Interesting that after all of his aim-for-the-Heavens (literally, in most cases!) previous films, Mel Gibson should choose to do what sounds like a modestly-budgeted thriller that just about any DGA member in Hollywood could turn out in their sleep.
I wonder why—couldn't raise money for a more ambitious movie? Wanted to show Hollywood he could make Direct-to-Netflix trash on time and on budget? Was doing a favor for a friend and fellow bigot...? 🤷♂️
If Gibson hadn't directed, do you think your opinion overall of the movie would change? Especially if it was a first-time director? I'm just curious because this reminds me of Red Eye, a perfectly fine little thriller from Wes Craven that was a little more "director-for-hire" than "Craven Masterpiece." Or for that matter, the first Mission: Impossible from Brian DePalma. These are both films that I like, but seem outside of their respective director's most notable works. Granted, they don't carry the same baggage as Gibson.
Interesting that after all of his aim-for-the-Heavens (literally, in most cases!) previous films, Mel Gibson should choose to do what sounds like a modestly-budgeted thriller that just about any DGA member in Hollywood could turn out in their sleep.
I wonder why—couldn't raise money for a more ambitious movie? Wanted to show Hollywood he could make Direct-to-Netflix trash on time and on budget? Was doing a favor for a friend and fellow bigot...? 🤷♂️
If Gibson hadn't directed, do you think your opinion overall of the movie would change? Especially if it was a first-time director? I'm just curious because this reminds me of Red Eye, a perfectly fine little thriller from Wes Craven that was a little more "director-for-hire" than "Craven Masterpiece." Or for that matter, the first Mission: Impossible from Brian DePalma. These are both films that I like, but seem outside of their respective director's most notable works. Granted, they don't carry the same baggage as Gibson.