The other night I watched Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto, which is a film about Mayan civilisation and not, as I had previously thought, Mel’s last trip to the pub.
It was an adrenaline-fuelled action adventure only slightly compromised by the fact that you couldn’t understand the garbled nonsensical language. The film was also very good.
Apocalypto continues the long and proud tradition of Mel Gibson making the same film about Jesus over and over again but making Him wear different costumes - on the proviso that none of them involves pants.
Because the thing is that Mel Gibson loves Jesus very much and if you or I were able to ask Jesus He would say the same thing about Mel.
Of course we can’t ask Jesus because only Mel knows how to get hold of Him but you get the idea.
Mel is a member of a very strict group of Catholics who think that the Vatican is run by left-wing pinkos - which many of us have long suspected - and that saying Mass in Latin is a cop out when you could be doing it in Aramaic.
And there are also more attractive features of Mel’s religion, such as being allowed to have a string of drug and alcohol-fuelled sexual encounters.*
But perhaps the most important moral value of Traditionalist Catholics is their commitment to family, which is why Gibson’s sons are hiring lawyers to shore up their inheritance now that their dad has a new kid.
Gibson, meanwhile, is preoccupied with his new girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, who until recently was best known as the only woman to admit to liking Timothy Dalton.
Mel has shacked up with Oksana and is divorcing his wife Robyn in a move that has shocked millions, especially the previous 138 mistresses he promised he would leave his wife for.
But Mel has decided that he prefers Oksana, referred to in the tabloids as a “Russian beauty”, over Robyn, referred to in the tabloids as a “dental nurse”.
Previously it had been thought that Mel Gibson did not believe in divorce, however it appears his position has changed now that he has been given hard evidence of its existence.
Nonetheless, Mel remains as devout as ever and recently made a surprise visit to the Eastern Catholic Church Bishop Conference in St Louis, where he told them: “Keep me in your prayers; I’m going through a bad time in my life.”
While this is usually a sign that someone’s Twitter updates are about to become a lot more interesting,+ Gibson disappointed the assembled clergy by simply asking a lot of questions about which Greek dialect they used.
This compared most unfavourably to his previous surprise public appearance, an action-packed tirade about “f…ing Jews” that was made no less entertaining by the fact it was delivered to a Jewish policeman.
Then in an unexpected move, he came forward and admitted he had a problem with alcohol, when most people were more concerned he had a problem with the holocaust.
Yet it is to Gibson’s great credit that he has not only offered the community such revelrous outbursts of insanity in his spare time but that he has also devoted much of his career to it as well.
As someone recently observed to me, it’s not a Gibson film unless someone gets disembowelled - although unfortunately this person is often the director.
For it is a sad truth that many people in the non-racist, non-sexist and non-homophobic community cannot see past Mel’s Aryan quirks to the courage and heroism contained in much of his work. Indeed to live in Malibu and be not only anti-Semitic but also a cigarette smoker is an act of almost indescribable bravery.
Yes, there is something warm and reassuring about the fact that Mel is completely insane and likes making torture films, just as there is about Russell Crowe perpetually bulking up for a character who only weighs 80 kilos in the book version.
Because if Mel Gibson wasn’t a bit off the planet then Apocalypto would never have been made, Oksana would never have gotten pregnant and Robyn would never have finally dumped that crazy son of a bitch.
*This is much the same as the conventional Catholic church except that there are women involved.
+See Wil Anderson, Ashton Kutcher and Mariah “I’m in a happy place” Carey.
Joe Hildebrand spent his formative years in the outer suburbs trying to work up the courage to ask Leanne Hrubos to go out with him. He never did.
Read his blog at the 
There are millions of people that like Timothy Dalton. He is a great actor tremendously overated actor that played Bond with distinction. Dalton has a head of his time and played a darker Bond that was a human being not the silly quipping “himbo” with bimbos that Sean and Moore played. Timothy played Dalton by the books but apparently too few Bond fans read Fleming’s books. Oskana is just another opportunist that knows how to get pregnant and trap rich old men that think with their small head instead of their possibly larger one.
