So once again we have survived.

Get the Gringo

Well, I don’t want to start up the ol’ Mel Gibson debate again. We all know how that goes. At some point somebody’s gonna point out that he didn’t kill anybody, so why is he persona non grata in Hollywood? Well, because of multiple crazed incidents where he threw raging tirades about Jews, blacks, rape and cutting off his girlfriend’s head. Yep, he pretty much hit all of them except gays. And him being a movie star we still start to forget about it after a while and want to forgive him, but then every time he seems to be almost in the clear he does another one. Like he wants to be caught.

So I can understand why some people might not want to work with him. Don’t pretend like you don’t. If he was just a guy and not the star (and director) of movies we love you wouldn’t want to share a shift with him or invite him over for the family barbecue, and you fuckin know it.

But I still like his movies, so I’m glad he made this basically-DTV crime movie where he’s an unnamed thief on the run with a bunch of cash along the U.S.-Mexico border. Chased by American cops he crashes through the border wall and is claimed by Mexican cops who take the money and drop him in a prison that he describes as more like “the world’s shittiest mall.” It’s basically a walled-off village run by two crime lord brothers. If you’ve ever been in a Brazilian prison, or at least seen the movie CARANDIRU, it’s like that except even wilder. Inmates with enough money pay to have their families inside with them. People carry wallets (I know because Mel steals one). There’s a VIP restaurant with waiters and everything. On Sundays they charge the public admission to come inside, enjoy the taco stands, sex tents and carnival rides.

You know how sometimes in prison movies there’s the guy that’s been around the block a few times that shows the protagonist the ropes and tries to keep him out of trouble? In this one it’s a ten year old boy. Mel repays him with kindness, cigarettes and shanking tips. The bigshots protect the kid; we find out it’s because (SPOILER) one of them needs his liver. So Mel has a couple good goals here: get out of prison, get back his money, make sure nobody can come after him anymore, maybe save the kid’s liver.

It’s been said that this is almost like a sequel to PAYBACK. He’s not Richard Stark’s Parker (the sniper and family backgrounds he mentions don’t really fit) but he could be Porter – a seen-it-all thief with a penchant for planning, fisticuffs, shooting, exploding, outsmarting. He even steals money from a disabled beggar again. He uses various aliases, but the credits just call him “Driver,” which was Porter’s job once.

I’d like to see Gibson do a whole series of these, the same character in drastically different settings, always with different names and titles, nobody knows if they’re connected or not. And the ending leaves an opening for that, I think.

Insanity has been part of Gibson’s persona for a long time – Mad Max, white guy in LETHAL WEAPON – and he milks it here, being introduced wearing a rubber clown mask, yelling through it to his wounded partner. (Like Parker he’s not bothered by his partner’s fate, but Parker might’ve tried harder to save him. Unless he just knows it’s a hopeless case – we don’t have an omniscient narrator to tell us what he’s thinking.) I wasn’t even sure it was Gibson at first, but it looks like his eyes and then his yelling sounds like that tape of him yelling at Joe Eszterhas. Scary way to introduce the character.

But that’s part of what I enjoyed about the movie. You might think after his notorious cold feet over the director’s cut of PAYBACK Gibson wouldn’t want to play a sonofabitch like this, but here he is. He’s nicer to women than director’s-cut-Porter, but he spontaneously decides to burn down a taco stand and steal the money inside. I guess we’re supposed to assume since they’re in prison they’re bad people, but shit, running a taco stand (especially in these conditions) can’t be that easy. These are hard working individuals. Maybe I missed a visual clue that showed they were scumbags? There’s also a part where a guy who as far as I know is totally innocent (maybe he was a character I forgot from earlier?) gets totally screwed. It’s kind of a funny, mean joke, but an example of why this character isn’t a thief-with-a-heart-of-gold like so many movie criminals.

I do think the tone is similar to PAYBACK, theatrical cut. It’s mean and hard boiled but also kinda funny. It’s kind of a heightened reality that makes it kinda quirky.

There’s a little sadomasochism, like you’d expect in a Gibson movie. There’s a sleazy guy from the American Embassy that’s after him that kind of seems like a good dude at first, but I guess I misjudged him because he’s played by Peter Gerety from Homicide: Life On the Street. Always good to see that guy. There’s something the kid does that actually shocked me, but maybe you’ll see it coming. I didn’t. There’s a pretty good murder plan that involves impersonating Clint Eastwood, which is in itself a felony in the United States, so that shows you how far this guy is willing to go.

Rookie director Adrian Grunberg is not the guy from Entourage, he’s an assistant director who worked for Gibson on APOCALYPTO and with him on EDGE OF DARKNESS. He also worked on PERDITA DURANGO, TRAFFIC, FRIDA, MASTER OF COMMANDER, LIMITS OF CONTROL and WALL STREET 2: WALL STREET’S REVENGE, so he’s had some interesting directors to learn from. Grunberg wrote the script with Gibson and Stacie Perskie (second assistant director, APOCALYPTO).

GET THE GRINGO is no PAYBACK (either cut), but it’s an enjoyable movie. I wish there were more like this. If Gibson keeps making movies I hope he keeps doing these little starring/producing/co-writing projects between directorial works. I don’t know. I’ll try to ask him about it if I see him at your barbecue.

VERN has been reviewing movies since 1999 and is the author of the books SEAGALOGY: A STUDY OF THE ASS-KICKING FILMS OF STEVEN SEAGAL, YIPPEE KI-YAY MOVIEGOER!: WRITINGS ON BRUCE WILLIS, BADASS CINEMA AND OTHER IMPORTANT TOPICS and NIKETOWN: A NOVEL. His horror-action novel WORM ON A HOOK will arrive later this year.
This entry was posted on Monday, July 23rd, 2012 at 12:40 am and is filed under Action, Crime, Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

154 Responses to “Get the Gringo”

  1. who wants to fucking eat!? HOORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!

  2. True story – my late aunt met Mel in 1992/93 whilst on vacation.

    She stood next to him in the lift and said to him possibly the worst thing she could to a small, Hollywood star: “Aren’t you tiny?”

    And so for a full week he woke her and my uncle up by shouting her name (how did he find it out? Small, Hollywood film star magic, maybe) over to their adjacent balcony, and every morning, when they went to the window, he was gone.

    But on the very last day of their vacation, when they went to the window, there he was, smiling and waving at them.

    I’m still not entirely sure if he was being playful (he loves his practical jokes, by all accounts) or just wanted to essentially ruin any of their attempts to have a lie-in whilst on holiday, frankly.

    To sum up, GET THE GRINGO is pretty good and if you meet Mel don’t mention his height.

  3. Jodie Foster said in an interview a while back that there are two stars in the movie business that are genuinly nice and liked by everyone who meets them; yun-fat Chow and Mel Gibson. But I don’t know if I really believe her when it comes to Gibson. Outside of the Mad Max movies I don’t think I’ve liked him in anything.

  4. I don´t know, whenever I have a realife conversation with someone about Mel Gibson its always about how great his movies are or what an awesome actor he is or maybe if they are not.
    Not once have I ever discussed Gibsons personallife or his rants or whatever. Because, seriously,who cares? Only on Internet it seem to be relevant. So what if he is an racist asshole? The worlds full of them…

    As opposite to pegsman, I find his performances in the MAD MAX saga underwhelming and in some other ones as well. But he´s the fucking master in LETHAL WEAPON. I highly recommend EDGE OF DARKNESS. He´s great in that as well.

    Now I´+m going to watch this hombre-flick.

  5. Whenever I see Mel Gibson I just think about SOUTH PARK and how insanely accurate their depiction of the man may have been.

  6. “Say what you will about Mel Gibson but the sonofabitch knows story structure.”

    So true.

    I tend to think of Mel as a racist, alcoholic uncle. You hate the dumb shit he does and says but you grew up with him so you know there’s more to him than just that side of him. I think a cross section of the people who came out to defend him probably bears out that reading, but it is becoming more difficult with every new tirade.

    I still love his movies, though. GET THE GRINGO was exactly the kind of small scale, blackly humorous piece of badass cinema they don’t make enough of nowadays. I like his historical epics as much as the next guy (even PASSION OF THE CHRIST, which I still hold is probably the creepiest horror movie of whatever year that was) but I grew up on his action roles and hope he never gives up on them entirely. As his face shows more wear and tear, he’s becoming more Bronsonian by the day.

    I second the love for EDGE OF DARKNESS. Nobody working today knows how to sell the pure visceral thrill of “I am going to kill this motherfucker right now” the way Mel can.

    Weird observation: Mel the actor has been in dozens of gunfights. Mel the director has never directed a single one. Kinda makes me hope he decides to helm of present-day (or at least western) flick one of these days in between bouts of making everybody uncomfortable.

  7. Majestyk – That uncle description, I feel you on that. Spot on,motherfucker.
    Whats great about watching Mel getting older, all the wear and tear shines though his face. Which makes him a more impressive tough guy. With most actors these days trying to act tough in movies they are mostly cleanshaven pretty boys just out of puberty.

    I miss guys like Bronson and Lee Marvin. You believed them being hard as nails just looking at their weathered faces.

  8. RE: The Taco stand he sets on fire. Didn’t they also use the shed to sell heroin, or did I get it wrong?

    Anyway, this was a breath of fresh air, and I loved it. The subplot with the kid and the liver I could have done without, but who cares. The Eastwood impersonation was hilarious. I wonder who came up with the idea, and how long it took them to decide whether or not to go with it? You rarely see such absurd shit in a major motion picture. I also found it refreshing to see Mel Gibson handing out a cigarette to a 10 year old kid. No way he’d get to do that in a movie if not for the fact that Icon is producing/distributing.

