Escape to the Movies: Edge of Darkness

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

PlasticLion:

scotth266:

Dorian Cornelius Jasper:

esperandote:

JWAN:

esperandote:
Not as tired of religion related movies as of moviebob ranting about religion related movies.

actually what seems to get his panties in a twist is anything Christian.

Yup. I thought that too.

A decade of Catholic school will do that to a guy.

Also, when people keep prodding and provoking his hangup with Christianity, I start to wonder if he's not justified in having it.

The only reason people keep prodding him about it is because he keeps bringing it up. First he makes the negative review of Eli where he essentially dismissed it for having religious plot points/thematics, then in his next review he posts a picture of the Frankenstein(at least, I think it was Frankenstein) mob, with torches and pitchforks, attempting to dismiss those criticizing him about why the previous review was negative. Then in this review, he makes a joke with the crying baby picture to the same effect.

As long as Bob keeps being a prick about the point, people are going to keep bothering him about it. Plain and simple.

Anyway, this movie sounds like something I'm in the mood for, and other than the crying baby bit I thought that the review was pretty good too.

I agree, except the part where you called him a prick. Yes it was Frankenstein. I put in a DVD to make sure. Then I screen captured it and drew all over it.

This review is the reason I logged off of escapist, and I will again after I have posted this. I thought the timely execution of the Mel Gibson has religious issues joke was very funny. But given the choice between making a funny joke or stepping away from a sensitive topic, I would have stepped away. A solid review of this movie(which it actually was) would have been less funny but then we still wouldn't be talking about religion.

I think that there is no such thing as bad press. And I hate to apply that thought here. But how many people watched this review just to see if he "hated" on religion again. I did.

I wish I hadn't; the majority of the review seemed like common sense to me.

I would like to delete my subscription. I just don't know how. Is flaming or trolling the only way? Could someone please erase me?

hURR dURR dERP:
Wasn't really interested in this one, but maybe I'll give it a shot.

Wow, that's pretty much word for word what I was going to say. I would say "check it out" instead of "give it a shot" though.

i watched it, and whilst i enjoyed it i do not agree too much with this review. The film was enjoyable, but i wouldnt say it was good. The beginning and end were the best parts, but at some points in the middle it seemed to go on a bit too much with Mel Gibson not exactly doing anything. Mel Gibson seemed to be trying to investigate things which the audience worked out a while ago, and the film would keep repeating itself. He is chased by the same car multiple times, with no outcome. He goes to his daughters boyfriends place more than once, with no outcome either. He would keep trying to be a detective and wouldnt actually learn anything, he would just beat people up and not learn anything that way either

I also had a problem with this film in that i dont know whether it knew what type of film it really wanted to be. Its like Taken in that hes trying to exact revenge with violence, but Mel Gibson will for large parts of the film try and be a cool detective not doing much. This annoyed me, considering when he was a detective he just learnt things he already knew, and when he was cool bad ass in revenge mode father he beat people up but never actually learned much. He seemed all round a pretty shoddy at whatever he did, and due to this the film dragged on for much much longer than it should have done.

Also, although i love Ray Winstone, he seemed like a pretty poor auxiliary character that played a very small role with little point. The film would have been pretty much the same if he hadnt been there.

Haa Ray Winstone... he's like one of those actors like Shuan Bean or Morgan Freeman that can turn a shit film good. Also Bob I don't know if you've seen this movie or not but if you haven't I would recommend watching a Movie named Scum which is Rays first movie which takes place in a British Borstal and has a pretty disturbing and notorious scene of which I wont spoil for you.

I haven't seen this movie yet although I will give it a try, it does seem to feel like Taken a little from watching the trailers which isn't a bad film (Liam Neelsons attempt at American aside... seriously he should have just kept the Irish accent we'd have forgiven him... I mean it worked for Dick Van Dyke).

Also yeah wtf is Mel Gibsons problem with us English.

Mr Wednesday:
You pronounce that Ray "Winstun" Bob, unless you're a cockney, in which case it's "Winstaaan".

I pronounce it Winsten.

Noelveiga:
Since Bob has raised little controversy this week by pointing out that a mature take on Payback or Taken is not a bad idea for a movie, let me point out a technicality.

