Mel Gibson will never again get a fair review

klaatu

klaatu

Fusionist
Too bloody and too violent .... that pretty well sums up most of the reviews for Gibsons new flick ....Apocalypto. I guess these same critics must not like anything Martin Scorcese puts out .... or for that matter .. Francis Ford. Could it be that most Movies Critics are Jewish? Or Gay? Or Both? Would a Gay Jew ever give Mel Gibson a fair review? Or how about an African American who is a gay, a converted Jew and registered Democrat.. coming off the heels of Mels reaching to Michael Richards? Would Gibson stand a chance?

Lets put it this way ....forget the anti-semite debate, "The Passion of the Christ" featured some of the most phenominal acting you will ever see on the silver screen, fantastic period translation both from a set and linguistic point.... yet it was virtually ignored when Movie Honors were passed out. The two leading actors should have cleaned up that year.

Apocalypto is going to get the same treatment. Its a sure bet. Gibson is in a situation where his Movie must click with the public ... because he sure is not going to get a fair shake from the Politically Correct Flock of Vultures ...aka the Movie Critic Industry.
 
Oh, I Don't Know . . .

You may find this review -- from the San Francisco Chronicle no less -- interesting, Klaatu.
Rape, murder, mayhem -- there goes the civilization

By now, it's fair to say that Mel Gibson does not make boring movies. He does, however, make movies that make you a little worried about him, and "Apocalypto" might be the ultimate exemplar of the Gibson style. It's a bloodbath, of course, but to say that isn't enough. Scorsese movies can be a bloodbath, but would Scorsese ever show you a man eating the raw testicles of a wild boar within the first five minutes of screen time? And what about the running motif of beating hearts yanked from living bodies? No, for those excesses one can only turn to Mel.

In any discussion of "Apocalypto," which deals with the twilight of Mayan civilization, a delicate distinction must be made. It would be inappropriate and probably inaccurate for any critic to pronounce on the mental health of a filmmaker based on his movie. Yet no description of "Apocalypto" can even begin, much less be complete, without noting -- say, in a colloquial, nonclinical, anecdotal sort of way -- that it seems like something made by a crazy person. It's unrelenting, a succession of blood-soaked disaster, an artfully designed parade of cruelty that would make the Marquis de Sade get up and say, "Enough already."
Click to expand...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/08/DDGSLMPQNF15.DTL&type=movies
 
Ornot... I have yet to see the Movie ... so I really cant give it a thumbs up or down. It may well be as bad as the above review outlines ... but the same can be said of Goodfella's ... a movie that is bloody violent and in many respects glorifies organized crime... but in 99% of reviews it is considered a 5star movie.
 
If the critics like it I won't bother with it. If they hate it I will want to see it. Especially if there's a lot of action.

Critics just look for artsy fartsy content and leftist view points. Those are their definitions of quality.
 
klaatu said:
Ornot... I have yet to see the Movie ... so I really cant give it a thumbs up or down. It may well be as bad as the above review outlines ... but the same can be said of Goodfella's ... a movie that is bloody violent and in many respects glorifies organized crime... but in 99% of reviews it is considered a 5star movie.
Click to expand...
It's considered so precisely because it doesn't glorify violence or crime. Only a very superficial viewer could come away with such an impression.

I'll grant you that it's often a fine line. How much violence is too much? At what point does it begin to obscure the point of the film? It's going to vary from person to person, so any judgment would have to be historical and relative.

Much of what's considered classic cinema I find unwatchable, so I'm really not going to argue with you in any serious way. :)
 
OrnotBitwise said:
It's considered so precisely because it doesn't glorify violence or crime. Only a very superficial viewer could come away with such an impression.

I'll grant you that it's often a fine line. How much violence is too much? At what point does it begin to obscure the point of the film? It's going to vary from person to person, so any judgment would have to be historical and relative.

Much of what's considered classic cinema I find unwatchable, so I'm really not going to argue with you in any serious way. :)
Click to expand...


Well jeesh ... I guess Im lost for words .... :rolleyes:
 
uscitizen said:
Only newsworthy in the entertainment rags, not the main media.
Click to expand...

Not so sure 'bout that... . Fox, MSNBC and CNN have all been mentioning it .... than again.... some circles may consider all 3 to be entertainment rags .......:cof1:

Look it... the PC Police have been raggin the shit out Mel Gibson ever since the release of "Passion" and yes ...he didnt help his own cause by going off on that cop... but the guy is a brilliant film maker....
Shit .... if we let Political Correctness get in the way of judging art ....there would have been an unfathomable amount of who we now regard as legendary Artists, Writers, Musicians and Film makers whose work would have died before it came out of the gate. Look what happened in the late 40's and early 50's during the Commi Witch Hunt.... censorship goes both ways...its ugly regardless of which side of the political spectrum one may rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top