I think Timothy Dalton is underrated here and abroad, and, again, I’d like to stress that we don’t see enough of him. I think all the other actors who played Bond were great in their own right, but Timothy Dalton, in my opinion, played the best Bond. Sir Sean Connery, who actually is more my type, used to be my favorite, and each actor who portrayed Bond brought something special to the table. However, TD was the best of them all! He portrayed Ian Fleming’s 007 to a tee. His energy and timing and presence filled the screen. Too bad he hadn’t done more Bonds. I often wonder why Hugh Jackman has never been approached to do Bond or, for that matter, Clive Owen. I think they’d be fantastic. If you poo-poo the idea about Hugh Jackman, let’s go back a bit when he did Van Helsing…in my eyes, Jackman played a darn good medieval type of Bond in that flick! Anyway, back to Timothy Dalton, he was/is exceptional and needs to be involved in more projects. As for Mel Gibson, I think he is an exceptional actor/producer/director. Unfortunately, the temptations are out there and I’m sure Oksana and Mel don’t give a give damn what we think. However, I do feel for Mel’s ex-wife and his children.
I love Jackman as Wolverine but didn’t much like the hair in Van Helsing.. call me fussy but I am not a fan of Hugh to play Bond. Clive Owen on the other hand is ripe for the picking! Since I watched him in Closer I have been besotted, he is a great actor.
Mel Gibson.. well you reap what you sow I’m afraid and he has sown some pretty dodgey seeds these last few years. Not questioning his ability at all to produce/act/direct, it has been proven that he has talent in droves.
You’re right Patricia, temptations aplenty for Mel.. women, booze, power.. all abused. As for his ex-wife, what a class act for keeping their kids out of the spotlight, her emotions in check and finally for staying with a man she knew was afflicted with all sorts of demons. Privacy is a valuable thing though, as soon as his (private) issues were wide knowledge she left him. How long had she lived knowing what we now know behind closed doors? That is a strong woman..
It’s a shame his generosity hasn’t been celebrated more, now his shortcomings will be remembered and perhaps overshadow his contributions to various charities. Believe it or not the man does have some good points!
ok lets get to the real point here… is that picture at the top of this page real?? i mean strap a couple horns on top of his head and he looks like satan. come on, he’s an ass and we all know it - i guess we could fluff it up by saying “he did some bad things but he’s a good actor”- bla bla bla - i think the jesus he plays so often is telling numerous “mel gibson walked into a bar” jokes up in that place everyone refers to as heaven. (man, i ‘d like to hear those jokes, he must have some good ones).
I want to hear some of those jokes too, I love that your Jesus has a sense of humour turt, my entry into heaven depends on it!
I think the biggest laughs would come from a “Mel Gibson walked out of a bar” joke..
Before I start, I’ll get something clear - I in NO way condone Mel Gibson’s behavioural or lifestyle choices - he’s made some shockers.
BUT - who hasn’t? Who are we to judge? And do we get our judgements so right, anyway?
I mean, look at this Matty Johns saga - how many of you are on his side? From what I’m seeing in the hundreds of Twitter comments that support him, I’d say the large majority. And what’s the difference?
I know there’ll be the inevitable ‘Oh, but he’s a movie star - he’s a role model to millions, and he needs to remember that’ response. Yep, I agree - but at the end of the day, we shouldn’t be judging Mel Gibson on his lifestyle choices, because then we’re getting into that whole ‘he who is soooo much better, and never makes a bad choice in life, throw the first stone/comment’ thing - which is tricky ground to walk on.
Besides, Braveheart was EPIC
Yep I agree Is, and I have a Matty Johns post just waiting in the wings…thought it was too fresh a topic to write on just yet, but perhaps not. I fear my view will be unpopular, much like my view that Mel Gibson isn’t all bad. Yes, he’s has made some stupid mistakes , an “ass” as turt puts it. Agreed, but there is always a but… same with Matty Johns saga. What he had a hand in was sordid, but..(insert reason for defence here)…
I can’t wait to see your Matty Johns post… I didn’t see the 4Corners episode so, although I have an opinion (as does the rest of the country!) I feel I might be a bit one-sided (Matt’s side) if I write about it!
As for Mel, Matty and the millions of other sports stars and actors who cheat on their spouses… men just are not programmed to be able to say no to sexual offers from hot chicks, and hot chicks are looking for money and fame to hitch their hotness to. The trick is to find a fella that isn’t going to be getting any offers!
what kind of a chick looks for a man that wont get any offers?? not a hot one thats for sure. what fun would a girl have if they end up taking boring flabby men with man boobs just so they wont cheat on them?? i mean if men are that selfish then why cant women be too??
Yeah, dangerous ground saying “men just are not programmed to be able to say no to sexual offers from hot chicks”.
Dangerous ground but do you think it is untrue? I can tweak the sentence to “most men…” but still think it is a pretty darn accurate statement. Men don’t have to be flabby and unattractive to get no offers - it is just men who have fame and money are certainly going to… and regularly.
Michelle - honestly, I don’t think it could be further from the truth.
