Will/Is Mel Gibson ever get off the unofficial blacklist?

Adamantium

Considering the impending Fury Road release, this got me thinking.

The man was/is one of the great directorial men of his generation. BraveHeart, Passion of the Christ and Apocalyto. Has been smallish stuff since 2009.

Some of his best acting here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpOqkz86_lg

Pierce_1991

Was watching What Women Want recently, maybe not the calibre of films mentioned but I had forgotten what a funny and charismatic presence he had on screen. I'd love to see him back either as a director or an actor. It wasn't long ago he did that Expendables style action flick, can't remember the name, don't know if it was any good either.

Nervous Wreck

Pierce_1991 wrote: »

It wasn't long ago he did that Expendables style action flick, can't remember the name, don't know if it was any good either.

It was Expendables 3.

Optimalprimerib

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

It was Expendables 3.

Was it not get the gringo?

Jon Stark

I think Mel has burned too many bridges in Hollywood to get back in the good graces of those who matter.

He's got friends like Downey Jr, an obviously popular bloke, but even he has gotten stick for mentioning Mel in a positive light.

Frank O. Pinion

Pierce_1991 wrote: »

It wasn't long ago he did that Expendables style action flick, can't remember the name, don't know if it was any good either.

It's just been action movies for Mel, since 2012.

Get The Gringo (2012)
Machete Kills (2013)
The Expendables 3 (2014)

He also has Blood Father (2015) coming up, with William H. Macy, another action movie.

Duggy747

People were out for Gary Oldman's blood last year when he tried defending him and that didn't really work out too well.

I enjoyed Get the Gringo and Gibson was the only good thing about Expendables 3, the only actor who looked like he was having genuine fun and brought proper acting chops to the series.

e_e

As a director he does have a very visceral quality but I don't think he's even made a great film so far. Apocalypto is the closest he's come but that's at least half an hour too long, and The Passion of the Christ is just torture porn in religious clothes.

...and Braveheart is just ****e tbh. :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHA1ufmLZQY

I thought he was pretty great in the Beaver.

brianregan09

Braveheart was quality , Loved watching it growing up , and i do miss Mel from big releases a class actor pity you're religious views matter more than you're talent in hollywood

Pierce_1991

Get the Gringo was the film I was thinking of. I can't believe that was out 3 years ago, could have sworn I saw ads for it last Summer.

MfMan

brianregan09 wrote: »

Braveheart was quality , Loved watching it growing up , and i do miss Mel from big releases a class actor pity you're religious views matter more than you're talent in hollywood

Thought Braveheart was rubbish, cliched and predictable, as was the Lethal Weapon series. He was actually pretty good in Gallipoli, and not so bad in The Bounty and Ransom, if memory serves....

Big Wex fan

Pierce_1991 wrote: »

Get the Gringo was the film I was thinking of. I can't believe that was out 3 years ago, could have sworn I saw ads for it last Summer.

I thought 'get the gringo' or the other stupid name that was on it was a good old fashioned Mel Gibson film. Class film.

My favorite is payback - Seen the director's cut last year & totally different to original. But not a patch on the studio version. Makes me wonder, what does the director do?

Oasis1974

Adamantium wrote: »

Considering the impending Fury Road release, this got me thinking.

The man was/is one of the great directorial men of his generation. BraveHeart, Passion of the Christ and Apocalyto. Has been smallish stuff since 2009.

Some of his best acting here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpOqkz86_lg

Great directorial men of his generation are you joking me?Mel's best movies were a couple of Mad Max going back to his earlier acting career.Everything he directed was rubbish including Braveheart.

No_Comply

Glad I'm not the only one with disdain for Braveheat. Anyone I've met has always said they loved it.

Get the Gringo was great fun. Wasn't expecting much so was pleasantly surprised. Actually surprised to see him in something like that so soon after his outbursts.

Not sure of Mel as a director, but love him in a lead role.

Fuzzytrooper

Love Mel as an actor and a director. I think everyone is redeemable and should be given a second, or third chance and so on...

