If you want to contact us, send an e-mail.
CLICK HERE
BACK , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , NEXT
18 DECEMBER 2006.- GIBSON SAYS APOCALYPTO NOT OVERLY VIOLENT
Thanks to Gibson's storytelling prowess, there's nothing that really can get lost in the translation with his new film. He establishes the characters as people we can relate to -- people who play practical jokes and complain about things like mother-in-laws' woes -- and not some staunch period piece characters incapable of emotion. "If you can't access your characters from the get-go, you won't be involved in their journey -- so you have to relate to them in some way," Gibson told me in an @ The Movies interview this week. "The best way to relate to them is laughter, and if you're going to laugh with someone, you're going to cry with them." And that "relatable" factor is part of the reason Gibson feels that there's an outcry by critics over "Apocalypto's" brutality. "It's not that it's overly violent. It's less violent than 'Braveheart,''" said Gibson, referencing his 1995 Best Picture Oscar winner. "I think that people are invested so much in the characters it seems more upsetting if they even get a hangnail." Of course, this isn't the first time Gibson has been bloodied by critics over the violence in his films. The filmmaker was savaged by reviewers for his graphic depiction of Jesus' crucifixion in "The Passion of the Christ"), and many critics of "Apocalypto" are using the word "sadistic" to describe Gibson in their film reviews. Gibson said he can weather the negative reviews and slams about the violence, as long as the critic who's doling out the jabs is sincere. "You can't take (reviews) seriously. You don't take the good ones as florid as they are, and you don't take the bad ones for as bad as they get," Gibson said. "There are honest critics and there are disingenuous ones. There are some people who have axes to grind and there are some people who don't give a hoot but they're being as honest as they can. They can be negative, too, but you know the difference, when you read them. It's transparent to me. I've been in this game a long time and I know when I'm being knifed." One thing Gibson isn't sure of is whether he's the victim of double standards. It's not as if he doesn't have the capability to understand if he's being treated unfairly: He just doesn't care to understand it. For example, I asked him whether he's being raked over for the violence in the film while no one seems to complain that filmmakers like Martin Scorsese deliver equally violent films, like "The Departed." "I don't really muse on these things too much," Gibson said. "I just make compelling stories, and if they survive the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, then it was worth doing. I think the audience -- the man in the seat -- they know what they're seeing. You're right, there seems to be exceptions ... for some people and other people get tarred and feathered. That's not my concern. If I bear resentment or grudges over stuff, I'm not doing what I'm supposed to do." Accept it or loathe it, Gibson's glad that the violence in "Apocalypto" is something that can generate a dialogue, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. "At the heart of this of this story I think you are dealing with a culture that is violent, and I don't think the level of violence is inappropriate. In fact, I've been merciful to you sometimes," Gibson said. "I wasn't in on some stuff. I stayed way back. I could have gone there but I didn't. I didn't choose to. But as I say, it's all to do with character and story. It's a love story." If the salvos by critics aren't enough, Gibson has upset some Republicans over his observation that "Apocalypto" is an allegory for the war in Iraq in that the crisis in the film is propagated by fear. "Some people, I guess, didn't like hearing that, but I have an opinion about things," Gibson said. "I still have to be furnished with a reason why there's a war over there with our troops. I mean, it's our young men and women. I would never denigrate soldiers. I think that they are heroes. I question the validity of the purpose." Gibson called the situation "a big shell and pea game" where a reason for going there can't be pinpointed. He asked, "Was it for weapons of mass destruction?" or something else? "It goes round and round, so I question it -- and we should question it, damn it," Gibson said firmly. "Our young people are dying over there, and for what? What is the real reason?"
