Badmovies.org Forum

Well what do you know, it only takes an idiot like Mel Gibson to stir some controversy and as luck would have it it's his film THE PASSION, or should I say THE PASSION OF CHRIST as it is now called. Apparently, producer Dean Devlin liked the picture, but then this is coming from the producer of such crap like GODZILLA (1998) and THE PATRIOT (2000). Apparently, the Jewish community seems threatened by the film and call it Anti-Semetic. While I really can't say if it is or not, I do know that some reports are saying that Mel, the hard-core Catholic that he is, is not following some of the Bible's written history. Gee, coming from an star who has been in two histrocally inaccurate films BRAVEHEART and THE PATRIOT, I wouldn't be suprised. Here it is:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031030110809990001


Also, would you like to read a quote of Mel Gibson making a theatening comment towards New York Times columnist Frank Rich. Mel, have you ever heard of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Here it is:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031030131309990015

Okay, while I am sounding like I am releasing a few fumes here, let's at least focus on the main point. Do you all think Mel is going a bit too far? Is he in it deep? And even so, what do you think about his comments towards Frank Rich?

When I say "Gibsons religious hokum" on the heading, I meant his film and NOT the Catholic religion. Just to clarify on that before the comments start rolling in.

With all the controversy about this film (and it hasn't even been released yet) I hope that it does not become the new LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. By that, I mean I hope that it doesn't suffer an outrageous amount of criticism, negative publicity, protests, etc., from a bunch of idiots who don't even bother to SEE the damned movie before they start complaining about it.

It's like saying that you don't like spinach, when you've never even TASTED spinach.

What's the big deal? It's a movie for crying out loud. People take things way too seriously. It hasn't even been released yet so whose to say if it's so "anti-semetic" which I can't see it really being in the first place to begin with.

I agree with you, Burgo. If their are those who are going to criticize it, at least see it. But then, those who have seen the workprint and test footage either say good or bad things about it. But who really knows? Right now, I would like to focus on the real discussion: Mel Gibson. Keep in mind that this is about Gibson and not a critical review of his film.

Mel Gibson is apparently liked by all. Called a great actor and a great director, I really have to doubt those claims. But underneath his stardom and fame, Mel has a problem with being naive and not knowing when to keep his damn mouth shut. Lacking common sense is something that one will have trouble with when working in the Hollywood system, and Mel is the perfect case.

Case in point, the movie BRAVEHEART. When compleated and released, Mel revealed to the press that he did change most of the films history, including the Battle of Sterling Bridge. And when the historians jumped in, now Mel, whenever he is interviewed or asked about the film, always uses the "I was just trying to make an entertaining film" excuse. And because of this, Mel pulled one hell of a bonner and definately shows how naive he can be. He revealed to the press about what he had done and should have known FULL WELL what would have happened. It would have been better if Mel would have used that grape-brain of his and not say a word about the film's historical inaccuracy, he then wouldn't have gotten much backlash from the historians. But Mel sure likes to make it look as if he is the victim when those historians get on his back, even though it was Mel himself that REVEALED IT ALL in the first place!

And let's not forget Mel's religious agendas. He had the nerve to say that "If anybody who is not part of the Church, then they are not saved." He said this remark in an interview while THE PASSION OF CHRIST was being finished! Not only is that a self-destructive attempt to ruin his film, but that just shows what kind of an uptight pompus ass that he is. If he is going to be making comments like that, then he should give up all of his Hollywood wealth and become a priest. Otherwise, what he just said is one of the most low-down horrid comments I have ever heard. Why does it upset me? Even though I am a Christian, I am not part of ANY religion whatsoever. And this overpaid actor has the gaul to say that if I, or anybody else for that matter, am not part of the Church then I am damned! Again, just shows what happens when a jerk like Mel is able to make such a comment, and yet he is not critisized for it. Mel is neither charming or inteligent when he says something like that, nor is he challenged. But if somebody like Susan Sarandon made the comment, all of a sudden it's "Boycott her next film" and all that crap. The society we live in.

And now, it's Frank Rich. Rich, a New York Times collumist, had some negative things to say about Mel and his film. Now let's keep in mind, a critic is a critic. And whatever a critic has to say, you can't take it too personally and if so, take it with a grain of salt. But not Mel. And because of Rich's constructive criticisim, Mel apparently felt that it would befitting to say: "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick… I want to kill his dog." Gee Mel, whatever happened to 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'? Mel should know this, he's a hard-core Catholic for God's sake! Once again, Mel has pulled another bonner, but this time he might get away with it. The various Internet websites make Rich look like the bad guy. Of course, these Internet news sites are only giving us half of the story. And in retrospect, it would be Mel who is the bad guy (for now, at least). You might ask why? Well, read the comment again. Mel said "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick...I want to kill his dog." This coming from a religious man!Wow, that's some threat Mel has made. And yes, it is a threat, no questions asked. What a hypocrite! Unfortunatelty, Mel is a Hollywood star and will obviously get away with it while Rich will suffer the backlash for only giving an opinion, right or wrong. Kind of sad isn't it.

Of course, Mel has his supporters. Dean Devlin says it's a great film. Keep in mind that Devlin was responsible for producing GODZILLA in 1998, a film that is not exactly liked by many, and the ultra-crappy THE PATRIOT. Yeah, I really should take Devlin's word for it. If only he didn't produce such crappy films. Devlin's opinion, of course. Just don't expect me to buy it.

