Gibson's 'Edge of Darkness' More Satisfying than Expected
Mel Gibson is Back -- and with a Vengeance -- in First Starring Role Since 2002
The good news: Instead of being a simple revenge saga, Edge of Darkness is a complicated one. That's also the bad news because a strong performance by Gibson and lots of tasty bits don't always fuse into a propulsive whole.
This being January, however, we'll take what we can get and be content that Edge of Darkness isn't as blatantly derivative as expected. Partly this stems from the movie's origins, a 1985 six-part BBC miniseries that, by all accounts, was more sophisticated and psychologically nuanced than its big-screen successor.
Condensed to movie length -- a touch under two hours -- Edge of Darkness starts beautifully, but piles up plot twists as quickly as cars in a chain reaction crash. Even worse, it casts a broad web of suspicion, swiping at both big business and government, but never with a sense of real conviction.
What does ring true is the grief and rage Gibson's character experiences when his daughter is murdered in front of him. Gibson plays a solid guy with working-class values, a Boston detective who feels compelled to learn the truth about his daughter (Bojana Novakovic). Gibson's Thomas Craven is accustomed to holding his feelings in check, but his daughter's murder shatters his life beyond repair.
No mention is made of what happened to Craven's wife. We assume she died because Craven isn't the type to have gotten a divorce. He raised his daughter alone, and she has grown up to be an MIT grad who works as a research scientist for a large company. She visits Craven in the movie's crisply edited opening, but is shot down before she can tell him what's really on her mind.
Director Martin Campbell (best known for the Bond movie, Casino Royale), makes reasonably good use of some small performances, most notably from Ray Winstone, who plays a mysterious guy who specializes in cleaning up messes for the government. Winstone finds the perfect pitch for a character who operates so far outside the law he's unbothered by anything resembling conventional morality. There's nothing much that Winstone's character hasn't seen -- or done. We believe that.
No fair telling more, but know that the movie spins a thick web of corruption and deceit -- too thick, I think. And considering that Gibson directed Passion of the Christ, a movie that still provokes arguments, I wondered whether it was advisable to give him a line in which his character confronts a Republican senator from Massachusetts by asking whether the senator's hanging on the cross or banging in the nails? Nice dialogue, but how can we watch Gibson deliver such a line without remembering who he is and some of the things he's said? And, no, I'd rather not think about the real Mel Gibson.
Additional problems crop up, as well: Craven sometimes talks to his deceased daughter -- and we occasionally see her ghostly presence, an overused ploy that adds unnecessary sentiment. Some parts of the movie (I can't say which without adding spoilers) require an awfully generous suspension of disbelief.
But, hey, Edge of Darkness held my interest as it built toward the kind of overstated, vengeful finale that's both too emphatic and shamefully satisfying. Edge of Darkness expresses trendy cynicism about the establishment world, but owes its real credibility to Gibson, who remains convincing even when the script no longer is.
The Contributor has no connection to nor was paid by the brand or product described in this content.
Published by Robert Denerstein - Film Critic, Instructor
Robert Denerstein spent 27 years working as the film critic of the Rocky Mountain News, a Denver daily that closed in February 2009. He left the Rocky in May 2007 after 30 years. Since then he's been teac... View profile
-
Film Review: Breaking and Entering Gets Full Attention of Law
Is our behavior determined by the space around us? "Breaking and Entering," the new film starring Jude Law and Juliette Binoche explores the possibility.
- Ripley's Game A chilling tale about a killer that gets to live on and schemes to seek out revenge. No matter of lengths that he's willing to go through to make sure he wins his own game.
- Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Ladies and gentlemen, here is the big news: The new Indiana Jones film is now named, and the title will be "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."
-
Neil Gaiman at the Movies: 2008 Academy Award Nomination Predictions
Read my predictions for Academy Award nominations for Neil Gaiman works on the big screen, for 2008 and 2009.
- George Lucas Weighs in on Spiderman 3 George Lucas reveals his feelings on Spiderman, and dishes information out about further Star Wars movies, and the animated Clone Wars. Unfortunately he remains tight-lipped about Indiana Jones 4.
- Ray Winstone Joins Cast of Indiana Jones 4
- "Beowulf" Review
- Beowulf
- Movie Review: "Beowulf"
- The Proposition: Not Your Daddy's Western
- The Departed: A Response to The Departed Departs from Tyepcasting
- The Departed Departs from Typecasting: Scorsese Shows Different Sides of Big Name...
16 Comments
Post a CommentWhere do I get a background like that? I like yours a lot.
Check out my article of movies in general: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2640681/why_we_watch_movies.html?cat=40
I preferred the non-plagiarized review located here: http://movies.ign.com/articles/106/1064155p1.html
Alan,
Critics actually attempt to see as much as is humanly possible, and to write about it. It's not fair to compare "Edge of Darkness" to the "Protocols of Zion." "Edge of Darkness" is not anti-Semitic, and it's not an attempt to defame anyone. It wasn't written by Mel Gibson, nor did he direct it. It is not an expression of his point of view any more than "Avatar" is an expression of Sam Worthington's point of view. Again, if you find Mel Gibson repellant, you have every right not to see the movie and to discourage others from seeing it. But do you really believe that the folks who saw "Edge of Darkness" over the weekend are supporting immorality? "Edge of Darkness" is a mainstream Hollywood release, and it would have been irresponsible for critics to ignore it -- no matter what they happen to think about Mr. Gibson.
Of course, I don't expect to change anyone else's mind.... even Jan's.
A critic must choose not only what to say, but what to see. AC must choose not only what brings in the most PVs, but what has some element of moral correctness.
Were there a film version of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" produced by and starring Mr. Gibson, would you dignify that atrocity with your attention and a review? Would AC feature it?
You do what you do well and I am impressed with your evenhanded replies to noted like mine... But, that does not make it OK.
Alan
Alan,
It's definitely a quandary for me as a critic. I certainly don't blame you for not wanting to make Mr. Gibson any richer, although I'm sure he'll be fine even if his movie tanks. Separating the artist from the art is no easy task, particularly if the artist has said things you detest.
You've convinced me to take a chance on viewing this :)
Congrats on being on the front cover of AC! I'd heard so many negative reviews of this one and yet it was still a pleasure to read your article and get your perspective. I'd wondered what Gibson was going to do next. I wonder if he'll get another chance to be in a quality movie?
I would no sooner buy a ticket to enrich this man's coffers (his 'talent' notwithstanding) than I would make a contribution to the "Let's keep the memory of Adolf Hitler Alive Fund." Yes, I understand that the film is Gibson the actor - yet Gibson the man is so thoroughly reprehensible in his Holocaust denying beliefs and antisemitic tirades that I don't care how good the film is... I refuse to support him and encourage others to do the dame.