  9. I’ll say another thing for Gibson – he has good taste in TV, having been behind the US film versions of EDGE OF DARKNESS and THE SINGING DETECTIVE.

    As good as those films may be, no way can they be anywhere near as good as the original TV serials.

    Seriously, Mel knows his shit ‘cos they are easily two of the best to ever come out of the UK.

    If you get the chance to watch these, guys, please do – they’re both out on region 2 DVD.

  10. Shoot; “So what if he is an racist asshole? The worlds full of them…”

    True, but we still have to tell them that they’re wrong. Give them a hard time, if you will. A movie about Jesus by the religious nut Gibson was bad enough, but what if the racist in him decides to make a movie?

  11. “but what if the racist in him decides to make a movie?”

    I’d see it if he improvises shit like “WHO WANTS TO FUCKING EAT?!?” all over the movie and I say that as a proud non-white skin having citizen of the world.

  12. Yeah,this was pretty great. The subplot with the kid and his mom was there to give the story more emotional weight I guess and it worked for me.The slow-mo gunfight was put in there to please me, I think.And it did. Also, Gibson pulls a sort of “Axl Foley-caper-involving-a-banana-in the exhaustpipe” on the people that follows him.But with a more sinister outcome. There was a lot of stuff in this movie that I genuinely liked. GET THE GRINGO sure got me.

  13. People can apparently talk shit about Gibson all they want, even though they don´t know him personally. Kinda shitty in my opinion. I don´t want to join that crowd. maybe people would take a good hard look at themselves before passing judgment onto others…

  14. I’m sure Broddie could shed way more light on this subject than I can, but I’ve spoken to a number of black people about Gibson and every one of them has a sense of humor about his racist rants. They just kind of roll their eyes and say, “Some people are just ignorant. Good movies, though.”

  15. CaseyF*ckinRyback

    July 23rd, 2012 at 8:19 am

    Not that I’m comparing Lethal Weapon to ‘The Potato Eaters’ or ‘Starry Night Over The Rhone’ (hell, I’ve seen LW over a hundred times yet had to google for those randomly-chosen titles…) but Artists throughout history have often been nucking futz… To a degree I’d say it goes with the territory.

    But more to the point, I was recently told that ‘it’s important to seperate the artist from their art’ (Chuck Norris recently proved that he’s a bible-bashing homophobe – does that mean I can’t rewatch Invasion USA or have to boycott Expendables 2?) – bottom line is Mel is a great actor/director, and has incredible presence onscreen – all qualities that are dying out from movies as time marches on. I grew up on Mad Max and Lethal Weapon, and have rarely been disappointed by a flick he’s appeared in… Edge Of Darkness and The Beaver both featured great performances from a true movie star, and for that he always gets my money.

    Get The Gringo was released on the big screen in England a few months back under the title How I Spent My Summer Vacation. Was truly gutted that I was ill the week it was showing locally, I think it’s important to vote with your wallet when it comes to cinema releases.

  16. CaseyF*ckinRyback

    July 23rd, 2012 at 8:25 am

    That last part was terribly-worded, I apologise… It’s important to vote with your wallet on all movie releases (Isaac Florentine DTV joint – here’s my credit card! / Crappy 80’s cash-in horror remake – you aint gettin’ a penny out of me!)

  17. I’ve had a lot of fun with both the director and the actor Gibson too. But guys, please don’t excuse his behaviour. This is the old Great Author Hamsun vs the Nazi Hamsun debate all over again. Being a true artist doesn’t excuse being a fascist. Gibson deserves to be in the dog house until he’s come out with an heartfelt apology to, well, everybody.

  18. One upside for Mel being a nutball is that his less appealing aspects don’t seem to turn up in his art. I know everyone thinks PASSION is anti-semitic, but I dunno, man, you really got to be looking for it. The Pharisees come across looking pretty bad, but I don’t think much worse than JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, and no one seems too mad about that one. I mean, I get it, once you know he has these thoughts, it can be hard not to always see it whenever he does anything. Mostly, though, he at least manages to make his films pretty responsible, but with a layer of wonderful craziness you could only get from a true psychotic maniac. I don’t know that anyone would care that D.W. Griffiths was a racist if it hadn’t been reflected in his art. Action speaks louder than simple bad opinions, I think. If Mel were actively promoting an agenda of hate through his public actions, it would be much easier to be mad at him. Instead, he at least seems to have the decency to keep that shit to his personal life, where it only gets out to us against his wishes.

  19. I’m not excusing Mel’s behavior, and I can fully understand why anyone who did not have a personal attachment to his work would just think he was scum and not want to have anything to do with him. That’s why I used the uncle simile. If he were anyone else’s uncle, I’d be like “Fuck that guy.” But he’s my uncle so I try to take him with a grain of salt. Or possibly an entire fucking salt shaker.

  20. Must see this. Must see anything that has any links to APOCALYPTO or PAYBACK.

  21. Yeah I can’t say I’ve ever really seen a black or hispanic up in arms about his off screen idiocy. The most I’ve heard is things ranging from “no wonder he was always good at playing crazy” to “I don’t really give a shit.” or “I still watch his older movies cause they’re dope; R. Kelly peed on kids and I still bump his music”.

    I think more level headed people know that there is a distinction between an artist and his art cause as stated before a lot of artists are famously off their fucking rocker. I still watch a couple of John Wayne movies even though I didn’t like him as a human being. It doesn’t make THE SEARCHERS any less of a classic.

    The only minority group I’ve really seen go nuts at the mere mention of Gibson offline are jewish folk. Understandably so since they tend to be very unforgiving when it comes to anti semitism. Unlike blacks or hispanics who are so used to their stereotypes being used as crutches against them that a lot aren’t even phased when called the N-word or the S-word as they understand the nature of this country and how there is still a shitload of racism out there in post-civil rights America.

    Not trying to say blacks and latinos are passive about racists either but I’ve noticed a lot of people don’t really make a big deal about it especially if the subject behind such words is clearly suffering from mental problems like Gibson is. Or the subject is another product of the ultra conservative pre-boomer generation. It’s more like “eh another wealthy white man talking shit about minorities, surprise surprise”.

  22. Everyone I know who’s worked with Mel Gibson truly likes him. They all find his crazy behavior inexplicable and insist that’s not the real man. Some people theorize he’s manic depressive, that his drinking is making it worse, and as Vern implied, he gets into these cycles of self-destructive behavior. Maybe so. I just wish Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts and Robert Downey Jr. would team up to save Mel from himself. And Charlie Sheen while they’re at it.

  23. caruso_stalker217

    July 23rd, 2012 at 10:58 am

    I love this movie for Mel in a clown mask alone.

  24. caruso_stalker217

    July 23rd, 2012 at 10:59 am

    My avatar seems very fitting right now.

  25. THE BEAVER was a damn good movie. Much better than I ever expected it to be. You could tell that it was pretty much release therapy for the guy. Too bad most people never really give it a fair chance because it’s a career best performance. Maybe it should’ve been in a foreign language or directed by Polanski to get the movie buffs on board or something.

  26. The Original... Paul

    July 23rd, 2012 at 11:08 am

    I always look forward to a Mel Gibson movie. Even the less-impressive of them have been interesting. Does that make me a bad person?

    Anyway, I hope I’m gonna get a chance to watch this one.

  27. No, Paul, your views on ENTER THE DRAGON make you a bad person.

    I haven’t seen THE BEAVER yet, but I hope I like it more than the general consensus so that I can say, “You know, I think the critics were a little hard on THE BEAVER.”

  28. Wait. American critics hated THE BEAVER? It was seriously well received over here. (Although I can’t remember if it got a limited theatrical release or got dumped straight to DVD.) It always amazes me how opinions seem to differ from country to country.

  29. It wasn’t hated, but most critics seemed pretty baffled by it. It got the usual “Is this supposed to be a comedy or a drama?” critiques most movies with a unique tone get. (SUPER springs to mind.) I’ve never understood that particular criticism. If the filmmakers intended the tone to be confusing and keep the audience on edge, how can it be a bad thing? Many of my favorite movies veer wildly in tone, and many of my least favorite ones maintain the same tone for the entire running time to a stultifying degree. And you know what else steadfastly refuses to stick to a consistent tone? Life.

    In conclusion, THE BEAVER is now at the top of my queue.

  30. Knox Harrington

    July 23rd, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Anyone remember Conspiracy Theory? Mel gave some good crazy in that one.

    I do wish he would direct again. For some reason most actors end up being damn good directors, and Mel is an even better director than Clooney and Costner, in my opinion (which says a lot, since I think both of those guys are very talented filmmakers). I wouldn’t say he’s Eastwood good, but then again Eastwood has made a lot more films.

    Still, I think Apocalypto is better than 90% of the movies that Eastwood directed (the one obvious exception being Unforgiven. That film is just completely untouchable).

  31. APOCALYPTO gave me that rare sensation of “What the hell did I just watch?” and not in a good way. Mel got more minus points on that one in my book than any racist remarks he ever did until now.

  32. strike those last two words

  33. Yeah, CONSPIRACY THEORY is a good one, way weirder than any movie starring two of America’s biggest stars (at the time) and directed by a comfortable career journeyman (not an insult) like Richard Donner had any right to be. I like that it was one of the few times when Mel’s less-than-impressive height isn’t hidden by camera tricks. It emphasizes the underdog quality of the character that Mel’s larger-than-life action hero persona might have obscured.

