Im sure it will be a hit
he already has three or 4 more on the way if it doesn’t hit
I would encourage other actors to take 3 or 4 years off the screen
give the audience time to miss you (this means u George Clooney and Robert DeNiro)
just don’t do it the way Gibson did it
Does anyone miss Gibson though? Even the Christian fundamentalists must have quit him by now (not for the drunken anti-semitic tirade which only makes him more endearing but leaving the wife for the younger woman). I hope his career is dead.
I kind of miss his violent Payback type films
a couple of people I run into at work and things are very excited about this
Payback just makes me sad. Why did they remake Point Blank? A Lee Marvin versus Mel Gibson match up is almost as pathetic as Sly Stallone versus Michael Caine.
I like the extreme violence of Gibson Payback The Passion Apocalypto
the only who who outdid him in terms of mainstream cinema violence was Stallone with the lastest Rambo which was staggeringly violent.
Gibson has a certain amount of charm (Maverick, What Women Want) what is weird is he would take on this dark role as his comeback film. He may have been better off doing a romcom with Jolie (who desperately needs to do something lighter)
i kind of feel like this edge of darkness movie is nothing really special and could of starred any actor. correct me if i am wrong but the movie looks pretty bland. i’ll probably end up checking it out when it comes on TBS in a year for one of those “3 nights to see it, staring friday at 9/8c” things they have. national treasure seems to be one of those movies that does that as well.
He no doubt has some talent after pulling off Apocalypto which I think was great, but I think he’s gonna have a tough time coming back to his former.
I do know he has a few other pictures in development, one romcom- The Beaver (where a man sticks a beaver puppet on his hand and soon it begins to talk and control him), an How I Spent My Summer Vacation which he wrote (where a man tries to survive in a Mexican prison with the aid of a small boy)
So I’m curious to see how this film does, and if he can still hold a career (it’s not like he needs the money though)
The Beaver seems like such a small film tho, jodie foster only directs small films (so far)
if we are really talking about him making a comeback, here is what I would do.
the title would be MILF: Angelina Jolie plays an uptight mom with a new boyfriend, her young son is putting a crimp on the romance.
On her boyfriend’s birthday (child at a sleepover) she ends up getting drunk and lets him take sexy porn pics of her. When they break-up these end up on the internet. The pics become popular on a MILF site. This causes her to lose her job (with a conservative company, not sure what kind, making this up as I go along) and it also causes her to be bugged by this Larry Flynt (Mel Gibson) type who wants to put her in videos and his magazine. He is a chauvinist but eventually they develop feelings for each other and fall in love.
This would have Gibson playing a sort of pig (how many see him now) and Jolie playing a less virtious character for a change.
You are Welcome America
I’m too busy causing all the wars in the world to see Mel Gibson’s movies.
Having seen the original TV series quite a few years back, I have to say that I’m not impressed by the trailer and Mel Gibson is just bad casting (that’s my feeling anyway – haven’t seen it yet of course). It is promising that Campbell is directing it (being the director of the original TV series, as well as Casino Royale), but even so, I don’t have THAT much faith in the guy, he’s had his misses too.
As far as a return to form for Gibson … it’s not. Payback was about as close as we will ever get to the ole Gibson we know and love (and I’m referring to the Mad Max days, the early Lethal Weapons, his Weir collaborations). I wasn’t as put out as most people with his Passion film (nor his racist comments whilst intoxicated … come on people, things said while drunk should be covered by some kind of amendment, we’ve all been there, and if you haven’t then maybe you should drink a little heavier [or not, heh]), though I didn’t think it great and his Braveheart/Patriot days were empty but interesting. The only film I can fault the man for (besides Bird on a Wire …) is Apocalypto which was a travesty and piece of shit to boot.
But yeah, all the Gibson criticisms, get off your high and mighty throne bitches, it’s like we’re in the monastery or something. :)
Or how bout I’m just too busy seeing all the good movies in the world to bother with those involving Mel Gibson.
He doesn’t need the money, like Nathan W said, but he may feel as though he needs to earn the public’s respect and love back. In my opinion it probably won’t happen. Those Antisemitic comments are stuck to him for good.
Personally, I feel sorry for him. He obviously has some problems (his alcoholism the most apparent) and most people are able to sort out their problems without millions of spectators watching them. I should note I have no sympathy for his Antisemitism, but as a recovering alcoholic I definitely sympathize with his situation.
i think Mel Torme has a better shot at a comeback…
He’s also planning to direct a Viking film with Leo DiCaprio that will be spoken in Norse.