By coming out against the war, Gibson effectively clears up the misconception that he's a member of the Republican Party. It's been a presumption by many because of his deep religious convictions. But truth be told, Gibson said he's always been an Independent. "I just look at things and try and make a judgment on them without being swayed or color of 'a party.' I don't want to be a member of a party," Gibson explained. "I want to look at things as right or good. And boy, in this world, nothing's perfect. Even the greatest presidencies we've had in this country, I'm sure they've had their own flaws. We're all flawed and the system is flawed." The best we can do, Gibson added, is to "try your level best" and don't lose hope. "I'm not saying that there's no hope -- I'm not the prophet of doom and gloom. I think there's a lot of hope," Gibson said, again referencing the Iraq war. "I'm just questioning (it), that's all, because it needs to be asked. I think a lot of people are not happy with the situation." A Different Kind Of Passion There's no question that "Apocalypto" has far less, if anything, to do with religion than "The Passion of the Christ" did. But that's not to say that Gibson's faith isn't reflected in some way in the narrative. Gibson pointed out one scene -- where Jaguar Paw's father gives him advice about fear being a disease -- as one of having elements of spirituality. "Fears do afflict us all, and it's easy to be driven by them," Gibson said. "That's sound advice in any era, I think … you almost have to be spiritual to overcome real fears. That's a vary of the flesh and of the mind and the heart. They afflict the same areas that the spirit should, so they have to be dispelled or fired out with spirituality. And then virtues come (like) courage and all the things that I'm in need of. That's what the mythic stories are all about. They're about teaching." And in "Apocalypto," Gibson said the lesson learned is that "there's no such thing as a hopeless situation." For Jaguar Paw, it's about avoiding human sacrifice in Maya City and outwitting bloodthirsty warriors on his arduous journey home through the forests to save his family. "When it looks really bleak, he has a moment of clarity and he says, 'No, I'm not going anywhere. I can't go. I have a family in a hole some place and I'm going back to get them,'" Gibson said. "When it's really grim, he gets spared and then it gets out of the frying pan and into the fire. He has to overcome all these trials -- he's driven by the love for culture, his family and his environment -- to get back and to triumph in the surmounting fear and evil." HEAR COMPLETE INTERVIEW Click Here |
|
19 DECEMBER 2006.- AN OPEN LETTER
Hi guys,
Now, after watching Apocalypto, I got pretty upset about all those ridiculous reviews that speak about unprecedented violence. I don't really know what to do about it, but at least I had to scream it out somehow, so I wrote an open letter to the movie critics it may concern. Would apreciate it if you'd link this thing on your page:
http://newdawn.paynereactor.com
Thanks a lot,
Michael
------------------
The case Apocalypto:
An open letter to all who call themselves movie critics.
This is to all of you people that have reviewed Mel Gibson's new film Apocalypto (with sadly few exceptions).
No matter giving the film positive or negative reviews, you called it "over-the-top violent", "ultra-violent", "hard to sit through", "the most violent film [you] have ever seen", "bloodthirsty", "a waste of Smucker's raspberry sauce", "gruesome", even "The Hills Have Eyes in the jungle", "a big load of sado", or "sadistic".
Boy, I wish there would be a chance to watch that film together with only one of you, and you explain your review to me. That would be a sight.
I went to see Apocalypto, and I was really kind of anxious right before it got started, preparing myself for all the shocking violence. So it began, the first act passed, the village raid took off, and I waited for the blood, the gore, for the "incredible brutality". Then the raid came to an end, and I found myself scratching my head. Actually, I can't remember one single drop of blood being spilled, until Jaguar Paw's father gets his throat cut. Which you don't really see; it's a way less graphic scene compared to a similar event in Braveheart.
On it went, with the journey to the great Maya city. No violence here. And then - finally - the sacrificial scene. I grabbed the arm of my seat. Prepared myself. For … nothing. All you see is a heart in the hand of the priest. That's it. I can't imagine a way to show this proceeding less bloody than Gibson did here. Hell, a similar scene in Indy Jones and the Temple of Doom is a lot more gruesome than this. Speaking of which, you bet that Spielberg or Ridley Scott would have shown much less mercy with the audience if they would have tackled that subject matter (which they wouldn't, because they don't have the guts - no disrespect to their remarkable abilities as filmmakers). Oh, right, and heads are chopped off. On screen? Not really.