  34. I didn’t like CONSPIRACY THEORY but APOCALYPTO was fucking gangsta. Very intense and well shot movie there. So many classic shots that cemented the madness that is Gibson’s mind on film. His best as a director to me. That ending though expected was definitely an ass kicker.

  35. And even more baffling for armchair psychologists, since hardcore Christian Mel chose to end his film with a men bearing a cross as a symbol of doom.

  36. Yeah, APOCALYPTO earned Gibson the right to be pretty fucking crazy in any way he wants, as long as he keeps making films that good/insane/unique.

    Judging from PASSION, the guy has a truly classic horror film in him somewhere. I would sacrifice most if not all of my major limbs for that film to be made.

  37. I’m with you, Mr. S. The weird, surreal touches in PASSION were creepy as fuck. He’s great with atmosphere, pacing, catharsis, all elements of a classic horror film. Plus you know he ain’t afraid of gore like a lot of directors who think “bloodless” = “classy”, so it would be violent as hell, too.

    I used to think I wanted him to make that Viking movie he was talking about, but now that I think about it, I don’t actually like Viking movies very much. They always seem like they’re gonna be awesome but then they pretty much never are. Mel should make a horror movie instead.

    Somebody use The Secret on this. I would but I used mine up getting Herzog in that Tom Cruise Reacher movie.

  38. I propose he make a Satan-and-Hairy-Backed-Baby buddy monster road trip antihero spin-off, kinda a DEVIL’S REJECTS sort of thing. Just Satan and his/her creepy hairy baby having evil adventures, maybe with Judas as their wacky sidekick.

  39. I think we should start a petition asking Mel Gibson to Stop Not Making Horror Movies Immediately.

  40. Who are some other filmmakers that seem like they could make a great horror movie (but most likely never will)? I’d like to see the Coen Brothers give it a shot.

  41. P.T. Anderson could make a devastating horror film. It would be three hours long and be so emotionally punishing as to make MARTYRS look like THE MONSTER SQUAD.

    Also Wes Anderson because that shit would be funny.

  42. I remember for a while P.T.A. claimed that he considered THERE WILL BE BLOOD something of a horror film, which makes me wonder if he actually understands how a horror movie works. But I would still be first in line if he actually made a horror movie for real.

  43. I think Spielberg could make an awesome zombie movie

  44. Sorry about that last statement, but Spielberg is waaaaay to familyoriented these days to bother making a zombie-flick. Ifhe did, I´m sur he could make a good one, if he wasn´t too concerned about the rating.

  45. Speilberg’s already made a horror movie anyway, so it wouldn’t be that big of a deal if he did another.

  46. How bout Ollie Stone (THE HAND doesn’t count, that was then, this is now). I think he’s depraved enough to come up with something truly upsetting, and has the ferocity to give it a real fever pitch. I mean, JFK, NIXON, U-TURN, NATURAL BORN KILLERS, TALK RADIO… lots of his films have a real nightmarish vibe to them. All he’s gotta do is really focus on freaking our shit out.

    I was also gonna say Steven Soderbergh, but he’s working on a “psychological thriller” right now so maybe that’s where it’s gonna end up anyway. So since that may actually happen, how about George Clooney or Ben Affleck? They’ve both been making excellent, atmospheric, and textured films recently, and I bet they could pull of something unique and great.

  47. I dig Soderbergh, but I don’t sense that he would make a good horror movie. His approach to genre is a little too clinical, studied, distanced, etc. I’m not really sure he could tap into the movie interesting atmospheric, abstract qualities.

    Being actors, and judging from their other films, I think Clooney and Affleck would be a little too character focused rather than setpiece focused to make an interesting horror flick. (For instance I felt THE TOWN was memorable more for the performances than for the action, which was passable but nothing to write home about).

    Gasper Noe is probably someone who should go ahead and let go of his pretentions to respectability and make a really fucked up horror movie.

  48. ShootMcKay – that was my point is that he would never do a zombie movie, but if he ever did it would be awesome

  49. I think Soderbergh could make a very chilly, understated, kind of Scandinavian-style horror film. He’d most likely take his cues from ROSEMARY’S BABY era Polanski. It wouldn’t be particularly scary from minute to minute, and there would be no Gothic showmanship or grand guignol shocks, but the cumulative effect would likely be eerie and disconcerting.

    I would also like to see the Wachowskis make a horror flick. I think they could really fuck us in the eyeholes if they ever let themselves off the chain.

  50. “I know everyone thinks PASSION is anti-semitic, but I dunno, man, you really got to be looking for it. ”

    Err…Jewish children morphing into demons? Directly quoting famous images from Passion Play iconography (which were themselves often pre-pogrom rallies?)? You could definitely make an argument either way.

    For me, that film is just too gloriously ludicrous for the debate to even enter into my mind. There’s the shot of Satan’s wig falling off, the tear welling up on the camera’s lense (’cause Mel literally stuck his camera in God’s eyeball), that fucking Bruce Willis baby that turns and grins at Jesus while he’s being scouraged…I fucking love that movie. Best pulp fantasy film of the decade, if not for Apocalypto.

    Apocalypto is even better. It’s not as silly and inexplicable as Passion even though it has a dude throw bees at his foes, and fully believing it is the most badass thing in the world (it is.). And there’s the childbirth scene at the end. Legendary.

    Get the Gringo is pretty conventional compared to these films but I quite liked it. I also thought the child was a solid character and I enjoyed his performance. He’s also in that movie The Sitter with Jonah Hill.

  51. caruso_stalker217

    July 23rd, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    He burned the taco shack so he could rob the heroin shack, by the way.

    Two different shacks.

  52. Dan – “I remember for a while P.T.A. claimed that he considered THERE WILL BE BLOOD something of a horror film, which makes me wonder if he actually understands how a horror movie works.”

    I don’t know I definitely could see how. Daniel Plainview was a goddamn monster. Think of him as being possessed by a demon trying his best to ruin people like the kid he adopts and Paul Dano and Plainview himself by all means. Maybe an agent of mammon.

  53. I had to turn The Beaver off, could not finish it. Not because it was bad but because it was so painful to watch Mel’s character and the family go through it all. The anniversary dinner scene did me in.

  54. Knox Harrington

    July 24th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Apparently P.T.A. and Day-Lewis based Plainview’s characteristics on Count Dracula. Makes sense.

  55. renfield — I know that Passion plays have historically been used as anti-semitic propaganda, but not exclusively so. The film draws on elements which were part of anti-semitic traditions, but as to whether there’s actual CONTENT in the film itself which ought to be read that way… I kinda don’t see it. At the very least, you have to make huge assumptions like the idea that Jewish Children changing into demons is a commentary on Jewish Children, not a pretty common cinematic device to show evil hiding out in the seemingly mundane. Yeah, the Pharisees don’t come across looking that great in the film, but if there’s a way to tell that particular story without them looking bad I don’t know what it is. Basically, you really have to be willing to call any minute negative detail a hidden agenda of racism (one writer charged that the priests are too ugly). Virtually all the allegations center around the history of Passion Plays, and essentially argue that any film which comes out of this tradition is de facto an attack on the Jewish people (in fact, allegations of anti-semitism were being leveled significantly before the film ever screened). Frankly, I think that’s a silly rationale, and moreover has never really been claimed for pretty similar depictions in, say, JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR or Zeffirelli’s JESUS OF NAZERETH. If people went into the film without the context of knowing about Mel’s crazy dad and his own public breakdowns, I sincerely doubt anyone would seriously call the film anti-semitic. I feel like people who make those claims are criticizing the artist, not the film itself.

  56. But wouldn’t you say that Gibson has done a lot himself to extinguish the barriers between the artist and the product with the way he has promoted the film and not least by giving 100 million of the gross to the catholic church? It is after all a work of fiction we’re talking about here, and he could have changed a lot of the details if he wanted to. But he didn’t, and that means that he stands for everything in the movie 100%. I wouldn’t call the whole movie anti-semitic either, it offends so many people on so many levels that it would be wrong to single out just one group, but yes, sure, it’s also anti-semitic. And I’m not saying that this makes Mel Gibson unfit to be an action star or even a director of historical dramas, I would have loved to see his take on the vikings, but we should be extra careful when he makes movies that are embraced by people who burn other religion’s holy books. And put saddles on dinosaurs.

  57. Mr. S,

    I don’t necessarily think the film is anti-semitic, and I agree that a lot of the interpretations charging it to be so were reactionary in nature. But I will say that it’s quite easy to infuse a film with unintentional subtext even if you’re not an anti-semitic psychopath like Mel!

    When I was attending a liberal arts college I attended a two-hour discussion panel wherein a few film scholars/Jewish Community Members attempted to pick the film apart and decide this issue once and for all. Their conclusion: Well, it might be anti-semitic, it might not be, it’s difficult to tell because the film is a visual/thematic clusterfuck and we’re not about to go through it frame by frame so fuck it. Then an Israeli in the audience piped up and accused the Palestinians of being “beasts” and things degenerated from there…

    Perhaps a more interesting discussion is what the FUCK sort of thematic biases informed Apocalypto! Are the Mayans a bunch of barbaric savages? Is the Catholic Church the true villain? Was it mean to make the guy eat the boar balls?

    Or a more germane to his thread discussion: Are you morally comfortable with Mel giving the child a cigarette?

  58. “It is after all a work of fiction we’re talking about here, and he could have changed a lot of the details if he wanted to.”

    What details, in specific, could Mel have changed without being burnt at the stake as a heretic by his church? I think this is a bizarre comment to direct towards this of all films… Does Mel think of it as a work of fiction?

