Dangerous

Good B movie with some big names Could have been so much better. Mel Gibson plays a short part but a great one. Scott Eastwood was ok but to me not really believable as his character. He fell short in some scenes. He is a great actor but just didn't do it for me. Overall it's alright.

A good screenwriter could have fixed this. Flashes of comedy well played by Gibson as the shrink trying to reform the ex-con sociopath (Eastwood). The hunky Eastwood just needed guidance of a loving Director to make him fully commit to the role. Loved the crazy B&B with hatches to batten down, no less. Story had great highs and lows but the flow was awful. Tighten it up, give us a reason to like the characters, and it could be a blast. As is, it's like several different films stitched together. Still, it was fun to watch, with all the "what the heck" twists.

I'd call this one of the much better B films I've seen lately, but it's too bad the novice filmmakers didn't put in more effort that could've elevated this to A film status.

Production designer turned novice producer and director David Hackl chose to focus more on cliches and directed his cast to play dumb in attempting humor. We're all tired of the cliched funny looking loud redneck bad guy. Then having Kevin Durand's talent wasted posing as a cliched Dr. Evil and being lost in his duties was cringe. Even Scott Eastwood's character was poorly directed, but luckily his character was elevated with Mel Gibson's character as their dynamics was hilarious. I felt that dynamic was underutilized. Even the rest of the cast were poorly directed and looked lost for the most part.

Then we have newb writer Christopher Borrelli who actually came up with a nice story with great twists and turns, but the execution was lacklustre. Had a seasoned writer looked over the script, I'm sure there'd be changes to elevate the screenplay. At 99 min long, it felt longer with many long dragged out and unnecessary scenes - and characters. The pacing was also slow and dragging. What even was the point of having Tyrese Gibson and Famke Janssen's character written in, when they were just unnecessary filler with little to no character development. The screenplay needed about 15 mins of fluff omitted, and another 30 mins added in utilizing Gibson and Janssen's character better, as well as making Eastwood's one-man-army character much more exciting. Or omit Gibson and Janssen's character all together.

But in general, the casting was great, and Mel Gibson shined (and was hilarious), but most of the leads were so underused, it felt they were only cast to add value to the film. The score was actually on point, especially for a B film, and the cinematography decent. The underground set and hidden entry they created was actually quite awesome. You wont see that one coming.

I feel if the directing and writing of the characters had been more serious - instead of acting like cartoon dummy bad guys, this film could've been a hit. It felt lost trying to decide if it's an action film (of which any little action was boring), or a dark comedy thriller, that was riddled with cliches.

Nevertheless, I saw it to the end, and actually enjoyed it - albeit noticing the small details that could've elevated this production to another level. For the novice filmmakers, I feel it's still a win, because I've seen some terrible films from seasoned filmmakers lately. Thus it's deserving of my 7/10.

You will love the dialogues between the main characters Yes, "Dangerous" is predictable. So what? If you are well tuned in and listen to the dialogues between Scott Eastwood (D), his eccentric psychiatrist (Mel Gibson) and Destiny Millns (Jo), you will really enjoy this movie. Scott Eastwood, for his part, plays D as apathetic as possible, sounding more and more like his father. Outstanding acting from Mel Gibson (has been a while....) and Destiny Millns (Jo). You can also see and feel the chemistry in the dialogues between these three characters. The movie is missing a couple of things and therefore will not be well received by the audience. That´s my guess. But I think that whatever this movie might be missing is made up by the dialogues. I found the dialogues catchy, really well written and executed. And do not forget that there´s a little plot twist at the end. Forget prejudice and have a go! Watch and you will enjoy.

I like Scott Eastwood. He IS a good actor. He's believable as a bad guy. He's NOT believable as a tough guy. He his dad's eyes. He does NOT have his dad's voice (his voice is much higher). When he tries to be Clint he fails (which I assume he was trying to do here). He's supposed to be this stupid tough guy but you barely see him do anything tough. What fight scenes he does have are the quick cut quick shot scenes where you really can't tell what's going on and it's clear he really can't fight well. The story is so drawn out and could have been better with a better script. There's lot of logic thrown out the window and what's even more painful is watching the great Famke Janssen who is one of those ladies who would have aged gracefully for sure, with the plastic surgery (on her eyes and cheeks for sure) and all you can think of is "why?" (like Nicole Kidman).

If you can get through this mess without fast forwarding you're a better person than I. And when Scott Eastwood is trying to do his dad, it's even more painful. His dad is one of the greatest, most charismatic actors ever and Scott will always be a fine actor but will never be his dad.

He was great in Wrath of Man. Not in this.