Comparing Styles of Reviewing

A 1985 popular TV show has been remade into a blockbuster movie for 2010. Mel Gibson a veteran actor who has disappeared from the big screen since 2004 has re-entered with this film. Film Director Martin Campbell has bought many blockbusters in recent times like Casino Royale and The Mask of Zorro has directed this movie. The cinema “Edge of Darkness” is about a detective investigating the murder of his activist daughter while he uncovers a deep routed political conspiracy and many cover ups in the process. The role of detective Thomas Craven is played by Mel Gibson and the role of Emma the daughter of Thomas Craven is played by Bojana Novakovic.
The reviews I would like to compare are by Joe Morgenstern form the “Wall Street Journal” and by Anthony Lane published in the “The New Yorker”. Joe Morgenstern writes negative about the movie while Anthony Lane publishes the good in the cinema.
Joe Morgenstern compares the small screen version to the big screen version of the same story with the same title. He believes the movie is made in a style that the Hollywood producers intend to see. One the points he gave is bringing back a big star Mel Gibson. He thinks that the movie has been made in a hurry and the director could have been more creative. The conversations between Thomas and Emma after her death are effecting in bringing up a sentimental situation in the television show whereas they are cloying and manipulative in the movie. Morgenstern thinks that the plot has been compromised to make it simple, easy to understand for the general public. Emma who was a primary part in the serial does not have role as an activist in the new version. He expresses his dissatisfaction by saying that “In the film, she's a young physicist and a whistle-blower at a giant corporation that's ostensibly working on fusion power, yet the update feels perfunctory and unconvincing.” The plot does not seem convincing for Morgenstern he thinks that nobody is going to try to shut the military research in Massachusetts.
He thinks that all the secondary characters in the movie are big stereotypes even though they don’t matter more because it is a movie and not a serial. The movie is like a monodrama for him. He writes “Secondary characters have either been turned into caricatures (a lizardly U.S. senator, an oily CEO) or trivialized into genre stereotypes.”
Morgenstern publishes that “Mr. Gibson's performance is certainly intense, but the gleeful energy he once brought to such hits as "Lethal Weapon"—or even to "Conspiracy Theory," an excellent flop—has turned toxic, and his somber scourge is no fun at all.” which is a bit disappointment for Mel Gibson’s film.

Finally he adds that the movie is nowhere close to the source of its origin by saying that “In further fairness, there's no way that this film could have risen to the level of its source material. For one thing, a lot's got to give when five hours are telescoped into two. And unlike Craven, who refuses to play by the rules of society, the filmmakers have subscribed to the increasingly rigid rules of an expensive studio feature in a global market.”


For Anthony Lane the movie is an adventure, an efficient and a politically inert fantasy that uses the hammer blow of violence to palm itself off as pertinent and gritty. Lane also compares the movie with the old television serial but thinks that the original story was not altered that much. He thinks that the old “Edge of Darkness” was an ordeal, digging up surreal images from the conspiratorial musk. He agrees with Joe Morgenstern that the plot has been simplified and states example like “The Craven of twenty-five years ago, searching through his daughter’s bedroom after the murder, found a vibrator, a gun, and a Teddy bear; the Craven of 2010 comes up with just the gun. That says it all. As if in deference to the story’s roots, we also get a mysterious and dapper Cockney (Ray Winstone), who is brought in—by whom, we never find out—with the sole purpose, as he admits, of making everything unintelligible”.

He says that he liked the pace of the movie and pulse of the film but it looks like he was disappointed that there is not much suspense in the plot. He says “Campbell leaves us thrilled yet reassured. One man, it seems, can stanch the flow of evil—not difficult, perhaps, when the evil isn’t half as forbidding as the man. Gibson is the best thing about “Edge of Darkness,” at once despairing and decisive, although I’m not sure he was wise to agree to the scene where Craven says to a bigwig, “You’d better decide whether you’re hanging on the cross or banging in the nails.” Sorry, Mel. That was the other movie. “
Lane also writes well about the action sequences like “It’s been thirty years since “Mad Max,” but, when it comes to man vs. machine, Gibson is still up for a fight.”

I saw the trailer the on the day of release. It was really impressive. I have not seen the old serial but I seriously intend to watch it. The plot looks new to me but as both the critics say the suspense was out half way through the movie but the trailer looks action filled.
After watching the trailer and reading all the reviews I feel like watching the TV serial. The only problem with the movie is that the plot is very obvious from the trailer. The movie starts with Emma coming to visit his father Thomas. She tries to explain him that she is a big trouble. Then they show that she has been shot and lying death in her father’s hands. The action sequence is what makes it look really interesting.
Both the authors had interesting points. Even though they had different ideas they had their own observations. They are many points that both of them agree on. For example the performance of Mel Gibson was not as great as his previous performances like in “Lethal Weapon” and that it was a stunt by Hollywood producers to bring him back. After reading both the reviews and watching the trailer I definitely want to watch the movie.