I thought this was a tad overwrought, melodramatic, and cheesy in parts.

I admire the guy and the Based on a true story-ness of sticking by your beliefs and principals.

But man does Mel go over the top with the gore and violence Jesus Christ.

This makes for a solid cheap matinée or a nice rental.

See this in Dolby Atmos sound if can (holy shit). This has the best sound design and editing I've heard in a movie so far this year.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

You have your Christianity, your violence, your melodrama, and your martyrdom. It's all here... but it's put together really beautifully and man is Garfield perfectly cast here.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Like, he's an absolute problem of a human being but in my (utterly amateurish - this isn't my area of nerdry) view he's an incredibly moving director with reliably eccentric vision.

I guess the best way to describe my reaction to his work was that I loved Passion of the Christ and then dismissed that enjoyment as possibly owing to being a Catholic and doing scholarship in Early Modernity - because his source material wasn't the Gospels so much as Caravaggio. But then I saw Apocalypto and kind of loved that too, so maybe it didn't have as much to do with the source material rather this weirdo who made stunning movies and gave absolutely no fucks about conventions like scripting them in a modern language.

So, say it's 2036 and Mel Gibson has just died. He hasn't repented of any of his anti-woman, anti-semetic, varying other racist sentiments in any meaningful way. What is Frank Longo saying about is career?

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

His direction really is terrific (I absolutely loooooooved Apocalypto, one of the best action movies of the best however-long-since-it-came-out)-- Hacksaw Ridge is more conventional than either of the two you listed, and the first half is relatively straight-forward military melodrama, but once the war scenes kick in, you're reminded why he's a Best Director Oscar winner. It's visceral and intense, it refuses to make the violence beautiful or glorious, and the cinematography and sound design/edit on display is just second to none.

He also just starred in a well-written action thriller called Blood Father that shows that, on screen, there are still very few actors with his level of star wattage and charisma. I often wonder, had he not publicly revealed himself to be an absolute lout, if he would've starred in most of the projects Liam Neeson subsequently landed. Blood Father does tackle a former alcoholic criminal attempting to remain sober in order to keep his demons at bay-- no surprise he comes across as credible-- but it still has some of the wit and gravitas that Gibson can effortlessly whip out in a single scene.

But yeah, he's "problematic," to put it very, very mildly. I wouldn't really blame a soul who chose not to support any of his art. At the end of it, he'll likely be given the same historic eulogy as the Roman Polanskis and Woody Allens and others that I can't think of at the moment-- as an artist, obviously terrific, and as a person, obviously... not terrific.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>It's visceral and intense, it refuses
>to make the violence beautiful or glorious

The second part of this sentence is pretty contrary to the usual criticisms of his whole schtick. I didn't really agree with that in The Passion and Apocalypto - and thought the criticism assumed too much based on the story context - but it makes me want to see Hacksaw Ridge a bit more. I didn't not want to see it, but WWII movies aren't my usual lane.

As a sidenote, I had a philosophy professor (guest lecture, actually - he was more or less retired) in undergrad who went to prison as a conscientious objector to WWII. He died awhile ago, but I'd have been curious to hear what he thought of this story.

>had he not publicly revealed himself to be an
>absolute lout, if he would've starred in most of the projects
>Liam Neeson subsequently landed. Blood Father does tackle a
>former alcoholic criminal attempting to remain sober in order
>to keep his demons at bay-- no surprise he comes across as
>credible-- but it still has some of the wit and gravitas that
>Gibson can effortlessly whip out in a single scene.

Oi. I wasn't even thinking of his acting career, though your identification of a clear lane for him (neo-Neeson) is kind of hilariously mind-blowing. I wish I didn't have to be embarrassed to actually love his most problematic movie(s), but I wonder how the actor/director allocation of time would have played out in the situation you're describing. Like, maybe he scraps a daydream to make majestically weird movies in ancient languages if a cool script about fighting some wolves crosses his path?

Full disclosure: I have never seen "The Gray" because I am afraid that it's awesome and I'd rather make fun of it.

>But yeah, he's "problematic," to put it very, very mildly. I
>wouldn't really blame a soul who chose not to support any of
>his art. At the end of it, he'll likely be given the same
>historic eulogy as the Roman Polanskis and Woody Allens and
>others that I can't think of at the moment-- as an artist,
>obviously terrific, and as a person, obviously... not
>terrific.

Which as recently as five years ago might have been a pretty decent legacy with a bunch of asterisks about separating art from artist. We seem like we're in the middle of turning a corner on super-famous sex criminals though. Uncomfortably direct racists have been on the outs for a bit longer - but film nerds still need to suck it up and study DW Griffith, right?* Historical chronology means there's no real reason to treat Mel Gibson as important in the same way, but it sounds like where you'll land is a kind of consensus that he's okay to disregard but with the acknowledgement that a lot of his work is crazy good?

In any event, thanks for this perspective. Back to the regular topic, I'm probably going to try and see Hacksaw Ridge now.