Yeah, Mel might not be the sharpest tool in the shack or the brightest bulb in the lamp either, but his usage of being nothing but nonsense and lacking common sense shows why I really don't like the guy. And he is in the business! His overly pushy religious views (which he seems to have no problem making it all in public), his ultra-big egomaniac self and his dimwitted attitude shows why I have more respect George Romero, Lucio Fulci, Dario Argento, Mario Bava, and the late Gregory Peck. These guys have class, talent, and intelligence; Mel lacks these and he needs to start grasping them quickly. His comment towards Frank Rich shows what he really is in my eyes and what he lacks, but everybody will overlook that no matter how threatening or cruel Mel made it. He's a big-shot actor and everybody loves to kiss his ass. Well, this is one audience member who isn't going to pucker-up the lips and place them on his left or right cheek of his posterior! I can see and read between the lines of what Mel Gibson is, and from what is taking place it is not a prety sight.

As for THE PASSION OF CHRIST, I might go see it. But coming from Mel Gibson, I might just laugh my ass off watching it! Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative here. The film might be good, or it might be bad. Just envisioning Mel making a good film, let alone a Jesus picture, is like wondering if a cow can be trained to run a 35mm camera: not believable or feasable in the long run. And even so, if THE PASSION OF CHRIST becomes a monumental failure for Mel, he will be heartbroken. But still, Mel should have known what he has gotten into and therefore must answer to it. If he looses money, it probably won't hurt him. But still, if the picture fails with devistating reviews, then it will be Mel's nuts roasting on an open fire and the smell of the burn won't be very pleasent to the nose. And I'll probably end up feeling sorry for Mel, unfortunately for me.

StatCat wrote:

> What's the big deal? It's a movie for crying out loud. People
> take things way too seriously. It hasn't even been released yet
> so whose to say if it's so "anti-semetic" which I can't see it
> really being in the first place to begin with.

I agree with you as well, what is the big deal? Who really knows if the film is Anti-Semetic, and it's hard to believe it is. But then, you have these various Jewish rabbi's claim it is. So now, it's become an issue to either believe Gibson or the Jewish rabbi's. And personally, I'm not really going to take sides. I need to see the film first before making judgement.

Does anyone have a copy of those articles they can post? When I go to the links, it wants me to sign in with an AOL screen name.

He had the nerve to say that "If anybody who is not part of the Church, then they are not saved."

What's wrong with that?  

I happen to not agree with him, but that's standard Roman Cathloic doctrine.  That's the basic split between Protestants and Catholics; the issue of Sola Fide Catholocs, or at least the teaching of the Catholic church, is that salvation is sacramental; that is it accomplished through the sacraments executed by the church.  The natural result of that is that if you do not recieve the sacraments of the church, you cannot be saved.  

Personally, I disagree on theological grounds.  However I don't have any problem with Mel Gibson saying it because, well, he is Roman Catholic and such a belief is consistant with RC doctrine.  It's not individual pompusness or arrogance on his part to say it, he's just echoing basic teaching of his church and I can at least respect him for being willing to say it , knowing it would not be a popular thing to say.

But my understanding of tolerance has been that it's a willingness to accept a person, even if you disagree with their ideas

I agree, Freep.
I do have my beliefs. They are long held and i have my reasons for them, but that would take a long time to explain, so i'll just leave it.
Do i think my doctrins are right? Of course, or i'd not bother. Do i think some people are doing wrong things? Sure.
Do i think they answer to me for that? No.
Each individual has to answer for their own life. They don't answer to me, or i to them. We are free individuals, and we do ourselves the most harm, and the most good, in the long run. We have choices to make, and others can only state their beliefs. After that, we are on our own.
I believe all answer to God for their own lives. And thats how it must be. As individual creatures, thats how it works.

How Gibson responded. in detail, to Frank Rich, i don't know, as i've not seen the "Debate" at issue. Perhaps it was a matter of attitude, that caused the riff. I don't know.
As for the film, well....we'll see.

Chill, bros. Its only a movie....

FearlessFreep wrote:

> I happen to not agree with him, but that's standard Roman
> Cathloic doctrine.  That's the basic split between Protestants
> and Catholics; the issue of Sola Fide Catholics, or at
> least the teaching of the Catholic church, is that salvation is
> sacramental; that is it accomplished through the sacraments
> executed by the church.  The natural result of that is that if
> you do not recieve the sacraments of the church, you cannot be
> saved.  
>
> Personally, I disagree on theological grounds.  However I don't
> have any problem with Mel Gibson saying it because, well, he is
> Roman Catholic and such a belief is consistant with RC
> doctrine.  It's not individual pompusness or arrogance on his
> part to say it, he's just echoing basic teaching of his church
> and I can at least respect him for being willing to say it ,
> knowing it would not be a popular thing to say.

> But my understanding of tolerance has been that it's a
> willingness to accept a person, even if you disagree with their
> ideas

Understandably so, Fearless. However, their is a fine line between that as well. Mel can say whatever he wants for all I care. It's just that when he makes a comment like that via written or televised interview, either one, it comes across as an arrogant comment. Let's imagine if somebody made a crude tasteless joke about 9/11 on television or in a written interview: would you put up with that? Of course you can always change the channel or not read what has been printed, but still their is a fine line between it all.

Yeah, Mel was raised in the Roman Catholic doctrine and what he believes is what he believes, I have no problem with it. But to go out there and make a comment in like that in the wide public, and especially if their are those out there that are not Roman Catholic, is just the wrong move. It's somewhat of a snide comment on his behalf. And what if some of his viewers are not Roman Catholic, then imagine that! He can be respected as an actor, but most of the majority out there looks upon a man like Mel for his personality and his lifestyle.