LuckyLloyd

e_e wrote: »

As a director he does have a very visceral quality but I don't think he's even made a great film so far. Apocalypto is the closest he's come but that's at least half an hour too long, and The Passion of the Christ is just torture porn in religious clothes.

...and Braveheart is just ****e tbh. :P

Braveheart may very well be the single most expensive act of masturbation ever committed to the screen, but there's no doubt that it has stood well as a sweeping epic two decades on. '****e' by what definition? It stands up extremely well within that genre imo.

And I suppose I disagree on The Passion of the Christ. Shock cinema? Maybe. But it is definitely brave and intense filmmaking. The film refuses to give an inch and nothing made before or since comes as close to doing the most fundamental story in Western culture justice.

I actually think Apocalypto is much worse as far as 'torture porn' goes. Some of the death sequences seem to linger unnecessarily and the film lacks the pull of Braveheart or the importance of The Passion. It's still a far more interesting piece than so much of what is out there.

Dislikeable character? Sure. A Director who has yet to make a great film? No sir.

Adamantium

You'd swear what Mel said actually KILLED people.
And yet Roman Polanski, Tom Cruise all got the pass, for far worse.

A drunken rant that criticised the wrong people is all it took.

No_Comply

Adamantium wrote: »

You'd swear what Mel said actually KILLED people.
And yet Roman Polanski, Tom Cruise all got the pass, for far worse.

A drunken rant that criticised the wrong people is all it took.

Jews pretty much run Hollywood...or so I've read.

I'm a huge fan of Gibson, he's one of the most charismatic and likeable screen presences in cinema and isn't afraid to put his money where his mouth is and actually make the films he wants to. I've missed him on our screens over the past years and found him to be the best thing about last years Expendables 3 and I really wish he had accepted Stallone's offer to direct as he's exactly the kind of film maker who could do something interesting with the franchise.

Ipso

No_Comply wrote: »

Jews pretty much run Hollywood...or so I've read.

Always the Joos.

Rubber_Soul

Adamantium wrote: »

You'd swear what Mel said actually KILLED people.
And yet Roman Polanski, Tom Cruise all got the pass, for far worse.

A drunken rant that criticised the wrong people is all it took.

What did Tom Cruise do that was far worse?

Edit: And it wasn't just a single rant, he did it more than once. And those are just the rants we know about.

foleypio

Braveheart - 5 oscars including best director, I would take the academy's opinion over some wannabe movie snobs on this forum.

Apocalypto - currently holding close to a 8/10 rating on IMDB. An incredible risk to take for a film director especially since it was shot entirely in a foreign language & filmed in numerous foreign tropical countries where they had to deal with two hurricanes amongst a host of other things. An incredible movie imo

The passion of the christ - considered in some circles to be the most controversial film of all time. Another extremely brave decision to go ahead & shoot this film considering the issues it deals with. It wasnt my cup of tea but I think you have to appreciate the effort

I think the blacklisting of Gibson as a director has been a serious loss for cinema in general. Whether you like him or not, he's a gutsy film director who deals with often controversial topics in his films. Its a pity one particular group in Hollywood are so sensitive & retain so much power & influence.

DublinWriter

He dropped the J-bomb...no way back from that in Holywood.

ronan45

Who said he's black-listed maybe he just isnt bothered taking up any film scripts recently....
Busy being a play boy....
Or just maybe not many film parts for him recently seeing how old he is. He is nearly 60 after all, hardly much of an action hero

Sad Professor

Braveheart was very influential. It was the first modern epic that balanced big battles with big emotions, directly inspiring Gladiator and Lord of the Rings among others. The photography, editing and choreography of the battle scenes set a bar for everything that followed. Gibson doesn’t get nearly enough credit for that film.

ButtersSuki

Payback - both versions - are excellent IMO if you like film noir/revenge stories. It's such a stylish film it oozes cooled effortlessly and remains a firm favourite for me.

Another favourite for me is an oldie, The Man Without a Face. I think this was the first film he directed, an for me is an under appreciated gem.

MagicMarker

What did Tom Cruise do?

Braveheart is ****ing epic btw.

Tomagotchye

MfMan wrote: »

Thought Braveheart was rubbish, cliched and predictable

Based on real events. Might be the reason why...

