Mel Gibson returns in front of the camera for the first time since 2002’s Signs in Edge of Darkness, a film that’s synopsis reads very much like a Mel Gibson film. For those of you who don’t know the plot, Gibson plays a Boston detective who is on the warpath to find his daughter’s killer(s). What at first seems like an attempt on Thomas Craven unravels into a complex chain leading to Emma’s work and secret life.
As a film so heavily marketed and talked about through its star, I feel there is no other way to start than to talk about Mel Gibson. Now I certainly don’t consider myself an expert on his acting career — I’ve seen most of his major films, but years ago. Edge of Darkness, though, feels right in his wheelhouse. Obviously it comes curiously close to films like Ransom, Conspiracy Theory and Payback, so Gibson has understood this particular character-type, but I can’t imagine remembering any of his performances in the aforementioned films having nearly the same amount of emotional depth. During many of the quieter moments of the film, Gibson’s performance reaches outright touching moments. For a man who has become incredibly unlikable over the past few years, I feel that Gibson should be under a huge burden to win over his audience and he seems to do it — astonishingly within the first few minutes of the film. He is not just a man on a mission, but a father struggling with the loss of his only child. I find that quite the feat.
The film opens rather quietly, allowing us to get to know Craven and the relationship with his daughter. Expertly, just as the audience begins to get lulled into sleep, questions begin to rise just before we see the graphic murder that propels the rest of the film. Even after Emma’s death, the film takes its time to build Craven’s character, perhaps to the point where many would start itching for action or questioning whether they are watching the correct film. To me, though, it is when Craven begins his investigation when the film starts to falter.
This is partly due to the fact that as the pieces begin to come together, the puzzle is a bit more complicated than I expected or cared to handle. Part of it comes from so much information coming within so little time. The film is two hours long, but with the amount of investigation that Craven is forced to do, there is so much exposition, almost completely putting any action on the back-burner for most of the film. I understand that the story was first directed by Martin Campbell as a mini-series, with six episodes instead of a two hour film. There was probably enough time here to let the emotional aspects breathe while being able to introduce information at a pace that doesn’t flood the audience or impede on the mood of the film. The other problem is the actual ability for a detective to begin to uncover so much of the mystery. Because most of the circumstances surrounding the murder involve highly secretive government secrets, the film has to rely on too many baddies to lurk around being dark, feeding Craven and us information and making mistakes.
In terms of the action, there was certainly less than I expected, although the ending of the film fulfills the chaos and redemption that you would expect from a Mel Gibson revenge film. I have to take issue, however, with the first action scene, which is a hand-to-hand fight between Craven and a mysterious young man. The problem is that the quickness of the fight and the editing feels completely out-of-place for the brooding film that precedes it and completely unlikely for the parties involved. The fight feels like something that would make sense out of Martin Campbell’s previous film Casino Royale, but I can’t buy a near-50 year old Boston detective whirling around, kicking chairs into doors to impede retreat.
On the whole, I think Edge of Darkness is a decent film that could easily be very good. With any film, different people are looking for different things and I imagine most are looking for a lot of good action, and these people will probably be a bit disappointed. As the film developed I really enjoyed the mood it was going for, but if you were looking for this, you would also be disappointed when the emotional mood changes once the investigation begins. I think that Campbell made a valiant effort to make a throw-back to the 40s and 50s hard-boiled detective stories, and Mel Gibson does a great job at paying homage to the likes of Bogart and Sterling Hayden. But with the sloppiness and modernity of the mystery, this mood falls apart along with the rest of the film.
No comments:
Post a Comment