And in a way, it does offend me. It offends me that Mel can say such a thing and not be challenged for it, and it offends me because Mel acts like he is right, regardless if it's an opinion or not and is the wrong time to say so (don't forget, he's got the movie on his back as well). The comments makes it sound as if only Roman Catholics are allowed to see the film, nobody else. Again, wrong time or place to say such a comment. Plus, is this man challenged for saying such a thing? Certainly not. Apparently Bill O'Riley didn't after he had Mel on his show, but then again Mel's company Icon Productions is said to have bought the rights of O'Riley's book to make into a film so that seems to be some ironc element to think about. But then, let's go back to when the War in Iraq startedand people like Tim Robbins said they do not support the war. And lo and behold, people TOOK THAT PERSONALLY and thus resulted in the boycotts and such. And why was he being attacked? Simple: he was just saying what he thought was right, just like Mel and his comments. Even though I do not agree with the likes of Tim Robbins and he can say whatever he wants, the whole thing was just a silly affair. And Mel is entitled to what he has to say, but like with Robbins he said the things he said at the wrong time. And the same goes to Mel Gibson.

I really don't want to take it personally, but if Mel wants to go out there and make THOSE KIND of comments and claims, regardless if he was raised to believe so or not, then Mel should drop all of his stardom and become an old school Catholic priest. Otherwise, don't say such a thing when your million dollar movie is at risk!

Mel is known for his dramatic, rowdy, Austrailia outbursts. So is Russell Crowe. They are entertainers & entertainers HATE critics. It's nothing new at all, the war between those who can act & those can only criticize.

You guys do know that Mel and his father belong to a traditionalist sect within the Catholic Church which believes everything should still be the way it was before Vatican II. Mass should be in Latin, fish on Friday and so on.  I have my own issues with the Catholic Church which I don't care to express here, but hold no animosity toward Catholic Church members.  I was never a Catholic, but my wife and her whole family were and we were married in a Catholic Church.

If you read your Gospels you have to agree that the Hebrews were responsible for Christ's crucifixion. They didn't, however, carry out the act because they weren't allowed to pronounce death sentences. Only the Roman Government could do that.  It was presented this way in Franco Zeffirelli's mini-series which is shown just about every year at Easter and I don't hear a big stink being raised about it.

I think Mel has portrayed it rather graphically and has been his own worst enemy by going around shooting his mouth off. I believe in freedom of religion, but please don't be hitting me on the head with yours and I will treat you the same way. Nobody knows who is saved but God the Almighty. I can't see in to your heart so it is not might right or privilege to be telling you if you are or aren't going up above or down below.

As far as Mel's movie, judgment should be reserved until the actual act of viewing it has occurred.

peter johnson wrote:

> Mel is known for his dramatic, rowdy, Austrailia outbursts. So
> is Russell Crowe. They are entertainers & entertainers HATE
> critics. It's nothing new at all, the war between those who can
> act & those can only criticize.

Exactly, Peter! Both Mel and Russell are entertainers and entertainers really detest critics. Problem is, they need to understand that a critic is a critic, and the same can be applied to the audience as well. When it comes to critical reviews, sometimes they need to be taken with a grain of salt. If you read Roger Ebert's poorly written review for Lucio Fulci's THE BEYOND, you would see what I mean.

But then, Mel's "I want to kill him" comments towards Frank Rich do show how he hates critics. Now, will Mel be able to answer his attitudes towards his actions, or will he just turn the other way and go back to saying he is a peaceful guy and such. If so, I will declare "hypocrite".

As for Mel's "acting", I believe Russell tops Mel any day of the week. But that's just my opinion.

Well Chris I think Mel just wants to get his film out there for people to see and enjoy.

But the problem is that his film is coming out  in a time when religion is a very touchy issue. if this had come out about 3 years ago it wouldn't be getting all the flames its been getting now.

Religion is politics, and politics is a double edged sword as always but now that religion is really becoming an issue this is a more controversial film than it should be.

I think the only way for people to judge the film is to see it by themselves and not rely on the words of crappy crabby critics or religious communites that are really oversensative now(not just the jews).

I think this whole thing is getting blown way out of proportion myself.

However, the Dean Devlin Seal of Approval isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Hell, if he'd made it we'd have gotten the "sleeker, faster, holier Jesus that can run at 200 mph."

"Case in point, the movie BRAVEHEART. When compleated and released, Mel revealed to the press that he did change most of the films history, including the Battle of Sterling Bridge. And when the historians jumped in, now Mel, whenever he is interviewed or asked about the film, always uses the "I was just trying to make an entertaining film" excuse. And because of this, Mel pulled one hell of a bonner and definately shows how naive he can be. He revealed to the press about what he had done and should have known FULL WELL what would have happened. It would have been better if Mel would have used that grape-brain of his and not say a word about the film's historical inaccuracy, he then wouldn't have gotten much backlash from the historians. But Mel sure likes to make it look as if he is the victim when those historians get on his back, even though it was Mel himself that REVEALED IT ALL in the first place! "

I don't understand your criticism.  You're saying it was bad of him to be forthright about the innacuracy of the movie?  

BTW, I think Braveheart is an excellent film.  I'd like to see an ACCURATE take on William Wallace and Robert the Bruce though (from what little is known accurately, there is a LOT they'd have to makeup no matter what though).

Jim H wrote:

> I don't understand your criticism.  You're saying it was bad of
> him to be forthright about the innacuracy of the movie?  

Oh, you caught me on this one and I have to thank you for doing so. I guess I'm going to have to repharse this one. Let me start again: Mel being forthright about the inaccuracy of his film BRAVEHEART shows that he was indeed honest about it. But then after that, all the historians got on his back while Mel was saying "I was only trying to make an entertaining film", thus trying to make himself look like the victim. Again, bad move on Mel's part. He made the film, knowing full well that he was going to be caught, so he admitted it when the film was released. But then, he acts as if he has done nothing wrong, historically-wise. Either way Mel would have done it, revealing the inaccuracy or not, he still would have been caught. It's just that Mel acts as if he is the victim. Hey Mel, you made the film so it's obvious the historians are gona' go after the director.

