On the Line

Very enjoyable entertainment, good twists and a fabulous Mel Gibson. No masterpiece but a nice flick!

Don't understand the bad reviews.

In my book it's all about managing expectations. If you choose a movie because the plot line interests you, you like the cast and you're in for a relaxing few hours in front of the telly then you're rarely disappointed.

Although if you are a movie Connaisseur or critic, you might want to apply different criteria to pick your movies to avoid disappointment.

In this case it did what it said on the tin and provided very enjoyable light entertainment, a good portion of suspense and a good ending.

I think the movie needed someone with a strong villain voice thats all .voices like keifer Sutherland (phone booth),James spader ( The blacklist) or maybe Michael Sheen (unthinkable). Besides that the movie was not bad at all .Mel Gibson played his part very good as a lead character.i mean its not a bad thing to select or give new coming actors and actresses a chance but sometimes its wise to select the best quality so that your movie can sell. I still have faith in you. I mean Quinton Tarantino invested/picked best characters in Django and took awards for that...I think you can also do better.

On the Line by Romuald Boulanger is a resourceful and well-acted Mel Gibson vehicle in which director smartly puts his star front and center for an hour and the half and charisma does the rest.

Mel Gibson's recent output - with the exception of extraordinary Father Stu - consists of so-called geezer teasers which featured him supporting roles simply distributed throughout the runtime in order to make him seem like an important character. However, unlike Bruce Willis whose late pre-retirement output was based around similar projects, Mel Gibson never phoned it in and always did his best even with low-grade material.

Thus giving Mel Gibson the actual spotlight and making the film that really relies on his star power in a leading role is a coup not just for this project but for Mel's fans as well. After a long while, maybe after Blood Father made by another Frenchman Jean-Francois Richet we see Mel actually running the proceedings with authority.

The first act of the picture feels not only genuinely inspired but loads of gallows humour and the genuine sense that Elvis Cooney is a real edgelord feels as if Mel was really hands on even when it comes to the script. In later developments which rely on the closed quarters thriller dynamics and feel slightly mechanical, Mel Gibson elevates the material.

Boulanger surrounds Gibson with an international cast with some great elements but their multiple accents do remind us that film is set in Los Angeles but shot in Paris. Maybe, some decisions could have been different when it comes to either setting or cast, but otherwise the production is resourceful and decently mounted.

In the end, the only element that could have been better is the thriller element. With more inventive set-up, something along the lines of good Blumhouse work and with Mel's performance which is already there this could have been a classic.

Anyhow it's a really good programmer with an inspired turn by Mel Gibson.

I probably wasn't planning to watch 'On the Line', however the synopsis sounded like my kind of movie and I realised it had been a long time since I'd seen Mel Gibson in anything. So I gave it a shot. Man, the energy in this one was wild.

The film is clunky, I'll start by saying. Gibson's acting is a class above everyone else. He's so natural on screen that it sort of brings everyone else down a peg, simply by comparison.

The movie gets into the action fairly quickly. In fact that is something I have to give praise to, is that the overall pacing is very good. Once things kick into gear it doesn't really relent.

So I was having a good time with this movie, wondering where it was all headed, when suddenly I felt like I got hit by a sledge hammer. I haven't been that caught off guard by a plot twist in a long time. I thought surely not. But yes, sure enough they went with it.

I found it almost impossible to dislike this film. Is it perfectly made, no. Is it as polished as other films, perhaps not. But is it more entertaining and bold than your average film, absolutely. 7/10.

This starts off really well, a good premise and a slightly weird choice of opener. So far so good. Then it just descends into lazy writing. Bad performances from a good 50% of the ensemble and a totally lunatic ending which I won't spoil (if you get that far).

Mel Gibson has his detractors, and I get it, he's had a shocking personal life and expressed some vile views. It has to be said though, Mel is a good actor and knows his way around a scene. Without him I'm pretty certain I'd have made this a two star review. He brings a charisma and a suite of good choices for most of the movie, but by the third act - actually at the start of the second act even Mel can't keep up with hapless direction, the weird dialogue and the lack of any creative spark to cover up the deficiencies in the narrative. In many ways it passes the time, but can feel by the end a massive waste of time.