  59. renfield, Mel’s movie has a lot of things in it that other movies about the same incident hasn’t, so he obviously didn’t feel THAT close to the material. The devil walking around in the crowd? Come on! And still his film repeates the same goofs as the other movies; the look of Jesus, the use of crosses, the way they crucify Jesus etc, etc. So yes, I think he could have pretty much done what he wanted and still being hailed as a great christian film maker by the church.

  60. The Original... Paul

    July 25th, 2012 at 6:09 am

    Majestyk – what exactly is wrong with my views on “Enter the Dragon”? That I think it’s the best martial-arts themed movie I’ve ever seen? Or that I preferred the “cut” version to the unedited version? Are these REALLY controversial opinions?

  61. Yes, Paul, wanting the nunchucks scene cut out of ENTER THE DRAGON is an incredibly controversial opinion on par with wanting the lightsabers cut out of RETURN OF THE JEDI.

    I’ll stop giving you a hard time about it, though. If RRA can choose to not bring up TRANSFORMERS 2: GONADS OF STEEL every time we disagree, I can let the nunchucks thing go.

    Your criticisms of Gary Oldman in LEON are still fair game though.

  62. The Original... Paul

    July 25th, 2012 at 9:07 am

    Majestyk – yeah, I don’t feel like debating those two either, to be honest… I’ve made my feelings clear about both, pretty sure we’re not going to convince each other. I would point out that it’s not ONLY the nunchuks scene that was added to the “extended” edition of EtD. There’s the graveyard scene as well, and to me that’s something akin to Sarah Connor’s dream of Reece’s ghost in the extended cut of T2. It’s just totally unnecessary. More than that, it’s ripping off “The Big Boss”, which is easily the worst Bruce Lee movie I’ve ever seen, and the only one I’d actually call a bad movie.

    That bit of completely off-topic banter aside (sorry, Vern), I’d like to see “Get the Gringo”. Trouble is, I can’t, as it’s not in cinemas anywhere near me. Not even the arts one. That kinda sucks…

  63. Paul you think THE BIG BOSS is worse than GAME OF DEATH?

  64. GAME OF DEATH has a higher entertainment value than BIG BOSS in my opinion. BIG BOSS is a bit of a chore to get through,I´m afraid. I´d even go so far to say that I rather re-watch GAME OF DEATH 2 than THE BIG BOSS. And that movie only has stock footage of Bruce Lee!

  65. I have always found WAY OF THE DRAGON to be the hardest Bruce Lee movie to get through. The comedy as kind of lame and the climax in the Colosseum (or the studio that’s supposed to be the Colosseum) isn’t as cool as a lot of people think. ENTER THE DRAGON is a really good martial arts movie, but I think FIST OF FURY is Bruce’s best.

  66. The Original... Paul

    July 25th, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    I’d put “Enter the Dragon” at the top, “Fist of Fury” second. But they’re both definitely good. I do like “Way of the Dragon” though.

    And “Game of Death” has its moments. If nothing else, the seven-foot-tall basketball guy is entertaining. Whereas “Big Boss” is just… every decision they made, they seemed to choose the worst option possible, and it results in a frustratingly dull experience.

    And if we’re gonna continue this, can I propose we take it to the forums rather than keep it in this thread? Here’s my proposal:

    http://outlawvern.com/forum/the-films-of-cinema/the-bruce-lee-thread/#p1333

  67. Gibson got screwed over the jew comments. I mean come on, he was drunk and bitching to the cop that was giving him the ticket. It wasn’t like he wrote a book or held a presser.

    Of course I know he’d been better off being pulled over by a black, gay, female cope. Because everybody knows you can never say a bad thing about jews and not have to pay the price. Esp, in his neck of the woods. They’ll black ball you quicker than Mel Gibson. Well, you get the point.

    As to the other: he was acting a fool over a woman, he had massive feelings for and as us guys know, they will bring it out of you. Yes, he acted like it was his first time dealing w/ a woman. And his “you should just smile and blow me” rant was so narcissistic and shows what babies those actors really are.

    I do think he got royally fucked over by mainly the jewish stuff. The rest is more to tar and feather him with. After all, they didn’t like him to begin with making the jesus film.

  68. But come on bud, you can’t pretend that’s a normal thing to say. How many times have YOU ranted about the Jews controlling everything or told your girlfriend “I hope you get raped by a pack of [racial slur]”? How many of your buddies do that after they’ve had too many beers? “I mean come on, he was drunk” does not cut it for that kinda shit. He didn’t “get screwed over the jew comments,” he rightfully was shamed for saying stupid crazy shit on a bunch of different occasions. You don’t just accidentally let slip shit like that if you don’t believe it.

    Still dug GET THE GRINGO though.

  69. In all fairness, I’m willing to cut him SOME slack for what he said when he was drunk, but only because I once saw my best friend trying to fuck his sister, while telling us that the was holding his dead pet rabbit in his (empty) hands, when he got really drunk on his Birthday a few years ago. I still try to not laugh it off as something harmless. (Even though on the Polanski/Simpson scale of horrible things that celebrities did, where 0 is swearing or getting naked on a live broadcast and 10 is…well…raping or murdering someone, I would only give him a 4 for saying and yelling inexcusable things to others.)

  70. Was he also drunk the entire time he conceived of, co-wrote (?), directed and self-financed that overtly Anti-Semitic movie? I don’t think he was, because the movie is a fucking masterpiece. It’s just that it’s, you know, an Anti-Semitic masterpiece. There are a lot of those, unfortunately.

    Or fortunately? I donno, I try not to let a film’s internal politics interrupt my ability to appreciate it as art. For example: objectively speaking, the old Amos and Andy shorts are very well constructed. They’re also horrifically racist. But through a Kantian lens of disinterested contemplation, they are a valuable resource for history, culture and even entertainment.

    In summary, who the hell was surprised to discover that Mel Gibson doesn’t like Jews?

  71. Vern, he was drunker than Cooter Brown and we know by now he’s got a temper on him. Like I said, it was a back and forth w/ a cop. Have you ever gotten a dui? When you’re getting arrested most of those people will say horrible things to the cop. After all, in their mind the cops are ruining their lives.

    I realize they themselves ruined their own lives when they decided to drive drunk. But that’s the way it goes with quite a bit of them.

    It was bullshit and shows how much power the jews have in big business. It was a throw away line that the jewish media ran with and ruined him w/ it. I guess we’ll agree to disagree.

  72. “HOLY MACKEL ANDY!”

  73. It’s a fascinating how pc this place is for the type of fans it houses. Guys who love watching other guys maim or kill other guys on screen. And liking it but Mel for having a one on one back and forth with a cop is way beyond repair.

    I didn’t realize this site was connected to Huffington Post or Jezabel.com

  74. GQTaste:

    Your comments are, on their face, Antisemitic. So it’s no surprise that you’re mystified why Gibson has been treated as a pariah.

    Here’s something to consider: If you’re from Brasil, you might be murdered for being Brasilian in a surrounding country. You might even be murdered for being Brasilian in certain sectors of the world over for something silly like Futbol rivalry. And you might be murdered for being a shade of brown. But by and large, you do not have to fear reprisal for simply being of Brazilian descent in most of the world.

    Compare this with, as you so bigotedly put it, “The Jews.” As a Jew, you are likely to be murdered in any major city in any country in the world (with the possible exception of pockets of Asia where there is no cultural history of Judaism or major influence from Christianity/Islam) simply for being a Jew. Show me one major airport in the world where there isn’t a swastika carved into a bathroom stall door. Show me one place in the world where there has been a 10 year period where Jews were present in the populace without anyone killing a Jew for being a Jew.

    Before the Holocaust, Hitler got the world together and said, “Who wants to take these Jewish refugees? Because, like, we’re gonna…um…get rid of ’em.” The Third Reich was in power. Their party platform of racial purity was a matter of public record. Mein Kampf was easy to get a hold of. Everyone *knew* what Hitler was talking about.

    No one cared.

    In fact, it’s worse than no one caring; The US and England got together and colluded to forge paperwork to avoid taking Jewish refugees. See, the US and England had allotments for immigrants from different parts of the world at this point. Neither country was getting anywhere near their limit for Eastern European immigrants. But the leadership of both nations got together and consciously chose to send Jews to the gas chambers.

    Some say that the world stood idle during the Holocaust; not true. The whole world actively participated. The leadership of pretty much every single major nation in the world proved, in practice, not in theory, but in *practice* that it would take very little effort to turn them into Nazis.

    And it has been how long since the death camps were liberated? About 65 years. How long ago did slavery end in the US? About About 150 years. How many overtly racist laws are there today that target Black Americans? How long did it take us to rid ourselves of Jim Crow and segregation (here’s a clue – we haven’t.)?

    We aren’t even close to overcoming the scars of slavery. (And I say *WE* because even as a White man, there are scars on me from it). Why do you think we would be beyond something that happened much more recently? within my grandparents’ lifetime! Barely before my mother and father were born! What do you really think has changed in the last 65 years?

    Today, the vast majority of the oil producing nations have overt policies of racial hatred toward Jews. Overt policies calling for the destruction of Israel in terms that are not-even-veiled calls for genocide. We still do business with these countries.

    Yes, we put sanctions on Iran. Sure, we give other nations a slap on the wrist. But we still do business with them. We still accept their racial hatred. We still give them money, knowing that this money is used to build military systems designed to kill specifically Jews. Not just people in general, but Jews specifically.

    How low do you think oil reserves will have to get before the US and other governments shrug and turn a blind eye? How long do you think it would take before the US public would turn rampant and demand the death of Jews and Israel? When the gas turns off, and it will, how long do you think it will take?