> BTW, I think Braveheart is an excellent film.  I'd like to see
> an ACCURATE take on William Wallace and Robert the Bruce though
> (from what little is known accurately, there is a LOT they'd
> have to makeup no matter what though).

Well then I'm not on the same page here. I, too, would like to see an accurate portrayl of William Wallace, but until then we have Mel's movie. As dull as I thought BRAVEHEART is, it really wasn't Oscar worthy either. Sorry, Mel is neither a great actor or a great director. I guess it's just me.

I'd agree Mel isn't a great actor, I'm not so sure about his directing.  I'd say he is very good at directing, at least he did on Braveheart.

Acting, he's just limited.  He plays the same kind of role in a LOT of his movies - usually someone suffering from a loss who then kicks ass.  He's played that type of role like 10 times.  I think he's good in the role, and he can be very entertaining in comedic scenes (I think he's near perfect in the first two Lethal Weapons).  He seems to understand his limitations, and I've never seen him try to take on a role that was too complex for him.

Mel's father also thinks the Holocaust didn't happen.  He's a loon.

Ahem...

You know, I recall an incident from last year.  I was confronted by my district manager for my refusal to conform to one of his policies.  He berated me in front of my employees (I was a store manager at the time).  Once he left, I turned to my employee (who was embarassed at having overheard the debacle), and I said (I'm paraphrasing, here) "I so want to kill him right now.  Or maybe just his dog."

The point of this story, dear friends, is that we all say things we don't mean.  I no more wanted to kill my boss than Mel wanted to festoon his room with this critic's guts, or whatever.  It was an offhand comment that he probably should not have said (all those years of Perry Mason and Matlock, and people still say things like that...), but that's all it was.  I, personally, am glad that, for once, an actor is not being taken to task for an offhand comment that no one should really think he ment.

As to his comment about anyone who is not of the church is not saved, well, yeah - he probably shouldn't have said that, either.  But one again, I hear that cxrap all the time.  This conversation actually happened to me:

"Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?"  
"Well, not as such... I'm Catholic"
"If you're Catholic you're going to hell."

Yeah.  That'll convert me.

Still, people in this nation have every right to espouse their religious views.  Again, I am glad that he's not being raked over the coals for what he said - which, to him, was probably a simple testament to his faith.

As for Tim Robbins and his wife Suzie, they were victims, pure and simple, of bad timing.  It's okay not to support the president.  Not so much less than a month after a devastating attack on our nation.  Did they deserve the reation they got?  Probably not.  Should they have expected it?  Most definately.

I also seriously think that they didn't support the president because their political views prevent them from believing that a republican can ever be right about anything.  Where were they when ol' Bill Clinton sent me over the Sava?  Of course, that's another issue entirely...

Jim H wrote:

> I'd agree Mel isn't a great actor, I'm not so sure about his
> directing.  I'd say he is very good at directing, at least he
> did on Braveheart.

I don't know. I mean. as a director on BRAVEHEART I felt Mel should have done his history homework. Let's be honest, nobody goes to the theatre to watch a documentary on a historical fact. But then again, TORA! TORA! TORA! is said to be way better than PEARL HARBOR. And why is that? Because the director decided to follow in the footsteps of history to tell the story.

With BRAVEHEART, Mel didn't do that and to me it really shows that he had very little care for it. His direction was also quite dull in the "action" film type of way. He also focused on too many montage scenery shots as if he were trying to pad the running time. And the script from Randall "PEARL HARBOR" Walace had the worst dialouge I ever heard. BRAVEHEART could have been better, for only it had a better writer, a better director and a better actor. As for winning Best Picture, I personally thought it was a joke. Oh well.

Grumpy Guy wrote:

> Ahem...
>
> You know, I recall an incident from last year.  I was
> confronted by my district manager for my refusal to conform to
> one of his policies.  He berated me in front of my employees (I
> was a store manager at the time).  Once he left, I turned to my
> employee (who was embarassed at having overheard the debacle),
> and I said (I'm paraphrasing, here) "I so want to kill him
> right now.  Or maybe just his dog."
>
> The point of this story, dear friends, is that we all say
> things we don't mean.  I no more wanted to kill my boss than
> Mel wanted to festoon his room with this critic's guts, or
> whatever.  It was an offhand comment that he probably should
> not have said (all those years of Perry Mason and Matlock, and
> people still say things like that...), but that's all it was.
> I, personally, am glad that, for once, an actor is not being
> taken to task for an offhand comment that no one should really
> think he ment.
>
> As to his comment about anyone who is not of the church is not
> saved, well, yeah - he probably shouldn't have said that,
> either.  But one again, I hear that crap all the time.  This
> conversation actually happened to me:
>
> "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?"  
> "Well, not as such... I'm Catholic"
> "If you're Catholic you're going to hell."

Well then, if Mel's comment is really just an offhand remark, which he made in an interview, then shouldn't he apologize to Frank Rich for that threatening comment. After all, Mel should at least show his Catholic-Christian ideals and be the better man and thus apologize. Yet, it's been a week or two and low-and-behold, Mel has not apologized. Again, smart move there Mel. Proving to me that he comes off as a hypocrite.

> Still, people in this nation have every right to espouse their
> religious views.  Again, I am glad that he's not being raked
> over the coals for what he said - which, to him, was probably a
> simple testament to his faith.

Look, I don't think Mel should be "raked over the coals for what he said". I think that he should at least be challenged for what he said. But nobody is doing it! I don't care as much for Mel's personal religious agendas. But, to go on an interview and say "If you are not part of the Church, then you are not saved" in a wide general public is just the wrong move when you have a religious film on your back and that some of the audiences might not even be Catholic. Hell, it's almost as if he is saying only Catholics are allowed to see his film, as I mentioned before. It might have been a simple testament to his faith, but is should be done in a more personal and private matter. It's free speech, of course. But then, their are some forms of free speech that might offend or hurt somebody.