If the bloody Vikings sing the Spam song, I’ll go see it.
I hear hes aso planning to direct a Southern Gothic with Tyler Perry that will be spoken in pig latin.
Another shitty remake of a quality Brit series
Gibson… the words biggoted, talentess, populist come to mind. Braveheart was good looking tosh I guess… Patriot was tedious crud.
The only exception I’d grant post Mad Max 1 is Peter Wier’s magnificent Gallipoli where Mel is spot on. He then spent the rest of his career rocketing downhill.
He ruined Singing Detective and not content with that he wants to apply his mediocre skill to Edge Of Darkness… Include me out.
OK, to be fair. GIbson has been involved in three movies I’d see again — MAD MAX, GALLIPOLI, and THE YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY. It has been downhill since DANGEROUSLY. BRAVEHEART is good for some unintended laughs, the blatant clueless homophobia/homophilia on display prefigures Snyder’s equally inane pro-war J/O session 300.
But what do I know? I’m one of the causes of all the wars in the world.
review from emanuellevy.com
There are several ways to examine the new, only semi-successful and intermittently entertaining paranoid thriller “Edge of Darkness,” directed by Martin Campbell, who last helmed “Casino Royale,” one of the best ever James Bond movies.
On the one hand, the film announces the comeback of Mel Gibson, the actor, for a change, not the celeb, who’s been in the news lately—mostly for negative reasons. It’s Gibson’s first starring role in seven years, though he has directed a number of good features (“Apocalypto”) during that time. In this respect, “Edge of Darkness” is a good vehicle for his dramatic and physical skills, and he looks much better than he has in a long time.
On the other hand, “Edge of Darkness” is an effort to resurrect a popular genre of the 1970s, the paranoid, anti-government, anti-Big Business thriller, in the manner of “All the President’s Men,” “The Parallax View,” “Three Days of the Condor” and others.
Penned by Oscar-winning (“The Departed”) screenwriter William Monahan offers, the movie is loosely based upon the award-winning BBC television miniseries of 25 years ago, which Campbell had also helmed; he’s obviously familiar with and attracted to this kind of text.
The story begins extremely well, with an excellent set-up, but then, unfortunately, as the tale unfolds, it becomes more and more obvious and more and more violent (in the mode of an actioner rather than a thriller).
Throughout “Edge of Darkness” one feels the healthy but irresolvable tension between a character-driven and a plot-driven film. While the first hour favors the former, the second succumbs to the latter, with chases and shoot-outs, most of which are senseless and feel as if they were shot after principal photography was over, to make the movie more accessible and more commercial.
Gibson plays Thomas Craven, a man driven by grief and searching for the truth after his only child, Emma, is gunned down by a bullet the police believe was meant for him. During the credits sequence and through the film, flashbacks of Emma as a young girl with a dotting father are interspersed in the narrative.
Shattered by his daughter’s sudden death, the veteran Boston police officer becomes determined to find the answers at all costs, committed to take on (and down) everything and anything that might stand in his way.
After losing his daughter, Craven goes on a journey of discovery not only to find out who killed her and why, but also who she really was. The film touches on the idea of parents (loving or not), who often are the last to really know or understand their children. And indeed, it turns out that Emma was involved in a whole way of life that he knew nothing about.
Northmoor, Emma’s employer at the time of her murder, is a top-security, private research compound with government contracts. Predictably, though, the government turns a blind eye to what top exec Jack Bennett and his company is doing.
Out of the blue, Darius Jedburgh (Ray Winstone), an imposing man with no pretensions, shows up unannounced in Craven’s backyard. Jedburgh is a clever, even charming man, capable of being a cold-blooded killer, which he later demonstrates (more than once). He knows how to maneuver, how to work people. Working for an unnamed employer, Jedburgh connects with Craven in order to find out what Emma was involved in and what “dangerous” information she might have possessed. Jedburgh is sort of a “cleaner,” given license by his employers to do whatever he thinks necessary to resolve a crisis situation. Scarily, he combines the functions of a judge, jury and executioner all in the same person.
He’s is involved with government work for many years, but there’s a veil of mystery as to what agency he works for, or why he is endowed with such powers. In this particular case, he is brought in to assess situations and clean up the mess, a potential catastrophe for Northmoor if the evidence gets out as to what is being manufacturing at their facility.