    So yeah, Jews tend to take what you see as passive comments of a drunk man pretty seriously, because they speak to the heart of the matter.1500 years of Anti-Semitic rhetoric from most every branch of Catholicism and Christianity cannot be erased over night. They cannot be erased even after 65 years.

    Antisemitism is a fundamental part of Western culture. It is deeply embedded, just like the Protestant Work Ethic and the Horatio Alger myth are deeply embedded in America. People express these ideals regularly without ever knowing their origin. So it is with Antisemitism. All you have to do to see this is look at conspiracy theories: 9/11 as a false flag, lizard people, evil bankers. Most major conspiracy theories are structurally reminiscent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Why do you think that is? What do you think that means.

  75. Wow, in the time it took me to explain GQtaste’s Antisemitism to him…he went off on an even more Antisemitic tirade.

    Can we get a “Tawdry Predicts” meme going?

  76. CQtaste, it’s just that your post reeks of Jew paranoia-type rhetoric. Also the notion that “they will bring it out of you” regarding women will cause you to say the shit Mel said… I mean hey, is it super-PC of me to say I just can’t relate to the stuff you are arguing?

    One man’s “overly PC” is another man’s “not being an asshole”…

  77. I’m also a daily Jezebel reader. That site owns.

  78. So anyway, yeah, this is the debate you’re afraid you’re gonna start when you review the new Mel Gibson movie.

  79. I now get why you never reviewed THE BEAVER.

  80. For the record, I can’t wait to see this movie and would totally see that Viking flick. Hell, on my first action spec, Mel Gibson, Nic Cage and Viggo Mortensen were my top suggestions for the lead.

  81. Tawdry — not that I’m supporting any conspiracy theories about the Jewish media or whatever. At all. But I still don’t see how PASSION is specifically anti-semitic outside of the tradition of passion plays from whence it is drawn. And if it’s reasonable to call something a document of hate because it has some ties to a minor genre which many, many years ago was used (partially) for hateful purposes… then shit, shouldn’t he be considered a racist simply because he’s Catholic in the first place? Is it even possible to responsibly tell any story with a Jewish villain?

    I understand very clearly why many Jewish people are extremely sensetive about this sort of thing (for the reasons you eloquently articulated above). But I also have to demand an honest, objective look at an accusation as serious as you are making about Gibson’s art. Obviously, Gibson himself has some very fucking serious issues with a lot of things in life. But unless you want to point out some real clear evidence in his movies, I gotta take exception to you throwing words like “Anti-Semitic” around. Among other things, I think there is a serious danger of diminishing the seriousness with which people receive of such accusations when you use them frivolously.

    I’m tempted to delete all that to avoid a real nasty plunge into this unpleasant topic, but honestly I think it’s an important thing to discuss and I respect (mostly) the intelligence and honesty of the posters on this site enough to think maybe we can just talk to each other like human beings looking for answers.

  82. I just find it strange how a guy can say something to another person while shitfaced and he’s now persona non grata. That’s why I said he’d been better off being pulled over by a black, gay, female cop. Anyone but a jewish one. Because you can never say anything bad about them. Whether it’s true or untrue.

    Like I said, he didn’t espouse this thought to a reporter, magazine, book, etc. He didn’t hold a press conference and say it.

    Can you imagine what some of these actors have said to other people before? I’m sure 99 out of 100 are terrible to other human beings. Did Alec Baldwin get as much shit as Mel did? Not even close. How about Bale? Please. Both those guys said way worse to the people they were talking to.

    One line and the media, who by the way is jewish black balled him into obscurity. I’m not even that big of fan of the guy.

  83. Gibson chose to use parts of the play and a version of the play that the Catholic Church has deemed questionable. Given the Catholic Church’s history with Jews, I think that when *they* say that it’s iffy, well, it’s iffy. I would also argue that Passion Plays in and of themselves are Antisemitic, at least in times of antiquity. And, given that Gibson was trying to reach back to those times…

    Again, any questions about Gibson’s intent with the film, the casting, the white Jesus versus the stereotyped image of Jews, ect. were pretty much quashed by his rant. On their own, the images of the film might make the attentive viewer a little uneasy, put in the context of Gibson as a man, they become more clear.

    I also think you underplay the impact of Passion Plays as a tool to encourage Pogroms. My great grandparents, on BOTH sides, were literally chased out of Eastern Europe by such mentality and quite possible such theater. So, I wouldn’t call it minor, nor partial. Nor past, actually. The last Pogrom was in 1954. 1954, as in, within my father’s lifetime. Probably within your father’s lifetime and maybe your own.

    Ya’ll keep talking about the past. I’m talking about the ongoing present. Nothing about the world changed after WWII. The people in every country except Germany who shrugged at the Holocaust…all of them stayed in power. All of those regimes continued.

    And again: I think The Passion is a fucking masterpiece. It’s just one that I find offensive. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.

    Anyway, I’ll rewatch The Passion and give you some specifics over the weekend. Right now I gotta go prep for The Saturn Awards. Will you be there Fred?

  84. I don’t think Bale has ever been recorded as saying anything nearly as abhorrent as, “I hope you get raped by a gang of [N-bombs, I’d type it, but the site has a monitoring program]” And that his girlfriend would moreover deserve such treatment. So, you’re just full of shit on that one.

    And as another counter example: Michael Richards. He didn’t talk about Jews. He talked about Blacks. And um…when was the last time you heard from him? Sure, he’s got a youtube video with Seinfeld coming up, but his career is dead.

    So, care to give any actual concrete details with your paranoid delusions, or would you prefer to keep casting aspersion on people without doing any type of research?

  85. I don’t really want to get into this, but Mel did manage to have his next directorial effort and his next starring vehicle open in movie theaters after the “Jews cause all the wars in the world” incident. Both of them even made a little money. It was only after the “I hope you get raped by a pack of n-bombs” incident that his movies started going DTV. If anything, that’s evidence that Tawdry’s right and most people really don’t give a shit about anti-Semitism the way they give a shit about racism and misogyny.

    But seriously, am I the only who remembers that Mel let himself get married by a rabbi at the end of LETHAL WEAPON 4? He broke the glass and said “shalom” and everything. Doesn’t that count for anything?

  86. But previously you had the “flied lice,you plick” scene. What does that count as?

  87. I don’t know, but let’s just hope Mel never does a rant about Asians or that clip is gonna bite him in the ass in a big way.

  88. Am I gonna regret asking what “the media, who by the way is Jewish” means? Does that mean the owners, editors, reporters? Traditional and web? Corporate and independent? Left-leaning and right? Hard news and entertainment? Local weeklies? Tabloids? Mr. Majestyk’s black booty magazine? My websight? Entertainment Weekly? Ain’t It Cool News? CLiNT Magazine? Does “is Jewish” mean the entire staff/board of directors/whatever, or a simple majority? Does ethnic Jew count or do they have to be practicing?

    This seems to be not even remotely credible and if it had any type of truth to it it would be more of a “huh, didn’t know that” type of trivia for a Coca-Cola slide than a terrifying nightmare. Turns out that many Jews are good at copy editing, I guess?

    GQtaste, I like you bud. You have been a good commenter and gave me some important information about Today You Die. But I think you should do some thinking about some of these ideas you have about “the Jews.” You gotta understand, I am not part of the Jewish Overlords, and don’t even know very many Jewish people, but I see you write something like that (or Mel say something like that) and I think “that guy is a looney.” It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a natural reaction.

    At least we can agree that Mad Max is awesome. I hope?

    Anyway, check GET THE GRINGO, now on dvd and blu-ray.

  89. Tawdry… I completely understand the role Passion Plays played in historic anti-semitism, and in the horrible pogroms which of course are not entirely a thing of the past. But they also exist independently of that association, just as crosses symbolize the KKK but also have a minor religious significance, too. They *were* used as a tool for cultivating hatred, but they were also used (more frequently, it seems) as a genuine article of religious devotion.

    THE PASSION, as I watch it, represents Gibson taking a cultural document which has been used many ways by many different kinds of people in the past, and using it specifically as a way to visualize his religious beliefs. I know that he uses sources that the Catholic Church finds discreditable; I suspect they were an element of his upbringing (his dad is definitely a total nutter) and I imagine he sees them in a religious context, not in a anti-semitic context. All this just sounds too much like condemnation through association for me to be comfortable with it. It’s hateful because it’s been used hatefully in the past and by other people… it’s hateful because look at the guy who created it. I understand the importance of context, and I don’t fault people for being very nervous about this whole concept. But when I watch the actual document… I just don’t see it. I looked for it, even tried to get all offended by it like the good lefty pinko commie atheist east coast intellectual liberal that I am. It was actually when people make a big stink about APOCALYPTO being “racist” because it does not offer a historically accurate depiction of Mayan life* that I finally gave it up and figured that people just (reasonably) hate Mel and anything he does now will draw assumptions of a hidden agenda of racism. I simply find that a somewhat censorous and troubling way of looking at art. Maybe its unavoidable, though, I don’t know. I have to admit that going back and watching POWDER is a really creepy experience that I have a hard time getting past. Still, though, as fucking mental as Gibson is in his personal life, I just don’t see much evidence of its influence on his art. The guy himself is open to whatever criticism we want to level, but claiming that makes his art equally culpable seems wrong to me.

    *Those “people,” by the way, mostly being white academics and activists. The actual descendents of the Mayans apparently thought it was awesome to get a crazy ass action movie in their native language.

  90. All I was trying to say is that you don’t want get on the wrong side of the jewish folk. Is that a new concept all of sudden? No, it’s not.