Like what one person said here in this message board, it is not up to Mel to decide who is a sinner or not, but it is up to God the Almighty to decide. And their is an old saying that somebody should say to Mel: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I enjoyed LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and am hoping to see something of interest in  THE PASSION OF CHRIST. You don't have to see a film as "truth" to enjoy an alternate version of events.

Re: the "it's only a movie" argument --

We love art because it has the power to arouse us, emotionally, spritually, intellectually.  If not, then why even bother?

Throughout history, we see over and over the power of art to move people to act --whether for good or bad is not the point.  Great (or even poor) art can move us to act.

About a century ago, the famous forgery, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, appeared in Europe -- a tome that supposedly details the plans of the Jews to rule the world -- it has been used over and over again to justtify anti-Semitism, from verbal slights to mass slaughter.  (It still sells in the Middle East and parts of Europe.)  

Medieval passion plays used to spark riots & pogroms against Jewish communities.

So IMHO the "it's only a movie argument" is no argument at all.  Because of mel's fame and the subject matter, this film will reach millions.  If it's any good, it will probably be seen by MANY millions.  Therefore, what is says and what it implies are important.  It is quite possible that virulent, perhaps violent, anti-Jewish feeling could be stirred up by a film that portrays the "collective guilt" of the Jewish people
for the death of Christ  (a view repeatedly disavowed by the Vatican in recent decades).

And from what I've read of Mel's beliefs, as well as the nature of some of his source material (he's already said that the film is heavily based, not just on the gospels, but on the writings of an extremely anti-Semitic medieval nun), I expect the worst.

Now can we go back to talking about Ed Wood??

You want to change the name of this thread?  This is just a suggestion, but I think a more appropriate title for the thread, based on your (Chris K.'s) comments might be as follows:

I hate Mel Gibson, and think all his work is worthless.

I'm not going to say the guy's an acting genius, here, but it seems to me that you're giving the guy a hard time as much because you don't like him as becasue of any offense you might have taken at what he said.

For the record - MY STAND ON MEL GIBSON, THE ACTOR:

Mad Max - BRILLIANT
Mad Max Sequals - CRAP
LEATHAL WEAPON 1 - best action/buddy film ever made, hands down.  Both Mel and Danny were perfect for their parts, and brilliant.

LEATHAL WEAPON 2&3 - Not worthy of their predecessor, these are still damn entertaining films.  They lost a lot of the romance of the first film (especially 3), and don't stand up in any way to the first one, but they are fun none the less

Braveheart - Horrible documentary.  Outstanding film.  You don't understand how it won best picture?  Gandi won best picture.  What does the Academy know, anyway?  Who cares if it was "historically accurate?"  and, let's be honest - no film about William Wallace and Robert the Bruce is going to be accurate.  Neither the English nor the Scottish were exactly what you'd call impartial, compulsive note-takers.

The Patriot - Crap.  Don't get me wrong, it definately has its moments - realistic portrayals of the effects of cannon balls, a depressingly sad doomed romance, a totaly ruthless Kung-Fu villian, and a couple of cool battle scenes...  But it was Braveheart with a happy ending.  -100 for lack of creativity.  (Incidentally, you'll notice no complaints about historical innacuracies.  I'm not an historian, and as such, don't notice such things.  Besides - Mel Gibson's character being ALIVE at the time showed me that they were ignoring history).

HAMLET - Mel Gibson as Hamlet?  *shudder*  Okay, who greenlighted THAT fiasco?

MOST OF THE REST OF MEL'S WORK - Fluff.  Enjoyable fluff, but fluff none the less.

My opinion of Mel as a person -
I've never met the man.  I think he tends to let his tongue get away from him, and his religious ferver makes me a tad uncomfotable.  But he seems like a pretty resonable guy.  But what the hell do I know - I've never met him.

And, I am willing to bet, neither have you.

I hate this thread and wish it would go away; religion and politics tend to make nasty threads.

However, I thought it might be interesting to point out that Shakespeare’s King Lear is quite inaccurate, is widely celebrated in spite of that, and has been with us for several hundred years.  It may well outlive us all.

Just something to mull over.

---

Cullen wrote:

"However, I thought it might be interesting to point out that Shakespeare’s King Lear is quite inaccurate, is widely celebrated in spite of that, and has been with us for several hundred years. It may well outlive us all."

I totally agree.  And I believe that artistic works should concentrate more on being entertaining than being historically accurate.  If you want a history lesson, read history books.  Don't go to a movie in search of a two hour education.

Excellent point about historically accuracy --

only --

What about movies where "historical accuracy" is a major selling point (whether it's true or not) -- other than this one, Oliver Stone's JFK comes to mind as a movie that sold itself with the "TRUE true story" bit.

If the filmmaker/studio is out there making the claim, don't we have a right to hold them to a higher standard than with, say, the Adventures of Robin Hood?

Bernie wrote:

> Excellent point about historically accuracy --
>
> only --
>
> What about movies where "historical accuracy" is a major
> selling point (whether it's true or not) -- other than this
> one, Oliver Stone's JFK comes to mind as a movie that sold
> itself with the "TRUE true story" bit.
>
> If the filmmaker/studio is out there making the claim, don't we
> have a right to hold them to a higher standard than with, say,
> the Adventures of Robin Hood?

If they make the claim (if they, say, make a documentary), then they need to be as accurate as possible.

As a rule, if it's not a documentary, it's going to be inaccurate to some degree.  No one's going to get it all right.

