REVIEW: ‘Edge of Darkness’ Takes You to the Edge of Boredom
by John NolteIt’s sure nice to have Mel Gibson back on the big screen carrying a gun, seeking revenge for the death of a loved one and quivering with righteous rage. But after seven years off-screen what a shame he couldn’t find a better script. “Edge of Darkness” is a mess. Convoluted, poorly structured and lacking in the important emotional turning points and character moments necessary to make this kind of thriller work.
Gibson plays Boston Police Detective Thomas Craven, an honest cop and inattentive but loving father whose 24-year old daughter Emma comes home for a visit. Things are warm, if a bit strained between them, but she’s ill — violently ill — and on their way out the front door to the hospital she’s shotgunned in a drive-by shooting that was meant to kill him. Or was it?
The plot’s entirely too ambitious, involving defense contractors, corrupt Senators, leftist activists and a gentle yet menacing wine-sipping government fixer named Jedburgh (The Mighty Ray Winstone) whose loyalties shift all-too obviously when the plot requires a nudge — when the screenwriters are stuck. In the “Austin Powers” trilogy he would’ve been called Agent Exposition.
Wintsone continues his perfect record of making everything he’s in better, and Jedburgh is a very interesting character. You do want to know more about him. The problem is that there’s no natural place for him in the film’s narrative. He reminds me of Liev Schreiber’s mysterious John Clark in “The Sum of All Fears.” Another movie where a mysterious supporting player in a disappointing film comes off as though he’s visiting from a much better movie.
The “reluctant” witnesses are just as poorly crafted as exposition machines as Jedburgh. They’re only reluctant enough to come off as reluctant in that contrived kind of way that tells the audience Big Scary Things Are Afoot. Of course they all eventually talk, with their only motivation seeming to be the need for a plot turn.
Movies can survive these kinds of problems, though. The secret is to keep a strong hold on the trajectory of your protagonist, and that’s where “Edge” fails most. The required moments don’t exist to bring this story to life. Craven discovering his daughter was the real target should’ve hit like a ton of rocks that turned the entire narrative on its head. Instead the realization arrives courtesy of a standard A to B to C police procedural.
The other moment most unforgivably missing (that the film’s trailer promises) is when Craven’s pushed to the point where he stops being a cop, starts serving out a violent reckoning, and never looks back. Instead these unsatisfying action bits come in maddening fits and starts. In once scene Craven’s kicking a little ass, in the next he’s a cop again. You keep waiting for that vicariously satisfying turning point where Mel Gibson does what Mel Gibson does best but all you get is one long frustrating tease.
Director, Martin Campbell, the competent helmer of “Goldeneye” and the splendid Bond-reboot “Casino Royale,” adapted “Edge” from a five hour Australian miniseries of the same name that he directed back in 1986. And that may be the problem. Cramming five hours of intrigue into two hours was a mistake and the end result is too much plot at the expense of the simplicity these kinds of films require:
Daughter’s killed. Find killers. Begin Rampage.
“Taken” it is not. There’s not even a single memorable action scene, and for a Mel Gibson film it’s surprisingly humorless. The only comedy comes from how hard the plot strains to let the audience know the villains are bi-partisan – both Democrats and Republicans.
But, hey, Mel’s back. And that is one very welcome turning point.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
77 Comments
Actually, he was "Basil Exposition" not "Agent".
Looks like a movie I will not see.
I really wish people would stop pretending "Casino Royale" was a great Bond film. Yes, I know it was supposed to show Bond as a young, starting agent. But instead it portrayed him as a weepy, incompetent boob who looked like Skeletor's stunt double.
The foot chase alone in Casino Royale made it special.
I do like Mel Gibson, but it's funny how many times in his movies a woman he cares for gets killed or seriously hurt. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is "What Women Want" and, frankly, I would have been okay if Helen Hunt took a bullet in that one.
Oh no. I had hoped this movie would be good.
I could watch 'Road Warrior' once every 6 months but to hell with Mel Gibson.I don't need Gibsons(especially his pops) OR this Adam McKay prick I keep reading about being part of my world.
Thanks for the review DH. I love when thrillers strain to be bipartisan. ugh.
Agree with you about the Casino Royale foot chase.
I sincerely hope that this movie does well because we need guys like Mel out there succeeding… This was his mea culpa film after his stupidity on PCH. He has so many more films in him that will enrich us all. I wish him luck
I love Mr. Winstone and frankly that was the only reason I was considering paying money to see it now rather than waiting for it on DVD. Which reminds me, I haven't seen "Sexy Beast" in a while. Time to revisit. As good as Ben Kingsley was in that movie, it's Winstone's performance that stays with you.
