“Flight Risk” Represents A Bit Of Turbulence For A Director Who Was 5 for 5 Up Until This Point
– By Adam Mast –
It gives me no such pleasure in saying this, but “Flight Risk” might be the worst movie by a legitimately great director that I’ve ever seen. Seriously, this was a disappointing experience of monumental proportions as up until this point, Mel Gibson was 5 for 5 as a director (see “The Man Without a Face,” “Braveheart,” “The Passion of the Christ,” “Apocalypto,” and “Hacksaw Ridge.) In fact, one could easily make the argument that Gibson is more gifted as a director than he is an actor and that’s saying a lot because the man is one hell of an actor.
“Flight Risk” offers a simple enough premise; An Air Marshall (played by Michelle Dockery) and the fugitive (played by Topher Grace) she’s transporting across the Alaskan Wilderness by way of a plane, soon discover that the pilot (Mark Wahlberg) that’s guiding them isn’t a pilot at all, but rather, a hitman whose been hired to off said fugitive before he can testify against an unforeseen enemy. What follows is a would-be thriller in which the Air Marshall and the hitman try to outwit each other in an unbelievably witless manner all while soaring a few thousand feet above the ground.
It pains me to even write this review as I’m not one for sharing negative thoughts in a public forum like this when it comes to my very favorite art form, most notably when it’s by a filmmaker that I hold in such high regard. Alas, “Flight Risk” is a “real time” throwback to the more disposable-style thrillers of the 80s and 90s. This is to say that it isn’t intense, adrenalin pumping, or well-executed enough to enjoy as a quintessential actioner (see “Speed,” “Narrow Margin,” “Air Force One,” and even “Passenger 57”) but at the same time, it isn’t silly, over-the-top, or flat-out ridiculous enough to enjoy as a parody of such films, either (see “Loaded Weapon,” “Tango and Cash, or “Con Air.) Instead, it’s somewhere painfully in between.
Honestly, this one doesn’t even really qualify as “so-bad-it’s good” and this goes beyond the baffling character decisions, the bizarre tonal shifts, and the paint by numbers plot mechanics. Further still, if you enjoy a thriller that makes even the tiniest of concerted efforts to stay a step ahead of the audience, then this movie definitely won’t be for you.
The performances here don’t do much to elevate the turbulence-filled proceedings. “Downton Abbey” star Dockery does pull off the American accent but beyond that, this is a wooden turn and I never bought her as the badass Air Marshall. Granted, it certainly is the character as written and directed so not all of the blame here can be put on her shoulders. As for Grace, he looks utterly bored. He has a few quips to speak of but there’s isn’t anything particularly engaging about him. Of the cast, Wahlberg fares best as his balding baddie does offer a handful of amusing, colorful, and sometimes disturbing moments. To Wahlberg’s credit, he is wise to play up the camp factor throughout the majority of the movie. That makes some of the proceedings at least somewhat tolerable.
It’s simply stunning that Gibson even agreed to make this film as the entire time, it feels like he’s playing down to the proceedings rather than rising up to his considerable skill sets as a storyteller. If you’ve seen Gibson’s past work as a director (particularly “Apocalypto” and “Braveheart”) then you know that this is a man who understands the cinematic language of action and tension, neither of which this movie really offers. In fact, if this had been Gibson’s first film as a director, there’s a strong possibility that he would have had a difficult time getting gig number two, a fate that very well could befall screenwriter Jared Rosenberg.
It’s hard to know for sure how much of “Flight Risk” was actually intentional and how much of it is simply misguided. That being said, there is one way I might consider watching it again; If I’m with a large group of friends and it makes an appearance on Mystery Science Theater. The operative word being “might.” As for Gibson, I am forever a fan and admirer of his work and now that he’s put this one behind him, I’m confident that he’ll get back to business because my heart simply couldn’t take a world where his long-in-development sequels for both “The Passion of the Christ” and “Lethal Weapon” end up in a budget bin with “Flight Risk.”
Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you!
Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor
It’s really quite a decent movie – one thing, very much not the other.
That one thing essentially is simply a stage play filmed for the screen, and so what it’s very much not is an effects laden or editing driven cinematic stunner. The film very much knows what kind of a film it is. It couldn’t be anything other, while it seems either that some reviewers can’t come to terms with that cinema can also admit this “one thing” – the filming of a written for stage play.
The reviewer’s reaction to this filming of a very simple stage play is bewildering to me. “It’s not Braveheart”. Was anything ever more clear – or more intended? Of course it’s not Braveheart nothing like Braveheart and you couldn’t get further away from Braveheart. That’s the point.
Flight Risk is a large distance away from the realm of films which are considered for being some of the best movies ever made, but it really does work quite well on its own, much more low-key, lower dramatic expectations level. There very much is room for screened stage plays. It’s actually a real ask to produce a more or less single scene movie, as if in a stage context, within the very confined space of a tiny plane and using no more than three characters ever (excepting the phone calls made).
I think all involved have done very well indeed and I honestly don’t understand criticism of the actors. This is not a great screenplay by any means, but it’s still a distance better than the tripe found often in the majority of Hollywood blockbusters. Further, the three lead actors do really well in bringing their characters, sketched in the screenplay in rather a simplistic way, intentionally, into existence sympathetically. Wahlberg particularly is quite excellent. I didn’t think he quite had that in him as a mainly action film actor, though both Dockery and Grace are also effective in bringing their characters to life.