Edge of Darkness

Rated: R

Starring: Mel Gibson

Runtime: 117 minutes

My Raiting: 1 star.

-

-

Thomas Craven's (Mel Gibson) daughter is killed on his front porch five minutes into the movie.

It's a good opening and showed tremendous promise.

By the end of the film, you're wishing his daughter hadn't been killed. Not because you miss her. Craven has constant flashbacks to remind us of his supposed pain. And not because she was a particularly good person, either. She was involved with a plethora of questionable people who Craven seems to conclude “must be good” or his daughter wouldn't associate with them. You wish she lived because you know that there wouldn't be this movie if she had, and that is a far better scenario than anything Edge of Darkness has to offer.

Director Martin Campbell fails to really explore the subject of this film just as he missed with Taken. This, too, is another lackluster angry-dad-seeks-vengeance film.

Edge of Darkness, however, has no hope of becoming a surprise box office hit. It's missing a car chase and lots of shoot-'em-up moments to trick you into thinking it's good.

Edge of Darkness is a bore – a laughable one, at that. It is a painfully ordinary rogue cop vs. the corporation film that tries to be smarter than it is.

In the film's final act, a character says “… it's so convoluted that everyone can have theories and no one has a fact that isn't contradicted by another.” In other words, let's try to make a Reservoir Dogs meets The Departed without Quentin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese. When we confuse ourselves, we'll go ahead and have someone say this to fool the audience into thinking there's more to this movie than a pile of… well… I've said too much.

Not only is Edge of Darkness bad, but its plot rudimentary and its twists telegraphed. Several characters, including the two-timing hit man, are worthless and replaceable. The ensemble cast lacks any chemistry and Gibson is forced to try salvaging this mess with passionate emotion over his daughter's death.

At least that's what you'd think he would try to do.

Instead, he goes about the film stiff and concentrating more on his Boston accent than the rest of his acting. He dismisses various people seeking to help him and wishes only to go about finding his daughter's killers alone.

He makes some headway, albeit painstakingly, when he discovers her involvement with underground environmental activists who are trying to take down a corporation believed to work with nuclear weapons.

Everyone wants everyone else dead and it's a two-hour “who's gun is the biggest” stand-off to a not-so-well disguised surprise at the end.

Edge of Darkness is pointless, mindless and another reason why Gibson should stay behind the camera where he at least still has some idea of what he should be doing. But even there, his star is fading.

I have not seen all the nominees, but I've seen most of them. Here, I will give my predictions and picks for the major Oscar categories.

Best Picture

Nominees: Avatar, An Education (haven't seen), The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, The Blind Side, District 9, Precious (haven't seen), A Serious Man (haven't seen), Up, Up in the Air.

My Pick: This is a difficult category to judge as several movies are worthy of the award. However, only one pushed film into the next generation and therefore Avatar is my pick for Best Picture.

-

Best Director

Nominees: James Cameron (Avatar), Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds), Jason Reitman (Up in the Air), Lee Daniels (Prescious).

My Pick: While Cameron's Avatar was a masterpiece in technology, I do not think it is worthy of Best Director this year, although it will likely still win. My choice is Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds for a fresh take and different angle on an all-too-familiar topic.

-

Best Actor

Nominees: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart -- didn't come to Watertown), George Clooney (Up in the Air), Colin Firth (A Single Man -- didn't come to Watertown), Morgan Freeman (Invictus), Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker).

My Pick: While, I haven't seen two of the performances -- and most likely, you haven't either -- I'll go based on what came to Watertown. It's really a tough one for me because I wasn't blown away by any of the performances in this category. That said, I would have to go with Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela.

-

Best Actress:

Nominees: Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side), Helen Mirren (The Last Station -- haven't seen), Carey Mulligan (An Education -- haven't seen), Gabourey Sidibe (Precious -- haven't seen), Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia).

My Pick: I am no judge for this category since I have seen only two of the five films. Based on the buzz, it's between Meryl Streep and Gabourey Sidibe. I say Meryl Streep, but that may be because of her overall body of work in 2009.

-

Best Supporting Actor:

Nominees: Matt Damon (Invictus), Woody Harrelson (The Messenger -- haven't seen), Christopher Plummer (The Last Station -- haven't seen), Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones -- haven't seen), Christopher Waltz (Inglourious Basterds).

My Pick: Again, I haven't seen the majority of the films in this category, but Christopher Waltz's efforts in Inglourious Basterds cannot go unnoticed nor will it be easy to top.

-

Best Supporting Actress:

Nominees: Penelope Cruz (Nine -- haven't seen), Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air), Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air), Mo'Nique (Precious -- haven't seen), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart -- haven't seen).