Jedburgh was the only redeeming part of the movie. The rest of my comments contain spoilers, so read ahead with caution:
The rest of the picture means you have to suspend belief entirely. You have to believe that a Republican Senator in MA is business as usual and that they are thoroughly involved with the overall operations of how the state's money gets spent. In addition, you have to believe that it makes sense for the federal government to contract out the most scandalous operation in the history of the country to a private company. In addition, you have to believe that the United States government is willing to build nuclear weapons to foreign specifications and plan to use them overseas. In addition, you have to believe the federal government is eagerly willing to cover up the murders of multiple people when instead they could just cut ties with the company and come down on them. In addition, you have to believe that the federal government set up an entire scheme to kill Craven's daughter and make it look like they were after Craven and then decided not to follow through with that scenario by killing Craven himself and saying, oh, they must have come back and got him. In addition, you have to believe the federal government decided to poison Craven with radiation before they had any plans and then just stumbled across an idea of how to use the radiation poisoning as a way to cover up the story. In addition, you have to believe that they kidnapped him, blasted him with radiation but then somehow they let him escape, the largest threat to their coverup. In addition, you'd have to believe that throughout all of this, not one person thought to just move all their operations to another facility, a federal facility where they can restrict all access and knowledge. In addition to that, considering his partner was in on it, they didn't just kill both the Cravens on the front steps and then let him investigate the murders and completely buy the bogus murdered they tried to pin it on.
There was just way to much to just disregard that it took away from the movie. It wasn't even consistent in the movie's own universe. Even if the action scenes were memorable or the dialogue was extremely clever, there's just too much that you have to believe to even get to any of it.
Poor, poor movie. I have to wonder if this decidedly liberal movie was a way for Mel to get back in good with the Hollywoodistas. Either that or since he already buys into the "Bush manipulates terrorism for politics" meme, the story appealed to him because of the conspiracy part. I can't imagine anyone would have read this script and said, "yeah, this story is totally plausible!"
No, the bipartisanship is simply pictures of the bad guy with Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, W, Rudy Guiliani, etc… The bad guys in the film are not bipartisan in any way.
It cribs off the Australian series, which Clapton did the score for, and it's an inferior piece of work much like last years "State of Play" adaptation. The villain's name Jedburgh isn't an accident, that was the name for the OSS
paratrooper teams that did underground work in France and Italy during WW2, some of which like Colby and
Conein, ended up in the CIA. Others like Aaron Bank, were the founders of the Green Berets, you might call him the
original 'Jack Bauer', much like corrupt pharmaceutical tycoon, McCloy in MI2, was named after a high Defense Department official and diplomat in the Cold War
Yes, but the ridiculous part about it was when it showed him on tv, a senator from MA, he had an "R" next to his name. And this was obviously filmed before the Scott Brown election. You want to talk about making it difficult to suspend disbelief. There was no effort to make the villains look bipartisan. Reality was however, stretched to the breaking point in trying to make the villains look Republican.
"Convoluted, poorly structured and lacking in the important emotional turning points and character moments necessary to make this kind of thriller work."
Do you know what I'd really like to see either here at Big Hollywood or associated with Big Hollywood?
Mentorship for conservative screenwriters. Advice and pointers and hints for beginners.
I don't know how that could be made to work, but it seems right in line with encouraging and promoting an alternative to the liberal Hollywood ideology.
But it's not really enough just to make a conservative movie if it sucks. The craft is important, and I think that it's not like sitting down to write prose, which takes craft too of course, but everyone knows what a prose story is supposed to look like. A script seems more like making the plans for a house that someone else will build.
I can't disagree with a syllable of what you wrote, but I found Gibson compelling enough to keep me entertained. Yes, it should have been constructed better, and boy, is it tiring to see movies where the bad guys are so all powerful they are everywhere at once – yet they can't take out a 50-something Boston cop.
Quantum of Solace needs to be seen to understand where they were going with Casino Royale. What I do not like is the female M….. to me it does not come over the right way.
Just got back from seeing this movie and yeah the review is pretty much accurate. About the only intersting part of this movie was the Jedburgh character. So fascinating and mysterious was he, that it would intersting to see a tv show spinoff of his character
Saw it today — VERY GOOD!!
"A script seems more like making the plans for a house that someone else will build."
