Mel Gibson

[Guest Len B'stard]

I prefered Sugargayfemme

[Angelica]

I prefered Sugargayfemme

That's saved for when I disagree with you.

[Guest NGOG]

To be clear; Mel Gibson is an average actor, and he gets by on looks? Maybe in his early career he was a looker, but to say sex appeal has been a staple of his career is silly.

Nobody is suggesting Gibson is on the level of Brando. That's again really silly. Who is? If you compare any actor to Brando you're automatically going to produce an analysis of medicore because Brando is perfection. Does that take away from Gibson's status as a gifted and much loved actor himself? No. Even look at his interviews and promo work, he exudes the character and manic quality typical of good acting.

If your of the opinion his career is nothing more than a series of historically inaccurate epics then you have to watch Mad Max, Lethal Weapon, Gallipoli, The Year of Living Dangerously or The Man Without a Face.

Edited August 2, 2013 by NGOG

[Guest Len B'stard]

To be clear; Mel Gibson is an average actor, and he gets by on looks? Maybe in his early career he was a looker, but to say sex appeal has been a staple of his career is silly.

Nobody is suggesting Gibson is on the level of Brando. That's again really silly. Who is? If you compare any actor to Brando you're automatically going to produce an analysis of medicore because Brando is perfection. Does that take away from Gibson's status as a gifted and much loved actor himself? No. Even look at his interviews and promo work, he exudes the character and manic quality typical of good acting.

If your of the opinion his career is nothing more than a series of historically inaccurate epics then you have to watch Mad Max, Lethal Weapon, Gallipoli, The Year of Living Dangerously or The Man Without a Face.

The Brando comment as i understood it was Angelicas sliding scale of acting talent thing, if you notice she ended with the Sean Penn variety to denote overall that he ain't all that...at all, even when stacked up against relatively lesser actors. And anyone who thinks Brando is perfection ain't seen Candy or Bedtime Stories or A Countess from Hong Kong.

Edited August 2, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Angelica]

To be clear; Mel Gibson is an average actor, and he gets by on looks? Maybe in his early career he was a looker, but to say sex appeal has been a staple of his career is silly.

Nobody is suggesting Gibson is on the level of Brando. That's again really silly. Who is? If you compare any actor to Brando you're automatically going to produce an analysis of medicore because Brando is perfection. Does that take away from Gibson's status as a gifted and much loved actor himself? No. Even look at his interviews and promo work, he exudes the character and manic quality typical of good acting.

If your of the opinion his career is nothing more than a series of historically inaccurate epics then you have to watch Mad Max, Lethal Weapon, Gallipoli, The Year of Living Dangerously or The Man Without a Face.

I've seen all those. Year of Living Dangerously is a fantastic, sadly underseen/rated film. On the other hand, The Man Without a Face is excrable and IMO the worst film Gibson has directed (which is saying quite a lot).

Edited August 2, 2013 by Angelica

[Guest NGOG]

And anyone who thinks Brando is perfection ain't seen Candy or Bedtime Stories or A Countess from Hong Kong.

Don't even start trying to question the credentials of Brando, it's ludicrous enough what you're saying about Gibson.

[Guest Len B'stard]

And anyone who thinks Brando is perfection ain't seen Candy or Bedtime Stories or A Countess from Hong Kong.

Don't even start trying to question the credentials of Brando, it's ludicrous enough what you're saying about Gibson.

Look man, no one loves Brando more than me, ive seen every stitch of film that boy made and i even love the aforementioned but thats just because i love the guy but at the same time you can't deny that he made some pretty naff films too, as much as i personally like them for whatever personal reasons, Brando phoned in many-a performance. Have you actually seen the films i mentioned? You really think his Indian Guru in Candy was some kinda mindblowing performance?

I think Brando is one of the most important actors in the history of the craft...and thats heavy fuckin' kudos but what, you want me to sit around here saying his every performance was perfect just cuz he's my favorite actor? That ain't real man.

Edited August 2, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Guest NGOG]

I'm not sure how "Brando was perfection" equates to every scrap of film he made was therefore perfect.

[Guest Len B'stard]

See, now you're just tryna chat round in circles man You responded to my comment about him making some naff films with 'don't even try and challenge his credentials' and then when i try and explain myself regarding the naff films he made you're like "i'm not sure how Brando was perfection equates to every scrap of film he made was therefore perfect', well then why where you trying to pluck holes in my intial comment that was stating that he had some naff performances to his name?!?!

