Asgar Leth's Man on a Ledge is certainly no award
candidate. It's not as absorbing and flavorful as
Contraband or as intense and thought-provoking as The
Grey. But it's not as pointless and incomprehensible
as Haywire either. For all its faults, it contains
many of the elements of a successful actioner. You may
prefer watching Man on a Ledge to the uncomfortable,
drab, not very convincing Albert Nobbs, even though
the latter got its star, Glenn Close, an Academy Award
nomination. Nobody in Man on a Ledge is going to get
any nominations, but they don't make you feel creepy.
"Ledge" stories are a familiar trope. Somebody climbs
out the window on the 20th floor and hovers there,
threatening to jump. Why is he there? Flashbacks
follow, and a tense and intimate relationship develops
with the police officer sent to talk him into coming
back inside. The last two examples show writers
straining to be original and abandoning the usual
person out on a ledge: somebody suicidally depressed
who wants to be talked out of it. In Matthew Chapman's
tedious, hectoring The Ledge (July 2011), featuring
Charlie Hunnam and Terrence Howard, the man may have
to jump to save someone else's life. The Ledge is
weighed down by numbing discussions of morality and
religion.
The screenplay for Leth's new "ledge" movie, by Pablo
F. Fenjves, who's previously penned a string of TV
movies, is more complicated and far-fetched than
Chapman's turgid effort -- and also more entertaining.
Unlike Soderbergh's alienating Haywire Fenjves
provides a plot it's actually possible to follow. It's
the kind of plot we must not reveal to anybody who
hasn't seen the movie, but we can tell you what the
trailer does: that the guy outside the building really
isn't suicidal; he's somebody in big trouble who's got
some kind of a tricky operation going on.
Man on a Ledge is an action movie that keeps moving
and maintains clear guideposts. It has some people we
can like, and some we can hate, and it's got some
things to say that we can sympathize with. Very
appealing is Sam Worthington as Nick Cassidy, the man
on the ledge, who's basically a wronged working man
striving to clear his record. Easy to loathe is Ed
Harris as David Englander, an evil financier and real
estate magnate who seems to have a lot to do with
Nick's predicament. (He's a cartoonish personification
of the greed of the one percent the post-Great
Recession Occupy movement is talking about.) In
between are allies -- Nick's brother Joey (Jamie Bell)
and Joey's partner in (justifiable) crime Angie
(Genesis Rodriguez); a couple of sympathetic allies,
Nick's ex-partner Mike Ackerman (Anthony Mackie) and
the negotiator Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks). Down on
the Manhattan street (this takes place at the
Roosevelt Hotel) there are crazies, a crowd first
yelling "Jump!", then holding up encouraging signs.
There's also a supremely annoying local TV news
person, Suzie Morales (Kyra Sedgwick), whose station's
coverage threatens to make matters much worse. And
there's stuff going on at police headquarters, a lot
of cops on the street, and security guards in two
buildings.
Even the action on the ledge itself is unusually
lively. Nick has something going on that causes him to
move back and forth along the ledge so sometimes Lydia
can't see or hear him. It's windy. And this was really
shot on a high ledge, and the character's fear of
heights, which is communicated clearly, was by his own
admission felt by Worthington himself. The physical
aspect comes through loud and clear.
By juggling all his narrative balls in the air,
Fenjves keeps the action exciting and avoids the
stagnation of the man stuck up in the air. The Ledge
could do nothing better than switch back and forth
between scenes in Hunnam's life (which isn't as lively
as Nick's) and his conversation with Howard across the
window. But Chapman wasn't constructing a movie; he
was constructing a lecture. It isa mark of The Ledge's
failure that the chemistry between Howard and Hunnam
is more interesting than what t happens in the
flashbacks. Man on a Ledge doesn't have to rely on
flashbacks. Those are ridiculously exciting -- they
include a high speed chase and a train collision --
but he gets them out of the way fairly early and
focuses on real time. Not only is the negotiating and
Nick's behavior complicated and exciting, but a lot
else is going on at the same time nearby, which we
can't reveal, and betrayals and alliances among the
police are emerging, which makes the negotiating
action involving Lydia (Banks) layered and revealing.
In Man on a Ledge, despite the preposterousness, I
felt I was in good hands: nothing was going to be
cringe-worthy, and there would be no longeurs. This
also prevents us -- till the final scenes' pat happy
ending tie things up with a neatness that's quite
absurd -- from noticing how fanciful and ridiculous
the action really is.
What's wrong, though, is that the thing that's going
on while Nick is on the ledge, which he is indirectly
a part of, could never happen. Nick would never be
able to rig up a thing like this, and if he tried to,
it would never succeed. Sometimes you wonder if
Fenjves has really thought all this through. Even
though he is willing to cast credibility to the winds,
he is a craftsman, putting together a lively yarn and
delivering constantly changing scenes with good
dialogue.
Sam Worthington, who was noticed as the main human
character in Avatar, is very winning here. He has such
an honest face you wonder how Nick could ever have
gotten into trouble. Not many actors are this relaxed
and likable. Banks also has a down-and-dirty warmth.
Jamie Bell is mainly called upon to do physical
gyrations, negotiating vaults and ducts. He's also
forced to enact silly, jokey sexual byplay with his
stock-Latina gf -- one of the places where the movie
falters in tone.
Bell and Ed Harris are the scrawniest two actors
likely to be seen in the same movie this year. Harris
is a sleazy villain. It's hard to believe him as a
successful magnate, no matter how crudely
worse-than-Trump, and hard to believe this is the
actor who has done serious work in films like Pollack
or A History of Violence.
But what this shows is that sometimes a not-so-good
Hollywood action movie can give good entertainment
value if it truly provides action and the writing
contains something to chew on -- even if we can't
quite swallow it all.