That's the most succinct, insightful definition I've seen in ages. Please make peace with the fact that I'll be blatantly stealing it every chance I get.
Spoilers>
.
.
.
I found the whole Truther premise of this story the worst thing about it. Look, the heart of the scandal was that the federal government — not just a few rogue agents, but the actual government — is constructing nuclear weapons (plural, not just one) that are intended to look like Jihadist bombs, whatever that would mean. Why would we do this? Well, of course, silly, so that we could detonate them, kill a bunch of Americans, and enrage the citizenry enough to make them eager to invade the Muslim world. I'm sure this makes perfect sense to someone who thinks the Republican Party bombed the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. But for the rest of us this is simply insulting.
Some folks have already complained about the plot holes. How about this one: aren't there less suspicious ways of disappearing a 24-year-old girl working in a secure nuclear facility than tricking her into drinking thallium-laced milk? I'm sorry, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tends to get involved when workers at nuclear plants die of radiation poisoning — and they tend to call the FBI when those same workers are shotgunned before they succumb to radiation. But I guess if you inhabit a fantasy world where the American government nukes its own people in order to facilitate its neoimperialist ambitions, you might as well make the NRC and the FBI part of the conspiracy.
And what was this business about Mel's best friend being blackmailed into turning on him? In a movie that goes out of its way to bolster Boston's finest, this was one limp twist. The Boston cops in *my* version of the movie would be far more likely to execute the blackmailers than knuckle under and play Judas.
But there were things I liked: (a) respect for Boston's police, (b) family values (not just for Mel's character Thomas Craven, but throughout the movie the fundamental importance of family kept reappearing), (c) the obvious satire of John Kerry (despite the gratuitous R-MA label that flashed by), and (d) "everything's illegal in Massachusetts".
But overall, the direction / editing was deadening. Apart from the failure to exploit emotional turning points, all the good tough-guy lines just fell flat. There were many, but (apart from "Welcome to hell") I can't even remember them an hour after seeing the movie.
BBB
We saw this movie this evening and it certainly was not what we expected. Don't waste your money. I disagree with the review's statement that the bad guys were bipartisan. What bothered me most was the emphasis on Republicans, (Photos of the villain with Giuliani and Bush) being the bad guys in government. A movie made for "truthers" if ever there was one. Yeah, Mel Gibson turned out another conspiracy theory movie. In this one though, evil corporate America is in cahoots with the evil US government.
There were also two different photos of him with Bill Clinton and Pelosi.
I really liked it. mel's banter was a lot of fun and i enjoyed ray winstone. to be honest, i missed the whole truther aspect and thought it was making more fun of the current administration, who i would actually believe capable of allowing a "private" manufacturer to do what they do in this movie. i also forgot that this is based on the british television show.
Mel Gibson plays these kind of roles very well and this film looks interesting .As for State of Play ,well that was a good film adaptation well-made and well-acted. The BBC series was okay, but ran on too long,by at least one entire episode.I much preferred Bateman as Foy in the film and Russell Crowe was excellent as McCaffrey, the journalist.
Thanks for making me laugh out loud on a sleepless night at 3:41 am.
Mr. Nolte, that was one of your better written reviews. That piece makes me want to see the movie you're discouraging me from seeing.
[...] link: REVIEW: ‘Edge of Darkness’ Takes You to the Edge of Boredom This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
John Clark from "Sum of All Fears" was visiting from what could be several movies- he's a character from Tom Clancy's universe (other than Jack Ryan). He was the high point of seeing SOAF for me.
Sounds like you are saying it borders on, nay, slips over the edge of unwatchable which is too bad. Still, I'll give it try. As you point out, Mel's back and that's a good thing. Bi-partisan bad guys? Hey that is someting too, I'd think.
Heh heh!!
I haven't seen the movie, and I am going to very soon. The whole review thing is biased to a point, where the author of the review totally fails to see the "big picture", which is not the fact that we have big screens in theaters. There is a plot behind the plot( I am sure!) in the same way like in most psychological movies for example. If one is unable to follow that, or if it is too foreign to grasp , then the reaction is usually negative.
Brisco–A clear-headed , point-by-point analysis makes you want to see a movie he just panned? Go ahead, spend your ten to twenty bucks at the cineplex. Enjoy. But I appreciate when reviewers can zero in on the failures
of directors. I'll wait till it eventually gets to my library and check it out for free. Time– is money– is time. Patience is it's own reward. Starpower means nothing.
