Movie Review On the Air

On the Air (2022) 

Directed by Romuald Boulanger 

Written by 

Starring Mel Gibson, William Mosely, Alia Seror O'Neil

Release November 5th, 2022 

Published November 4th, 2022 

Separating the art from the artist is a concept that has been in vogue in the past several years. The question being address and opined upon is: How do we treat the art created by people accused of or guilty of doing awful things. Whether it is being accused of abuse or being convicted of a crime, what do we do with the art of terrible people. J.K Rowling is a good example. The Harry Potter creator has used social media to attack trans people and it has caused a reckoning for Potter fans who want to keep enjoying the Potter books but don't want to support Rowling's hate toward the trans community. 

Another example of this concept is actor Mel Gibson. More than a decade ago the actor known for the Lethal Weapon franchise and as the director of Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ, was caught on tape verbally abusing and threatening his then girlfriend. He was also captured by Police while drunk and is accused of having made horrific anti-Semitic remarks and making misogynistic remarks toward a female Police Officer helping to place him under arrest. How can we consume the art of Mel Gibson ethically? We can't. Simply put, if you choose to pay to see a Mel Gibson movie, you are putting money in his pocket and tacitly telling him that you excuse his behavior. 

This lengthy intro brings us to Gibson's latest movie, a low rent thriller called On the Line. The film stars Gibson as a man named Elvis, a Los Angeles radio host with a proclivity for saying things you can't legally say on the radio. Elvis 'tells it like it is,' to borrow a cliche, and his fans love him for it. Elvis's life and career is turned upside down when he's confronted by a caller to his radio show. This caller claims to have broken into Elvis' home and taken Elvis' wife and daughter as hostages. 

The unknown caller claims that Elvis is responsible for the death of a former employee of the radio station. The woman killed herself after having spent several months being berated on the air and off by Elvis as part of his edgy persona and his private Assholery. The caller wants Elvis to make things right by leaping to his death from the top of the high rise where the radio station is located. Naturally, not all is as it seems. The call is not coming from Elvis' home, it's coming from inside the radio station. Sinister stuff eh? 

I didn't forget to say spoiler alert, I just don't want you to bother seeing this movie so I told you want happened. I haven't mentioned the ending but you can probably figure it out just from my description. On the Line is not exactly trying to redefine the thriller genre. The direction and action of On the Line is dull and derivative as is Gibson's tough guy act. It borders on comic when the known bully Gibson is trying to play for our sympathies. His persona robs the movie of any sympathy it attempts to generate. Not that I wanted to see the man's family killed, I shouldn't have to say that's wrong, but I could not empathize with a character played by Mel Gibson on almost any level. 

Click here for my full length review of On the Line at Geeks.Media

Movie Review: Edge of Darkness

Edge of Darkness (2010)

Directed by Martin Campbell 

Written by William Monahan, Andrew Bovell 

Starring Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston

Release Date January 29th, 2010

Published January 29th, 2010 

No one is likely to forget Mel Gibson's off-screen issues anytime soon, nor should they, he's awful. From his disturbing 'Passion' to his arrest and subsequent bashing of the Jewish people, Mel Gibson's private life has become very public and it affects everything the public perceives about him. All of this is part of what makes his performance in the thriller Edge of Darkness so remarkable.

Less than 10 to 15 minutes into what you are expecting to be a rather generic thriller, based on the somewhat innocuous title and vacuous TV campaign, Mel Gibson and director Martin Campbell make you forget, if only briefly, about Mel Gibson's character issues, focus on his movie character and the snaky, violent plot in front of him.

In Edge of Darkness Mel Gibson is Boston police detective Tommy Craven. He has just welcomed home his only child, Emma (Bojana Novakovic) and brought her home. The welcome is short-lived as Emma falls ill and Tommy rushes her to the hospital. That was the plan anyway, just as Craven opens the door to his home a man calls out his name and a shotgun blast blows Emma right back through the doorway.