This was pretty much the point from which on I hardly could enjoy the film anymore because I couldn't stop shaking my head about all that crazy stuff you wrote about this film. And the final chase sequences didn't change that at all. There are one, two moments that made me think "Ouch, that must have hurt", but nothing shocking or spectacularly gruesome in any sense.
So, what is going here? How can you write such things? I guess it all comes down to four possibilities:
1. You have never seen a film before.
2. I have seen a completely different film.
3. You people completely lost your minds.
4. You're just f****** liars.
The first two being extremely unlikely, we're left with the latter two, and either one strikes me as right out frightening.
Let's assume that most of you are in an acceptable state of mental health, as difficult as it may be. So you lie. A fact that in most cases is hard to deny (unless you want to go back to possibilities 1 to 3). You're trying to ride on this wave The Passion of the Christ set loose, taking that last impression Gibson made on his audience, and hope that people will believe your claims in respect to his last film. Very clever.
Now the question is, why?
You don't like Gibson? Angry at him for what he did in the past? Don't think he should still be working, or - Heaven forbid - be successful? You know what, I was wrong, the reason is not the question here. What is important is the result. Whatever the reasons, there is only one conclusion I can make, and I actually can't believe I'm writing this, it sounds crazy, but I can find no other explanation, as everything points to the worst case of defamation I have ever witnessed in this business.
Whatever Mel Gibson has said, whatever kind of man he is, I don't want to change your view of him - I really couldn't care less - but what you did with your reactions is not only far beyond anything the word "pathetic" can describe, but indeed far worse than anything Gibson has ever done in his life, and if there are people who have a right to judge this man, you certainly don't belong to them.
It is not my intention to defend the man Mel Gibson, and it's not about whether people like his film or not. The important thing is that people don't let themselves be scared off by your scandalous reports, that they go and get their own opinion, and open their eyes to this incredible injustice that is happening here.
The film is violent. It's (partly) an action film. And if people want to see men hugging each other to death, they will certainly look elsewhere. But In terms of violence, Apocalypto doesn't even come close to the portrayal in The Passion of the Christ, and is also far away from Braveheart. And everybody who as seen one or two action films before won't find anything overly brutal or shocking here. Did you really believe people will stay away from the film and never find that out for themselves?
Here's kudos to those of you who went the whole way and completely trashed the film; at least you're not hiding behind an otherwise good review in case there's indeed someone who watches the film and realizes what crap you wrote. Think someone ever gonna read your reviews again?
So in the end, Apocalypto indeed transcends whatever goal it is trying to achieve as a film, by revealing the true and ugly characters of many people who live under the misconception that what they have to say is of any importance.
Call me Michael.
Now, after watching Apocalypto, I got pretty upset about all those ridiculous reviews that speak about unprecedented violence. I don't really know what to do about it, but at least I had to scream it out somehow, so I wrote an open letter to the movie critics it may concern. Would apreciate it if you'd link this thing on your page:
http://newdawn.paynereactor.com
Thanks a lot,
Michael
The case Apocalypto: An open letter to all who call themselves movie critics.
This is to all of you people that have reviewed Mel Gibson's new film Apocalypto (with sadly few exceptions).
No matter giving the film positive or negative reviews, you called it "over-the-top violent", "ultra-violent", "hard to sit through", "the most violent film [you] have ever seen", "bloodthirsty", "a waste of Smucker's raspberry sauce", "gruesome", even "The Hills Have Eyes in the jungle", "a big load of sado", or "sadistic".
Boy, I wish there would be a chance to watch that film together with only one of you, and you explain your review to me. That would be a sight.