I was attending a book conference once and the topic came up – how many protagonists in mystery fiction happened to have a dead spouse or girlfriend (or a nasty divorce that put him off relationships…until…) and someone said there was actually a name for this plot device – it's called "the Cartwright bride". You have to be of a certain age to get it.
My first thought seeing a trailer for this movie was, "He has the nerve to show his face?!" I hate it when I know too much about the private life of an actor whose work I've enjoyed, but sadly, Mel Gibson has joined the long list of actors I won't support on principle. It wasn't just the PCH outburst, but, after professing strong Christian faith, his expression of pride at fathering of an out-of-wedlock child after destroying his large family. I'd prefer that he take his hundreds of millions and go away.
Saw it. Booooooooooring. I did like the parody of Senator John Kerry.
yeah god forbid he profess his strong Chrisitian faith. We simply cannot have that in Hollywood. Its bad for busine$$
Agreed. As John Nolte said below, the chase scene at the start was spectacular and I really thought the movie would be one of the best bond movies. However, it turned into a rather slow talk fest with an occasional action sequence. The ending was horrible because it had no ending. I had to ask myself if the bad guys got away or not. If they did, then what was the point of the movie? If they didn't, then what did I miss? I would break the movie down to:
Really cool action scene.
convoluted exposition.
hot girl introduction.
convoluted exposition.
hot girl action.
action scene.
convoluted exposition.
long boring unfunny card game.
more convoluted exposition.
action scene and convoluted exposition.
convoluted action scene.
convoluted exposition of the convoluted expositions.
the end.
At least the other bond films pretty much had action scene, convoluted exposition, hot girl action, action scene after action scene, cool ending action scene. The end.
Saw the movie last night in about a 3/4 full theater. The absolute silence as the credits rolled was eerie … I actually thought people might boo. All of the above spoiler comments are dead on related to the absolute absurdity of the plot – but honestly the plot doesn't even matter as this is one of the most boring films I've ever encountered. It's just one stilted dialogue scene after another with varying cliched Boston backdrops (in an attempt to give the film's look some substance).
2 people actually left the theater about half way through and my girlfriend and I seriously considered doing the same but decided to stay just for any unintentional comedic moments that may ensue. Not many did. All in all, very reminiscent of a bad late-80's Siegal movie without any of the action and with a little 9/11 truther garbage thrown in. Save $10 and just rent Striking Distance instead …
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I very much admired his profession of faith. When his marriage and family fell apart and he proudly fathered an out-of-wedlock child, I no longer found much to admire in him.
we couldn't agree more…
As companion pieces 'Royale' and 'Solace' work extremely well, and is as good as anyone could expect from a current interpretation of the cold war era spy.
And Dench is there for political (feminist) reasons. Good actress, but no Bernard Lee…
watch 'Quantum' and 'Royale' back to back. They work together REALLY well; only 007 film to be a sequel…
I won't see this movie if I was paid. The moment I heard leftist, environmentalism I was like Mel you are pole vaulting over the shark…..go back to do doing what you do best…leftwing tree huggery is not you niche!
That's good to hear because it's the fastest one I ever wrote. 90 minutes compared to 4-5 hours. But Shakey's Pizza and Friday Night were calling and there was no way in hell i was going to tap-tap-tap until 9pm!
Why not go watch it and decide for yourself?
The original British television series by the same name upon which this is based was excellent. Joe Don Baker was a great Darius Jedburg. Available on Amazon.
"The “reluctant” witnesses are just as poorly crafted as exposition machines as Jedburgh. They’re only reluctant enough to come off as reluctant in that contrived kind of way that tells the audience Big Scary Things Are Afoot. Of course they all eventually talk, with their only motivation seeming to be the need for a plot turn."
Damn, Nolte, I LOVE the way you describe boring.
Oh, and thank you for taking the bullet in seeing this film ahead of me. Appreciate it. I will reward your pain by not wasting my money on this turkey.
I saw the film last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. Was it a masterpiece? Well, no. But it was a solid thriller, with several surprisingly tense scenes, and even a few "jump in your seat" shots. Gibson gives his usual strong performance and the interaction between father and daughter throughout the film is quite touching. Perhaps I have lower standards for entertainment than Mr. Nolte. But it was a good, not great, film in my opinion.