The violence in this scene is quick and merciless and sets the tone for the rest of the picture. Naturally, Tommy will conduct his own investigation of his daughter's murder. From here you may expect Edge of Darkness to become predictable and fall into typical thriller beats. It does not, in fact Gibson and Director Campbell forcefully make moves in this plot to avoid the typical and drive toward a narrative filled with surprise and suspense.

Lost in all of Mel Gibson's off-screen issues is the fact that he has always been exceptionally talented. His intensity, his physicality, his self effacing humor have all played a role in defining him as an actor capable of moving audiences in many different ways. He makes use of all of his gifts in Edge of Darkness and crafts his best performance since Braveheart.

Director Martin Campbell is a rising star. He was the director who re-launched the Bond series with the adrenalin fueled Casino Royale. Campbell has always been a strong action director but in Edge of Darkness he takes great care to deliver a directorial style that is free of the typical action beats and gets right to point of each scene.

There is very little wasted effort in Edge of Darkness. Take a scene where Craven is kidnapped. We've been here before, we know what to expect. All of sudden the scene is over and we are back into the plot. No talking killer, very little dialogue at all. It's a minor tweak of what is expected but it seems any departure from the expected can be a welcome change in this day and age.

Edge of Darkness does not reinvent the thriller, it's just made better. Better performances, better direction and most importantly, better Mel Gibson. After wandering off the path of stardom with his unfortunate behavior, Mel Gibson is poised for a strong career third act. Let's hope that his off-screen stuff is behind him and more films with the quality and excitement of Edge of Darkness are ahead.

Movie Review: Apocalypto

Apocalypto (2006) 

Directed by Mel Gibson

Written by Mel Gibson, Farhad Safinia 

Starring Rudy Youngblood

Release Date December 8th, 2006 

Published December 7th, 2006 

I truly believe that Mel Gibson needs psychological counseling. I'm not joking. It's not just his very public personal problems, but also his career choices and bizarre blood fetish. All the way back to his Oscar winning epic Braveheart, to his blood soaked take on the death of Jesus in The Passion of the Christ and now his latest blood soaked adventure Apocalypto takes Mel's his sanguine obsession to new horrifying depths.

Apocalypto is more violent and gruesome than all three Saw pictures combined. It makes Mel's own Passion look like a kiddie picture. Gibson has gone over the deep end with his obsession with viscera and yet his direction is so confident and professional I'm tempted to forgive his bloodlust. I can't; but I'm tempted.

In 500 B.C the Mayan culture came to a bloody and violent end. The fear, tumult and consumption grew to such epic proportions that it simply could no longer sustain itself. Mel Gibson's Apocalypto picks up the story near the end as the decadent violence began spilling beyond the mayans own borders. Human hunters began rampaging through small villages murdering innocent tribes and taking hostages who will become human sacrifices to the mayan gods.

Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) is a member of a small tribe on the far periphery of the Mayan empire. A peaceful hunting group, the tribe is living idyllically in peace when a mayan hunting group overruns them. Jaguar Paw manages to hide his pregnant wife and daughter in a crevasse before joining the fight and being taken hostage. Before he is taken however, he is forced to watch as his father is murdered.

Jaguar Paw and much of his tribe are marched back to the Mayan enclave where a giant stone staircase has been erected. The stairs are covered in blood and guts and as Jaguar Paw looks up at this massive structure; sacrifices are already taking place and seem to have started and never stop. As he is marched to the top heads roll down the stairs and bodies piled in gruesome, stomach turning piles next to the bloody alter.

Only a miracle saves Jaguar Paw from becoming a sacrifice but his escape is not assured. The hunting group decides to play a dangerous game, allowing Jaguar Paw to run away as they fire arrows and spears at his back. When he finds his way back to the forest the film becomes an epic chase scene filled with exciting escapes and horrifyingly brutal hand to hand combat.

