So, I see this here, and Gibson, being a Catholic, could certainly do better ...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10078772/parentalguide/Not as filthy as some of his earlier movies, but still.
Now, on Rotten Tomatoes the critics are blasting the movie, but I always like to compare it with the audience reviews. If the audience score is a LOT higher or a LOT lower, then there's a political motive behind the critics' reviews. They don't become widely-known critics without marching to the agenda.
In this case, the critics gave it 26% while the audience gave it 64%. So that's either going to be because of who Gibson is or because there's some anti-woke stuff in the movie.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/flight_risk_2024I see this constantly, where if there's something non-woke, or positively reflecting on traditional values, etc. ... the critics rip on it so as to dissuade people from going to see it. Conversely, if there's some LGBT crap or perversion or lots of impurity, the critics invariably love it, give it 80-90%, whereas the audience will bash it with 10-20% approval.
Take this egregious example, where the critics gave it 35% but the audience gave it 96%, one of the biggest gaps I've ever seen.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/nefarious_2023I predicted on the thread here about that movie that it's due to the affirmation of various religious beliefs. I was surpsied that Prots wrote it because the theology articulated in the move was 100% consistent with Catholicism, even mentioning things like how people who aren't baptized as infants are more prone to possession. I then read some of the critics' reviews there, and 90% of the negative reviews were bashing the religious content.
Topic: Mel's "Flight Risk" (Read 32766 times)