    And what is this: are to give any actual concrete details with your paranoid delusions, or would you prefer to keep casting aspersion on people without doing any type of research?

    Concrete evidence is the guy finished in Hollywood. And it was over before the female stuff happened. Ari M. fired his ass and let it be known he should be black balled. And the same moralist defended the head of hbo at the time for beating up his wife. Who also had a history of beating up other women in the past.

    Why you ask I bring this up? Well two of those three gentlemen involved are jewish. And the other was Mel.

    But that’s par for the course. Point is, and none of you said anything about that I’ve brought it up. Mel would have been better off w/ any other minority arresting him that night. Nothing else would have come to it.

    So in part, what Gibson said that night was true, certainly to his career. They started a war he couldn’t finish.

    Gibson – 0. Jews – undefeated.

  91. Anyway,It´ll certainly be interesting to see Mel in MACHETE KILLS.

  92. But GQ, Mel has already appeared in 5 films (with another forthcoming) and directed one since the whole thing. I mean, how in the fuck does that qualify as being “finished” in Hollywood?

    I think the public turned on him more than the Hollywood establishment.

  93. Well, anyway. Refer to first paragraph of review.

  94. Shoot – “Anyway,It´ll certainly be interesting to see Mel in MACHETE KILLS.”

    I’m pretty curious about that. Mel has never played the baddie before (anti-heroes don’t count) and it sounds like he could tap into more of his offscreen demons with something like that. I think it has potential to be a good piece of mega acting if handled properly. I still haven’t even seen the first MACHETE yet. I’ve really been slacking. I got to get on that.

  95. I see why these discussions are avoided. However, against my better judgment, I will jump in. I feel a lot of the comments on all sides have been a little disingenuous. Vern, I think it is common knowledge that most CEOs and studio heads of most if not all media orgs are jewish, which is what GQ was getting at (I think?). Whether that means, “they” control the media IDK. But I do know for some reason, you can’t criticize Israel in this country in public without getting shit (just ask Helen Thomas). Furthermore, there can be no denying that Jewish people are a pretty influential bunch. However, I don’t think that means they secretly control whatever because that is a conspiracy theory and those are… crazy. I do think though that people with power tend to look after their own interest and Mel pissed them off so he got shit listed.
    I never thought Passion was any sort of racist but I can see how some people could read things into it (like when people said the new Star Wars movies were racist). I guess my point is that Gibson is a deeply flawed human being and we as a society seem to like nothing more than to act holier than thou when people fuck up. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing but in my own anecdotal experience, those who pile on the most, seem to be the most hypocritical and I always have a gut reaction to call bullshit on that. That being said, the whole “I hope you get raped by a pack of *****” was pretty fucking racist. And to think the only reason I clicked on this article was to see if this movie was worth watching. Stupid comment sections…

  96. Not recognizing Anti-Semitic content as being Anti-Semitic content does not excuse it from being Anti-Semitic content. Case in point; GQtaste. I am certain that he does not think phrases like, “The Jews,” “The Media, who is Jewish, by the way” and the like are Anti-Semitic. And yet, they are clearly just that to any rational observer with even the most basic understanding of rhetoric and etymology.

    Similarly, I don’t honestly think that Gibson set out to make a movie defaming Jews, if only because I am not so arrogant as to think that he would invest 35 million dollars of his own money, several years of his life and his personal legacy just to insult me. Furthermore, were such a bizarre thing to occur, I sincerely doubt that the man who would make such a choice would be able to craft an insult that is so obviously full of legitimate artistic value.

    The problem is, though Gibson made his film in earnest, he was fed poison as a child. And when he made The Passion, he vomited that poison back up. Gibson regurgitated all of the bits and pieces of his persona, many of which he probably doesn’t understand even to this day, onto the screen where they congealed into a brilliant but grotesque mess of venom. A beautiful, shiny, moving puddle of bile and vitriol.

    That Gibson was and or is ignorant of the ramifications of his rhetoric and the historical significance of his preferred interpretation of the story doesn’t excuse the film’s moral turpitude. In fact, it compounds it.

  97. As for Victor Salva…I’m kind of fascinated by that man. He committed (at least one) horrible crime and served a sentence for it. And when he got out, he started making horror films about himself. Jeepers Creepers and especially Jeepers Creepers 2 are pretty clearly psycho-sexual horror films about Salva dealing with the monster inside himself. *He* is the creeper. It lends the films an odd sense of gravitas. The films are pretty much proof positive of both the Auteur theory and the Male Gaze (just a pedophilic, homosexual male gaze, here).

    And given that he was thrust into the spotlight after those films, but was never made rich enough to pay anyone off…I think that he has beaten back that beast. If he had raped another child, he probably would have been caught. People were looking for it.

    I haven’t spent money on his films, because I do not support the art of those who use their art as part of a rapist’s tool-kit, but I also don’t know that it is fair to blacklist him since he did serve a term in jail. I despise the current ‘justice’ system that encourages recidivism and Giuliani’s policy of criminalizing poverty, so I guess I sort of have to let the guy have his second chance, don’t I? And I mean, it seems like ‘the system’ worked with him, didn’t it?

    And now I’m more conflicted, because clearly Salva is guilty of crimes that are far, far worse than anything Gibson has even been accused of. Hell, I think they’re probably worse than anything any of his fictional characters has ever done! And yet, my post is kind of defending Salva while attacking Gibson, isn’t it?

    Perhaps I feel some vague twinge of sympathy for Salva because I see him as a man who is trying to be better than he is while I see Gibson as a man who really *should* be better than he is. There is a feeling of Guilt in Salva’s work, but a chauvinism to Gibson’s.

    Regardless, I probably wouldn’t have either one over for dinner. And I’ll spend money to see Get the Gringo, but I won’t spend money on anything with Salva attached. So, there?

  98. “I think it is common knowledge that most CEOs and studio heads of most if not all media orgs are jewish.

    Umm…what? There are, like, a million things wrong with this.

    A: “Common knowledge” is poor rhetoric since it is inherently hearsay and unverifiable. It is not a limited statement and it amounts to, “I believe this because I have long believed this.” Also, it is an implicit emotional appeal and employs the logical fallacy of numbers equaling validity. It does not matter if one person believes something, or if a billion people believe something. Such concerns are immaterial.

    B: “Most CEOs and studio heads of most if not all media orgs are jewish,” No hold on here. CEOs and studio heads are completely different jobs. WHO are you even talking about. You’ve now failed to establish a quantifiable basis for how to measure your hypothesis AND failed to even establish the limits of what is being measured.

    B.2: “Most” is also too vague. Is 51% enough for your argument to be valid? And what if it is 51% of studio heads? Who counts as a studio head? Who doesn’t count? And CEO’s of what? Does the CEO of Kinkos count? I mean, they certainly help with the creation and distribution of a whole lot of media. Does the CEO of Google count in this? They’re certainly a massive media force. Are we even talking film anymore or business in general? Are you really suggesting that a majority of all businesses in the country or even the world are run by Jews? Because there are 14 million Jews in the world. Basic division precludes your hypothesis. And I think that division either constitutes common knowledge, or else trumps it.

    B.3: Seriously, what counts as a media org? And why even include, “If not all.” No one with even the vaguest grip on reality could possibly believe that ALL media orgs (whatever that means) are Jewish owned. I donno…Oprah Winfrey, Is she a Jew? Umm…Tyler Perry, is he a Jew? Glenn Beck, is he a Jew? Rush Limbaugh, is he a Jew? Suge Knight, is he a Jew? I literally typed those names stream of consciousness and without lowering my typing speed to under 70-words per minute, I came up with a list of names of non-Jewish owners of things that I would consider, ‘Media Orgs.’ So clearly, “If not all” was an out and out lie. How could something be common knowledge if it is not possible for any rational person to believe it.

    B.4: Oh, I almost forgot. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? You do know that you’re on the internet right now, yes? As such, I’m pretty sure that you’re aware of Google, yes? So, why not use Google and, like, do even the most basic research. Because, despite what common knowledge would have you believe, (did someone declare that word a synonym for paranoid delusion and forget to tell me?), your assertion is simply not true. Not even close to true. And the only reason that fact is obscured in any way is because you have framed the debate so poorly as to make disproving or proving your point impossible.

    And that’s not even your entire sentence. I was gonna break down your entire post and respond using actual rhetoric terminology and dissect your arguments clinically, but Jesus. I don’t even have time.

    D- in forensics, man.

  99. Chopper Sullivan

    July 27th, 2012 at 3:12 am

    You’re an obnoxious blowhard, and probably a lousy screenwriter.

    F, for sucking at writing, but being unaware of it.

  100. BeeTeeDubs:

    For the purposes of this discussion I am defining “Media Org” as an individual or group with access to the means of production and access to mass distribution* for film, television, music, radio or subscription-based service.

    *I will arbitrarily define mass distribution as a weekly viewer/listener/readership of at least 1 million individuals.

  101. Dude, the portentousness of the post is pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek. I mean, the whole things a joke designed to underline my point; I’m discussing how one frames an argument, so I create an obvious artifice to frame my discussion of the framing.

    I was being too serious before, so I decided to approach the whole thing from a more goofy angle.

