Official Blog For Author Thomas McClurg

Another somewhat late movie review but i thought I’d review it just the same.

The first Mel Gibson movie to come along in quite some time, where he acts instead of directs, had me curious. Previews hinted at an action/drama crime movie, the genre is common, but Edge of Darkness was being billed as something of a mystery so i figured “What the heck, i like darker type action/dramas with mystery, lets see how it goes.

Suffice to say there are huge pluses and minuses to the movie. I’ll start with the latter as the minuses are a logical place to start.

The story is nothing new. it is predictable and any hint of mystery can be solved a few minutes into the film. Basically corrupt organization silences noble employee who happens to be the daughter of a cop who then goes on a crusade to investigate and ultimately confront corrupt corporation personified in their ceo. Boring. Why does it always have to be a corrupt company playing the cover up conspiracy game? Honestly anything would be preferable. The predictable nature of the plot sucks much of the dramatic potential from the movie as you can see whats coming a mile away. As an audience member i didn’t feel drawn in, didn’t feel gripped by the story and it made me care less when i wanted to care more.

It also fails as an action movie. True there are a few violent moments that i found somewhat disturbing, but a young girl getting gunned down next to her father by a shotgun isn’t action, it’s just tragic violence. There was only one or two scenes i would call ‘action scenes’ and they were short. So you’re not going to be gripped by that either.

So what was good? In my opinion the acting saved the movie. Poor acting would have sunk it totally. So despite the weak and predictable story, i did care about Mel Gibson’s character getting revenge. You get a real sense for the strong love he had for his daughter and the life shattering loss that it was when she died. You feel that tragedy and that single emotion holds you through the rest of the ho hum plot.

Naturally there are lots of corrupt people around our bastion of morality trying to stop him on his quest to expose their evil plot. Aside from being corrupt, they don’t really register. The best thing i can say is that i was glad to see them get what they deserved in the end, so i guess in that regard they succeeded in their roles although i always maintain high hopes for memorable villains, not just people I’m glad to see die, but the movie isn’t about them, it’s about Mel Gibson, so generic corruption is all you get from the bad guys.

A sidebar to this would be Ray Winstone’s character who plays something of a cleaner. it’s hard to tell exactly what he does as it is never clearly defined, but you get the idea he is a shady type who corrupt people bring in to make their problems go away. He carries himself with a jaded air that communicates how long he has been doing his job, how good he is at it, and just how much he has come to loathe the people who hire him, yet he still does his job.  His conversations with Mel Gibson’s character were my favorite part of the movie. Two old veterans on opposite sides of an issue. One single mindedly determined to follow through, the other apparently indifferent, hired for a job he has no real interest in by people he has no respect for. His screen time is limited due to Mel Gibson being the focus, but i enjoy all the times he was there and found him the most interesting character.

All in all the positives and the negatives pretty much canceled each other out, leaving me with a movie i wasn’t sorry i paid to see, but left me with no lasting impression and no real desire to ever see it again.