex with a bunch of women, but in the end, you would find out that the main character has been hallucinating it all, and actually he's just been masturbating"), Woody Allen ("It would take place in New York, with a guy reliving the women he's loved over his life, in homage to Fellini's 8 1/2. I would play the man and would have sweaty sex with Scarlett Johansson, Beyoncé Knowles, Lauren Conrad, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, and Emily Blunt"), and my personal favorite, Mel Gibson ("It would take place in ancient Egypt, be performed completely in hieroglyphics, and consist of 117 minutes of a slave being beaten to death.")

Swing on over there to check out the rest of the list, and the quotes, then come back here and see if you can come up with your own. Which unsexy directors did they leave off the list? Are there any other directors out there who couldn't direct a sexy movie even if their life depended on it?

Although good ol' Mel Gibson might have stirred up controversy over his accuracy with Apocalypto, he made many Christians happy with his treatment of Jesus in Passion of the Christ, so it's no wonder that a Polish priest is looking at the filmmaker to make a biopic on his life. And what makes the news even sweeter -- it's a pretty wacky priest to boot! Like attracts like, I guess. Who better to tackle controversy than a man who's no stranger to it himself? The Age is reporting that Polish priest Henryk Jankowski is trying to get Gibson to film his life story because Mel is "a great man and an honest Catholic."

By "honest," I can't help but wonder if that's due to anti-Semitic rumblings. See, while Jankowski is a Catholic priest who opposed the communist government in the 80's, he's also stirred up his own controversy for what many say are anti-semitic comments -- ones that got him suspended from preaching for a year. Me, I'm kind of hoping that Mel does take on the project, because this priest is definitely one of a kind. He has this Henryk Jankowski Institute, and according to The Age, there is a plan for "Jankowski T-shirts, cigarette-lighters and other gadgets to help finance a potential film." But this isn't the first priestly merch to hit the market. He has his own brand of wine called Monsignore, he's planning to open bars across Poland and he's even planning his own perfume line. It's so strange that it doesn't seem real. Jankowski says that Gibson is "a distinguished artist. His Passion was a real masterpiece." What are the chances that the priest expects some sort of epic film in the same vein as Passion? I mean, the man definitely idolizes himself to some degree, with all the merch and all. I don't know about you, but this is one train wreck I have to see.

I was working at a movie theater in the summer of 1998, the summer Lethal Weapon 4 was released. One of my job responsibilities was to stand and wave goodbye to people as they'd leave their movies. (Armageddon came out the week before LW4, and I got a lot of mileage out of the line, "With all this waving, my Armageddon tired!"). I was excited about Lethal Weapon 4. I hadn't loved the previous installment, but Mel Gibson and Danny Glover were back, I had come to terms with the fact that Joe Pesci wasn't going anywhere, Rene Russo is about as solid a love interest as an action movie can get, I think Chris Rock is hilarious and I had heard amazing things about Jet Li. Plus, this would be the first Lethal I saw on the big screen. How could it go wrong?

Answer: In just about every conceivable way.

Lethal Weapon 3 was a mess, but it was a fun mess. LW4 isn't fun at all. It's downright boring. Everyone looks tired and uninspired (rhyme). The laughs aren't there. The action, aside from a great highway chase, is run-of-the-mill and confusingly shot. And there's a downright icky sentimental streak running through it -- a sappy side that is light years away from screenwriter Shane Black's original vision for these characters.

Watching Lethal Weapon 3 in the middle of this season full of big, bloated "threequels," it almost looks quaint. It's also -- and again, this might be due to the dreary current state of the summer blockbuster -- somewhat better than I remembered. Somewhat.

Don't get me wrong, it's a hot mess. They tried to cram way too much into this movie, which is why you get a lot of scenes of Riggs and Murtaugh coincidentally standing next to crimes as they break out. There's not a whole lot of police work going on here. Basically, wherever Riggs and Murtaugh are hanging out -- action will materialize. Witness the unbelievably unbelievable scene where Murtaugh takes Riggs to a hamburger stand and gets behind the counter to make him the world's best hamburger. Why is this scene in there? So our boys can "stumble" upon a crime in progress -- right in the middle of Los Angeles' notoriously dangerous "Hamburger Stand District." It's all pretty damn lazy.

