Loading ...
New in Theaters – Edge Of Darkness
Written by Gary PooleJanuary 27, 2010 – 1:03 pm
There was a time when Mel Gibson was considered “money in the bank” as far as Hollywood was concerned. His name on a movie marquee was a guarantee of box-office success. He was one of the most bankable stars of the ’80s and ’90s. Then…things got weird.
His last leading role was M. Night Shyamalan’s 2002 flop Signs. It’s not that Mel disappeared—far from it. His turns behind the camera in the highly controversial (and highly profitable) The Passion of the Christ and the equally on-the-edge-of-filmmaking Apocalypto, combined with his highly publicized drunk-driving arrest and subsequent anti-Semitic rant kept him firmly in the public eye.
But now Mel has returned to his former place of glory: in front of the camera. Director Martin Campbell has adapted his own 1985 British miniseries Edge of Darkness with Gibson playing a familiar “angry cop with issues” role as an agonized homicide detective determined to avenge the murder of his only daughter, while at the same time uncovering corporate corruption and political conspiracy.
Campbell’s BBC miniseries was very well received, and he brings a sure hand to adapting the story both for the big screen and for American audiences (while dealing with the usual issues of reworking a mid-80s story), but the real question that his film will answer is whether or not Gibson still has the power to get people into a theater.
Which is many ways is a great disservice to Campbell, as the film itself is a tightly wound dramatic piece, abounding with tension and suspense. Gibson gives a very game performance, the supporting cast, while at times rather one-dimensional, handle their roles with skill, and the pacing is quite good. Yet one has to wonder if maybe, just maybe, Gibson’s casting was not the bankable choice it once was.
Edge of Darkness
Starring: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone
Director: Martin Campbell
Rating: R
Posted in New In Theaters |
|
|
3 Comments »
I am curious as to why you called M. Night Shyamalan’s movie “Signs” a flop. It grossed nearly 400 million dollars worldwide and has a 74% positive review rating on rottentomatoes.com. If that is the case, perhaps Gibson isn’t as in the dog house as it appears.
I forwarded your question to the author of the review, and this was the reply: “While Signs may have been a commercial success, myself like many other critics found it be a critical failure. If you judge films solely on box office, then you would have to call movies like Transformers 2 and SpiderMan 3 successes as well, which I cannot. M. Night Shyamalan had an excellent start, but Signs has long been seen to be the beginning of his descent in filmmaking irrelevance. Of course, many may disagree with my assessment of the film, but I believe that time has shown the movie to have little if any staying power.”
I understand that box office success doesn’t equal critical success which is why I also checked it’s critical success on rottentomatoes, where film critics from across the nation were more so positive about the film. While I agree that it certainly doesn’t qualify for the AFI’s top 100, I find it a little harsh to call it a “flop”, and compare it to films like Spider-Man 3 or Transformers 2, which were complete critical failures.