I went to see Apocalypto, and I was really kind of anxious right before it got started, preparing myself for all the shocking violence. So it began, the first act passed, the village raid took off, and I waited for the blood, the gore, for the "incredible brutality". Then the raid came to an end, and I found myself scratching my head. Actually, I can't remember one single drop of blood being spilled, until Jaguar Paw's father gets his throat cut. Which you don't really see; it's a way less graphic scene compared to a similar event in Braveheart.
On it went, with the journey to the great Maya city. No violence here. And then - finally - the sacrificial scene. I grabbed the arm of my seat. Prepared myself. For … nothing. All you see is a heart in the hand of the priest. That's it. I can't imagine a way to show this proceeding less bloody than Gibson did here. Hell, a similar scene in Indy Jones and the Temple of Doom is a lot more gruesome than this. Speaking of which, you bet that Spielberg or Ridley Scott would have shown much less mercy with the audience if they would have tackled that subject matter (which they wouldn't, because they don't have the guts - no disrespect to their remarkable abilities as filmmakers). Oh, right, and heads are chopped off. On screen? Not really.
This was pretty much the point from which on I hardly could enjoy the film anymore because I couldn't stop shaking my head about all that crazy stuff you wrote about this film. And the final chase sequences didn't change that at all. There are one, two moments that made me think "Ouch, that must have hurt", but nothing shocking or spectacularly gruesome in any sense.
So, what is going here? How can you write such things? I guess it all comes down to four possibilities:
1. You have never seen a film before.
2. I have seen a completely different film.
3. You people completely lost your minds.
4. You're just f****** liars.
The first two being extremely unlikely, we're left with the latter two, and either one strikes me as right out frightening.
Let's assume that most of you are in an acceptable state of mental health, as difficult as it may be. So you lie. A fact that in most cases is hard to deny (unless you want to go back to possibilities 1 to 3). You're trying to ride on this wave The Passion of the Christ set loose, taking that last impression Gibson made on his audience, and hope that people will believe your claims in respect to his last film. Very clever.
Now the question is, why?
You don't like Gibson? Angry at him for what he did in the past? Don't think he should still be working, or - Heaven forbid - be successful? You know what, I was wrong, the reason is not the question here. What is important is the result. Whatever the reasons, there is only one conclusion I can make, and I actually can't believe I'm writing this, it sounds crazy, but I can find no other explanation, as everything points to the worst case of defamation I have ever witnessed in this business.
Whatever Mel Gibson has said, whatever kind of man he is, I don't want to change your view of him - I really couldn't care less - but what you did with your reactions is not only far beyond anything the word "pathetic" can describe, but indeed far worse than anything Gibson has ever done in his life, and if there are people who have a right to judge this man, you certainly don't belong to them.
It is not my intention to defend the man Mel Gibson, and it's not about whether people like his film or not. The important thing is that people don't let themselves be scared off by your scandalous reports, that they go and get their own opinion, and open their eyes to this incredible injustice that is happening here.
The film is violent. It's (partly) an action film. And if people want to see men hugging each other to death, they will certainly look elsewhere. But In terms of violence, Apocalypto doesn't even come close to the portrayal in The Passion of the Christ, and is also far away from Braveheart. And everybody who as seen one or two action films before won't find anything overly brutal or shocking here. Did you really believe people will stay away from the film and never find that out for themselves?
Here's kudos to those of you who went the whole way and completely trashed the film; at least you're not hiding behind an otherwise good review in case there's indeed someone who watches the film and realizes what crap you wrote. Think someone ever gonna read your reviews again?
So in the end, Apocalypto indeed transcends whatever goal it is trying to achieve as a film, by revealing the true and ugly characters of many people who live under the misconception that what they have to say is of any importance.
Call me Michael.
20 DECEMBER 2006.- DEAR MADAM, IF YOU WANT A FAMOUS DADDY, WRITE TO SANTA CLAUS
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Mel Gibson has played down suggestions he has a love child, insisting he knows nothing about the recent claims.