Mel's alright. Had his time, wouldn't go as far to say that I miss him or anything but I'd re watch his films again.

Pierce_1991

Adamantium wrote: »

You'd swear what Mel said actually KILLED people.
And yet Roman Polanski, Tom Cruise all got the pass, for far worse.

A drunken rant that criticised the wrong people is all it took.

Agreed, I always wondered how Polanski was able to just keep on making movies despite the fact he's essentially a fugitive. Same goes for Woody Allen who still attracts the biggest stars in the business for his films.

Adamantium

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Payback - both versions - are excellent IMO if you like film noir/revenge stories. It's such a stylish film it oozes cooled effortlessly and remains a firm favourite for me.

Another favourite for me is an oldie, The Man Without a Face. I think this was the first film he directed, an for me is an under appreciated gem.

I didn't he know directed The Man without a Face, great film. Lovely in fact. He'a amazing in it. Highly underrated and a brave unusual story too.

Adamantium

MagicMarker wrote: »

What did Tom Cruise do?

Braveheart is ****ing epic btw.

Look I like Tom and used to defend him, but man oh man, the recent HBO Scientology documentary does not not do much for his actions or more importantly lack of them, when he knows damn well what's perpetrated on others in the organisation. He's got clout.

Potsy84

No. Never. Shalom.

Oasis1974

foleypio wrote: »

Braveheart - 5 oscars including best director, I would take the academy's opinion over some wannabe movie snobs on this forum.

Apocalypto - currently holding close to a 8/10 rating on IMDB. An incredible risk to take for a film director especially since it was shot entirely in a foreign language & filmed in numerous foreign tropical countries where they had to deal with two hurricanes amongst a host of other things. An incredible movie imo

The passion of the christ - considered in some circles to be the most controversial film of all time. Another extremely brave decision to go ahead & shoot this film considering the issues it deals with. It wasnt my cup of tea but I think you have to appreciate the effort

I think the blacklisting of Gibson as a director has been a serious loss for cinema in general. Whether you like him or not, he's a gutsy film director who deals with often controversial topics in his films. Its a pity one particular group in Hollywood are so sensitive & retain so much power & influence.

Yes Forrest Gump and Rocky and Crash all Best Pictures and Peter Jacksons one and even Avatar getting Best Cinematography when it was all computer graphics? So many ridiculous Oscars given don't use the Academy as a gauge on actual quality.

ricero

Bird on a wire is a guilty pleasure of mine.

I miss Mr Gibson. It's sad we dont see much of him anymore since his meltdown. A genuinely talented and entertaining actor and seems like a nice guy. He loves pulling a prank as well I heard.

ButtersSuki

Adamantium wrote: »

I didn't he know directed The Man without a Face, great film. Lovely in fact. He'a amazing in it. Highly underrated and a brave unusual story too.

I'm always amazed how many people have never heard of it, let alone seen it. I went to see it in the cinema when I was in college and (20 years ago) and it has stayed with me to this day as if I just watched it. It's dare I say it, touching.

e_e

foleypio wrote: »

Braveheart - 5 oscars including best director, I would take the academy's opinion over some wannabe movie snobs on this forum.

I'll never understand people who hold the Oscars as being representative of a film's greatness, it's almost as if it's not a backpatting exercise by Hollywood. The very people who have time and time again favored the safe formula fitting movies over those that really took a leap forward and gone on to be better remembered over time.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Braveheart may very well be the single most expensive act of masturbation ever committed to the screen, but there's no doubt that it has stood well as a sweeping epic two decades on. '****e' by what definition? It stands up extremely well within that genre imo.

Well to really elaborate I'll have to sit through those 3 hours again which I'm in no mood to do. I remember it being clichéd as hell, cheesy and just a torture to sit through. I didn't even like it when I was a teen and (still) a fan of the LOTR movies.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

A Director who has yet to make a great film? No sir.

I really can't call any of the film's he's made great, sorry. Like I said I found Passion of the Christ and Braveheart just tedious to sit through and Apocalypto far too long for what should have been a lean 90 minute thrillride.

