Is Mel Gibson’s High Risk Flight a good movie? What do moviegoers think of Mark Wahlberg?

Eight years after the war film You Shall Not Kill, Mel Gibson is back with an action film. During the high-risk flight, he discovers Mark Wahlberg, with whom he has already shared a poster as an actor, in Too Bad Dads 2 in 2017 and in the drama Father Sta: A Hero Like Others in 2022. C’ is the first time, however, that Mel Gibson is directing Wahlberg.

Also directed by Michelle Dockery and Topher Grace, this closed-loop action takes place entirely inside a plane. It follows U.S. Marshals Madeline Harris (Docker) in charge of an informant named Winston (Gray) who testifies against a mob boss. During the plane ride, she quickly becomes aware of the driver, Darryl Booth (Wahlberg), who is not the person he claims to be…

What do the first viewers of this film think? With 62 notes and 12 critiques at the time we write these lines, high risk flight It has an average viewership of 2.5 stars out of 5. This is the most underrated movie ever Mel Gibson.

An entertaining movie

On the plus side, netizens appreciate the steady pace, the entertaining side of the feature film and the humor, in particular thanks to Mark Wahlberg and his baldness.

Thus, D. writes: “High Risk Flight is a movie I really appreciated. The story is interesting. The characters are quite friendly and the pacing is well supported. The feature length is perfect and the pictures overall are very nice.”

A netizen rated the movie 4.5 and wrote: “The tone is set with “Gentlemen, you have a delicate mission”: We know this movie will have a solid comic base. What we don’t doubt is that they will be a real rollercoaster on an emotional level. These two aspects make it a really recommendable film for those who want to be offended, and do not want to think or imagine.

One wonders what happened to Mel Gibson in that cage (except that it’s not a misfortune, but a great achievement). We’re also very interested in our own Mark Wahlberg playing a psychopath (not without a soul elsewhere). The other two actors are also excellent. It is still remarkable and remarkable that such a small film, only three actors, without ambition, can gather so many features! Not to mention the mountain top views of Alaska (hell imaginable) as we spend time there. Finally, both the police investigation and the film from start to finish.

For Joe Mom, this is it “Very good film. Very entertaining and very intelligent. Mel Gibson is a great director who shows that he knows how to diversify.”

Olivier writes: “Let’s just say right off the bat, it’s not a great action movie, but it’s not bad either. Our dear Mel Gibson is considered much better as a realization of Braveheart, Apocalypto and the excellent You will not kill, but this mixture of action and comedy is not insignificant.

This movie refers to action movies from the 90s as a high-speed trap and a high-speed trap with a slight twist of Lethal Weapon humor.

It doesn’t fly high, but we have a good time. Mark Wahlberg is absolutely insane as a sadistic killer and Michelle Dockery gives her Steven Segal effeminate performance. The movie is great for its length and the action scenes are quite well done. On the other hand, the digital special effects are really very average. In short, a good little moment of cinema is not unpleasant. Some movie scenes are a bit violent and therefore not recommended for very young audiences. “

Overloaded movie

As for the negative points, viewers consider that Mark Wahlberg is overweight and that the film lacks consistency and depth.

Naughty Doc writes: “Big disappointment for this return from Mel Gibson, who takes this high-risk flight as a simple DTV yes-man at low altitude. With that said, the pitch is left to the hopefuls for quite a thriller with 90s sauce: The witness, accompanied by a federal agent (the excellent Michelle Dockery, the film’s true main character), finds herself trapped on a plane with a hitman, played by a Mark Wahlberg who delights in his food role (fake baldness as a bonus!).

The problem is that the film is not only visually very bad (highlights for Gibson), despite solid grammar and editing, but also that, after setting the script, the ideas do not appear and the pot-ox-roses are discovered by the protagonists. Therefore, a real lack of Luddism. If the movie isn’t bad at all, it’s completely forgettable. “

PJMO Comments: “I went to see this movie for the lead actor. Total disappointment: bad staging, bad script and even worse dialogue! Too bad, because I was interested in seeing Wahlberg and for Mel Gibson … I realize that it’s a little questionable, but it’s almost unreal , on the edge of the comic.

Juliette Joute: “I hated this film which has no interest. I didn’t know it was a camera. The actors are bad, Mark Wahlberg’s surface. I feel like I’ve spent an eternity in the room … Mel Gibson needs to stop the carnage.

In conclusion, fans of the genre appreciate the entertainment side and the humor of the film, while the rest find the script not believable enough and Mark Wahlberg’s performance overdone.