---

" But then again, TORA! TORA! TORA! is said to be way better than PEARL HARBOR. And why is that? Because the director decided to follow in the footsteps of history to tell the story. "

I thought TTT was boring.  Extremely dry.  Another key difference is that the history of Pearl Harbor is actually known. Most of Wallace's story comes from a poem by a monk which is partly legend and partly truth.

BTW, Mel Gibson didn't write Braveheart - so I fail to see how him doing history studies would be relevant.

Why does it matter if the Jews killed Jesus?  According to the bible, he knew he was going to die, and he could of prevented it, but it was his function to die for the sins of humanity.  The fact that people would get mad about it shows their total ignorance of their own religion.

Jim H wrote:

> BTW, Mel Gibson didn't write Braveheart - so I fail to see how
> him doing history studies would be relevant.

Actually, as a director if you are very motivated by what you are making and take interest to it, then the director should be more involved with the film. Mel didn't write BRAVEHEART, but then he and writer Randall Walace should have at least looked things over. Just saying.

As for TORA! TORA! TORA!, well to each is own. I guess.

Grumpy Guy wrote:

> You want to change the name of this thread?  This is just a
> suggestion, but I think a more appropriate title for the
> thread, based on your (Chris K.'s) comments might be as
> follows:
>
> I hate Mel Gibson, and think all his work is worthless.
>
> I'm not going to say the guy's an acting genius, here, but it
> seems to me that you're giving the guy a hard time as much
> because you don't like him as becasue of any offense you might
> have taken at what he said.

Okay now, Grumpy. Let's set the record straight here: I DO NOT HATE Mel Gibson. I just don't like him. Their is a difference between "hate" and "dislike" (believe me , their is). As I see it, Mel comes across as a man without common sense and thus shoots off his mouth off without thinking and, in turn, acts as if he is the victim. Case in point, Mel's threatening comments towards Frank Rich. Now, offhand those comments might be, they were still nasty and threatening. And coming from the mouth of a well-known religious actor, I was quite shocked by it. And yet, does Mel apologize to Rich? No, he doesn't. Just shows that a big, overpaid actor can get away with anything he wants, no matter what he says. So much for Mel and his religious beliefs. Sorry Grumpy, but this is how I see it.

And yes, I was offended by Mel's "If you are not part of the Catholic Church, then you are not saved" comment. Look, we are all human here. I'm not offended by many things. But when Mel goes about on a televised interview or a newspaper interview making such a claim, it does burn me up. It's his belief, that's fine. But it's a comment that should be made in a more private manner. It's as if he is saying that I'm a sinner while coming across as if he is "holier than thou". Well, he isn't and he shouldn't be shooting off his mouth like that. It's because of his comments that I don't like him. Sorry that I am offended by Mel's comments, but that hardly makes it clear that I "hate" him. It's because of his comments that I don't like him.

And I'm sorry, but I think Mel is a terrible actor and terrible director. Sorry, but that is just what I think about him and his films. He is not talented and not worth my time to watch on film. Now, maybe with his THE PASSION OF CHRIST film I might take back my thoughts about Mel being a talentless director. But I have to see it before I take it back.And I am not going to give judgement on his film, that is until I see it.

 
> My opinion of Mel as a person -
> I've never met the man.  I think he tends to let his tongue get
> away from him, and his religious ferver makes me a tad
> uncomfotable.  But he seems like a pretty resonable guy.  But
> what the hell do I know - I've never met him.
>
> And, I am willing to bet, neither have you.

Yeah, you're right Grumpy Guy. I never even met Mel in my life, and neither have you. However, I cannot give an opinion on what I think about the guy? I'm just judging Mel on how I see him. And you are doing the same. And if you don't like what I say about Mel, well you are entitled to what you have to say about him too. That is fine by me, I'm open to other differing opinions. But please, don't quickly say that I hate Mel. Just for the record, I have said earlier that if Mel recieved some harsh backlash if his film fails, or succeeds for that matter, then I would feel sorry for him. So, I still have some compassion for those I don't like and Mel Gibson is one of them. I would really like to see the man succeed, but it's really his arrogant attitude and his loose tounge that is getting him in a lot of trouble. And don't forget Grumpy, you yourself said, and I quote: "I think he tends to let his tongue get away from him, and his religious ferver makes me a tad
uncomfotable". So we are on the same page with that one.

Look, I don't want to bring any harsh judgement on you here, Grumpy. I liked what you said in your earlier post, before you decided to accuse me of being, dare I say it, a "Mel Gibson hater." I don't like the guy: he really gives me some, to use the phrase, bad vibes. I guess you have to be in my shoes to understand what I mean.

But look, I would at least like to keep this conversation here in a non-argument/non-hateful format here. So let's just keep the converstation in first gear, okay Grumpy.

So what do you say, truce?

The Burgomaster wrote:

> I totally agree.  And I believe that artistic works should
> concentrate more on being entertaining than being historically
> accurate.  If you want a history lesson, read history books.
> Don't go to a movie in search of a two hour education.

True Burgo, but you wouldn't believe how many times I have been to theatres to see a film taking place in a part of history like THE PATRIOT and see audience members walk out saying "That was a damn fine accurate film of so and so." Talk about your two hour education, and yet I don't expect them to pass a history test either! I too believe in artistic works and I concentrate on a film being entertaining. But looking at THE PATRIOT, BRAVEHEART, or PEARL HARBOR, in my opinion, it's just all wrong, historically and entertainment-wise. But then, I guess I'm the only one here who thinks that. Oh well. If somebody thinks differently, I have no problem with it. And if you can distinguish between fact and film fiction then I am not alone.

I don't expect Hollywood to educate us, but at least do some of the homework on it. It might not all be right, but show some effort. And their are some good films out there that at least try to remain faithful towards history. I remember GETTYSBURG being one, if I may say so for what my faint memory serves. And GETTYSBURG was entertaining, too.

