Posted on 02/24/2005 4:30:05 PM PST by brigada
http://www.thepassionrecut.com/#
Click on and listen to Mel's Introduction
<quote>
"Thank you for helping me buy my private island."
</quote>
And award for worst 'best film' goes to ... Braveheart
Mel Gibson’s epic tale of William Wallace did well at the box office, but film fans have voted it the weakest Oscar winner
CRAIG BROWN
FILM fans have chosen Braveheart, Mel Gibson’s biopic of William Wallace, as the worst film ever to win an Academy Award for best picture.
Despite being a massive commercial success, the blockbuster has topped Empire magazine’s top ten of Oscar-winning turkeys.
The 1995 epic, which was the first high-profile film to be directed by Gibson, picked up five Oscars and grossed £106 million worldwide.
It was also credited with attracting visitors to Scotland, in what became known as the "Braveheart effect".
But despite this success, critics labelled the film an artistic flop, and the magazine was withering in its criticism.
It commented: "The writer of the movie, Randall Wallace, might have merited praise for making 14th-century history relevant to audiences who thought King Edward was a potato or a cigar.
Braveheart was absolutely awful. Historically terrible and inaccurate, it was the worst kind of nationalistic rubbish - Angus Wolfe Murray
"But the dialogue in the movie has all the thudding subtlety of a parody."
The Empire list, which also includes films such as Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky and Tom Hanks’s Forrest Gump, comes just days before the 77th Oscars ceremony takes place at the Kodak Cinema in Hollywood.
The film critic Angus Wolfe Murray said Braveheart’s success was symptomatic of how the Oscars work.
He said: "Braveheart was absolutely awful. Historically terrible and inaccurate, it was the worst kind of nationalistic rubbish. But the problem with the Oscars is that it is all to do with timing and emotion.
"They probably felt that it was time to give Gibson an Oscar. It made him part of the establishment.
"When it comes to this year’s awards, for instance, Clint Eastwood will probably get one because they’ve decided that he finally deserves it.
"Quite often, awards are given to great actors and directors for films that are not even close to their best work.
"Martin Scorsese is up for awards this year with The Aviator, but that comes nowhere near Raging Bull or Taxi Driver.
"There is an incredible amount of politicking that goes on as well, because it’s worth so much money.
"Miramax [the film distributors] are particularly good at this - they take out ads in Variety, the industry magazine, make sure the judges get copies of the film, schmooze all the right people.
"I think it’s safe to say that the awards have absolutely no artistic value; it’s all to do with power and glamour. But the public love the ceremony.
"Also, the film industry are so enamoured of the red carpet and everything it represents, they’re terrified of criticising the awards."
Awards have absolutely no artistic value; it’s all to do with power and glamour.
Patrick Peters, an Empire film critic, agreed artistic merit came low down in the criteria for the Oscars.
He said: "Critical worth is almost irrelevant where bestowing the best picture award is concerned. Scope and scale, the civic validity of the storyline, the plushness of the production values and the tissue count during those crucial heart-warming moments are what matter.
"The Oscars are not about quality; they’re peer group nods of approval.
"As a result, there has been a surfeit of unworthy best pictures and, rest assured, there will be many more to come."
But Andrew Ross, who penned the best-selling book On The Trail of William Wallace, said that the film had triggered an interest in historical epics.
He said: "I’m shocked that anyone could label Braveheart a flop. It might not have been thoroughly historically accurate, but it did capture the true essence of William Wallace.
"Speaking as someone who has done thorough research into Wallace’s background, I have no problems at all with the film. Braveheart re-ignited interest in historical films and paved the way for movies like Gladiator and Troy."
This article:
http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=213052005
Probably still too violent for me, but this was a good idea. And it will help the film get aired on TV.
~chuckling~
Why didn't you say "Thank you for helping me contribute millions, and millions to charity?"
That would be just as true, and not as snotty!
There is demonstrable proof that he bought the island; is there the same level of proof that "millions, and millions" have gone to charities?
Yes, there is, would you like me to send you the articles to prove it, with thanks from Cedars Sinai Medical Center, UCLA Medical Center, and "Helping Hands for Children" to Mel Gibson?
By all means! Post them to this thread. I could believe there are readers and lurkers as inquisitive as myself.
Well, this is just a couple articles out of hundreds that I could have posted.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-10-13-gibson-donation_x.htm
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3627228
I don't know if you realize it or not-but your comments about the private island make you sound like a jealous liberal.
'Yer mama. :) I don't care that he owns the island - they can bury him on it next week, for all I care (and hope). He bought the island with 'passion money' - he could buy crack for nuns if he wants - how he chooses to spend it is his business. I only posted a tongue-in-cheek variant of one of the things he could have said.
At least HairOfTheDog didn't overanalyze it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.