A spokesperson for the star says, "Never heard of her or this matter. Why, at 29, someone would come forth ... what's to stop anyone from claiming this?"
|
Mel Gibson has played down suggestions he has a love child, insisting he knows nothing about the recent claims.
A spokesperson for the star says, "Never heard of her or this matter. Why, at 29, someone would come forth ... what's to stop anyone from claiming this?"
21 DECEMBER 2006.- MUMMY AND SWEET DAUGHTER ARE MAKING A FORTUNE
Source: The Daily Telegraph
NEW details have emerged about the Australian woman claiming to be Mel Gibson's secret love child, allegedly conceived in the back of a car 30 years ago.
Mudgee painter, Carmel Sloane, 29, announced her plans to take legal action against the actor in a bid to prove her scandalous paternity story, which was splashed over UK tabloid The News Of The World earlier this week.
Despite denying their claims were a cash-grab at Gibson's movie millions, Confidential can confirm Sloane, a divorced mother of one, and her mother, Marilyn, have been paid more than $20,000 for the tawdry tale.
Sloane's ex-husband, Glenn, who has custody of their son Jordan, 10, and lives in Parkes, is angry their child was linked to the story without warning.
"I was so upset and shocked. People were ringing me about the story and I wasn't prepared to protect my son,'' he said.
When asked if he had spoken to his ex about the claims since the story broke, he said: "She's denying the whole thing.''
He added the paternity claims were "mentioned during our relationship, but I always thought it was a croc.''
Confidential understands the two women pocketed $3000 from New Idea after the magazine decided to "kill off'' the story two months ago.
"Our fact-checking process raised credibility concerns and so we decided against running the story,'' editor Robyn Foyster said yesterday.
New Idea's former news editor, Sandra White recently left the magazine and then shopped the story and photos overseas.
|
NEW details have emerged about the Australian woman claiming to be Mel Gibson's secret love child, allegedly conceived in the back of a car 30 years ago.
Mudgee painter, Carmel Sloane, 29, announced her plans to take legal action against the actor in a bid to prove her scandalous paternity story, which was splashed over UK tabloid The News Of The World earlier this week.
Despite denying their claims were a cash-grab at Gibson's movie millions, Confidential can confirm Sloane, a divorced mother of one, and her mother, Marilyn, have been paid more than $20,000 for the tawdry tale.
Sloane's ex-husband, Glenn, who has custody of their son Jordan, 10, and lives in Parkes, is angry their child was linked to the story without warning.
"I was so upset and shocked. People were ringing me about the story and I wasn't prepared to protect my son,'' he said.
When asked if he had spoken to his ex about the claims since the story broke, he said: "She's denying the whole thing.''
He added the paternity claims were "mentioned during our relationship, but I always thought it was a croc.''
Confidential understands the two women pocketed $3000 from New Idea after the magazine decided to "kill off'' the story two months ago.
"Our fact-checking process raised credibility concerns and so we decided against running the story,'' editor Robyn Foyster said yesterday.
New Idea's former news editor, Sandra White recently left the magazine and then shopped the story and photos overseas.
24 DECEMBER 2006.- APOCALYPTO, PIRATES AND ONE OF THE BEST OF THE YEAR
- The film Apocalyto by Mel Gibson has been pirated on the informal market in Mexico after premiering only 10 days ago in Los Angeles.
The controversial film of the famous actor and US director was launched in Hollywood with the possibility of competing in the Oscars and it is being sold in the Federal District subway stations for one dollar.
"Apocalypto" is being flooded on the illegal "Tiangui" market of pirated DVD and VCD formats.
The pirated DVD and VCD have already crossed the ocean and arrived in Europe where you can buy it for six Euros. This pirated version is provided with a lot of additional surprises: high-quality faded colours, vague oscillating pictures, spectral sound directly from "Beyond the Grave" and with Spanish&English subtitles stamped on the images (just at the center of the screen, fascinating!!) We recommend this product eagerly, you will enjoy a hallucinatory experience. THE BEST CHRISTMAS GIFT !!!