Just to be clear though I'm not saying he shouldn't make more movies. Separate and the art from the artist and all that...

Arghus

Two events made me realise that the days of Mel eating from Hollywoods top table were well and truly finished.

Firstly: Being cut from The Hangover Part Two. Now maybe this is a mark in favour of Mel, the Hungovers being some of the worst, regressive faux-comedies ever to emerge from Hollywood. But when Mel's potential presence on set generated more negative heat than the presence of convicted rapist Mike Tyson did in the first installment, well, then all I could say was - poor Mel. Not only a victim of Hollywood hypocrisy, but definitely off the guest list for anything potentially zeitgeist bothering for the rest of his career.

Secondly: Going to the IFTAs that time. Back in his pomp Mel wouldn't have come anywhere near. To see him suited and booted on the red carpet, smiling awkwardly with such household names as Bella from Fair City, made me feel genuinely sorry for the crazed ego-driven lunatic. It was like watching someone like Del Piero, or some other faded superstar, picking up a paycheck in a grandfather league, about as far away from the big leagues as you could possibly get. Sure, there's a smile on the face of whoever it may be holding up the jersey at the press conference on their first day, or the poor misfortunate once mega movie God now reduced to answering questions from Xpose, in the pissing rain. There's a smile alright, but the eyes say -How Did I End Up Here?

So, yeah. Mel is probably goosed. The first example told me Hollywood had decided not to touch him again -at least not in a meaningful way -for a big,long while. The second one made think that he himself had accepted his new position in the cultural firmament, he's the man who used to be Mel Gibson.

Sure, he's been in things, but I find it kind of embarrassing watching him. I feel bad him. There's never going to be a time when he isn't famous, just because he is who he is, but to see him reduced to glorified cameos in schlock -which are usually the best parts of the schlock - is depressing because he used to be the main attraction in prime blockbuster product.

And he was good. I think he's sorely missed in a movieworld that's severely lacking in stars with real star power. He could do charming, crazy, funny, tragic. Not saying he was Laurence Olivier, but he definitely had something. Real charisma. When Mel is on screen you have to watch what Mel is doing.

I also admire his balls. He did things his way, completely. Not saying that I agree with him in every way. I'm pretty sure I'd find him a repugnant human being. His movies betray a sensibility that's filled with brutality, fire and brimstone, casual- racism and just, pure, out and out-madness. But sure you need a bit of that now and again. That's probably why he's been cast out- I'd say he burnt some amount of bridges and smashed many a sense of self worth to smithereens, back when he was King.

Still though I wouldn't mind some parallel world where Mel would take you out on a night on the tear. Face Paint would be optional. I'd say you'd have one to remember, if you could at all. Something to tell the grandkids about:when they reach a mature age. That was some mad craic, you'd say, as you pull broken glass from your eyes.

I just like to contrast that with the imaginary night with Tom Cruise. Very calm and relaxing. Tom would be a great host, such a super guy...You know he might have been the nicest guy I've ever met... But, you know I swear I could have heard some weird muffled screaming noises coming from that mysterious locked door I saw on the way in.

poeticmakaveli

Adamantium wrote:

Some of his best acting here:

Actually my favourite scene in the lethal weapon franchise!
Great scene with a lovely soundtrack in the back!

foleypio

Oasis1974 wrote: »

Yes Forrest Gump and Rocky and Crash all Best Pictures and Peter Jacksons one and even Avatar getting Best Cinematography when it was all computer graphics? So many ridiculous Oscars given don't use the Academy as a gauge on actual quality.

Best Director - Golden globes,
Best Cinematography & costume design - British Academy Film Awards
Best film - Empire Awards

Holding an 8.4 on IMDB.

Yah, your limited knowledge supersedes the above & the academy as well

e_e

foleypio wrote: »

Best Director - Golden globes,
Best Cinematography & costume design - British Academy Film Awards
Best film - Empire Awards

Holding an 8.4 on IMDB.

