New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

George Rose: Mel has found himself on the dark edge of his own career and I say, "JUMP!" He needs to put himself out of our misery already. Passion of the Christ was an epic final nail in the coffin (or is it nail to the cross?) and could have been a great way to end a career and retire. But no, a meltdown and career revival were needed first. What better way to revive a fallen career than to make a mock-sequel to last year's surprise hit Taken? Regardless, he was only as famous as he was prior to Passion of the Christ because he was everything women wanted and everything men wanted to be. I'm pretty sure he won't be able to find that level of success again with his new drunken lunatic image. Tom Cruise hasn't managed to shake that funk of his career either and it'll take more than Taken 2 for Mel to do it.

Matthew Huntley: No, this is not a good enough result. It's fair, but probably far from what the studio considers a success. Warner Bros. was aggressive with their marketing and public awareness of Edge of Darkness, and an actor of Gibson's caliber (or perhaps notoriety?) should have drawn a bigger audience, especially for older adults who already saw Avatar. Gibson's popularity has definitely peaked at the box office (I don't think we'll ever see Signs or Ransom-like numbers again), but he should be able to generate tickets sales similar to Payback. At today's ticket prices, that means Edge of Darkness should have made at least $25 million. I think Gibson still has some chances before studios start writing him off, but they might reconsider paying him his usual salary.

Shalimar Sahota: I thought this would provide some decent competition for Avatar, and instead it's rather mediocre. I'd like to believe that this result is more about the film rather than audiences being turned off from an actor because of his past mistakes. There was a similar discussion about if his arrest in 2006 hurt the box office for Apocalypto. The reviews are so mixed, depending on if you're after action or drama. One reviewer wasn't so keen on it because it was more searching for clues instead of action thrills. While another didn't like how it changes tact from intrigue to Mel beating everyone up! From that, I'd say it's a decent mix of both, so I'll likely watch it soon!

Max Braden: He's been here before with varying results, and I think it has to do with subtle variations in the plot and tone of the projects. With Ransom he was a father out to save his kidnapped son with a very controversial "bring it on" approach. With Edge of Darkness his character isn't out to save anyone, he's just seeking revenge. At the time of its release in November of 1996, Ransom was Gibson's biggest opening weekend to date (unadjusted) and actually held that position until Signs. Eleven years ago he released Payback in the beginning to February with a $21 million opening. That did have a cooler vibe to it than Edge of Darkness does. Keeping in mind that he's an aging hero in a non-heroic role here and has been off camera in wide release since Signs, it's a decent opening.

Tom Macy: Good enough, not so bad, somewhere in that realm. A $17 million opening for a film with an $80 million budget starring Mel Gibson and directed by Mr. Casino Royale may sound like a disappointment. But there aren't too many actors out there who could go a full eight years between headlining films - with some seriously bad press in between - and still bring out a respectable crowd. Going a decade between films usually doesn't go well. Can anyone else remember a time when someone had successes a decade apart? Wait....

Continued:       1       2       3