Grizzeled detective seeks daughter's killer in the revenge thriller 'Edge of Darkness'
Ryan Villarreal
Issue date: 2/4/10 Last update: 2/4/10 at 4:45 AM PST
Section: Movie Reviews
"Edge of Darkness” is a revenge thriller about grizzled Boston homicide detective and single father Ronald Craven (Mel Gibson) who is investigating the murder of his only daughter, 24-year old Emma (Bojana Novakovic) after she is gunned down during a visit back home.
Initially, it is assumed that Craven was the target, but as his investigation progresses he discovers that his daughter was the victim of a government conspiracy involving the private nuclear research facility that employed her.
Considering that this film was adapted from a 1985 British TV series (which this writer has not seen), consisting of six hour-long episodes, it appears that the two hour film simply didn’t have the time to give depth to the conspiracy that the series might have done.
The film tries to balance too many elements at once, instead diluting all of them and removing what might have been compelling. Rather than the conspiracy being the focus of the movie, it becomes a mere plot device to set Craven on a path of retribution.
Craven doesn’t seem concerned with uncovering the conspiracy out of moral obligation so much as he is with finding out who is responsible for his daughter’s death and exacting vengeance.
Of course, many “successful” films have been centered around this kind of plot, but this film overextends itself by trying to unfold a complex conspiracy without taking the time to fully develop the various entities involved.
Instead, we spend two hours with an appropriately weathered-looking Gibson, whose character seems to be wandering aimlessly through the film. This is meant to symbolize the degradation of his sanity due to the loss of his child.
This could have been a rich, insightful look into Craven’s mind and the significance of losing a loved one, if the director and/or writers had only made the choice to focus and develop that story, but it is left in the shadows, much like everything else in this film.
Initially, it is assumed that Craven was the target, but as his investigation progresses he discovers that his daughter was the victim of a government conspiracy involving the private nuclear research facility that employed her.
Considering that this film was adapted from a 1985 British TV series (which this writer has not seen), consisting of six hour-long episodes, it appears that the two hour film simply didn’t have the time to give depth to the conspiracy that the series might have done.
The film tries to balance too many elements at once, instead diluting all of them and removing what might have been compelling. Rather than the conspiracy being the focus of the movie, it becomes a mere plot device to set Craven on a path of retribution.
Craven doesn’t seem concerned with uncovering the conspiracy out of moral obligation so much as he is with finding out who is responsible for his daughter’s death and exacting vengeance.
Of course, many “successful” films have been centered around this kind of plot, but this film overextends itself by trying to unfold a complex conspiracy without taking the time to fully develop the various entities involved.
Instead, we spend two hours with an appropriately weathered-looking Gibson, whose character seems to be wandering aimlessly through the film. This is meant to symbolize the degradation of his sanity due to the loss of his child.
This could have been a rich, insightful look into Craven’s mind and the significance of losing a loved one, if the director and/or writers had only made the choice to focus and develop that story, but it is left in the shadows, much like everything else in this film.
Be the first to comment on this story