No offense to Mr. Nolte, but he seems to strongly dislike the film more because of the political bent than because he thinks it was a bad film. SPOILER ALERT! The bad guys aren't bad BECAUSE they're Republicans, and the company isn't evil BECAUSE it's a company. Any desire to read that much into a simple revenge flick is allowing your bias to show. The main baddie is a bad, greedy guy. There's no indication that he's supposed to represent evil corporations…just evil men. The senator involved has an R next to his name true, but there's no reason to think he represents ALL Republicans. If anything he represents all POLITICIANS. And let's not forget the main eco-terrorist guy was a greedy b*stard who sold out his own cause. So the bad guys are a mix of a greedy ceo, a greedy politician, a dishonest government rep, and a greedy eco-terrorist. Sounds like we have the bases covered. Ironic that Mr. Nolte is upset that the film went out of its way to point out that there are bad guys on both sides.
C'mon MovieGuy,
When the movie was made, there was no inclination that MA would ever have a Republican Senator. Putting that "R" prominently next to his name didn't happen by accident.
Yes, it had enough plot holes to drive a truck through. But, all that being said, it was enjoyable. I did not think I wasted my money by going to the theater, which these days is the benchmark for my husband and myself. It was no Gran Torino or Taken, but it wasn't bad.
I think Mel's divorce, leaving his wife of decades for the proverbial younger woman/love child was in many ways his "Meg Ryan" moment–someone who seemed so solid proved to have a much less attractive side.
The page you linked to says it's British. I already knew that it was British, but I thought it at least might have been a co-production. Where the heck did you get "Australian" from?
You people are going way too deep. I saw this movie yesterday and enjoyed it for what it was, entertainment. Do I have a problem with the way Gibson and other actors conduct their personal lives? Yes. Was this movie predictable? Yes, but then so are 95% of the films produced so far. Go watch it and forget the real scary world outside for a few minutes.
My first thought seeing a trailer for this movie was, "He has the nerve to show his face?!" I hate it when I know too much about the private life of an actor whose work I've enjoyed, but sadly, Mel Gibson has joined the long list of actors I won't support on principle. It wasn't just the PCH outburst, but, after professing strong Christian faith, his expression of pride at fathering of an out-of-wedlock child after destroying his large family. I'd prefer that he take his hundreds of millions and go away.
i agree with you, movieguy, and i thought that the senator reminded me so much of john kerry that i didn't even see he was listed as a republican. i thought the filmmakers were having a laugh at kerry's expense, which i thoroughly enjoyed. and also the fact that they lumped the eco-terrorist in with the bad guys was refreshing.
You know, it's funny but that didn't occur to me while I was watching it. He DOES look and sound like John Kerry. Good catch!
I'll grant you that…I doubt it was accidental at all. I just think they should get SOME credit for making the bad guys a mix, rather than the Evil Corporation in cahoots with the Evil Republican politician and the Evil Government.
Don't get me wrong, I saw the liberal bent…I just don't think the movie is a total wash because of it. I hear conservatives complain so much that ALL the villains in film are conservative. Then when we get a film with an eco-terrorist, ACTUAL tree-hugger as part of the bad guys, Mr. Nolte accuses them of try TOO hard to show it.
The truther aspect of this movie alone should discourage all conservatives from giving this piece of garbage their money. Is it just me, or is this the underlying plot of every single modern Hollywood thriller — an evil corporation is conspiring with government forces to create a false premise to launch an unjust war for profit.
Just once, I'd like to see a thriller that turned this tired formula on its head. It would be a twist more shocking than The Sixth Sense's.
Mentorship for conservative screenwriters? You think if someone shows you the screenplay format, you'll start changing the world?
There are a zillion screen and TV writers out there with blogs that give advice and pointers and hints for beginners, and I haven't seen one that checks for political ideology before they let you learn. But tips and tricks don't get your script writtten.
You want to learn how to write a script? Enroll in a class — or just buy one of a zillion books. And then start writing. And keep writing. And keep writing. And maybe someday you'll be good enough.
Too true. And hey, I'm all in favor of offing the Helen Hunt character in WWW too.
flyjets,
EXACTLY! Everyone gets so bent out of shape, talking about boycotting the movie as though it's a Michael Moore film. It's just a fun, by-the-numbers thriller and it works.
Lighten up everyone, it's just a movie. It won't bite.
I'm uncertain if I should be insulted or not.
I'm not at all certain that I, personally, want to put the effort into screen writing as I generally pursue prose. However, the idea that there are a zillion sources of good information out there is both true and irrelevant. But it's untrue that ideology doesn't matter to the learning environment. It always matters. In classes I've taken for writing fiction it mattered simply because it was always there and you never knew how open you could be. All told, though, the fiction writing wasn't bad because there was a mix of ideologies and a little bit of politeness all around was enough . When I've been in a script-writing group it mattered because it matters when you're the only conservative isolated in a group. Not that these things are useless. Of course not. Not that a person shouldn't take advantage of everything they can whenever they can.
