Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (0)

Related articles and links |  1 of 5

Mel Gibson is back in the news with another controversial film. This time, though, he's not the director—he's the producer. (The film was directed by Paul Abascal, formerly a celebrity hair stylist.) And Paparazzi is about something quite different than a suffering savior. It's about a celebrity named Bo Laramie who gets so tired of the photographers following him around that he decides to start killing them—and becomes a hero. I'm not kidding.

The film, which includes a cameo appearance by Gibson himself, was concealed from critics until opening day, presumably because it is so bad that the studio did not want audiences to have a chance to hear the negative buzz before they bought opening day tickets. Thus, the film made it into fourth place at the weekend box office. But now the reviews are out, and sure enough, critics are disgusted with Paparazzi. Roger Moore (Orlando Sentinel) says, "[It's] a petulant, violent and sophomoric hissy fit about those nasty photographers who torment the rich and famous." Megan Lehmann (New York Post) sums up the film's message like this: "It's OK to murder celebrity photographers because they're amoral bottom-feeders." Dave Kehr (New York Times) calls it "[an] amazingly arrogant, immoral film." To scan more mainstream press reviews, click here.

Most religious press critics ignored the film.

Adam R. Holz (Plugged In) agrees that the film's central character is a glorified serial killer. "Bo doesn't kill these men in self-defense," Holz observes. "The murders are calculated and in cold blood. Thus, Bo becomes an increasingly problematic character, as he never exhibits any remorse for these actions. The film deliberately veers away from critiquing Bo's vigilante justice. The film's moral is a dangerous one in our already violent society: If someone harasses you, kill him."

Evan D. Baltz (Christian Spotlight) thinks the film is not meant to be taken seriously. "The actors seem to be winking at the audience from time to time as they get in their jabs at their most hated foes. Each incident reminds us of actual events which have happened to Hollywood's elite. The movie is entertaining and I took it as being presented somewhat with tongue in cheek. On that level it works." But Baltz can't bring himself to give Paparazzi more than a C+.

At this writing, no other Christian press critics have reviewed the film. Did you see it? What was your impression of the film? Does Gibson need a rave or a reprimand?

Last week, Film Forum marked the arrival of director Mira Nair's adaptation of the novel by William Makepeace Thackeray, Vanity Fair, by posting links to early reviews at Catholic News Service and Decent Films.

Here are some more opinions from the Christian press:

Camerin Courtney (Christianity Today Movies) observes that "many of the characters here are kinder, gentler versions of the Thackeray originals." She concludes, "There's a subtle though stark moral here to be very choosy in whom you allow to influence your life. To our utter delight, these stories and messages are told with superb acting, amazing costumes that burst with color and texture, and dazzling locales. Unfortunately, the film's brisk pace breaks down in the final 20 minutes, making a good movie suddenly seem like a long movie."

Annabelle Robertson (Crosswalk) takes issue with the portrayal of Becky. "Thackeray portrayed Becky as a beautiful, scheming villain willing to do anything to succeed, and even subtitled his book 'A Novel Without a Hero' because Becky was an anti-heroine. Thackeray also structured his novel as a 'compare-and-contrast' between two women, Becky and Amelia, following the different paths their lives take over a 40-year period. Nair focuses instead on Becky, softening her into an ambitious but likeable gal who is simply trying to overcome poverty and 'do better for herself.'"

next page... |  1 of 5

September (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48