Regarding historical inaccuracies in his films:  Mel saw it coming with Braveheart and covered his rear in the opening scene of the movie with some throw-away narrator line to the effect of "Some will say this story didn't happen...  That's 'cause they wrote history the way they wanted to...  But here's the real scoop."  I have worked professionally as an archivist and an historian, and I despise films that change history to glamorize and to enflame.  Gibson seems to have something against the English and he has lied to push that agenda in both Braveheart and the Patriot.  The battle scene at the end of "Glory" (1989 US Civil War film) was changed to make it more entertaining (i.e. more easily depicted on film).  Gibson's historical tinkering is generally done to push an agenda or glorify his protagonist (wow, a spear wall at Sterling Bridge! (um, where's the bridge???)  That Braveheart sure is a tactical genius!!!).

Regarding Mel's religious quote:"If anybody who is not part of the Church, then they are not saved."   Mel hasn't been paying very much attention, has he?  I am a Catholic and while I don't agree with every dictate of the Church, I sure as heck keep tabs on what they are.  One dictate that I was particularly happy to hear was when our current pope stated that other religions and sects had something to offer toward a greater understanding of God and non-Catholics could certainly be saved.  If Mel wants to call himself a Catholic, he should pay better attention to the tenets of the faith.  The statement shows a mean spirit, as Chris K points out, and it also shows ignorance about the religion he claims is so important to him.

Regarding Mel's comments on the critic:  His intestines on a stick?  Maybe Mel Gibson really is that crazy, but that just sounds like something he said jokingly that may have been taken out of context.  I hope I'm right about that.

Though I am religious, I do not like religious films.  And judging from the lack of success of religious films (and films that make light of religion such as that unwatchable Schwartzeneggar vs Satan movie), I think I stand in the majority there.  I have a feeling his little vanity-project will come and go fast enough to make your head spin.  Gibson is a lot like Kevin Kostner in terms of his swelling ego and acting talent...  but he seems more savvy in his choice of films until now.  Maybe this is the beginning of the end, but it's more likely a bump in the road.

I think I can shed some light here:  First off, the Jewish authorities in Israel put Jesus to death, so they'll obviously be the "bad guys" of the movie.  Of course Jesus and his disciples were ALSO Jewish so that's kind of a dumb reason to attack the movie.

What I think actually has Jewish folks so torqued up is that apparently Gibson's father has been making public anti-semitic statements and Mel has defended him (him, not the statements - as far as I've heard).  It's a case of Gibson's crazy old man shooting his mouth off, some rabbis somewhere being oversensitive, and Gibson making a film in which Jews will be bad guys all coinciding into one nonsensical "controversy."

"The natural result of that is that if you do not recieve the sacraments of the church, you cannot be saved. "

That's IF you are a Catholic.  Catholics believe that once you are baptized Catholic, you must receive the sacraments to be saved.  We dropped the must-be-a-catholic-to-be-saved a while ago.

First of all before I start I want to say I am not racist in anyway.I feel I need to say this because what I may have to say I do not want to be taken out of context.
I have been going through various news articles about this movie. It seems that those who have a problem have only read the script and have not seen any part of the movie it self.Now as many of us on this forum surely knows the script and the movie can often be diffrent.The movie can change alot from the script, as during the filming process things are changed for various reasons.Also the script does not give true justice to the actual scenes in the movie.Most scripts give briefs discriptions, but do not give any kind of vivid visual or emotional look to the actual scene.This is often done while story bording or on the set when the director i communicating with the actors.
Now as for the relgious aspects of this movie, the truth would be that it was the Jewish and Roman Leaders of the day that were calling for Jesus's head.Many Jewish commoners also saw Jesus as a heretic and blasphemer.Although not all.Jesus's diciples and parents were Jewish and most of his followers were also.
To have the Jewish leaders and many Jewish commoners condemming Jesus is not anti-semetic but historically acurate.It was though the Romans who actually carried out Jesus's death and from what I have seen of the trailer this will be acurate.
I do not believe that this movie will cause any animosity between Cristians and Jews, most of which have thicker skin than those so called religous leaders who stir up a contreversy any time a movie comes along which tries to shed some light on peoples faith.
As for Mel's and his fans comments I would have to say they should grow some thicker skin as well, and take this critisism in stride.Lets wait to see what the final cut is like and not relie on some script which some how found its way into the hands of zealots.
And one more thing you can see the trailer for this movie at Movies.com.All you have to do, is do a search for The Passion and you will be directed to a mage with details about the movie.On one of the links on that page you can view the trailer.It looks interesting but very dark.

"Now as for the relgious aspects of this movie, the truth would be that it was the Jewish and Roman Leaders of the day that were calling for Jesus's head."

Actually, wyckednick, the Romans were not calling for Jesus's head.  When Pontius Pilate offered the Jews a chance to release either Jesus or the murderer Barabus, he thought surely they'd pick Jesus to be spared.  Christ was not an anti-Roman revolutionary, or zealot, and he advised people to pay their taxes to Rome (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's).  The Romans - a (relatively) religiously tolerant polytheistic society at that time - did not have much of a problem with him, according to the Bible.  The Jewish heirarchy did have a problem with him because he called into question their way of doing things.  The anti-Roman zealots (Judas was one) turned on Jesus when they realized he wasn't going to lead an armed rebellion against Rome.

"I do not believe that this movie will cause any animosity between Cristians and Jews, most of which have thicker skin than those so called religous leaders who stir up a contreversy any time a movie comes along which tries to shed some light on peoples faith."

I think you're absolutely right about that.  But as always, the squeaky wheel gets the sound byte.

Hmmm thanks for straightining some of that out Eirik.Im 22 and its been awhile sense Bible class.So forgive any errors in what I have said.

