User reviews

Scott Eastwood both looks like and sounds like a younger version of his famous father who at one time was the #1 most popular movie star in the entire world. Unfortunately that is not nearly enough to rescue this production which, according to the IMDb notes, was shelved for several YEARS (!) due to funding issues. The story about a "reformed" sociopath sounds clever ... until the viewer realizes that the reforming means said sociopath is unwilling to kill or seriously harm anyone, even though almost every other character in the story is trying to kill or seriously harm HIM. Even viewers willing to settle for a mid-level action romp will be equally disappointed because the opening scene -- where Eastwood does his daily workout by literally attacking the furniture in his own apartment -- is about as violent as his character ever gets. Yes, there are a few A-listers in the cast, but they too seem as lost as the star. Mel Gibson (also at one time one of the most popular actors on the planet) seems to think he is in a sitcom, and adjusts his performance accordingly. And the actor playing Scott's mother consistently yells out all her lines as though the Director had warned her that her mic was bad, and she was determined to compensate for that. The only real suspense is wondering what happened to the "better" movie this could easily have been?

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 was baffled through the entire thing, every cast member was laughable and I thought they forgot how to act, Mel Gibson is just a name in on the poster, and his role is nothing. It seems that this story has been written by a 5 year old.

I honestly can't describe this movie, but in a few and simple words, it's boring, laughable and a waste of time.

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.

"Dangerous" is an Action - Thriller movie in which we watch a sociopath going on a remote island to attend his brother's funeral and investigate his mysterious death. There he finds out more than he could ever imagine and he needs to deal with something new.

I did not have high expectations from this movie but I have to admit that I enjoyed it because it was simple and good to spend your time with. It contained some nice action scenes that in combination with the mysterious plot created an interesting movie. In addition to this, the direction which was made by David Hackl was good and he did a good job on the way he presented his main character and his behavior. The interpretation of Scott Eastwood who played as Dylan 'D' Forrester was simple but good enough for this movie. Lastly, I have to say that "Dangerous" is an average action movie but good enough to spend your time with.

Going into a movie. Always know the material. This is a b story movie with some good actors and a typical story. Eastwood does a good job of acting like a sociopath. Gibson is always welcome in his roles and does a great job of adding a light hearted personality to this. Again. Typical story with some plot holes. And. That is okay. Great for a quick watch if you like action mixed with a bit of comedy. Sometimes the comedy here is misplaced, but it still works in my opinion. The supporting cast does good with what they are given. And. That is all I ask for a b movie. With a few tweaks, would have been an an action thriller. Have seen a lot worse than this. The last few years of the marvel universe comes to mind.

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.

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.

As "Dangerous" (2021 release; 100 min.) opens, we are introduced to Dylan, a/k/a "D", who is on parole living in an apartment with a electronic ankle bracelet. He get the occasional letter from his younger brother who lives on Guardian Island in the Pacific Northwest. Then one day, someone breaks into the apartment, and before we know it, an FBI Special Agent is on the scene but D has fled (breaking his parole along the way). At this point we are 10 min into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience.

Couple of comments: this is the latest film from director David Hackl, best known for "Saw V". Here he concocts a movie that is billed as an "action thriller". The problem is that someone forgot to write a script that makes any sense (if a script was even written?). It didn't take long before I had this sinking feeling in my stomach that yes, this is possibly, ok more than likely, the worst movie I have seen this year. Do you want to know exactly when? The moment that Mel Gibson (as D's therapist) appears, that's when. The few scenes that Gibson is in are so incredibly poorly acted, it's just beyond the pale. Not that Scott Eastwood or Famke Janssen (the other 'big names') are much better. The so-called action scenes are laughable, frankly. It all comes with a feeling of watching a B (or even C) movie (at best).

Let me be upfront: I knew absolutely nothing about this film before I saw it this weekend. So why did I even go see this movie? For no other reason than that it plays at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. Yes, the same art-house theater where I have seen hundreds of movies over the years, often with good and even great results. I simply trust them to schedule movies that are worth my while. Why oh why they decided to schedule this horrible, horrible film, I haven't the faintest. The Friday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended better than I had expected (8 people in total including myself). All that aside, I cannot in good conscience recommend this film to anyone. But hey, don't take my word for it. If you are in the mood for a (supposed) action thriller or simple are a fan of Scott Eastwood or Famke Janssen, check it out in the theater (while you still can), on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

I think a lot of the reviewers, particularly the professional movie critics, didn't understand the premise. This is a dark comedy with action (and violence), not a straight thriller/action movie. Scott Eastwood plays a reformed, or, mostly reformed, killer. Mel Gibson is his therapist who (usually) talks him out of reverting to his evil ways. He is trying to solve his brother's mysterious death, with Kevin Durant and his gang hot on his trail. The interplay between Mel and Scott keeps it lighthearted while Scott "does what he has to do" to solve the mystery. If you go in with an open mind, I guarantee you'll like it.