What else was i supposed to interpret 'Brando was perfection' in response to a comment saying he's made some naff films to mean?

[Guest NGOG]

Is it possible to not be part of an underwhelming film in a Hollywood career? I just think that through your very clear grasp on film you're being pedantic and criticizing everybody. In the grand scheme of things, Marlon Brando was as close to artistic perfection as you can imagine. As somebody once said, 'there was before Brando, and after Brando'.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I don't see why saying someone has made some naff films is like, criticising to the point where it's considered perhaps trying to detract from the overall lustre of a persons body of work, i mean it's just being real and dealing with reality, isn't it? No one is perfection to me, thats just being real as far as I'm concerned, i don't consider that being pedantic. And yeah, i do criticise everybody to some extent but that doesn't take away from the many wonderful things that they DID achieve, it's just in the instances when i'm criticising i'm not talking about that shit, that doesn't mean they dont exist. I don't believe in or agree with the deifying of artists to suit some sort of romantic image one might have in ones head regarding them, nobody is above criticism.

[dalsh327]

Both extremely mediocre twats that traded on good looks and a slightly above-Stallone level of acting talent that try and attach themselves to epics thats require limited range and there you have it. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise in almost every movie he's in just like Bogart was always Bogart, difference being Bogart had presence, Bogart lit up the screen, Tom Cruise is a little midget.

And his films are just painfully boring, i can watch some pretty dire cinema really but even i walked out of Mission Impossible. I don't give a flying fuck whether someone hates jews or is a Scientolowhatever in their spare time, just purely judging on acting ability neither of em are all that and never will be.

John Wayne is another one.Limited range, but the movies were entertaining. Searchers was one of his darker movies, Rooster Cogburn was a later era favorite.

I think Tom just enjoys playing characters and getting into the role like DeNiro or Daniel Day Lewis, but for him it's more about the workout than the character. He probably wasn't drinking iced tea in Rock of Ages, but he was conjuring Keith Richards more than he was Axl.

Travolta rarely impresses people. You have to really search for the good ones with him.

I don't think Mark Wahlberg's "great", but has a great track record as a producer and people turn out to see him.

Candy and Magic Christian (with Peter Sellers and Ringo) are good books that shouldn't have been turned into movies at the time. Terry Southern wrote the script to a new Magic Christian to fit in with the times, because it's relevant in a reality TV world.

Brando got bored with acting and started toying with directors and some actors, but it's kind of like he was making his own movie and having other actors in on the joke. Johnny Depp and Matthew Broderick got a kick out of him. I still want to see his acting video that was never released...

Edited August 2, 2013 by dalsh327

[Guest Len B'stard]

John Wayne found himself in the position of embodying a key western cinematic archetype and for the right kind of actor you don't need much more than that.

[Estranged Reality]

Both extremely mediocre twats that traded on good looks and a slightly above-Stallone level of acting talent that try and attach themselves to epics thats require limited range and there you have it. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise in almost every movie he's in just like Bogart was always Bogart, difference being Bogart had presence, Bogart lit up the screen, Tom Cruise is a little midget.

And his films are just painfully boring, i can watch some pretty dire cinema really but even i walked out of Mission Impossible. I don't give a flying fuck whether someone hates jews or is a Scientolowhatever in their spare time, just purely judging on acting ability neither of em are all that and never will be.

This post couldn't be more full of wrong.

Both extremely mediocre twats that traded on good looks and a slightly above-Stallone level of acting talent that try and attach themselves to epics thats require limited range and there you have it. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise in almost every movie he's in just like Bogart was always Bogart, difference being Bogart had presence, Bogart lit up the screen, Tom Cruise is a little midget.

And his films are just painfully boring, i can watch some pretty dire cinema really but even i walked out of Mission Impossible. I don't give a flying fuck whether someone hates jews or is a Scientolowhatever in their spare time, just purely judging on acting ability neither of em are all that and never will be.

Agreeing with sugarfeylemon before he gets piled on. Before we got too much insight into their personal issues, they were both good movie stars - in as much as they were safe, familiar and reliable on screen. Neither are Great Actors of the Olivier/Brando/or even Sean fucking Penn variety.