Winstone is the only Brit in an otherwise all-American cast of characters. (In a role-reversal, Jedburgh was the only American character in the all-British miniseries). And he brings a powerful, underlying threatening quality to his character, but like Craven, he is also an enigma.
In contrast, Bennett is the ultimate villain, a charismatic businessman with a slick facade, a sleazy suit put in a high-powered, deadly controlling position. Danny Huston has portrayed many corrupt characters before, and the new one builds on that. He’s an evil man who will do anything to justify his immoral, illegit action. He rationalizes his function by claiming that people like Emma and Craven are meddling and could cause greater danger when they’re alive. To him, it’s not a political game, it’s a money game, and thus he feels responsible to no person.
Setting the film in Boston is a good idea as it’s a city that’s very English and Irish in terms of its roots—Craven is an Irish Bostonians. Monahan, a native Bostonian, has infused the screenplay with its own unique atmosphere.
Though we have been living in an atmosphere of fear and suspicion after 9/11, I doubt if the new film will resonate as films of the 1970s did. For one thing, nuclear weaponry is not particularly high on the national agenda. For another, we have a new, more popular and promising and honest president than Nixon ever was, when Hollywood made the aforementioned cycle in the midst of the Vietnam War and Watergate. Or to put it bluntly, the crime mystery works more effectively than the political thriller.
End Note
Based on the success of the series, BBC Films had begun developing a feature version of the story; it was Campbell who brought the project to the attention of Graham King who, along with Tim Headington, produced the film under the GK Films banner.
In 1985, the six-part British miniseries captivated a country in the throes of intense domestic and international tensions. It was a time in Britain of an ongoing Cold War and the still-looming nuclear threat of the then Soviet Union. International terrorism also took shape in figures such as Libya’s Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, and public concerns over nuclear war were higher than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. And there was trepidation over the aura of secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry.
Saw an advance screening tonight and thought it was lousy. Bring a flask and take a sip everytime ol’ Sugartits slips out of his “Boston” accent, which isn’t very convincing to begin with,
i watched edge of darkness only knowing it was mel gibson’s new film, and it happened 2 be a very good thriller
it definitely has some shocking scenes and an interesting story surrounding an investigation into a murder
there are also some nice moments that show the father and daughter relationship
i recommend it!
TERRIBLE Boston accents in spite of numerous good performances.
A bunch of interesting neo-noir twists and subplots in the script, but you get the sense the original screenplay was much better before too many cooks came in and ruined the soup.
Some unexpected Christian propaganda—though in hind sight, perhaps that’s predictable with Gibson involved.
Wicked gory. I was actually shocked a few times and grosses out often.
Very close to being a much better film than it actually turned out to be.
Just saw the film tonight. I really enjoyed it, but I’m a sucker for Gibson as an actor. Nice to see Gbenga Akinnagbe getting some screentime as well, even if it’s only for a moment or two.
Payback the Director’s cut is as close to an action masterpiece as he’s ever gotten, I suggest you hunt that one down if you were disappointed by the original. It’s actually much much much much better.
money wise
it seems to be doing okay
dont think this is his comeback
but he has so many more films in production one is bound to hit
Wow, I thought the Payback Director’s Cut totally sucked compared to the theatrical. All that shit was cut for a reason and that’s flow. It’s essentially an action film so why litter it with a bunch of meandering scene extensions? The Director’s Cut felt like they were trying really really hard to imitate the mood of Point Blank and it just fails completely. At least the theatrical tried to do something different with the material.
And back to the original intent of this thread: Yeah, even from the trailer I could tell there was gonna be some terrible Boston accents. And, hopefully for Gibson this isn’t his comeback because that would just be very sad.
i was really surprised at how talky and slow this movie felt. disappointing.
Deckard, the original version poisoned the intent of the film. And if you think about it, there’s plenty of cuts that Helgeland made from the original material. The original basically took out everything that made Porter an interesting character, all of the traits that made him less than likable. Think of the scene with the homeless man— in the original it’s okay for Gibson to steal from him because the guy is lying about having been injured in the war. In the director’s cut he has no excuse, but he’s just a son-of-a-bitch. Plus there’s no meandering torture scenes, no god awful Kris Kristofferson, a better score, no terrible voice-over. It’s so much better.
Redrum4
Mel Gibson has a new film coming out this week- a $60 million actioner entitled: Edge of Darkness.
This is his first starring role since his much publicized drunken rant and his subsequent disappearance from the public eye until now.
Do you think he can still pull an audience? Will people forgive Gibson after all that has happened?