Dunno why every one is against it, i found it classic, skilled special guy, lost, trying to get over his past, like the Jason Bourne thing... it's good to watch.

I really want to see Scott Eastwood get better roles. Perhaps because I am a fan of his father, Clint. He looks so much like his old man and even sounds like him. I just want to see this guy succeed. Having said that, this film is terrible. Holy cow is it bad. It's more like a dark comedy spoofing thriller movies than a legit thriller. Mel Gibson does all of his lines behind a desk or on a phone like a dialup psychologist. Terrible Terrible Terrible film.

It's a shame that Scott Eastwood never learned from his father how to pick the right movies to show his strengths. Why he plays an impotent action figure in this one.....playing to the whims of a confused psychiatrist is beyond me. What a waste of talent and stature!

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.

Dangerous is entertaining and, for the most part, a well made action film. The storyline has nothing new so don't expect much from the plot, but it's enough to provide content. As I am a big fan of Mel Gibson and I was not disappointed. Scot is more like copying his father and it is dangerous to follow into the footsteps of his father.

Scott Eastwood, Kevin Durand, Famke Janssen, and Mel Gibson... What could possibly go wrong?

How about a story that went absolutely nowhere and action sequences that puts you to sleep?

Literally one of the worst films I've ever seen. And I've seen Bruce Willis and Nicholas Cage's recent direct-to-videos!

You ever notice that when you overuse a word it starts to sound silly, insane isn't it. The movie is entertaining enough, but seems to lack pace to warrant it being an Action movie. Kevin Durand (Cole) plays the baddy really well. Mel Gibson (Dr. Alderwood) certainly played the part well, maybe a little too well. Scott Eastwood (Dylan 'D' Forrester) came across believable, but didn't quiet pull off the dangerous element. I would recommend this.

I was looking forward to seeing this movie as I'm a Scott Eastwood fan. He was great in "Wrath of Man" and now this movie see him in he the leading role. But it was a slow, boring, waste of time. Disappointed in not only Eastwoods performance, but how the plot was thin and pointless. Action was minimum and the actors chosen but have been doing the producers a favour?

Avoid this film like its a bad smell.

I don't know what the complaints were about. Perhaps they saw a different movie or maybe they are related to the ketchup guy from the Pizza Hut incident. Seems like people these days will complain about anything for a freebie. The only freebie from this they'll get is, that I'm glad I ignored them or I would have missed a decent flick.

The movie's a bit of a slow burn until things get going. But it was intentional for the setup of the characters and plot. I enjoyed Scott Eastwood's performance, reminded me of his stoned faced dad in the old westerns. Hope to see him in a lot more action flicks in the future or maybe some westerns perhaps. Mel Gibson was a surprise to see since I didn't check the casting for it. He played his part just perfectly. And the psychos in the movie were fun to watch too. This one's a keeper for my movie archives.

It falls and Keeps falling,The Acting Is Bad And Scott Eastwood was just never going to be taken Seriously as a Bad Ass in a movie like this.

Too many other Actors who could fill this role too Easily I'm afraid and do a better job. Mel Gibson adds Star Quality but that's all he does and I'm sure it was just a pay Cheque for him.

I like Eastwood as an Actor but he is not destined to be the Star in Any movies unfortunately like his Dad was and will no doubt always live in his Shadow which is a shame.

As For Famke Janssen she does a good enough job but it's detracted by the Plastic Surgery she's obviously had done making her face Doll like.

These Actresses need to really stop going under the knife and spoiling their looks. Shes 51 not a bad looker for her age but looks ridiculous now which is usually the case.

Slow to start, but many films are these days. Odd main character (played by Scott Eastwood), but don't let that put you off. You can guess what's going to happen at certain points, but there's enough action to keep you watching. Mel Gibson plays a bit part, which is probably why he didn't get top billing. Give it a chance, watch it.