- According to the New York Post, "Apocalypto" is one of the 10 Top Movies of the Year.
V.A. Musetto, film editor of The Post, writes:
YOU'VE read the rest, now read the best. The 10 top movies of the year (in random order) - guaranteed based on merit, not hype.
"The Death of Mr. Lazarescu", "13 Tzameti", "Army of Shadows", "Lunacy", "Our Daily Bread", "Apocalypto", "The Piano Tuner of EarthQuakes","Moonlight", "Time to Leave" and "Battle in Heaven".
- The film Apocalyto by Mel Gibson has been pirated on the informal market in Mexico after premiering only 10 days ago in Los Angeles.
The controversial film of the famous actor and US director was launched in Hollywood with the possibility of competing in the Oscars and it is being sold in the Federal District subway stations for one dollar.
"Apocalypto" is being flooded on the illegal "Tiangui" market of pirated DVD and VCD formats.
The pirated DVD and VCD have already crossed the ocean and arrived in Europe where you can buy it for six Euros. This pirated version is provided with a lot of additional surprises: high-quality faded colours, vague oscillating pictures, spectral sound directly from "Beyond the Grave" and with Spanish&English subtitles stamped on the images (just at the center of the screen, fascinating!!) We recommend this product eagerly, you will enjoy a hallucinatory experience. THE BEST CHRISTMAS GIFT !!! - According to the New York Post, "Apocalypto" is one of the 10 Top Movies of the Year.
V.A. Musetto, film editor of The Post, writes:
YOU'VE read the rest, now read the best. The 10 top movies of the year (in random order) - guaranteed based on merit, not hype.
"The Death of Mr. Lazarescu", "13 Tzameti", "Army of Shadows", "Lunacy", "Our Daily Bread", "Apocalypto", "The Piano Tuner of EarthQuakes","Moonlight", "Time to Leave" and "Battle in Heaven".
26 DECEMBER 2006.- THE WEEKEND WARRIOR'S TOP 25 OF 2006
Source: Edward Douglas (ComingSoon.net)
Another year has passed, and though for a while, it seemed like it might be a bad year for movies, when it came down to it, there were more than enough good movies to fill in a Top 10, and even a Top 25, without even including any of the great docs released in the past year. After spending some time shuffling things around, trying to compare movies that have nothing in common except for their medium, I've come up with my definitive list for the year. Bear in mind that these are my personal favorites of the nearly 300 movies I've seen this year, and mileage may vary depending on your own personal tastes.
25. Thank You for Smoking (Fox Searchlight) // 24. Notes on a Scandal (Fox Searchlight) // 23. Pan's Labyrinth (Picturehouse) // 22. The Last King of Scotland (Fox Searchlight) // 21. Casino Royale (Sony) // 20. Jet Li's Fearless (Rogue Pictures) // 19.V For Vendetta (Warner Bros.) // 18. Down in the Valley (THINKFilm) // 17. Little Fish (First Look Pictures) // 16. Apocalypto (Touchstone Pictures) // 15. Little Miss Sunshine (Fox Searchlight) // 14. Dreamgirls // 13. Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles (Sony Classics) // 12. Babel (Paramount Vantage) // 11. Hard Candy (Lionsgate) // 10. United 93 (Universal) // 9. Children of Men (Universal) // 8. Volver (Sony Classics) // 7. Stranger Than Fiction (Sony) // 6. The Illusionist (Yari Film Group) // 5. The Fountain (Warner Bros.) //
4. Happy Feet (Warner Bros.) // 3. Sophie Scholl - The Final Days (Zeitgeist Films) //
2. The Hidden Blade (Tartan Films) // 1. The Queen (Miramax)
|
Another year has passed, and though for a while, it seemed like it might be a bad year for movies, when it came down to it, there were more than enough good movies to fill in a Top 10, and even a Top 25, without even including any of the great docs released in the past year. After spending some time shuffling things around, trying to compare movies that have nothing in common except for their medium, I've come up with my definitive list for the year. Bear in mind that these are my personal favorites of the nearly 300 movies I've seen this year, and mileage may vary depending on your own personal tastes.
