Review: The Ledge


Terrence Howard is a Catholic cop with marital troubles who is called upon to talk down a possible suicide jumper (Charlie Hunnam) from a tall building. Hunnam is a slick hotel manager and apparent atheist, and the predicament he finds himself in has something to do with his fundamentalist Christian neighbours (Patrick Wilson and Liv Tyler), as he spills his guts to the admittedly distracted cop. Old Testament-loving Wilson apparently confuses Hunnam and his gay roommate for a couple (and finds it disgusting), and wants to pray for their souls. In reality, Hunnam actually has designs on shy and sweet-natured Tyler (who seems far less judgemental than Wilson) and sets about romancing her. Is he just trying to stick it to Wilson or is he genuinely hot for her? And just how in the hell does any of this result in Hunnam wanting to kill himself? You’ll have to watch to find out, but suffice to say, Hunnam isn’t your average suicide jumper. In fact, he rather looks like he doesn’t want to be up there at all.

 

Written and directed by Matthew Chapman (writer of “Consenting Adults”, “Colour of Night” and “Runaway Jury”), this 2011 drama/thriller has fine performances and brings up lots of potentially interesting ideas about religion/faith, atheism, tolerance, infidelity etc. In particular it seemed to suggest that neither atheists nor religious fundamentalists are necessarily blessed with a happy existence. For instance, the characters played by Liv Tyler and Patrick Wilson appear to be the types who have sought religion as a means of getting over personal demons, and the interference in their lives and marriage by cynical atheist Charlie Hunnam seems to disturb the peace and stability that religious faith might well have brought this married couple. So there’s the suggestion that they have sought religious enlightenment (and each other, for that matter) for the wrong reasons, perhaps. Interesting stuff, on paper. In actuality, the film is a complete botch-job, with no likeable characters whatsoever (they’re all caricatures) and everything has been entirely overblown to the point where even an atheist like me feels sorry for fundamentalist Christians being portrayed as such rudely judgemental (not to mention slightly psycho) people. I mean, Wilson’s character seems to genuinely believe the world is an awful, evil and diseased place, surely not typical of those with faith. That’s just not playing fair, and making the atheist character a self-righteous jerk doesn’t make things ‘fair and balanced’, either, just even more heavy-handed and caricatured (though it must be said, at least Wilson does hospital visits and missionary work, he does have admirable qualities). I didn’t like Hunnam’s atheism stemming from a personal tragedy, either. That’s too easy, and doesn’t speak for all atheists, as I can attest to.

These characters aren’t characters, they’re mouthpieces for the writer/director.

 

Although perhaps the most interesting characters in the film, the scenes between Howard and Hunnam don’t even work. As fine as Hunnam is the rest of the time, he doesn’t seem remotely stressed enough to be in his situation, and Howard (who also produced) is burdened by stupid moments where he has to leave Hunnam for a bit to take a phone call. He’s got a possible suicide jumper and he leaves him periodically! How fucking lousy is he at his job? That was just ridiculous and the whole framing device was hokey and unconvincing.

 

I’m not even sure what Chapman was really getting at here, ultimately. I mean, a scene at the end with Howard and his family suggests Chapman is making some kind of statement about the overall importance of the family unit, but I’m not so sure about that. Maybe it’s about not playing with fire unless you want to get burned, but then how does the Howard character tie into that? I’ve heard Chapman is an atheist and the portrayal of the Wilson character might suggest a bias, but again, I’m not sure what exact point he’s trying to make. Furthermore, there’s at least one big plot contrivance revealed towards the end that if brought up earlier, could’ve saved characters (and the audience) an awful lot of trouble.

 

These social dramas (“Crash”, “Little Children”, etc.) aren’t really my favourite kind of film, but this one’s pretty bad, despite fine work by Hunnam and especially the sweet and charismatic Tyler (Wilson is his usual vanilla self, and not helped by a one-dimensional character) who has rarely seemed so vulnerable as she does here, especially the more you find out about her character.

 

There’s the kernel of an inspired and fascinating idea here, but Chapman has cocked it up. Then again, at least it’s better than his screenplay for “Colour of Night”, so maybe I should look at things as glass half-full. Wait, no, that movie had lesbians, and lesbians are awesome. Sorry, this one’s a mess.

 

Rating: C-

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Hellraiser (2022)

Review: Cinderella (1950)

Review: Eugenie de Sade