On the one hand I was literally turning green from the stomach turning violence of Apocalypto. On the other hand, Gibson's filming of this violence, and especially the electrifying chase scenes, is so compelling I wanted to really like this film. His skill is so strong and his direction so assured that even the brutality is exceptionally well directed. Gibson's bloodlust is absolutely repellent, but his skill as a filmmaker is remarkable.

Rudy Youngblood is a terrific young actor who does an exceptional job in seperating himself from the rest of the cast and earning our sympathy. His performance goes along way to making Apocalypto an absorbing human drama. If it just wasn't so beyond acceptable levels of brutality I could recommend this film. As it is, Apocalypto is simply to vicious and blood soaked for me to recommend it to anyone, no matter how strong their stomach may be.

Alfred Hitchcock managed to make Birds a menacing force without having them ripping out someones eyeball. Martin Scorsese uses gory violence sparingly in his The Departed which gives the graphic nature of that violence much more punch. Mel Gibson could stand to learn a few things from Hitchcock and Scorsese. The extreme nature of the violence Gibson depicts in Apocalypto never fails to shock but the repetitive use of gory viscera does become numbing after a while and takes a great deal away from the compelling aspects of this story.

A touch of subtlety and Apocalypto could have been an extraordinary, epic, action adventure. As it is, the only thing anyone will take away from the experience of Apocalypto is just how sick a human being Mel Gibson must be. Gibson is obsessed with blood and guts and while he may justify his bloodlust by saying that he is trying to be 'realistic', there is no justification for presenting such brutality. There is a way to be true to the violence of Apocalypto without exploiting the gory aspects of it.

Mel Gibson is a terrifically talented director. He could be a great director, one who goes down in history. Unfortunately his obsession with blood and guts, and rolling heads down stairs, and ripping out peoples hearts, and stacks of headless human bodies makes him nothing more than a slasher filmmaker. He is just a cut above snuff films with his fixation on viscera and gore in Apocalypto as well as Passion of The Christ and Braveheart.

There is another oddball aspect of Apocalypto that needs to be mentioned. Early in the film, as Gibson is establishing the Idyll nature of Jaguar Paw's village, the tribe hunts and as they do they play pranks on one another and speak in a fashion that reminded me of the offhand nature of a Seinfeld episode. This is kind of entertaining but Gibson's translation of the mayan language used by his characters leaves one to wonder if he is being true to his characters or just going for cheap laughs.

Mel Gibson is impossible for me to like as a person, but as a director his talent is undeniable. His direction of Apocalypto is professional, polished and compelling. However, his bloodlust is so disturbing you must once again wonder about his character. How can a filmmaker, or any human being for that matter, meditate so deeply on such extreme violence.

I'm sure Mel Gibson felt the violence of Apocalypto was necessary to tell this story but the extreme nature of that violence is so graphic and so horrifying that it is fair to question his mental state. No matter how well depicted, I simply cannot recommend this level of violence to anyone no matter their tolerance for extreme amounts of blood and guts.

Mel Gibson, please seek help.

Movie Review Signs

Signs (2002) 

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

Written by M. Night Shyamalan

Starring Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, Amanda Breslin

Release Date August 8th, 2002

Published August 4th, 2002 

I Can't Believe He Did It Again! Director M. Night Shyamalan, for the third consecutive film, has managed to twist audiences to his will with yet another twisted film that shocks and surprises. In Signs Shyamalan plays his audience like a violin and makes us like it in what is the best film of 2002.Taut, perfectly paced, and filled with breathtaking moments, Signs is yet another extraordinary signpost in the increasingly brilliant career of M. Night Shyamalan. 

Signs stars Mel Gibson as Father Graham Hess, or rather just Graham Hess. As we come to find out Graham has lost his faith in God and left the church. Now living on his farm with his two kids, Morgan (Rory Culkin) and Bo (Amanda Breslin) and his brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), Graham seems to be slowly adjusting to life without faith. Then, not 10 minutes into the film we are thrust into a story involving the mythical urban legend: the crop circle.