My Pick: It is beginning to be a bit of a theme, here. The independent films earned a lot of nominations, and perhaps Watertown will take notice when Precious or Crazy Heart clean house. I've only seen Up in the Air here, and between Kendrick and Farmiga, the award goes to Vera Farmiga.

When in Rome

Starring: Kristen Bell, Josh Duhamel

Rated: PG-13

Runtime: 91 minutes

My Rating: 2 stars

-

-

When in Rome is as good as the team for which Nick (Josh Duhamel) once played – below .500 and not much better.

It's hard to make a compelling film when the subject is preposterous love. But that's what director Mark Steven Johnson set out to do.

What he gives us is a mess of unfathomable circumstances where, among other problems, all lost loves reside in New York City.

Beth (Kristen Bell) has to go to Rome, Italy. I know I said lost love was in New York, and you'll see why. She's there to attend her sister's shotgun-like wedding to a love drunk Italian.

While there she dances with Nick, a New Yorker who spends as much time worrying about his job as a columnist as she does her job as a curator. How he knows the hunky Italian man is a mystery.

But so is a lot in this film.

Beth develops a strong attraction while at the wedding reception, but on her first chance to make a move, sees him kissing another woman.

The logical action is, of course, to jump into the fountain of love and “save” the men who wished for love by taking coins out of the fountain. The problem is that once you do this, these men who first threw the coins fall for you.

The probability that four of the five coins she removes from the fountain in Rome belong to men in New York City is absurdly high. The probably of a wishing well containing all coins from men is also absurdly high. We aren't talking reality here, nor is that the point.

The point of When in Rome is to dull your mind and take you on a fairy-tale journey for adults. I'd rather spend that time watching Serendipity for that.

I also want to know why Beth, an undeniably beautiful blond, cannot find a man or why Nick, the handsome, charming, tan man with an impeccable jawline can't find a woman. It's no matter because this movie doesn't seem to address the underlying psychological dilemmas these two attractive people must have to be so unlucky in love. The prettiest girl at the bar is alone for a reason. Perhaps it's because she jumped in a fountain, did a ritualistic dance, and stole coins. Yes, she was sober.

The remaining cast is normal by comparison. They just wanted love. Unfortunatey Johnson makes them appear like escapees from the nearest psyche ward.

First, there's John Heder as the magician. In his bag of tricks is the upside-down hanging mummy escape. Creepy is too light a word.

Next, there's Will Arnet, the most attractive of the bunch, who is made into an overtly homosexual street artist.

Dax Shepard plays a man more in love with himself than any woman. He is annoying and could be absent from the screen without further degrading this already rotting film.

Lastly, there's Danny Devito as “The Sausage King.” How Beth doesn't jump for him is a question for the ages.

None seem to change or learn much of anything throughout the film. Neither did I, as a matter of fact. Actually, I did learn something. I learned that when choosing between When in Rome and the countless other romantic comedies about to hit theaters, go for any of the others.

Ask yourself why When in Rome released a full two weeks ahead of Valentine's weekend. When you come to the conclusion that it is because it's not worth watching, you can take solace in saving that ticket price for another week for something far better.

I'm concerned, however, with the number of laughs I heard in the theater as Nick and the rest of the crew jumped through various hoops to win over Beth. I am disturbed because When in Rome doesn't advance the genre, doesn't stand out in the genre, and is yet another forgettable film from the month of February.

There are no twists, no spoilers and nothing that will take you by surprise. It is, by all accounts, a paint-by-numbers, safe romantic comedy. It is charming. It has moments that are very funny. The car ride stands out. In the end, though, as the credits roll, a faint smile may appear on your face, but by the time you've exited the theater, the plot and characters evaporate.

They are, like the depth of love shown in the film, fleeting. It was fun one time around, just don't call back.

Here are the rules: 1. The film has to be post silent era. 2. The film has to be feature length. 3. It has to rely on visuals more than language.

10. 2001: A Space Odyssey

-

9. The Evil Dead

-

8. Wendy and Lucy

-

7. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

-

6. Halloween

-

5. I am Legend

-

3. Cast Away

-

2. Alien

-

1. Wall-E

So here are the parameters: 1. The movie must be less than 20 years old. 2. The movie will be talked about and revered for the next 20-plus years.

And now, here are my picks for Soon-to-Be Classics.

Synecdoche, NY

-

Good Night and Good Luck

-

Memento

-

Fargo

-

The Piano

-

Pulp Fiction

-

Toy Story

-

There Will Be Blood

-

Avatar

-

Shawshank Dedemption

BLOG ARCHIVE