Yah, your limited knowledge supersedes the above & the academy as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Or to quote Peep Show: "People like Coldplay and voted for the nazis. You can't trust people Jeremy."

foleypio

e_e wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Or to quote Peep Show: "People like Coldplay and voted for the nazis. You can't trust people Jeremy."

Yah, but its better to trust two pseudo experts on film on a internet forum.

Oasis1974

foleypio wrote: »

Best Director - Golden globes,
Best Cinematography & costume design - British Academy Film Awards
Best film - Empire Awards

Holding an 8.4 on IMDB.

Yah, your limited knowledge supersedes the above & the academy as well

Dont rate a movie because of a number for gods sake the true critic is YOU the person who watches the movie not 8.4 or what awards its won. If you need Awards and statistics to say a movie is good...

foleypio

Oasis1974 wrote: »

Dont rate a movie because of a number for gods sake the true critic is YOU the person who watches the movie not 8.4 or what awards its won. If you need Awards and statistics to say a movie is good...

I do rate the movie, always have done & think the points you've made concerning it are a load of rubbish.

The awards & acclaim the film has received from the majority just further back up my point.

johnny_ultimate

foleypio wrote: »

I do rate the movie, always have done & think the points you've made concerning it are a load of rubbish.

The awards & acclaim the film has received from the majority just further back up my point.

To be fair, you haven't really made any points being other than citing awards (and worse films than Braveheart have won many awards, so as ever they're no evidence of anything) and a few snide comments at those who disagree that the film is great.

Why not back up your points and counter others' with analysis and 'evidence' from the film itself?

For the record, I have no strong feelings about Braveheart one way or the other, and it's been years since I've seen it. Just trying to encourage a discussion based on the film itself!

e_e

foleypio wrote: »

Yah, but its better to trust two pseudo experts on film on a internet forum.

What's this elitist thing of putting "trust" on others for totally arbitrary reasons? Try and discuss the film at hand without appealing to some anonymous group who hide behind the name "the academy". This "well X, Y and Z people like it so there!" non-argument is a real discussion killer.

foleypio

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be fair, you haven't really made any points being other than citing awards (and worse films than Braveheart have won many awards, so as ever they're no evidence of anything) and a few snide comments at those who disagree that the film is great.

Why not back up your points and counter others' with analysis and 'evidence' from the film itself?

For the record, I have no strong feelings about Braveheart one way or the other, and it's been years since I've seen it. Just trying to encourage a discussion based on the film itself!

There is no one here making any snide remarks here except the poster who came & called the film rubbish on the first page without offering any reasonable explanation to back that up. Get your facts straight

When someone comes out & calls a film rubbish without backing it up at all, why should I try & argue with them/change their mind. The awards speak for themselves.

MagicMarker

Do you guys know what consensus means? It's pretty obvious that the general consensus among those that have seen the movie is that.... drumroll please.... it's a good movie.

Exactly what is the point in having a "discussion" about it when you clearly aren't going to agree?

e_e

MagicMarker wrote: »

Do you guys know what consensus means? It's pretty obvious that the general consensus among those that have seen the movie is that.... drumroll please.... it's a good movie.

But it's a fallacious way of arguing that doesn't even address the movie itself. It's just throwing up everyone else who likes it as a shield and saying that somehow makes it objectively good.

e_e

foleypio wrote: »

There is no one here making any snide remarks here except the poster who came & called the film rubbish on the first page without offering any reasonable explanation to back that up. Get your facts straight

When someone comes out & calls a film rubbish without backing it up at all, why should I try & argue with them/change their mind. The awards speak for themselves.

Yes my comment was flippant and could have been backed up some (I do think the video I linked makes a pretty funny case though) but I don't know why you're so personally put out by me not thinking it's a particularly good movie.

"The awards speak for themselves." Meaning? Other people liked it, I didn't. That's all that says.

foleypio

e_e wrote: »

Yes my comment was flippant and could have been backed up some (I do think the video I linked makes a pretty funny case though) but I don't know where you're so personally put out by me not thinking it's a particularly good movie.

Im not personally put out at all but when a poster calls a film just s***e & then proceeds to attack other posters who disagree with this view because they arent backing it up with top notch analysis & evidence, I find it funny.