Mel Gibson and Danny Glover should teach a class in chemistry. Their natural, lovable work remains the real draw of the series. These guys could play these roles in their sleep, and indeed there's a bit less spark in their performances this time around. The Riggs character continues his unfortunate watering down, but Glover is given a little more to chew on outside of running around yelling "Riggs!" The "8 days from retirement" bit is beyond played out, but having Murtaugh deal with aging works well for the film. Scenes like the one where Murtaugh accidentally fires his weapon in a locker room and Riggs covers for him are pretty touching.

We're back, we're bad, you're black, I'm mad!

That about sums it up.

When I mentioned that I'd be writing about this series, I was surprised by how many friends cited Lethal Weapon 2 as their favorite. It's an extremely entertaining film, but for me, it doesn't pack anywhere near the impact of the original. There's much to love about this sequel, and Mel Gibson and Danny Glover ooze chemistry once again, but I do have some issues with it.

The way the original was set up, a sequel was hardly necessary. The Riggs character had an immensely satisfying arc, and no longer wants to die. The "suicidal hero" element was the main hook of the original, so taking it away presents what must have been a real problem for screenwriter Jeffrey Boam. It's sort of like being told you have to write a Robocop movie where Robocop is no longer a robot. The best part of the original essentially had to be removed. If LW2 opens with Riggs inexplicably suicidal again, you're making an action movie about coping with depression. If it opens with Riggs upbeat and completely sane, the character will be watered down and disappointing. Boam does a pretty good job of keeping the Riggs character edgy and off-balance, but that batshit crazy quality Riggs had in the first one is sorely missed here. And, it must be noted, it's in even shorter supply later in the series.

I was technically not allowed by my parents to see R-rated movies until I was seventeen. Luckily, I had friends whose parents weren't as concerned about maintaining the innocence of their children. My best friend had an enormous collection of the action extravaganzas I craved as a boy, and many a Saturday night was spent in the company of forbidden friends like John McClane, John Rambo, and John Connor (lotta Johns). And I'll never forget the night I met Sergeants Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh.

I knew right away Lethal Weapon was special when it opened with nudity! (Keep in mind, I was about eleven). It kicks off with a half-naked girl jumping to her death and just doesn't let up from there. Lethal Weapon didn't create the "buddy movie," but, for better or worse, it helped make the genre what it is today. Lethal more than earns its place alongside the glorious Midnight Run on a very short list of the eighties' finest blends of action, character, and comedy. It's been endlessly ripped off, (and did some minor ripping off of its own -- see William Friedkin's fantastic To Live and Die in LA, released two years earlier. Even Murtaugh's immortal line -- "I'm getting too old for this shit," was used there first), but, as is the case with all rip-offs, the heart and soul tend to get forgotten. Hell, the heart and soul were forgotten as the Lethal Weapon movies went along -- but I'll get to that later in the week.

Walt Disney Pictures is finally moving forward with a sci-fi project called Gemini Man, which blockbuster producer Jerry Bruckheimer is producing. Not to be confused with the 1976 television series of the same name -- which could make for a good adaptation or remake -- the movie is about an aging hitman being hunted by his young clone. The clone has been sent to enforce the elder's retirement so that it can replace him. The idea has been around for at least four years, when the CGI team The Secret Lab (Kangaroo Jack; Snow Dogs) was doing test effects involving a young Mel Gibson from The Year of Living Dangerously interacting with an older Gibson from Payback. Originally written by Darren Lemke, the script had then been redone by Armageddon's Jonathan Hensleigh. Now, the project is getting another kick start by Troy's David Benioff, who is also writing the Wolverine spin-off for Fox. Who will play the young and old version of the hitman (same actor? different actors? father and son?) is still up in the air.

The idea of a character fighting a version of himself has been around for years in many different forms, and yet it remains an interesting concept. And it can be done in so many different ways: twins; evil doppelgangers; time travel; split-personalities (I'd link, but I don't want to spoil any films); face-switching. The clone device is not completely fresh -- see The Sixth Day and The Island (actually, don't) -- but the plot of Gemini Man still sounds promising. Just imagine what it would be like to fight a younger you. The clone will have your strength at a time when you were likely more fit, but you presumably have more experience and intelligence. Who will win? The simple Hollywood idea is to have the older hitman win, but if both versions are played by a hot 20-something actor, with the "real" hitman portrayed with old-man makeup, then much of the audience would probably rather see the clone win. Either way, if Benioff can deliver a smart script, hopefully one that comments on the issue of age in the job market -- or even better, self-reflectively on the issue of age in Hollywood -- then the movie will be worth-seeing (especially if it can go head-to-head against the similarly themed Logan's Run remake). Of course, watching a fight sequence where, say, Josh Hartnett beats himself up, could be appealing, as well.