Neither of them are great "actors" in the classic sense, but they are (or were) both great movie stars, especially Cruise, who also tried a few times to break free of his limitations -- in Born on the 4th, Magnolia, and the Robert Redford film (which wasn't a huge success, but at least he was trying).

I mean, it's a little overwrought in that deliberate PT Anderson fashion, but this scene proves he has acting talent:

And I don't think his movies are "safe" - he's always trying to tackle ambitious new stuff. Maybe they're just blockbuster entertainments, but that's why I said he's a great movie star. His name is attached to a film and you know it will have some kind of ambition and scale behind it, whether it's Mission Impossible III (one of the best action films ever, imo) or Oblivion. He just goes for roles that play to his strengths, which, yes, tend to be pretty similar. But he's always had a knack for choosing great directors to work with (Spielberg, Stone, Scorsese, Levinson, Anderson, et al) and also finding promising newcomers (Abrams, Kosinski).

[izzygirl]

Does anybody else, contrary to popular opinion, really like his interpretation of Jesus Christ's Passion? As always with Gibson it indulges in artistic licence, but the critics were harsh on that piece.

I think it's one of the best films ever made about The Passion and it's absolutely brilliant. I think he is an amazing director and a very good actor. One of the best without a doubt. I don't care his private life at all.

Glad to hear someone else enjoyed it. I agree with you when you say it's one of the most powerful depictions of the Passion.

There was a lot of reservations about the torture scenes, but I support what Gibson did there. It captures the brutality of Roman authority, almost symbolizing the years of savage oppression subsequently conducted against the Christian minority. It also illustrates the level of disdain there was for this mere carpenter, who technically challenged the superlative authority of the emperor and claimed to be the euphoric warrior the Jews were awaiting.

120% agree.

I didn't understand the criticism towards the roughest scenes. What I never understood was all those other films about the Passion where after all the torture Jesus dies in the cross looking like Brad Pitt in one of his best days.

Edited August 2, 2013 by izzygirl

[izzygirl]

Both extremely mediocre twats that traded on good looks and a slightly above-Stallone level of acting talent that try and attach themselves to epics thats require limited range and there you have it. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise in almost every movie he's in just like Bogart was always Bogart, difference being Bogart had presence, Bogart lit up the screen, Tom Cruise is a little midget.

What do you think of Mel as a director?

[Guest Len B'stard]

I think i've only seen The Passion of Christ, thought it was brilliant.

[dalsh327]

Braveheart wasn't too bad.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I've only seen clips of Braveheart, that scottish accent is fuckin' terrible.

[wasted]

Diplomatic immunity.

[Guest NGOG]

I've only seen clips of Braveheart, that scottish accent is fuckin' terrible.

How the hell can you not have seen Braveheart in its entirety yet feel entitled to give a credible analysis on Gibson's acting ability?

[Black Sabbath]

I think people just take movies and acting way too seriously. Just sit back and enjoy the damn thing...

That said, Gibson and Cruise are great.

[Guest NGOG]

By the way, I meant to add, Gibson does a solid attempt at the Scotch accent in Braveheart. If you want to talk poor accent attempts, try Cruise's 'Irish' brogue in Far and Away.

[Guest Len B'stard]

I've only seen clips of Braveheart, that scottish accent is fuckin' terrible.

How the hell can you not have seen Braveheart in its entirety yet feel entitled to give a credible analysis on Gibson's acting ability?

Because he's made more than one movie?

I think people just take movies and acting way too seriously. Just sit back and enjoy the damn thing...

Thats a pretty ridiculous thing to say, by that rationale why don't you just shut up and enjoy every single movie ever made? Or is it just that you think that some things are just unassailably universal and everyone that says they don't like em is lying or trying to be fashionably different or something, it's called taste man and everyones is different.

Edited August 3, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Guest NGOG]

Because he's made more than one movie?

If you ask a randomer what do they associate with the name Mel Gibson, nine times out of ten they will say Braveheart. It's the essential Mel Gibson piece for anybody that has a lukewarm interest in film. If you haven't seen it then I do not value your perspective on Gibson's ability. His acting and directing prowess are both crystal clear in that one production. Edited August 3, 2013 by NGOG