WHY would this film cost 80 million dollars?? - Edge of Darkness (2010) Discussion

[–] kobong 14 years ago

It most probably didn't cost that much, they just wanted to make more people see it.

reply

A lot of it went in to marketing I'd say, they wanted to capitalise on the fact it was Mels return to acting.

reply

[–] cookiela2001 14 years ago

Did he get basically good reviews? I was kind of appalled by the way he looked, and it's kind of a low key part (which is why I guess Robert De Niro pulled out)

He has a few good moments, but nothing amazing that any other professional couldn't pull off (IMHO)

reply

[–] craigmoore-3 14 years ago

I thought he was pretty consistent throughout, with flashes of greatness. The scene where he stands off with the hit and run car and sends it into the lake was just bad ass. I'm actually glad that De Niro pulled out, Ray Winstone actually did a great job as Jedburgh, he has that cocky charisma that made him conflict with the serious edge of Gibson as Craven, and helped give the film a lighter side. I'm not sure De Niro would have given it the same edge.

Overall, the film was good, very slow in parts but once it got moving it was good.

reply

[–] PostmortemG 14 years ago

"I'm actually glad that De Niro pulled out, Ray Winstone actually did a great job as Jedburgh, he has that cocky charisma that made him conflict with the serious edge of Gibson as Craven, and helped give the film a lighter side. I'm not sure De Niro would have given it the same edge."

I´ve never seen another movie with Winstone, so yeah... considering his great performance in this film, i must say that Deniro (As much as i love the guy) would most likely have not made the role as interesting as it was. In any case, I´m waiting for Deniro to become Travis Bickle once again, if Scorsese´s sequel to Taxi Driver ever does happen. The lameness that was Shutter Island makes me skeptical of Scorsese these days, however...

"Cain and Abel will go to Heaven... if they can make it through Hell!"
-Los Hijos Del Topo

reply

[–] craigmoore-3 14 years ago

I enjoyed his transition from the tough talking secret agent type to a man who realises he has wasted his life, something that ultimately caused his downfall at the end.

And yes, a Taxi Driver sequel would be epic.

reply

[–] feather_jammed_gears 13 years ago

Location fees. The few Boston shots were not cheap to pull off. IE tunnel chase scene.

reply

[–] TrevorAclea 13 years ago

$80-90m is pretty much an average budget for an A-list movie these days, but this originally was a lot cheaper before it hit the rocks. Despite being fired on the first day of shooting, De Niro was paid his full $8m salary because the producer was hoping to use him in a Scorsese film and didn't want to screw that up. Then Warner Bros. decided to make the film more of an action movie and it went back for expensive reshoots and re-edits, by which time John Corigliano's original score no longer fit the film and, because he wasn't interested in writing a new score for a completely different film to the one he signed up for, they had to hire another expensive composer to write a replacement score. Under the circumstances, it's surprising if it really did come in at just $80m.

"Security - release the badgers."

reply

[–] alphaboo 12 years ago

no big budgets run 40 to 60 million imbd lists 60 for this making 80 opening weekend netting a good 20 million or 30 percent profit.

reply