On the Line

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.

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'm not sure why there are so many negative reviews of this, as my wife and I (and she is hard to please) both really enjoyed this film.

Yes, there are plenty of riffs from other films, as you'd expect with this kind of storyline, but that's not unusual in any film, and there are plenty of unexpected twists and turns to keep you interested and the film was ended very well.

Gibson fell out of favour with filmmakers for too long and is now rebuilding his career in later life, and while he is a little hammy at times in this, and certainly takes cues from his Ransom performance, he is still a fine actor and he steers this film along nicely. All of the supporting cast, many relatively unknown, give solid performances, nothing too outstanding, but nothing terrible either.

Overall then, an enjoyable thriller with some cool twists that might surprise you. A solid watch.

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 was a very... interesting movie, the concept is fascinating and that was enough for me to give it a watch. Whilst the acting was decent for the most part, some parts that were intended to be serious made me laugh but that was only once or twice. However the ending was shallow- I get why its like that but I'm not sure why they actually went with it. Time absolutely flew whilst I was watching it though and it kept me on the edge of my seat and that's all I can really ask of a thriller. I'm not sure what but something just kept me watching, was it the concept? Was it the characters? I cant say for sure but what I can say is that its a hit or miss film.