My turn!
Mel Gibson's future movies
-
As long as that bastard gets to carry the “big flag” hell be a happy camper. He has some engine movie coming out with aztecs fighting it out… So im sure they will paint him up so he can carry the banner or something…
-
Sometimes I don’t like to have to overthink my epics. Mel’s movies are all about emotion. That and good action.
-
I thought he was going to do Joan of Arc next.
RB
-
Luc Besson did a Joan of Arc movie but it was really brought down by the focus on her scizophrenia (or maybe her prophecies - we are never really sure) in the early parts of the movie. That and one particularly disgusting scene that makes Nazi propaganda look tame in comparison with its view of the English.
It’s still a pretty good movie though, and I think Dustin Hoffman as Joan’s conscience (or maybe he’s an angel, again we don’t know for sure) worked very well. The acting is superb except Joan is just annoying as all hell.
I’m sure if Mel does one he will focus more on her as a saint and less on the confusion and the bad, bad English.Personally, I wouldn’t mind Mel making more religious themed movies because they are interesting. I’m not a Catholic myself but I can still enjoy it.
-
It’s hard for an actor to do a great movie sequel 20 years after the first one.
However, if in LW 5 Roger Murtaugh is kidnapped by envirowackos and killed by Muslim terrorists(at a distance with closeups from the back so’s Danny Glover don’t get one penny for his liberalizations), then great!.Â
Martin Riggs has to come out of retirement and a wheel chair to solve the crime with the help of his long unknown daughter(played by _________ _________?) and Leo Getz. As the movie progresses so does Riggsie’s terrminal cancer, but we learn that he has been using his medical leave to finish a J.D.(law degree.). In the final scene Leo explains how the case was made in court nailing both groups(e’s and t’s) as Leo kicks out the plug to the oxygen machine.
Leo gets the girl in the end.(Pesci’s gotta win one.)
Hey, you know they’re making another Rocky, doncha?
I think The Carol Burnett Show had a spoof on that…Rocky XLVII…
staring Tim Conway as Rocky and Sammy Davis, Jr. as Apollo Creed!
I’m just hoping Ahnold doesn’t make a T4!
At least Mel and Clint Eastwood have shown that they can do more than…should I call it acting?
LJ
-
@El:
It’s hard for an actor to do a great movie sequel 20 years after the first one.
However, if in LW 5 Roger Murtaugh is kidnapped by envirowackos and killed by Muslim terrorists(at a distance with closeups from the back so’s Danny Glover don’t get one penny for his liberalizations), then great!.
Martin Riggs has to come out of retirement and a wheel chair to solve the crime with the help of his long unknown daughter(played by _________ _________?) and Leo Getz. As the movie progresses so does Riggsie’s terrminal cancer, but we learn that he has been using his medical leave to finish a J.D.(law degree.). In the final scene Leo explains how the case was made in court nailing both groups(e’s and t’s) as Leo kicks out the plug to the oxygen machine.
Leo gets the girl in the end.(Pesci’s gotta win one.)
Hey, you know they’re making another Rocky, doncha?
I think The Carol Burnett Show had a spoof on that…Rocky XLVII…
staring Tim Conway as Rocky and Sammy Davis, Jr. as Apollo Creed!
I’m just hoping Ahnold doesn’t make a T4!
At least Mel and Clint Eastwood have shown that they can do more than…should I call it acting?
LJ
Choose any movie from the “Man With No Name Trilogy” and you will see that Clint and those movies have more class than Mel and his attempts, on a fraction of the budget. But why aspire for a decent movie when you could resort to a Jesus torture scene to catch everyone’s attention….oh, wait…it’s been done.
Also, don’t forget about Rocky 5,000 as indicated in Spaceballs.
-
He went with the last hours of Jesus because it hasn’t been done right in films in such a long time. Personally, I enjoyed the movie because it told and important story. All of the hype about it being overly violent was just hypocrisy. After all, that was soon after Kill Bill came out, and that movie was given love by all of the windbag critics. It really wasn’t that shocking or violent to me. I’ve seen plays much more brutal my entire life, and if you believe in it, it’s very moving and important.
And besides that, doncha know we all just love violence in movies?
-
Meh…Kill Bill sucked and I think most critics new better than to praise it - too many obvious flaws. Don’t need to go into that.
You must admit though that the Passion WAS overly violent, whether some critics are hypocritical or not, and I think the main people to criticize this violence were the people most interested in the movie and who already denounce violent films.
I’m sorry, I don’t know of any plays that would be more violent than the torture scenes in the Passion. In fact, the only other recently released (since the Passion) movie I can think of that has torture in it was supposed to be a “horror” flick. Couple that disturbing image with our views on torture and you could easily understand why so many people would object to the mistreatment of their idol.
-
Meh…Kill Bill sucked and I think most critics new better than to praise it - too many obvious flaws. Don’t need to go into that.
WHAT? kill bill was an amazing movie, as entertainment, and as artful cinema
-
I’m serious, I really didn’t think the Passion was that violent. Maybe it was longer than most deaths in movies, but it still wasn’t especially violent.
-
The devil was the best thing about that movie. Awesome!
-
Meh…Kill Bill sucked and I think most critics new better than to praise it - too many obvious flaws. Don’t need to go into that.
WHAT? kill bill was an amazing movie, as entertainment, and as artful cinema
Not saying it was completely devoid of entertainment value, but definitely overhyped. I just feel that for every thing that Kill Bill had going for it, 2 or 3 things could be brought against it. Care to make a thread?
I’m serious, I really didn’t think the Passion was that violent. Maybe it was longer than most deaths in movies, but it still wasn’t especially violent.
Ok, maybe we disagree on the definition of violence. Torture is inherently violent, and I think most people would agree stripping the flesh off of someone is violent. So, in this case, I would consider this movie to be violent, not for quantity , but for quality (or something on those lines). Sure, Kill Bill had a volume of violence, but it was also an entirely different delivery - generally not realistic and over the top. Passion had a more precise depiction of violence and its effect, but I think that those images go a long way compared to the general presentation of violence by other movies - again I point out the absence of graphic torture except in one movie that was geared as a horror flick. Now if you are like me, you can take it just as a movie and realize that the actor wasn’t actually tortured, but some people respond to these things pretty heavily. So, I wasn’t trying to make it seem you are insensitive, but I think that’s why plenty of people voiced a strong opinion on the graphic images in this movie.
-
The movie was graphic because the event was graphic. Forget the Jesus part for a bit and study up on crucifixions. They were a violent affair. Nobody got upset with saving private ryan because war is violent and the movie was about a war. If you can’t handle a realistic depiction of a historical event which was probally far worse than anything Mel put on the screen, don’t watch it. Incednetly the guy that played Jesus was struck by lightning while on the cross. Kindof freaky.
-
I saw Gibson’s gillipoli and it reeked. oh god it was bad…
Suggested Topics