25. Thank You for Smoking (Fox Searchlight) // 24. Notes on a Scandal (Fox Searchlight) // 23. Pan's Labyrinth (Picturehouse) // 22. The Last King of Scotland (Fox Searchlight) // 21. Casino Royale (Sony) // 20. Jet Li's Fearless (Rogue Pictures) // 19.V For Vendetta (Warner Bros.) // 18. Down in the Valley (THINKFilm) // 17. Little Fish (First Look Pictures) // 16. Apocalypto (Touchstone Pictures) // 15. Little Miss Sunshine (Fox Searchlight) // 14. Dreamgirls // 13. Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles (Sony Classics) // 12. Babel (Paramount Vantage) // 11. Hard Candy (Lionsgate) // 10. United 93 (Universal) // 9. Children of Men (Universal) // 8. Volver (Sony Classics) // 7. Stranger Than Fiction (Sony) // 6. The Illusionist (Yari Film Group) // 5. The Fountain (Warner Bros.) // 4. Happy Feet (Warner Bros.) // 3. Sophie Scholl - The Final Days (Zeitgeist Films) // 2. The Hidden Blade (Tartan Films) // 1. The Queen (Miramax)
26 DECEMBER 2006.- APOCALYPTO, WHO´S WHO
FARHAD SAFINIA: Was born in Tehran, Iran in 1975. He left Iran with his family at age of four to live in Paris, then London. At Kings College Cambridge, where he read Economics. He directed and acted in a number of stage productions for the Cambridge University Amateur Dramatic Club and other theater companies. After Graduating he moved to New York City where he studied film at the New School University and the New York University Tisch School of Arts. Apocalypto which he co-wrote with director/producer Mel Gibson, is his first feature length screenplay. He presently lives in Los Angeles.
RUDY YOUNGBLOOD: According to The New York Daily News, some Native Americans are skeptical about the ancestry of the movie's star, Rudy Youngblood.
"Youngblood has claimed Yaqui blood and Cree blood and Comanche blood … which is ideal for Mel Gibson," Comanche blogger David Yeagley tells us. "I don't trust a word of it."
Youngblood's manager, Michelle R. Shining Elk , admits the actor once used his Mexican stepfather's surname, Gonzalez. But the actor's bio claims "he is the son" of the late Preston Tahchawwickah, a prominent Comanche.
According to Yeagley, Tahchawwickah adopted two children and Youngblood wasn't one of them. Tribal administrator Gene Pekah told us he isn't sure if the actor is an enrolled Comanche, but adds, "I take Rudy at his word."
Yeagley contends Comanche officials have embraced Youngblood because "our tribe is falling apart over the casino money. They see him as a moneymaking ticket."
|
RUDY YOUNGBLOOD: According to The New York Daily News, some Native Americans are skeptical about the ancestry of the movie's star, Rudy Youngblood.
"Youngblood has claimed Yaqui blood and Cree blood and Comanche blood … which is ideal for Mel Gibson," Comanche blogger David Yeagley tells us. "I don't trust a word of it."
Youngblood's manager, Michelle R. Shining Elk , admits the actor once used his Mexican stepfather's surname, Gonzalez. But the actor's bio claims "he is the son" of the late Preston Tahchawwickah, a prominent Comanche.
According to Yeagley, Tahchawwickah adopted two children and Youngblood wasn't one of them. Tribal administrator Gene Pekah told us he isn't sure if the actor is an enrolled Comanche, but adds, "I take Rudy at his word."
Yeagley contends Comanche officials have embraced Youngblood because "our tribe is falling apart over the casino money. They see him as a moneymaking ticket."
|
|
|
|
|