*Again, I'm totally uneducated in this, but I've always kind of figured that film students got the same spiel about Griffith as philosophy students get about Heidegger: yeah, Heidegger is a Nazi, but you're just not permitted to be unfamiliar with Being and Time.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

>>It's visceral and intense, it refuses
>>to make the violence beautiful or glorious
>
>The second part of this sentence is pretty contrary to the
>usual criticisms of his whole schtick. I didn't really agree
>with that in The Passion and Apocalypto - and thought the
>criticism assumed too much based on the story context - but it
>makes me want to see Hacksaw Ridge a bit more. I didn't not
>want to see it, but WWII movies aren't my usual lane.

I've read a few who found the amount of violence problematic. AO Scott found within the film's back half "a rousing celebration of the thrills of battle" (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/movies/hacksaw-ridge-review-andrew-garfield-mel-gibson.html?_r=0), and while I could definitely see that in brief moments, I didn't feel that way overall-- I tend to side more with Ignatiy Vishnevetsky's take on both the pros and cons of the film (though I found Vaughn a more interesting casting choice than he did: http://www.avclub.com/review/mel-gibsons-hacksaw-ridge-makes-gruesome-case-non--245202). It's definitely strange that a movie that is vehemently anti-violence dwells on violence so much... but it matches Doss's inner conflict: he's a man who desperately wants to go to war just as desperately as he wants to not touch a gun. So I felt it worked on the whole.

I think sometimes critics conflate "beautiful images" with "beautifying violence," especially when it comes to Gibson.

>>had he not publicly revealed himself to be an
>>absolute lout, if he would've starred in most of the
>projects
>>Liam Neeson subsequently landed. Blood Father does tackle a
>>former alcoholic criminal attempting to remain sober in
>order
>>to keep his demons at bay-- no surprise he comes across as
>>credible-- but it still has some of the wit and gravitas
>that
>>Gibson can effortlessly whip out in a single scene.
>
>Oi. I wasn't even thinking of his acting career, though your
>identification of a clear lane for him (neo-Neeson) is kind of
>hilariously mind-blowing. I wish I didn't have to be
>embarrassed to actually love his most problematic movie(s),
>but I wonder how the actor/director allocation of time would
>have played out in the situation you're describing. Like,
>maybe he scraps a daydream to make majestically weird movies
>in ancient languages if a cool script about fighting some
>wolves crosses his path?
>
>Full disclosure: I have never seen "The Gray" because I am
>afraid that it's awesome and I'd rather make fun of it.

Oh, man. The Grey is probably one of the darkest films in recent memory. It was advertised as "Neeson fist-fights wolves!" but it was really more of a survival film, the unrelenting forces of nature and how vain man is to think they can emerge victorious against it. It's also, and I'd be interested to see what you thought of this, got some very interesting religious themes in it. (As someone who went hoping to see Neeson fist-fight wolves, I was simultaneously disappointed that I didn't get my genre silliness but really taken with how dark and thoughtful and brutal the film was instead.)

>Which as recently as five years ago might have been a pretty
>decent legacy with a bunch of asterisks about separating art
>from artist. We seem like we're in the middle of turning a
>corner on super-famous sex criminals though. Uncomfortably
>direct racists have been on the outs for a bit longer - but
>film nerds still need to suck it up and study DW Griffith,
>right?* Historical chronology means there's no real reason to
>treat Mel Gibson as important in the same way, but it sounds
>like where you'll land is a kind of consensus that he's okay
>to disregard but with the acknowledgement that a lot of his
>work is crazy good?
>
>In any event, thanks for this perspective. Back to the regular
>topic, I'm probably going to try and see Hacksaw Ridge now.

Yeah, Griffith and Riefenstahl are still regulars at film schools. Gibson certainly isn't "important"-- really, he's not even as important as the others I mentioned-- which means he very well may be dismissed more overall than those who are more historically relevant. It'll be interesting to see whether he keeps getting work over the next decade-- much like The Pianist brought Roman Polanski back into acceptability for many who just tossed him to the side, I wonder if Gibson has another movie in him that will cross over like that. Hacksaw Ridge isn't it, but the back half in particular shows that he's still better at what he does than a lot of people still working... and Hollywood loves a redemption story come awards season. Even if it's a person who may not deserve redemption. The paradox of this particular beast.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Now that I've explained my dumbass reasons for not seeing it, maybe it's screwball praise to say you're one of the reasons I skipped it? You convinced me that I might have to use my brain for it, which in my movie-seeing calculus at the time, was a hard pass. Now, I'm a bit more equipped to hear why it's actually worth it to use my brain - which is a slightly different matter. So, I'm in. Because of that, and because of Vernon's weird reference to the film in You're the Worst two episodes ago.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

I LOVE that movie.

This post was paid for by the following.

www.twitter.com/13Rose
www.debunkthemyth.org
http://dashaunworld.wordpress.com/
www.mothergreen.com

Remember MJ The Great!
PSN: ThirteenRose

... that really wants to see the Neeson-punches-wolves-for-90-minutes version. I'm imagining a straight-to-DVD sequel starring Nicolas Cage called The Grey 2: A Fistful of Wolves. (This is an awful title for many reasons, most notably because it implies the wolves are very, very tiny. Yet it still *feels* right. I digress.)