To Graham it seems local idiots have vandalized his corn. It isn't until TV new coverage reveals that the crop formations aren't just in his cornfield, they are global. Interestingly enough the crop circles are merely the hook; the real story takes off well after we've seen our last crop circle.

Shyamalan adopts a sort of pop culture version of Hitchcock, aping the master’s style with his impressive film score that evokes some of Psycho and The Birds. Like Hitchcock, Shyamalan knows that the audience need not see anything to be scared, in fact, what the audience imagines is likely far scarier.

Mel Gibson is solid as always playing Graham with depth and feeling, never allowing the character to drift off into action hero mode but also not allowing him to be weak. Shyamalan once again shows his brilliant eye for casting children, with Rory Culkin proving to be the class of the Culkin family. And little Angela Breslin, whose wide-eyed deadpan delivery is used to both great dramatic and comedic effect.

One of the film’s most surprising elements is its sense of humor, which is perfectly timed and never takes away from the suspense. Shyamalan is beginning to show a pattern in his filmmaking style. A simplicity of storytelling that is so understated you barely notice it. He simply and artfully weaves together subtle realistic drama against outrageous backdrops. 

In the Sixth Sense it was ghosts, in Unbreakable it's comic book superheroes and in Signs it's.... no no, I am not going to be the asshole who ruins the fun. You will have to see it yourself in what may be the best film of the year.

Movie Review: We Were Soldiers

We Were Soldiers (2002) 

Directed by Randall Wallace

Written by Randall Wallace

Starring Mel Gibson, Madeline Stowe, Sam Elliott, Greg Kinnear, Keri Russell, Barry Pepper

Release Date March 1st, 2002 

Published February 27th, 2002

I have been complaining that I'm tired of war movies, there are just too many of them. Their themes and characters are becoming clichés, and there doesn't seem to be anymore stories to tell. Well, I was wrong and We Were Soldiers showed me I was very wrong.

Mel Gibson stars as an army colonel who leads the first soldiers into Vietnam in 1965. Gibson is also a family man with 5 children and a wife played by Madeline Stow. The opening of the film is surprisingly strong introducing the characters and scenes which we've seen a thousand times; the soldier who tries to be funny, the soldier with the attitude problem, and of course the teary good-byes between husband and wives. We Were Soldiers avoids any more cliches by remaining focused on Gibson and his family, and merely introducing supporting players Chris Klein and his wife played by Felicity's Keri Russell.

The beginning is strong but the film really takes off once the soldiers arrive in Vietnam and are almost immediately dropped into a hot zone where French soldiers had been massacred by the North Vietnamese months before. These scenes are as violent and bloody as anything we've seen before and maybe louder the film's soundtrack. It was at times so loud that my seat shook as if it were rigged to do so. Once in the jungle, Gibson matches wits with a North Vietnamese colonel, but unlike your typical action movie it's not painted as a one-on-one match, but a strategic match between equally matched opponents.

Not many films have had the courage to show America's enemies as human beings but We Were Soldiers does show us North Vietnamese soldiers who aren't monsters but rather just like our guys. They were defending their country and they did so by any means necessary.

The film's supporting cast is strong, especially Barry Pepper. No stranger to great war movies, Pepper stars as the first journalist on the ground who quickly finds more action than he bargained for. Pepper's war photographer is not some cowboy out to break a big story, but a normal person in an extraordinary situation.

We Were Soldiers is not a unique film. We've seen some of this stuff before, scenes that appear in every war movie as if they were required by law. But Gibson, Pepper, Chris Klein and writer director Randall Wallace make even those seemingly clichéd moments ring true and make We Were Soldiers the first great film of 2002.

Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ

The Passion of the Christ (2004) 

Directed by Mel Gibson

Written by Mel Gibson, Benedict Fitzgerald 

Starring Jim Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Maia Morgenstern, Sergio Rubini 

Release Date February 25th, 2004 

Published February 24th, 2004 

As controversy swirls about Mel Gibson’s intentions in writing and directing his idea of Jesus’ Passion, you could almost forget about the movie itself. That finally changes on Ash Wednesday when the film hits theaters nationwide and everyone can finally see what it is they have been talking about. What they will see is a spectacularly realized period piece, a moving and evocative piece about the ultimate in suffering. Never before has the suffering of Jesus Christ, the man many believe to be the savior of mankind, been so amazingly and brutally realized on film.