Given that the original series was made way before both movies it can't be really seen as a rip off of neither so it's probably the reason why it's not been mentioned.

Sovvolf:
I haven't seen this movie yet although I will give it a try,

Don't try too hard. It wasn't really awesome. The serial was a lot better.

Actually, the Briton in this one isn't the odious piece of sadistic, supercilious **** you'd expect from a Mel G film. He's got other villains to paint with very broad strokes of EVIL this time, and yes they do have neon signs over them saying EVIL within a few seconds of their first screen appearances. It's one film in which noone with a face really surprises you.

That was the best buildup EVER!

Didn't even consider seeing it before now. I might give it a shot if I get bored this weekend.

Man, I like Bob's tangential, Tarantinian* rants...

Oh, and I'll consider seeing the movie.

*a deep, insightful conversation about an entirely pointless subject, such as the moral and ethical implications of foot massage.

Aw crud! I was hoping they'd not give the role to Ryan Reynolds and let Nathan Fillion be Hal Jordan Green Lantern.

I do like Mel Gibson films and I never noticed how those movies fit together until MovieBob informed us. My wife and I tried to watch year one and that was such a horrible piece of crap insult to Islamic History that we decided to wash our minds of it with Planet 51. I'm sure this movie will be a great help in forgetting the atrocious year one film.

Baron Khaine:

He's doing both, Deadpool is Marvel, Green Lantern is DC, therefore, he's free to do both.

Hooray.

Yeah but they come out around the same time so it would be really hard to do both. By the way youve got the wrong qoute

Sounds awesome, I've always liked Gibson as some pissed off dude going after some asshats who killed so and so who was close to him. Also for the record while I really liked "The Book Of Eli" your analysis was totally fine and I will defend it. As with any critique you bring to the table a toolbox of film analysis techniques along with your own opinions and predispositions about the execution, and content. So to all those giving you grief, chill out, the man's entitled to his own opinions and critical analysis.

Being from Boston and living in the area this was filmed I feel torn. On one hand, it's nice to see places you know on the big screen. On the other hand hearing a bad Southie accent is like snorting rubbing alcohol.

So... it's like Taken? In that what would be a mediocre action flick is saved by the presence of a great actor in the leading role? Seriously, that's why Taken is one of my favorite films of all time. Because Liam Neeson can actually act. Seriously, anyone who has seen Taken, back me up: remember the scene where Neeson's just saved the prostitute and has gotten to the hotel room and is looking at his daughter's jacket? That to me is probably the best scene in the whole movie, because Liam Neeson can act well enough tho pull off this whole scene without a single line of dialogue and still convey everything he wanted to say. Try doing that, Statham!

Anyways, thanks for the review, Bob. I'm gonna go see the movie as soon as I get to the bank... to take out a loan... to buy a friggin' movie ticket.

I want to see this movie, it sounds entertaining but I can't get over how it will inevitably be inferior to the BBC TV series. It was about actual detective work and the psychological background around solving a problem from a neutral standpoint when it's your family involved. It was tense and gripping and the story was complex but easy to understand. It just seems that the idea of pacing and non-violent detective work is hard to grasp in Hollywood. Here's the thing about the BBC version- the reason there was less violence is because the policeman is playing by the rules, he does his job and avoids descending to the same level as his opponents. I don't get how because Mel Gibson loses his family he is allowed to go around COMMITTING CRIMES in order to solve things. I know it isn't as fun but Edge of Darkness was never about action and big boss-fights at the end, it was about the pervasiveness of the military-industrial complex and the whole system.

I'm glad Ray Winstone does well in it because the CIA operative in the BBC version was also badass.

Jeez, sudden rash of the fanboy there, sorry but I can't see why it's so hard to stop nicking other people's ideas and make something new. I don't know who or what Green Lantern is but I can guess and while I'm happy for everyone who appreciated the comic, doesn't anyone find all this recycling of all previous material just a bit frustrating?

I would've been interested in the Bears... :(

wolfshrimp:
I don't get how because Mel Gibson loses his family he is allowed to go around COMMITTING CRIMES in order to solve things.

They did sort of say it themselves in the film. Cop's family involved, cops overlook stuff done by cops even more than cops normally overlook stuff done by cops.

MelGibson:
Now get out of the car or you're going to make a move for something under your jacket.