And honestly, since I stopped reading reviews before seeing films roughly five years ago, I expected a wolfpunch bonanza. But the first death scene in the film is so startlingly somber that you quickly realize this isn't the movie they were advertising on TV. Dana Stevens's review more or less conveys my thoughts on the film: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2012/01/the_grey_liam_neeson_is_thrown_to_the_wolves.html She also makes note of something contextual that added to the film's weight at the time: this was Neeson's first movie after the tragic death of his wife, and it's easy to feel the weight of that in his performance. It's one of the finest of his career, and easily his best of the last two decades.

Also, You're The Worst is high on my to-watch list. I'm always woefully behind on TV, but I've seen your praise and the praise of others, and it sounds like my cup of tea.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

He went from being one of Hollywood's most beloved star and a merry prankster to a bit of an outsider who then started spewing nonsense and hatred. And then kind of settled back into just not giving a fuck and making whatever he wanted.

Did he burn out? Did something happen? Was he just tired of maintaining the charade of not being a shitheel racist and anti-semite? And were people back in the day giving him a pass if he dropped little racist or anti-semitic comments? Hard to think that nobody saw this coming.

Mel is one of the more intriguing stories in Hollywood and I feel like we never really hear anyone get into it.

As for his legacy, his final act will determine that. He could easily spin himself back into Hollywood's graces and apologize for his past and people will dismiss the past decade or so as momentary madness. Or he could double down on his idiocy and people will see him as a kind of Hemingway figure, an outright horrible person who could tell spin a hell of a yarn.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

>Was he just tired of maintaining the charade of not being a shitheel >racist and anti-semite? And were people back in the day giving him a pass
>if he dropped little racist or anti-semitic comments? Hard to
>think that nobody saw this coming.

Without doing a deep dive on google, I think that he got a lot of passes on kind of screwy old-school sexism for a lot of his career. The antisemitism, I think, comes out a bit more due to the way the internet can shine a light on weird pockets of society in the 21st century. Catholics have been familiar with his brand (not that he practiced it, necessarily) of bonkers sedevacantism and somehow-related-strong-antisemitism for awhile now, but until recently you actually had to know somebody who believed it to realize it existed.

>Mel is one of the more intriguing stories in Hollywood and I
>feel like we never really hear anyone get into it.
>
>As for his legacy, his final act will determine that. He could
>easily spin himself back into Hollywood's graces and apologize
>for his past and people will dismiss the past decade or so as
>momentary madness. Or he could double down on his idiocy and
>people will see him as a kind of Hemingway figure, an outright
>horrible person who could tell spin a hell of a yarn.

Pretty much. I think the thing that offers some possibility here is the rather extravagant stories of him being decent on an personal level for some people. I think the story was that he put up the insurance money so Robert Downey Jr. could take the role in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. And he's still like good pals with Jodie Foster? It's all quite weird.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

Do you think the reason his descent hasn't been brought up is that he still holds some degree of influence and power in Hollywood and confronting his bigotry and history of mental illness is still too incendiary?

<--- Me when my head hits the pillow

his movies fucn suck

November 8th, 2005 The greatest night in the history of GD!

close-ups of violence made it feel more rambo parody than saving private ryan.

garfield was fine, but most of the supports were badly cast.

i LOL'd the moment vince vaughn showed up on screen in uniform. sorry man, but i just can't take him seriously trying to pull off the poor man's gunnery sgt. hartman.

and did anyone not learning anything from playing call of duty? please don't cast sam worthington for an american accent ever again.

maybe i've seen too many war films, but i guess i don't get the stratospheric hype. the story of desmond doss needed to be told, nonetheless.

First off Vince Vaughn was fucking awful! Holy shit he was laughable in some parts. Also I couldnt stand Garfield's accent. So the whole first half of the movie was hard to get through. But he was solid during the battle. A lot of the acting was just so over the top and corny. Also the scene right before they go up the hill again. WOW that shit was sooooo fucking corny. All it needed was a slow clap. Yeah the story deserved a movie. But this movie was just okay.

November 8th, 2005 The greatest night in the history of GD!

I think he's amazing in The Social Network and, while the movie sucked, I liked the personality he brought to his Spider-Man (never saw the 2nd one of his.)

But he's a guy who I don't believe whenever he has to put on an accent. I couldn't take him seriously in 99 Homes or Silence. I haven't seen Hacksaw because I expected I'd have the same reaction you did.

And it's not like he's necessarily bad in those movies. I just can't buy it.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

I'm watching the Social Network right now and I agree he was good in this. But like you everything else has been just okay. But he is the least of this films problems. he does wel in the second half. While nobody else improves in the second half.

November 8th, 2005 The greatest night in the history of GD!

kept waiting for Kennan Ivory Wayans to pop up with "Message!"

Great movie on a technical level. Bad movie on just about every other level.