  102. One thing I was shitty about before: the whole doomsday scenario thing with peak oil.

    I was trying to illustrate one possible example where you can see how a shift in the status quo might very quickly make the world a less friendly place to Jews and that the current social stature enjoyed by Jews is very tenuous. Since I didn’t bother to come up with any other hypotheticals (and really, I should have just avoided hypotheticals altogether), my example ends up being, ironically enough, Anti-Semitic. it conflates Arabs with Muslims and casts them in a faceless and monolithic role of zombie-Nazi or something. Maybe, like, a Jew-Bashing Sasquatch? A White Pride Unicorn? A Pogrom-happy Chupacabra? You get the gist. Point is, I shouldn’t’ve done that. #mybad

  103. Chopper Sullivan

    July 27th, 2012 at 3:57 am

    Dude. It’s impossible for you to not sound like an asshole. I retract my statement about you being an awful writer, because that was cunty, but jesus, I can’t bear to read anymore awful tripe out of you. Not because of your opinion, but because of your choice of expression.

    “the portentousness of the post is pretty clearly tongue-in-cheek”

    Jesus. I don’t want you to fall face first into a volcano or anything, but it wouldn’t hurt.

    “You’ve now failed to establish a quantifiable basis for how to measure your hypothesis AND failed to even establish the limits of what is being measured. ”

    First year of college? I hope so. Because you take a long time trying to sound smart without saying anything.

    If it helps at all, I suggested Clint Eastwood de-aged, Meryl Streep in drag, or Sir Laurence Olivier in hologram for my post-apocalyptic love-triangle shark attack spec.

    Fingers crossed!

  104. I was going to write something nasty about the ridiculous thing I discovered when I googled Chooper’s name, but then I decided not to. Suffice it to say, I am now not entirely sure that he isn’t totally unaware of google.

  105. Chopper Sullivan

    July 27th, 2012 at 5:02 am

    Who’s Chooper? What the hell are you talking about? You can’t even be honest in a ridiculous flame war that doesn’t matter?

    You googled my fake name instead of responding to what I said? Hell, call me a troll and an asshole! But your first instinct is weirdo stalking?

    “Suffice it to say, I am now not entirely sure that he isn’t totally unaware of google.”

    Terrible sentence. Where did you go to Awful Screenwriting school?

  106. Tawdry – excuse me for interrupting the discussion at hand and forgive me for taking this out of context but I could not help noticing that you used the word “zombie-nazi”. Most people usually get that wrong by saying Nazi-Zombies, since that implies that zombies are nazis. Which is pretty stupid sounding.Zombies has no political ideology. As I said I took it out of context, but I was pleased to see someone actually use the correct worrding. Thats all from me. Play on,boys…

  107. What’s happenong to us, guys? We used to be so civil.

    Wait, is this discussion actually proving Gibson’s thesis that the Jews cause all the (flame) wars in the world?

  108. The Original... Paul

    July 27th, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Shoot – I’m glad somebody is sticking up for the real oppressed minority here.

    I refer, of course, to those zombies who are NOT Nazis. I know a few, and I’m sure they’d be plenty insulted by these guys’ uncaring prejudices.

  109. You guys have officially made me want to rent DEAD SNOW again.

  110. Don’t care enough about the this topic to respond in detail other than to say, yes I could have been a lot more detailed but I was writing on a comments section and not writing a thesis. If you want to, you can look up the studio heads of the major studios and TV companies to see what their background is. As a community, jewish people in the US are smart and had a lot of success, one area in particular has been in entertainment. Why is that a bad thing to acknowledge their accomplishments? Would it be wrong for someone to notice a lot of African-Americans have had success in pro sports? The point is, discussions like this are stupid and never end up anywhere constructive. Let’s go back to movies.

  111. DEAD SNOW is pretty fun. Zombified nazis buried in deep snow in Norway is an important topic that has seldom been discussed or touched upon by the academic community. Fuck em….

  112. I did not care for DEAD SNOW at all. It got the comedy/horror balance all wrong, and all the on-the-nose discussions of horror movies and horror movie tropes seemed like 15 years too late to be taken seriously. I was knocked out of the movie before I even got into the movie. I find that a lot of these “young people go on a road trip that turns deadly” movies make the mistake of making the characters as obnoxious as possible so you will be happy to see them die, but that doesn’t make the 45 minutes leading up to the first kill any less excruciating.

    Also, in my opinion, movies are better than antisemitism. Just my two cents.

  113. Mr. Maj:

    Brilliant, sir. Brilliant.

    I too am against zombiphobia. Just because they’re soulless corpses bent on eating your brain doesn’t mean they’re also Fascists. And to imply that the mindless zombie horde has no individuation is just offensive.

  114. Most FRIDAY THE 13th movies have obnoxious characters that needs killing…

  115. Majestyk, most of Tommy Wirkola’s movies are low budget, not-that-funny, kinda-like-Troma movies, bit I think that with DEAD SNOW (the title pokes fun at a Norwegian/Swedish TV show from the 80’s called RED SNOW) he showed us that armed with a clever idea even a Norwegian director can get noticed worldwide.

  116. Yes, but the filmmakers weren’t so heavy-handed about it. There was usually one guy who was a dick (the “dead fuck” guy from PART IV comes to mind) and sometimes one stuck-up bitch (the blonde with the pearls in PART VII) but the rest of them were just normal, good-looking young folks. The earlier installments in particular tried to show the kids having fun together and getting along, as opposed to these weird groups of mismatched people that would never hang out together in real life and seem to actively dislike each other.

  117. pegsman- ahh, RED SNOW (RÖD SNÖ). I have vague memories of that. Wasn´t Tomas Von Brömsen in it? Lesson to young kids: Don´t trust memories that are older than 20 years.

  118. Yes, Brömsen was in it, and Kjersti Holmen from Norway. It was kind of a romantic crime story from WWII.

  119. So I watched THE BEAVER, and I really dug it. I thought it showed admirable restraint in dealing with the kind of high premise you’d expect from a late-90s Jim Carrey movie, and I have to give it to Jodie Foster for not shying away from the absurd and/or creepy aspects of the material. Since most critics complained about its inconsistent tone, I was surprised to find that it actually seemed pretty sure-footed to me. I’ll admit that the wrap-up is way too tidy, though. I would have liked to have seen Mel dealing with the fallout from the, um, thing he did in the garage, and having to learn how to interact again without the Beaver as a go-between. But it seems like TV dramas have taught movies the lazy habit of glossing over the heavy transitions with a montage scored by some indie folk-pop group. And as welcome a presence as the almost blindingly luminous Jennifer Lawrence always is, her character, the “smart hot chick who’s perfect on the outside but actually broken on the inside,” just felt too Hollywood to be believable. But I guess they had to give the son someone to talk to in order to make his subplot (which I initially thought was going nowhere but did redeem itself eventually once you saw all the parallels between him and his dad) worth watching, and it might as well be a gorgeous blonde. But for all its problems, Mel’s performance is so stellar that it elevates the entire endeavor. Even beyond the technical aspects of the role (which is basically him doing two characters at the same time, and doing them well), he brought his role right to the edge of pathetic without ever tipping over into pitiful. There’s really no one else on earth who could have played this part, and I feel blessed that I got to see him do it.

    I would have liked to have seen how the Beaver managed to seduce the wife, though, but that was another moment that got papered over by a montage. I guess that’s a lesson for you screenwriters: If it’s too hard to write, let the soundtrack handle it.

  120. I bet you anything, Majestyk, that the director did shoot a seduction scene or two, but someone was too scared to have it in there. Easier, less painful to montage the footage they had than let the audience witness the uncomfortable. I wonder how many times that happens and how often it is or isn’t the director’s choice.

  121. ANoniMouse – Jodie Foster is one to never be charmed by Beaver so I don’t know if she really made that call at all. I think it was probably scripted that way as opposed to her saying “I will not be seduced by Beaver”.

  122. I’ll check the deleted scenes when I get home to see if there’s an extended seduction scene that they cut for whatever reason, whether it’s pacing or because it just didn’t play. From her interviews, it seems like she really loved the script and wasn’t going to make the movie unless she had full control over it. It seems like it was more of a situation of her finding investors who would let her do what she wanted, rather than letting a studio tell her what to do. Not that a studio would ever make a movie like that in a million years.

    Either way, I’m willing to go with her allowing herself to get seduced by a guy with a hand puppet. At that point in the story, she still thought of The Beaver as roleplaying, not psychosis, so she was likely just thrilled to have her husband’s libido back in working order after so many years of depression. It was only when she saw The Beaver panting along with Walter in post-coital bliss (a great detail, by the way) that she started to realize that maybe this puppet thing was creepier than she initially thought.

  123. P.S. Vern, I think you would really like THE BEAVER because it does that thing you liked in ABE THE VAMPIRE SLAYER where they take a ridiculous premise and treat it stone-cold serious. I really hope you review it. We got the boring old Gibson argument out of the way on this thread so I bet we’d be able to stay on topic and have a really good discussion.

  124. Very entertaining movie, glad he made it.
    Big fan of Mad Max movies, thou glad he’s not messing with remake.
    Not a fan of Lethal Weapon series. It is a good idea for him to make a series of movies like this. but sure glad we have at least one.

  125. Vern,
    Is the innocent man you speak of at the end of the movie? Cause that’s the bastard who ratted on him and ran away with his wife.

  126. Anybody else really hoping that they try to get Mel to direct EXPENDABLES 3? He’d bring the story structure that eludes Stallone, as well as teaching him how to inject black comedy into a badass story without sacrificing the cathartic brutality. Plus, he’d fit the paradigm of former action heroes making a comeback, and he could even do a role as like an evil senator or something. Really, I think he’s just about the only thing that could make me give a shit about the series anymore.

  127. Mr. M. Interesting thought. I think Mel might be desperate or just who-cares enough to do it at this point. Then again, I have zero faith in Sly’s instincts when it comes to this franchise, so my guess is that he would not entertain the prospect.