He wasn't even pretending to be legal, just openly acknowledging that cops can get away with shooting people.

Even here, they get away with shooting Brazilian electricians for wearing denim jackets, and slightly mentally handicapped guys for carrying table legs in bags.

Green Lantern? :O

TheEnglishman:
Mel Gibson does always put himself 100% into his project, say what you will about Passion of the Christ but Gibson was clearly committed to his vision of it. Apocalypto was also a very strong R-Rated adventure film in my mind.

He recetly said he's got the acting bug back so this movie looks like a good way to kill 2 hours. Mels future is optimistic.

Quoting truth.

here's an interesting fact, if you watch this film, you don't need to play heavy rain, they have the exact same pacing.

On that note, I found Edge of Darkness incredibly boring, and a really bad movie.

Being Mel Gibson's love interest in a movie is a sure-fire way to get killed.
Being his love interest in real life is a sure-fire way to get your teeth knocked out. OH!

I had this on my want list for a while just for the fact that Martin Campbell was directing. All of the movies he noted in the "This Is Why Americans Know His Name" segment are all the reasons I was excited about this movie, and about Green Lantern being this, instead of the Mask-like Jack Black farce envisioned a number of years ago.

In other words, it's like watching Memento and Insomnia, then learning Christopher Nolan was taking over Batman.

I actually was expecting this movie, having seen only the "revenge movie" trailers, to be more like Taken, which despite having a stellar lead and an original baddie in underground human trafficking, struck me as being somewhat one-dimensional: girl gets taken, father beats up everyone between him and girl, father rescues girl. Also, not that he's an old guy at this point, but a 56-year-old white-haired Neeson thrashing baddies just seemed a little off to me, like casting Patrick Stewart in Payback.

*** probably some spoilers after this ***

Anyway, what took me by surprise, leaving aside the cookie-cutter military-industrial-complex-as-heavy routine, was that this played more like a heady political thriller. Campbell as always is a master at staging his shots; Orson Welles may be the last person I remember as being SO GOOD at having precisely the right amount of information in a shot, and then placing his actors so that their relative position in all three dimensions is proportional and consequential. The action scenes weren't as prominent as in your typical revenge movie, but the focus on character made the leap to the earthy, raw action sequences more visceral. To that end, Ray Winstone's character, supporting role though he was, turned out to be the lynchpin of the story.

Early in his contribution to the film, Winstone's character Jedburgh likens himself to Diogenes, a leading developer of the philosophy of cynicism. While we tend to use "cynic" interchangeably with "skeptic" as adopting a pessimistic attitude towards good things as well as bad, the original philosophy revolved around exposing the selfish and destructive intentions behind accumulating and holding wealth, fame and power, and shunning those things in favor of a simple, honest life of virtue. He specifically references the story of Diogenes roaming the streets with a lamp in search of an honest man.

Jedburgh also described himself as a consultant of sorts, not someone who acts on the instruction of his employers, but ostensibly someone who makes his own assessments of a situation and acts accordingly, in a manner which I assume has been favorable to those who keep coming back to him for other cleanup jobs. Naturally we follow the lead through a narrative, but there is often a supporting character who is supposed to be seeing an absurd situation through the eyes of an outsider, and therefore, exemplifying the way we would react if we were standing there. In Star Wars it was C-3PO; in Saving Private Ryan it was the translator, Cpl. Upham, and to drive that point home they had a scene where he was literally observing his unit fight a battle, from a distance, through a sniper scope. In this narrative, that moral compass is Jedburgh, who enjoys the delicious irony of also being the source of a lot of political obfuscation in the course of his career.

What we see through the course of the film is how various characters responded to threats to their well-being or to their families, and how characters like Craven and Jedburgh reacted to realizing the certainty of their death. This is why Jedburgh reacts to Craven as he does, having finally found his elusive Honest Man, and the conclusion he makes about Craven's treatment at the hands of his employers.

I guess to sum up, if you watch the film through Craven's eyes, it's an actiony political thriller that goes in fits and starts and has a fairly predictable political corruption angle. If you watch the film through Jedburgh's eyes, it's actually a very clever character piece. It took me two viewings to make the adjustment and really absorb some of the better elements of this movie.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here