But one of the main premises of this entire blog is that conservatives in Hollywood often have to hide their orientation (so to speak). Creativity and expression being what it is, stifling yourself, feeling that you have to be discrete, leads to inhibition for most people. It can't be good for creativity or feeling free to experiment and express what one is trying to do.
And from my experience in the group I was in for a while, it's really not *useful* to spend your part of a meeting trying to explain the unfathomable mystery of why a teenaged girl might enlist in the Marines.
It's not hard to find good books on formatting. It's not hard to find ones that talk about spine and beats and turning points and whatever else. I've got a few. It's not hard to find free formatting software and forums and communities.
But there is value to like minds, just like there is value to exposing yourself to diverse ideas. And there is also value to networking and encouragement.
And I know that is true, even if it's for someone else and not for me.
Oh, hey – emphasis on Republicans.
"Sum of All Fears" all over again.
Firstly: An *Australian* series? Where did that notion come from?
I'm not in any hurry to see this one, but it's interesting to see that a 25-year-old story is raising hackles with some of the commenters. I'd thought that the original version was such a product of its time that a remake would be irrelevant, but perhaps not.
Much as I like Ray Winstone, I really can't see him as Jedburgh. Admittedly, I can't see anyone other than Joe Don Baker as Jedburgh, but Winstone's mockney schtick just doesn't feel right for the role. I'm just not getting the immortal Templar vibe from him.
Who wrote this movie, Charlie Sheen?
Radiation poisoning is a pretty conspicuous way to cover something up. Remember the Livinenko case? It is guaranteed to make worldwide headlines.
But why is that an excuse? You're basically saying that sure, the movie sucks, but most movies suck so we shouldn't complain.
The heck with that! I want every movie to be a goddamned masterpiece!
Or at the very least I want the people making them to TRY. Making excuses for other people's lame and shoddy work seems positively masochistic.
My 17 year old son and I go se a movie every couple of weeks even if we think the movie will suck. We like going to the movies.
Though the movie was a tad bit slow, we both enjoyed it. My son loved it and he is the type of kid who normally goes for more action.
Great movie.
You are right about the villain being a pubbie. It was frickin' ridiculous. Hasn't been a Republican Senator from MA since the '70s, but he was in this movie. He did have a long face like Horseface Kerry. I couldn't get past that fact in the movie.
I went to the movie to support Mel. It wasn't a great movie, but it was worth my 5 bucks.
Oh come on! This is a conservatives dream movie!! It stars an evangelical jew hating christian shooting people!
Thats Conservative Oscar material right there!
Mel go back to making period epic films like Braveheart. Plenty of untapped heroes in the past you can do. You are at the age to play world weary warrior. Stay away from the contemporary stuff, only brings out the Mel Gibson haters.
If he is a Jew hater then he should go with the other Jew haters in the Democratic party.
I just saw this movie and it was awesome. What I am trying to figure out though, is how Jedburgh become poisoned. If he was working for Bennet, why would Bennet poison him? Or was it an accident?
Amber, I think he had something else like cancer. He was taking a ton of pills in his first scene in the movie.
Funny, that is why I support him now more than ever. Why? Because when a person professes their faith to such a large audience, and makes a difference in so many lives in a positive way, that is when "all hell breaks loose." I doubt I could have with stood the on slate that came at him from every direction. Only one man was perfect.
I have seen this movie twice and really enjoyed it. I remember halfway through the first viewing stopping and thinking wait I think I hate this movie because it sounded like a Bush bashing conspiracy piece of propaganda. By the end of the film, I came away with a different opinion. I remembered that this film was not made while Bush was our president. Then I realized how much I loved the boldness of this movie. I saw the Obama extremist administration in this film. Another bit I loved was the "everything's illegal in Massachusetts" line. Its poking fun at liberal idiocy and their ridiculous love of government interference in our lives. Oh and at the end of the film, the news network that Craven gives the evidence to? FOX NEWS!!! woot woot I was so happy at that point. Fox News chosen to expose government corruption it was so fitting. Especially when you know the truth that all other media outlets are tied in with the liberal government anyway. I find this movie to be a conservative film. I loved the scene where Mel beat that green eco-prick as well. haha
Sites we Like……
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……
Links…
[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……
Sites we Like……
[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……
You must be logged in to post a comment.