  128. I doubt they’d do it. Why would they want to bring in another big ego with an artistic vision who could potentially clash with Sly? I’m sure if they make EXPENDABLES 3 they will go back to West, or pick another similar professional, generic director with a commercially solid resume. If not Simon West, I’m guessing John Moore or some shit like that.

  129. Thanks Darth Brooks, I didn’t remember his earlier appearance I guess.

  130. Yeah, I know it’s a pipe dream. But a man can dream, can’t he?

  131. No doubt. But if Mel does get behind the camera again, I’d rather it not be for the 2nd sequel in a lame movie series of cynical cash grabs. Let’s see his crazy fucking epic movie about the Maccabees that will convert all Jews into Christians instead.

  132. Although speaking as an atheist married to a Jewish Mel Gibson fan, I’m not so sure I’d be so keen on the idea of a movie that magically converts Jews to Christians.

  133. MM, sometimes that’s all we have. And remember, outlawvern.com is where wings take dream.

    As a Christian, I think Mel Gibson obviously has some (though well-suppressed til this past decade) mental health issues and some deep-rooted anti-Semitism that I’m not sure even he fully understands. But I think if he did the Maccabees movie, he’d do it straight up. Last time I checked Apocalypto didn’t have a strong missionary theme.

  134. Oh, I don’t really believe Mel wanted to make that movie to convert the Jews. That was just one of those weird claims Joe Eszterhas made about him.

  135. Oh, yeah. I imagine that being a fly on the wall in any interaction between those two would be quite a trip. Perhaps they should have just scrapped the Maccabees project and made history’s most bizarre buddy film.

  136. in the case of Eszterhas and Gibson, there probably hasn’t been a bigger clash of asshole egos since Ralph Bakshi and Robert Crumb teamed up to do Fritz The Cat

  137. I don’t know. David Lee Roth tried to get back together with Van Halen earlier this year. That’s some monumental assholery right there. It’s like the KING KONG VS. GODZILLA of ego-tripping.

  138. Well shit, maybe they should get David Lee Roth to direct EXPENDABLES 3.

  139. Wasn’t a taco stand, was a heroin hut.

  140. Enjoyed this one quite a lot.

    I think I read Tawdry Hepburn saying he thinks the sound design/editing of OCEAN’s 12 (?) is perfect. Award-worthy, like it was almost as good as JAWS’s sound. Well, I’ve got a weird compliment in the same vein for GET THE GRINGO — I think the set design, or production design whatever it’s called, is perfect.

    It won’t win any awards for it, since it’s not a period piece with a bunch of 18th century castles & shit, but the GET THE GRINGO crew deserves a lot of credit for their amazing work on the prison, “the world’s shittiest mall.” It felt like a real world — big, dirty, lived-in, tragic, impressive, believable, busy with detail… And all the other sets (junkyard lot, office with a washroom & a view, the scuzzy American’s office, operating room, ballroom) were great, too. And I liked the brown sparseness around the border wall. Well-filmed, all of it. Incredible stuff for a lower-budget DTV film.

  141. I just learned that this is apparently getting a theatrical release in Germany soon.

  142. Just watched THE BEAVER, and Mr. Majestyk’s words upthread are 100% accurate as to my thoughts on it.
    http://www.outlawvern.com/2012/07/23/get-the-gringo/#comment-2844435

    It’s a little too short, a little truncated in parts, though I do appreciate the melodramatic soundtracking.

    My only other gripe is the same one I had with WARRIOR (2011) — if your movie’s protagonist is doing a blitz of interviews on national television, is on the cover of GQ and other magazines, is the face of a bestselling product, then that person is now rich & famous. Your character is no longer a normal person in average American society with the rest of us. When this happens, this means his/her family is now financially safe & secure in every way. It means that your little struggling teenage son no longer has to worry about anything; if he’s smart, he’ll just tell his classmates, “Hey man, my dad’s kind of an artist. And an internationally renowned business leader. No big deal. He expresses himself in a weird way, so we just deal with it and cash the checks from our stock investment manager, you know? Instead of answering your questions or sharing in your hormonal angst or finding ways to be embarrassed by my family, let me just turn this money clip into a cloud, burst it, and exit the room in a rainfall of $20 bills.”

    Good movie, though. Gibson is fantastic in a role full of weirdness. I hope Jodie Foster keeps doing her thing. She’s obviously not one to heed the opinions of The Internet (especially when the trailer for THE BEAVER was first released), thank christ. And if she is, then she’s even braver than I give her credit for.

  143. I have major problems with THE BEAVER. I liked the weird premise but I never felt like it fully committed. It had that indie dramedy problem where it’s not funny enough to get by as a pure comedy and not credible enough to be compelling as a drama.

    My main problem with it was that nobody’s reactions seemed realistic at all. When the beaver gives a big speech to Gibson’s employees you’d expect an awkward silence followed by a crisis meeting, but instead his VP nods and smiles like “hey, I think this beaver is really onto something”. When he talks about his mental issues on TV you’d expect his stock to plummet and a concerned board of investors to insist on an early retirement, but instead he becomes a rich and famous celebrity (not in a Charlie Sheen freakshow kind of way either). The only one who acts like a reasonable human being is his teenage son, and he’s vilified for it.

    It all makes Gibson’s redemption way too easy. The moment he puts on that puppet he becomes the perfect father, husband and CEO. Even at the end when he has his big internal struggle and.. uh.. parts ways with the beaver, there’s one shot of him in a hospital bed and then he’s fully recovered. It’s too pat. It doesn’t feel earned.

    I think Gibson was good in it, though. I particularly liked the scene where he had a mental breakdown in the restaurant and threatened suicide. That was one of the few moments that seemed genuine.

  144. Can’t disagree with much of that, CrustaceanHate. The teen son faced disapproval from the mom more b/c she was worried he was becoming his fucked up dad — uselessly laying on the couch, making trouble in public places, etc.. Not so much vilification, in my opinion. And there’s even that on-the-nose “similarities” photo & Post-It note collage that shows how he’s becoming his father… and hates himself for it. Fuckin’ family dramedies, how do they work?

    On the other hand, Jennifer Lawrence *does* get pissed off at him for good reasons. He acts like a total asshole around her right when he should be at his most unassuming, most gentlemanly, taking her kiss and building on it. Instead, he tries to become her psychiatrist, making their nice date together into a therapy session, ambush style. She should have vilified him even more.

    So at home he becomes a Garfield-ian asshole, in his bedroom he does property damage & gives himself brain damage, at school he’s a cheater & criminal, on dates with a cute girl he’s way too intense… other than his lucky timing in being able to be the hero for his dad (though maybe he could have gotten to the garage even earlier if he hadn’t been sulking while driving over), this kid really is the villain.

  145. That’s fair, but I didn’t so much mean the thing with Lawrence, which was such a boilerplate subplot that it evaporated from my mind immediately after viewing. It was more that the kid seemed genuinely concerned and creeped out by his dad’s behaviour. When he got bailed out of jail and was angry at his dad for all his puppety bullshit it seemed like a normal, human reaction, and yet the movie seems to be on the dad’s side. “What’s wrong with you, kid? Why can’t you learn to stop worrying and love the beaver?”

    That thing with the post-it notes. Ugh. The more I think about it the more I hated this movie. Fuck THE BEAVER!

  146. Holy shit, you guys. I know we’re in the middle of April and all but it’s snowing out where I am and then this happened so it must be goddamn Christmas.

    Mel Gibson is Old Man Riggs in the Blood Father trailer

    Aside from a turn as Stallone’s partner-turned-nemesis in The Expendables 3, Mel Gibson has mostly been in Hollywood exile since 2010, when this happened. But with the statute of limitations apparently expiring on the public’s inability to stomach Gibson’s personal issues, a trailer’s emerged for hi

    I didn’t even watch more than ten seconds of the trailer. Who needs to? “Mel lives in a trailer with his crazy APOCALYPTO beard and ends the lives of some dudes who mess with his daughter” is enough for me. There isn’t a motherfucker ever walked the earth who makes killing a motherfucker look as motherfucking satisfying as Motherfucking Mel makes killing a motherfucker look. I know the world will scoff but this just went on my Top Five Most Anticipated for 2016 list.

  147. And it’s the director of the MESRINE movies. I forgot/didn’t realize he also did the ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 remake, but this looks more like MESRINE. The writer adapted his own novel, and his IMDb claims he’s in HOOPER. If true he would’ve been a kid at the time but maybe he learned some important lessons.

  148. They already had me at Mel Gibson but kept me at “Mel Gibson bucking guns at goons in a desert while also riding high speed vehicles”. That’s a proven solid formula so this can’t not be good.

  149. I am all aboard for anything Mel- related and this seem like the kind of shit he should be doing. The kind of relentless, scary looking motherfucker you don´t want to motherfuck with.

  150. And holy shit, is that Michael Parks at 1.03? Yes, yes, I think it is! This looks like fucking gold. “Blood Father” is a hilariously ridiculous name, but I fully support it.

  151. I had this one sitting on my shelf for a few years, but it was exactly the movie that I wanted to watch this Saturday night, without knowing that it would be that good. It’s not up there with Gibson’s biggest classics, but an entertaining A-quality B-movie, that uses the right cliches and dares to come up with a last act, that feels like out of a different movie, but at the same time feels like the best and only way to end this movie. I approve.

  152. I agree CJ. And I enjoyed watching HACKSAW RIDGE earlier this week. It’s a pretty *safe* type of story (heroic true tale amid famous WW2 battle) for Mel to make his directational return to, but I liked what he did with it. Will save further comments in the event Vern takes it on in the future.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <img src=""> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <b> <i> <strike> <em> <strong>