Edge of Darkness

I won't say anything about the plot except that it's centered around an "everyman" who goes on a revenge odyssey. In that respect it reminds me of the excellent "Harry Brown" released a year eariler with Michael Caine packing some artillery. But Edge of Darkness differs from the rest with its interesting layered story.

As "Tom Craven" (Mel Gibson) peels away the truth, so we also get wrapped up in the complexity of this story which touches on political thriller, tenuous loyalties, and--most intriguing--a mysterious character "Jedburgh" (Ray Winstone) who sips whiskey and smokes cigars with our hero, but (as our hero is fully aware) could at any minute put a bullet through his head.

And what's the point of all this madness? The point, or subtle theme underneath all the rollercoaster action, is that each individual must make his or her own choice to act independently. That sentence may not make much sense to you reading it in a review, but trust me it's what drives this story. Returning back to what I said about politics and tenuous loyalties, this story is about reaching that point where you break from the predictable and act on your own. Or as a memorable line in the film goes, "you had better decide whether you're hanging on the cross, or banging in the nails."

Thomas Craven (Mel Gibson) is a good cop whose only daughter Emma (Bojana Novakovic) returns for a visit. While she initially appears to be fine, she turns out to be incredibly sick. On the way to see a doctor, Emma is gunned down in Craven's front doorway. His fellow detectives think the hit was meant for him, but Craven digs deeper and believes the nuclear manufacturing company she worked for may have something to do with it.

When Edge of Darkness was released this past January, it was marketed as a return for Gibson to the action thriller genre he has always excelled at. Except the film was actually more of a slow burn thriller, much like last year's fascinating and incredibly well done State of Play, and both based off a BBC mini-series. Albeit, this film is punctuated with scenes filled with incredibly graphic violence. But that initial flub is not the only thing working against the film.

The film masquerades as being break-neck paced, and uses this as an excuse to never really develop anyone. Emma is killed off less than ten minutes after the film begins, and the film never really lets up afterwards with Craven's search for the truth about his daughter's murder. We get very little on who Craven is, outside of a few dialogue inferences and his "nothing to lose" attitude. In a way, he is very similar to Liam Neeson's absent minded character in last year's Taken, except Craven actually takes the time to talk to people and not just kill them off. We get even less on Emma, outside of seeing her as a child in home video footage that appears to be haunting Craven.

If that were not enough, the film throws multiple characters at the audience almost at random, and very few of them stick. I found it incredibly hard to keep track of at least a handful of them, because they were so similar. Outside of Ray Winstone's Jedburgh and Danny Huston's Bennett, most of the characters are of no particular significance other than to move Craven's investigation along. I imagine this issue is largely the fault of the original six-part mini-series, which had the time to bring in a plethora of characters and develop them as opposed to a two-hour film. But State of Play managed to both keep its focus for the majority of time and develop its main stable of characters fairly well. How could this film not follow suit?

The film also suffers from a fairly ridiculous third act. Getting into specifics would ruin the film, but what can be said is that it ruins everything that came before it. It betrays everything the film has going for it, and boils itself down into a rather goofy actioner. The film is never really a revenge thriller, but more of a thriller about a man trying to find out why his daughter was killed. I really enjoyed the film and its last half when I first saw it theatrically a few months ago. But watching it again at home, it almost comes off as having gone totally off the rails much too quickly. The film's penchant for hyper violence gets far too ahead of itself, and it feels almost like the filmmakers wanted to please the audience with something totally different than what the film sets up for (plus, it feels a bit too close in similarity to the ending of another of William Monahan's previous scripts).

Despite all this, the film is still great when it is playing itself as the slow burn thriller it actually is. It is taut, suspenseful, and a touch unpredictable. For its problems, I really enjoyed the conspiracy filled storyline, and really liked some of the twists it took. It did remind me a lot of State of Play, but never feels like it is trying to steal its thunder or underrated greatness. It does have moments where you are on the edge of your seat, and does have moments where it makes a genuine attempt at making you think.

But this whole film would mean nothing if it were not for Gibson. This film was his first in a significant starring role since M. Night Shyamalan's last good film, Signs. Despite having been off the scene for eight years, this does not seem to have made Gibson lose any of his intensity or gravitas. He owns the screen in every scene he is in, and brings a certain immediacy to the role. It was interesting seeing him in such a wounded and devastating role, but he plays it with such strength and ferocity that you almost forget this was a guy who once cracked jokes as a suicidal cop and helped take down the British as a legendary Scottish commoner. He is a man who knows his craft, and knows just the right amount of seriousness to bring to the role.

