On the Line

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.

On The Line

Overall this was all good fun, at best it was a TV movie with a few twists, the acting was firm and where it was clunky that was entirely deliberate as you will see as the plot unfolds.

Mel Gibson was good and I must say I really rather enjoyed it, some critics on here are overly harsh or picky this was never meant to be an Oscar contender lol. The direction was crisp the side actors delivered, the music was good and unobtrusive and there was a good deal of comic gags throughout despite this being a thriller

I'm gonna give this a firm 6 outta 10 for pure entertainment, for me it was a downloader to watch on the home cinema with ice cream midweek.

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.

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.