Jim Caviezal takes on the tremendous task of playing Jesus Christ. As we meet him Christ is praying in a forest seemingly unaware that his disciple Judas is at the temple betraying him. Soon Judas, with Jewish soldiers in tow, is standing before Jesus and slowly realizing his terrible mistake. After a brief scuffle during which Christ heals a soldier wounded by his disciple Peter, Jesus is arrested and beaten as he is led to the temple. There, his religious opponents, a powerful Jewish sect called the Pharisees, wait to put Jesus on trial.

Actually it’s not so much a trial as a public lynching where Jesus is once again beaten and not surprisingly found guilty, though of what crime we are uncertain. The Pharisee, led by Caiaphas, wants to put Jesus to death but their religion forbids it. However there is no such preclusion in Roman law and so Jesus is brought to the region’s Roman ruler, Pontius Pilate (Hristo Shopov).

Here is where the film’s most controversial element comes in. The charge of Antisemitism against the film hinges, for some, on the portrayal of Pilate. In the Passion plays of the dark ages, when Jews were blamed for Christ’s death, Pilate was played as an ineffectual wavering leader who tried to spare Christ’s life. After 1968 and the Vatican 2 council, the church made clear their official position that the Jews were not responsible and that it was Pilate, the brutal dictator, who was responsible for Christ’s persecution.

It’s very difficult to parse this fairly because both sides have a fair argument. Gibson’s film does portray Pilate as wanting to spare Jesus while a bloodthirsty mob stands by calling for his crucifixion. However, to say that no Jews, especially the Pharisee had nothing to do with it is also intellectually dishonest. Gibson does go on to portray many Jews who decry Christ’s brutal beating by Roman guards, but whether they are enough to combat the charge of Antisemitism will be up to each individual viewer. Do I think the film and Mr. Gibson are Anti-Semitic? No, but I can see where some people might.

The thrust of The Passion of The Christ is Christ’s suffering, from being punched and kicked by Jewish soldiers during his arrest and trial, to his scourging in the Roman courtyard as Pilate tries to placate the mob without crucifying Jesus, to his brutal bloody walk with the cross on his back to the mountaintop and finally his crucifixion. Some 90 minutes of almost non-stop brutal violence. So brutal that many will walk out and some will become physically ill. This is horror-film-quality violence.

This is one of the hardest films that I have ever watched, but the violence is also very compelling and moving. The scourging and whipping goes on and on and when you think it’s over, they roll Christ onto his bloodied back and continue the beating on his chest. The sequence is nine minutes long and even those with strong stomachs will be hard pressed to watch the whole thing.

Jim Caviezal deserves an Oscar nomination simply for all the punishment he takes. His performance is strongest when he is suffering and praying. His performance in scenes where he is not being bloodied is rather typical of the number of actors who have played the role before, beatific, obtuse, but innately intelligent and spiritual.

Gibson’s direction is strong and steady, his camera witnessing the action, unflinchingly embracing the brutality. Academy Award nominee Caleb Deschanel gives the film a lush and beautiful look with night scenes bathed in blue, the temple scenes swathed in a fiery orange and giving the final walk to the crucifixion bright blue in the sky and clear browns of the sand and walls of the buildings. The period details in costume and production design are flawless.

While I have a great deal of admiration for the film, the artistry of it’s production and the compelling story, I couldn’t escape a feeling of distance from the material that I can only attribute to my religious difference with Mr. Gibson. That I am not a Christian put a distance between myself and the deeply emotional connection that seems to be the intended effect of the film. For the devout, The Passion Of The Christ will be an emotional affirmation of their faith. For others, it’s a remarkable artistic experience but not a wholly satisfying one.