Although not nearly as well showcased, both Winstone and Huston pull off great performances in their underwritten roles. Both were clearly much better developed in the series (and remain rather enigmatic throughout the film), but are still equally good here despite being overshadowed by Gibson. I would have enjoyed a whole lot more emphasis on both of them than the multiple other characters thrust at the audience over the course of the film.

Edge of Darkness is not a bad film, but it is not a good enough film to hold up on multiple viewings. I really enjoyed it the first time I saw it, but I found it less entertaining and much more problematic the second time round. But watch it for the driving force of Gibson above anything else. Time away definitely helped him become a stronger performer, and I can only hope his intensity will continue to shine.

7/10.

(Portions of this review originally appeared on http://www.dvdfanatic.com).

I saw this movie at an early screening and was delighted.

I give this movie three stars out of four, or 8 of ten points for great characters, intrigue, and some startling action scenes. It looses the 2 points because it does tend to slow down a little and become more dramatic at times but if you are a Mel Gibson fan you probably won't mind that at all. This movie reminded me a little of Taken, with a whole lot of Enemy of the State, and just a touch of Jason Bourne. Mel Gibson is engaging in his first acting role in years, although he definitely looks older now. It's hard to watch Gibson here without thinking of Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon and there is some carryover but here Craven played by Gibson is the older, caring, Father who is also a cop although there is still some of of the craziness that made Mel so dynamic in a number of his roles. In some ways Mel reminded me here a little of Clint Eastwood in movies like Absolute Power and In the Line of Fire as the more mature protagonist who combines maturity and cunning with a fierce side that comes out in battle.

It's not giving anything away to say that the story is about Mel Gibson's character trying to find out who killed his daughter as that much is in the trailer. Mel plays a veteran detective and so has skills and resources we civilians don't. The movie takes a while to develop and takes great pains to show the love of Craven for his daughter in the opening scenes and then periodically remind us in flashbacks. There are a lot of characters which seem to be critical to building the intrigue of the movie; activists, defense contractors, government officials and various henchmen. The movie does a good job for a while of hiding who is working for whom. Suspense does build for most of the movie but a good bit before the end it is evident what is going on and the movie shifts from an action thriller to more of an pure action movie.

Ray Winstone plays an intriguing role as Jedburgh, deftly showing protagonist and antagonist sides at different times in a mysterious role. Danny Huston plays a multi-dimensional character, Jack Bennet, that is fun to watch. Bojana Novakovic as Emma Craven is a sweetheart. Jay O. Sanders plays a solid role as Detective Whitehouse.

The movie is definitely heavy on violence and acting independent of authority although I don't remember any swearing or sex scenes. Still it requires a mature audience as the hero's actions are probably not ones you want your kids emulating in your house. As with so many movies it portrays sides of business and government at their worst. So,since it is light on sexuality and vulgarity I would suggest that if you let your older kids go that you still discuss the extreme portrayals of the police, use of force, business and government.

It's good to see Mel back in action.

Some people have bagged out this icon, but his performance in this movie was as good as ever. It was convincing, honest, and true to script.

I worked with Mel on this movie so feel that any review I give will be biased - reviews are best left to the viewers, after all, they are the ones who determine its success or failure - but I can assure you he was the ultimate professional - his career has many years left!

Bad reviews are of course as welcome as positive ones - as long as they are constructive - they are an avenue not only for others to ascertain the value of a movie but also an avenue for those involved to learn and improve (as well as gather praise where praise is due) - but I would highly recommend you see this one and make up your own mind. It is highly relevant to the current economic stasis in this country and a hint of what may be behind the scenes.

This one surprised me, because I had seen very little advertising or hype for this movie. My friend and I watched the trailer and I thought, "Eh, kinda looks like another 'Taken' or 'Death Sentence.' I'm so glad I was wrong.

This is not another "father goes on rampage to kill the guy that kidnapped/murdered his child." It's actually a very involved thriller that has a fair few twists and turns around a conspiracy Gibson's daughter was involved in. Gibson actually does not go all gung-ho like Neeson did; rather, he was very careful in his investigations. His performance was brilliant, as was Ray Winstone's, though I found myself wishing he had a bit more screen time.

The pacing is pretty quick in some places, so it keeps you interested. Sometimes the plot may be a little convoluted, but it makes sense if one pays enough attention.

Also, I should note that there isn't nearly as much action as the trailer makes it seem. There is FAR more drama, though it's still plenty tense.

First movie of 2010 I've seen, and it's off to a great start. "Edge of Darkness" is well worth it, and certainly not the movie its advertising makes it out to be. Go see it, you won't regret it.