Erik nails it pretty well.

Another aspect is that Jesus said and did things that earned him the death penalty under Jewish law, but because of Roman occupation, they could not execute people, which is why the Jewish religious leaders tried to trump up charges against him to get the Roman authorities involved.

However, from a Christian theological point of view, it really doesn't matter.  Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God to pay for all sins so in a very reall sense,  Jesus was killed by everyone, and it was required.  Froma Christian perspective, the Jews are not guilty of killing Jesus, just of not recognizing their own Messiah.

That being said, the "Jews Killed Jesus" accusation has long been used as an excuse for violence against Jews, so I can understand them being a little touchy when the subject comes up

I don't think one should dismiss the effects of warping history in entertainment so lightly.  I don't live in Scotland, but I know people who do and they really believe that Braveheart the movie helped whip up support for Scottish home rule (the timing was perfect).  I'm not passing any judgement on whether that end is good or bad, but it is a real political movement and "entertainment" at least seems to have had a real impact on it.  To say the entertainment factor is paramount is to ignore the importance of history.

Now of course there is a statute of limitations to it all and I think King Lear fits into that category.  No, there were no Germans b***hing about the first 20 minutes of Gladiator...  (but plenty b***hed about Saving Private Ryan, and now you have a pretty strong movement toward Germany-as-the-victim revisionism in that country.  Not saying it was all ignited by one movie, but I'd hate to see where that leads).

For this matter My comments is

The movie is runnning every were even in GCC countires very well ,Where ever this film runs it is breaking the record of the country.

According to me theis movie is supported by  GOD

Because u read the Mathew Chapter 24:14 This is for the gospel to spread every where. THEN COMES THE REAL KING OF THE WORLD IN THE CLOUDS

thommy wrote:
 
> The movie is runnning every were even in GCC countires very
> well ,Where ever this film runs it is breaking the record of
> the country.
>
> According to me this movie is supported by  GOD
>
> Because you read the Mathew Chapter 24:14 This is for the gospel
> to spread every where. THEN COMES THE REAL KING OF THE WORLD IN
> THE CLOUDS

Well, as much as I am a Christian, I sorry but I HAVE to doubt your "this movie is supported by God" claim (i.e., How about James Clavezel being struck by lightning twice during the film's prinincipal shooting? That could have been a message from God saying, "Mel, don't do this." You never know?).

Not to knock you or anything thommy, but to say that Mel's film is "The Real King of the World in the Clouds" is about as off-beat as saying Armageddon is heading straight our way. To an individual like myself, it's just a MOVIE, plain and simple. Now, if somebody get's something out of it, I have no problem with that at all. But the movie is making money because of both controversey and hype, not to mention it's back on Number 1 for Box Office due to being the Easter Holiday (wink, wink). That and, considering the film is pulling in record numbers, many theatres that have not screened it are demanding for a print of the film. So act of God this is not, just popularity and dollars to be made. Sorry.

Also, I must say I am quite suprised that this older post has been brought back. It started on 10-30-03! However, I do believe this is the last message that will be placed on this particular discussion at this time. And now, to sum this up to a close: Happy Easter to everybody ad God Bless.

As far as historacal accuracy goes with The Patriot, the movie was fictional to begin with.  If you really want to know what happened, read a book.  The Patriot was only produced to give the viewer a sense of what war in the 1700s could have felt like for colonial americans.  As far as The Passion of the Christ goes (get the title right), it was an excellent dipiction of the sufferings Jesus endured in the process of the crucifiction.  What more do you expect from movies these days?

Megan wrote:

> As far as historacal accuracy goes with The Patriot, the movie
> was fictional to begin with.  If you really want to know what
> happened, read a book.  The Patriot was only produced to give
> the viewer a sense of what war in the 1700s could have felt
> like for colonial americans.  

Well then, as far as accuracy goes on THE PATRIOT, you are quite right about the story arc being fictional. As for the film itself, it may have given a small look at the Colonial American's during that time, but as a whole it just doesn't deliver a point to drive towards the viewer in terms of what it was all about at that time (that's how I feel about it; you might have a different view of the whole movie, which I will respect). Sure, you see a few battle scenes and such, but that's only a small portion the film shows. If you go read a book about it, their is SO MUCH MORE and it would indeed make a damn fine movie!


> As far as The Passion of the Christ
> goes (get the title right), it was an excellent
> dipiction of the sufferings Jesus endured in the process of the
> crucifiction.  What more do you expect from movies these days?

Well for me, I am on the other side of the fence with THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (I got the title right). I felt it was truely a dull film that didn't inspire me, move me, or do whatever else it was supposed to do for me. I watched it TWICE in the theatre, and I was not impressed. I watched it again on bootleg DVD, and was not impressed. And finally, I watched it on legit DVD, and I was not impressed yet again. As you can see, I'm don't like this movie just to be different, I just don't like it because it didn't get me at all and that's it. And I watched the film FOUR TIMES to see if I was sure of myself. To others it's more than a movie, and as I have stated before that is fine with me, but to me it's just another movie about Jesus Christ, and not a particularly good one at that. Sorry, but I'd rather watch Dario Argento's THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE: it's not about Jesus or about religion, but at least it has a story, acting, style, and so much more to offer. In fact, I'll take THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, and even LIFE OF BRIAN any day of the week. As for what I expect from movies these days, they are produced on $100 million dollar budgets and I do expect SOME effort put into them, especially on a budget on that scale (to be fair, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST was around $25 million as I can recall, and for a film I really didn't care for the production values were quite good). But then, that's too much wishful thinking on my part, so I'll stick with B-movies instead. At least B-movies do deliver more than what an A-movie does.

As for this entire thread, I think it's been over and done with for a while.