Let’s say you tweak the sentence to ‘Most men…’, and go with that. You think that’s fair? You don’t think that’s a gross generalisation?
Presumably, you’ve taken a sample of ‘most’ of the men on the planet, and have found them to be cheating scoundrels when tempted? I think not…
In fact, most of your argument (I’m assuming - correct me if I’m wrong) will be based around the examples of famous people that HAVE cheated - which, to be fair to the rest of the men on the planet, is a fairly small sample.
That would be like listening to a Paris Hilton single, and then judging the singing skills of the entire population of woman based on that one song. Enough of a sample? Nooooo.
Anyway - you get my point. I’m not a cheating bastard, and I wouldn’t jump-ship for the first ‘hot-chick’ that came strolling by - so why am I not included in your sample?
I appreciate that it sounds like a gross generalisation but (deep breath!) I still stand by the comment. “Most men” aren’t propositioned daily/weekly etc like famous sportsmen or actors are if they are out on the town. But if they were, I do believe it would wear them down. For these stars, the belief that they are above the realms of normal behaviour - almost Godlike in the eyes of their scantily clad devotees - does make it nigh on impossible for them to decline. They may the first few times but I think ANY man would eventually opt for the thrill.
I will add that I did work in a male-dominated and very hedonistic environment in my younger years and, perhaps it has led me to be cynical, but more of them were hooking up with girls after money and excitement, than there were going home to their wives.
Do I trust my husband? Yes, 100%. But he is not travelling around with testosterone-fuelled friends, hoards of money and an endless supply of groupies. Were he, it may be another story…
what town do you go out in michelle?? there are chicks everywhere looking to hook up with anyone (rich or not) in any town at any time. if your husband is allowed to go out without you attached to him he has probably encountered a few chicks that would DO him if he wanted to. is your husband allowed to go out with his buddies or do you have him on a short leash because of your lack of trust for the male gender? yes many men (and WOMEN) have big ego’s and they dont have to be rich and/or famous. With big egos some people lose their discretion. but i believe that there are plenty of people that dont have big egos and are very grounded and can say no!! (even with lots of money and hot chicks around.)
Yeah, totally agree turt.
Michelle - you ‘worked in a male-dominated and very hedonistic environment’ - well, of course that will taint your views of men. I’m sure if you worked in Hollywood, alongside such stars as the Olsen twins, the Hilton girls and the Simpson’s (and I don’t mean the cartoon), it would taint you for life the OTHER way. But that doesn’t mean you can paint every woman with the same brush - a know a few that would be pretty offended if you did.
Your argument is that given a situation where they COULD break, a man would break. And in the same breath you’re saying that you trust your husband, 100%..?
I think you meant to say ‘I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him - if he’s not facing temptation, he’ll be fine, but boy - if he gets a woman in front of him that wants him, watch out’.
That’s not trust…you’re entitled to your view, but it’s sad that you honestly believe the majority of men are like that.
I’m collecting my husband from the airport tonight - he has just spent 10 glorious days in Ireland partying and catching up with friends so yeah… I keep him on a short leash alright.
I apologise that I have obviously offended you. I am not some man-hating, jealous psycho as you seem to think. I do belive if you put a person (man or woman) in a certain environment, they will eventually act a certain way and if that environment is a man being seduced by innumerable beautiful women again and again then the outcome is never good..
You haven’t offended us TOO much - but you’re essentially saying that under the right (wrong?) conditions, we’d break to the charms of a gorgeous woman, and it’s just not true - for me, and for many, many other men out there.
Would YOU break to the charms of a handsome guy if you were constantly ‘propositioned’ by him, and others like him? Or would you stay faithful?
The person I am today would always be faithful. If I had spent the last 10 years having people cater to my every whim, never being held accountable for my actions, enduring extended stays away from my partner, spending extended time with hunky on-screen lovers, enjoying a PR machine that goes into overdrive to cover any mistake I make etc… I just don’t know. I certainly wouldn’t be the same person that I am today so I can’t answer one way or the other… except to say that my hubby probably would’ve already left me for being a high-maintenance pain in the butt!
Right - so the issue is not one of gender.
I.e. this is not an issue with MEN, it’s an issue with the lifestyle, which I can accept.
I have found that when I say, “Can I touch your belly then?” people say sure! So I have just become really mean about it. When a hand comes near my belly, I grab it and move it away. I also don’t understand when people ASK if they can touch my belly and I say “no”, why would they ask me why and get upset? If you really wanted to touch my belly, why didn’t you just go after it instead of asking a yes or no question where you have a 50/50 shot of getting an answer of “no”!