Has any actor plunged as much as Mel Gibson? Sure, there's Tom Cruise, but he's more ridiculed for his alien beliefs and hating meds than drunken bouts of racism. Gibson was yesterday's Brad Pitt. He's done everything from Shakespeare and historical epics to goofy buddy cop movies and post-apolocalyptic classics. Perhaps, like Cruise, he has just stopped cloaking the real him. Free of the cloak, he is also free of the reigns on his ego as he muses about Hollywood and its love of sequels.

Now that there has been a little distance from his recent indiscretions, Mel is sharing his distaste of sequels. He took a valid point -- that we're almost drowning in repetition -- and added a nice, arrogant spin on it. He says that he knew Passion of the Christ would be a hit because he knows how to give us what we want. I would argue that it isn't so much movie fanatics that made it successful, but Christian audiences that patronized the movie by the bus load. Furthermore, Gibson feels that filmmakers need to be made aware of the fact that audiences want new ideas. I wouldn't chortle at this if he didn't hit on something James Rocchi brought up in his Apocalypto review. Gibson has done three back-to-back-to-back historical films with shocking violence. While they may not be sequels, he definitely seems to be in a cycle of working on inner rage. Lastly, Gibson also notes that he thinks audiences are "starving to death and they want to be enriched." What say you? Do Gibson's films keep you from starving, or is he failing to follow his own advice?
categories Cinematical