![]() IE: TELLING us how cool Gibson was instead of the LETHAL WEAPON era route (SHOWING us how great he could be).įact is? Martin Riggs = Mel’s best work as an actor /leading man /star /comedian /action hero. It’s a bizarre mishmash of Groundhog Day and As Good as it Gets, going through all the reform of a misanthrope tropes, without ever engaging us in the supposed charm or goals of the leading man.Ĭue Sinatra songs ( they made a cash grab comeback in the early 2000s: see Robbie Williams back then.or rather.don’t) and ‘oh Mel’s a lad! Raised in Vegas! A BLOKE! So tough!’. ![]() WHAT WOMEN WANT was also an afterthought in Mel’s stardom era. I digress.īack to Mel and the road to DADDY’S HOME 2… In terms of Russell v Mel? Crowe has more range as actor but Gibson the more acute vision as director. They’re not dissimilar actors as leading men? Both also turned down the Wolverine role around the same time, thereby making way for fellow Aussie, Hugh Jackman (himself a last minute replacement for fellow alumnus of summer 2000, Mission:Impossible 2’s Dougray Scott). Hugh made Wolverine his own in a way that Russell /Mel simply wouldn’t have been inclined to, imho. Russell Crowe owned that summer of 2000 as GLADIATOR (a part Mel had turned down). THE PATRIOT was a BRAVEHEART post-script, with Mel on fine form leading man duty, but the movie lacked his personal direction ( Roland Emmerich was in charge instead and good, but he’s no Mel as helmsman on historical film?). By 2000, in fact, there was a fatigue in his own routine. ![]() Thing is, Mel was beyond this sort of material YEARS ago, even before blotting his copybook. Nonetheless, embracing him as some sort of loveable rogue, in a nice, family rom-com via ‘meta’ nod to his real world identity? Total bollox of the most cynical and offensive kind. Gibson apologised, atoned, and hugged the cactus in his redemption. And in any event, it was not some harmless laddish adventure from mid life but a serious bout of verbal abuse that erupted from his personal pain, bipolar genius and associated struggles with addiction. Mel himself was ashamed of what went on in 2006/10. If it’s an in movie nod to his real world antics then that makes no sense at all. Part 3 is by no means impossible.īut how much funnier would it have been to cast Gibson as Mr soft dad and Lithgow as the nasty bastard? Also, frankly, why use Gibson at all? Seriously. And the film did ok business and scores a few so-so laughs. LIAM NEESON AND JOHN CENA CAMEO! Easy hit, right?! Some rather creepy (imho) social engineering of a young nerd toward his first kiss/ bowling victory as a bonus, via cut and paste Santa /nativity/Christmas decoration jokes. NO NEED TO INNOVATE, PLAN, PLOT etc: just throw in some lazy rom-com Christmas tropes leftover from Richard Curtis via Hallmark Channel visuals and insert last minute redemptive parental bonding. JOHN LITHGOW (as Will Ferrell’s Dad) vs.MEL GIBSON (as the senior Wahlberg)? Same way Will v Mark worked in part 1. Hey: Mark Wahlberg would have a tough guy Dad, right? So Will Ferrell gets a nice hugs and kisses cuddly soft sort as his Dad! Eureka! CONFLICT AS COMEDY! INSTANT MOVIE. The main problem is quite how predictable it all is. And DADDY’S HOME 2 shows how badly the premise can fail when it tells you how to think/feel in its own character intros. Needless to say, that similar ‘meet the Dad’ model does not always work ( tiresome in: Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Austin Powers 3, Angel has Fallen, Tomorrow War and countless others). It was somewhat meta-textual and subversive to see Harrison Ford say ‘Yes Sir’ and ‘Don’t call me Junior’ to a Sean Connery shaped Dad just 12 years his senior in real life. That worked for Indiana Jones, because the titular character had an established mythology and was heroic and fun. It is also a now established and lazy Hollywood trope. ![]() Given that the first film was about father/kid bonding, it made logical sense to explore the fathers’ fathers. Anyway, for whatever reason, not only did he agree to make a Daddy’s second home.he actively helped in its development?ĭADDY’S HOME 2 (2017): The results are very mixed, to put things kindly. A sequel was not by any means inevitable, especially given the fact that Will Ferrell refused to make ELF 2 and probably felt as disappointed as all of us by the curate’s egg of ANCHORMAN 2. It’s one of those intros to a character wherein lies a scripted love letter to the actor playing a part, so harming the entire film.ĭADDY’S HOME (2015) is a simple, cute, light and relatively funny affair. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |