Hors de contrôle

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 enjoyed this a lot, especially Gibson's role and Ray Winstone's portrayal of the ambiguous fixer. The ending is satisfying and a bit surprising. Someone said the ending was corny, which it may be, but I actually think it's true to life and what really happens at the end.

Plenty of guys you love to hate, and the flashbacks of the hero with his child were lovely. I really doubt a US Senator would be so sleazy, but what do I know?

Man, they sure want a lot of characters. Minimalism is my preferred style, so it's hard to think of things to say. I like Gibson, despite his personal problems, which are none of my business.

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."

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.

Before seeking revenge, dig two graves so said Confucious. Likewise, before casting a movie about revenge, see if Mel Gibson is available. Few actors are capable of being as angry as he can (both on and off screen). Over the last decade, Mel Gibson has been behind the camera more times than he has been in front of it. Perhaps his ten years absence of screen presence is what makes the film so good. Otherwise it is a fairy conventional cop thriller, which builds in convoluted-ness and unbelievability, but it never gets dull, I'll say that much. Frankly that, and Gibson's performance are enough for me.

Boston PD Detective Tom Craven's daughter visits him from out of town one day, That evening she is shot dead on the porch. At first the police figure that Tom was the intended target, but once be begins a little investigation of his own, strange things come up. It appears that his daughter was trying to expose something illegal about the Nuclear facility at which she was working. Suddenly Tom finds himself in the middle of a very dangerous game.

Mel Gibson's performance is exceptional, but then again, it is easy to argue that this not exactly new ground for him. Mel Gibson's most common face is the 'Good Man, Bad Guy' persona. Second billing is

here is Ray Winstone, whose performance here is his best yet. The screen time that the two share together is not long but it is profound and compelling.

Unless you really hate Mel Gibson's guts, Edge of Darkness is a good watch, and an equally good return to the screen for him.