In Theaters: “Edge of Darkness” will work for some
March 1, 2010
If you go see Mel Gibson’s new film Edge of Darkness hoping for Taken, then you might come away disappointed.
That’s not to say that Darkness is either a poor knockoff or not a good representation of the “father seeks revenge” story. Let’s take a comparative example. When Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood debuted, few remember another film of the same title coming out at the same time. The latter is more complex, political, and historically accurate. The former is full of fun, action, and a little history. This is the difference between Taken and Darkness. The later is – in a way – a more complex version of the former: for better or worse.
Gibson is good, not great in the role, and a cast of other talent means there’s little hurting for solid acting. Some will find it a little slow, however, despite sporadic scenes of intense energy and action. The film is subtle, and some audiences don’t respond as well to subtlety, preferring film to spoon feed clues and motives.
Despite the slow pace at times, the editing is actually quite good. No scenes stand out as too long, overdone, or redundant. The end is a little predictable, but offers some fitting “payoff” for the film’s progression.
Considering all this, is it really a good film to see in the theater? Maybe. But if you don’t see it in the theater, it is worth renting on DVD. While not terribly original, the acting, character progression, and complexity make it worth watching at some point, to be sure.
Leave a Reply