The Ascent

Miguel Perez does well in this low budget tense drama. What spoilt it for me was the dialogue/script for the supporting cast and the director's obsession with close framed tight shots of faces.

2017 indie film "The Ascent" provides a breath of fresh air in film-making. With a humbling budget of less than $20,000, "The Ascent" delivers a gripping narrative. Phenomenal acting, excellent dialogue, and exquisite writing drive this engaging supernatural thriller.

Seasoned LAPD detective Henry Cardenas (Miguel Perez) is on the verge of breaking a Los Angeles police department record. However, the most challenging case of his career, murder suspect Vince Marins (Stephen Buchanan), is taken into custody with Cardenas as lead detective. But as Cardenas probes the case, more than the present murder comes under investigation.

Marins makes a bold claim that he's something otherworldly, an assertion which Cardenas initially doubts. Meanwhile, budding journalist Regina Parker (Amber Waller) observes Cardenas. Initially, the veteran detective was reluctant to allow Parker to oversee his case, but he eventually conceded.

The film begins with narration from a then-unknown character. It's haunting dialogue: "They say she's buried under a tree," it explains of singer and pop icon Laura Maldonado (Anisha Adusumilli) who was murdered under mysterious circumstances, and her body never recovered. Then, action jumps to present day with Cardenas solving his latest murder case, just before interrogating Marins.

As "The Ascent" progresses, flashbacks periodically relay the tale of Maldonado's rise to stardom and eventual death. Over the course of the film, "The Ascent" focuses increasingly on Cardenas and Marins. Notably, Buchanan as Marins steals almost every scene he's in, infusing it with his quick wit and a frenetic energy.

A bracing thriller, "The Ascent" is not without its humor. Vince runs a website Hollywood Skateboard Tours (and yes, it's a live site). If that domain isn't already taken, it's likely snagged soon. During the investigation, Vince comments on the interrogation room: "No two-way glass?" he wonders. "If this were the movies, there'd be two-way glass." This self-referential moment adds a comedic element which is delightfully meta. Furthermore, Regina remarks that Det. Cardenas' partner, Frank Oslo (Sam Rodd) is the stereotype sleazy cop. When Cardenas queries what his stereotype is, she replies the zen master detective.

Writer-director Tom Murtagh crafts a clever narrative which doesn't show its hand until the final moments. An air of mystery persists throughout much of the film, and it's incredibly dialogue driven. The banter between Cardenas and Marins sustains the movie, acting as a primary driving force. With its simple yet effective sets, "The Ascent" is proof that budget doesn't make a film. With its incredibly modest $15,000 budget, "The Ascent" punches far above its weight class, outshining even major box office releases. It accomplished this feat with mastery of filmmaking techniques, from tour de force performances from Perez and Buchanan to taut dialogue, and an engaging plot that unravels in a sizzling slow-burn.

While "The Ascent" manages to grab the viewer's attention, holding it firmly until the final credits roll, a few moments feel unnecessary. Notably, there are two songs which play in full and though the tracks themselves are fine, it's odd to feature the entire runtime. The first appears while Cardenas and Oslo investigate a murder, and it's mildly distracting attempting to watch them work with the music over top. Sure, it's for dramatic effect and at that, it succeeds. But perhaps only a small snippet needs to play. Similarly, in the riveting conclusion, another song surges forth and plays in its entirety when a snippet could have easily sufficed.

Ultimately, "The Ascent" offers a refreshing dose of indie goodness. With its superb acting, plot, and script, it's a lesson in filmmaking which big-budget box office releases could use.

I was really into this movie. It kept you intrigued on what you think happened but I can say I didn't see what happened coming. I thought it was worth higher than what I gave it right up until about roughly 15-20 minutes left in the movie (I'm not going to say what changed my opinion because I don't want to spoil the movie because it really is worth watching once). You will see the change for yourself, you can't miss it but just because I don't like a turn the movie takes doesn't mean someone else does. Just personally for me that part was dumb but not enough to ruin the movie, just enough to lower the rating a bit IMO.

I thought this was a very interesting movie. Didn't have an all star cast but the actors did really well. I watched it twice back to back. It has a surprising ending.

This falls into a specific small niche of philosophical "shoulda been" films where there is a brilliant premise spoiled by mediocre-to-bad acting and some horrifically bad writing. I often tend to love them despite their glaring flaws but I also spend the entire time wanting to throw things at the screen.

Dialog. Does nobody teach dialog anymore? This, like many works written by untrained writers, contains a series of monologs rather than any realistic sense of conversation. There are people spouting stiff, unnatural, overwrought and perfectly turned phrases at each other. In the cases where the acting is good (the interrogator) it merely comes off as eye-roll-worthy. In the cases where the acting is mediocre (the suspect) it makes you shake your head sadly. Where the acting is horrific (the partner and the journalist) it makes you physically wince. You never forget that this is WRITING. With every word spoken you are painfully aware you are watching something that was carefully written and edited and rewritten. You can actually feel the writer agonizing over every word, trying to get it just right. It's as if each character pauses before speaking to organize every thought into a neo-Shakespearian soliloquy. Except without the pauses, because we are supposed to believe this nonsense just falls from their tongues like hymns from the lips of angels.

Except for the ending sequences, almost every scene outside of the interrogation room is unnecessary. Every bit of plot that takes place outside the interrogation room can be evoked through the discussion between the only two characters who really matter. Characters such as the reporter are purely there for expository (and as an awkward vehicle for the "reveal") and can be cut completely. The obnoxious partner can fade into the scenery without loss to the core of the film (and he should. And I hope the actor who plays him fades along with him). Both characters are only mildly realized and feel more like interruptions than adding any depth to the film. I don't need to be told repeatedly that the interrogator is good at his job. I see that he is good at his job.

As for the ending, without spoiling, one of the characterizations has been done so many times it is tired and actually detracts from the impact. Later, a confrontation is unnecessary and confusing and changes the tone. It was all just six degrees south of great, and it's a frustrating six degrees. If you are a writer, ask yourself "What is the most important thing that needs to happen here?" Then write those things. Everything else is trying too hard.

To see a brilliant example of a philosophical film centered around an interrogation, watch Una Pura Formalità (A Pure Formality) by Giuseppe Tornatore starring Roman Polanski and Gerard Depardieu. It's an Italian film made in French (strange combo, yes), but make sure you watch with subtitles rather than a dubbed version: it is imperative that you experience the subtle, nuanced acting. Even if you are someone who eschews foreign films, watch it. If you saw and liked The Ascent at all, you will be awed by Tornatore's brilliant work. THIS is writing. This is how you write complex philosophical dialogue that still feels like two people are actually speaking to each other rather than holding court and making hubristic, hyperbolic proclamations. You can see that once all the carefully constructed words are removed, there is room for the emotions that should be filling every inch of this story.

If this were a truly bad film, I probably wouldn't bother reviewing. But it has so much potential I just want to grab the writer and shake some experience into him. Murtagh is obviously smart and imaginative and has something to say. Unfortunately, he still desperately needs to learn how to say it. All writers feel like they were born to their craft, but classes are important even to the best natural talent. I would tell him to study dialog (please, for the love of all that is holy in the universe, learn dialog). Hire an editor, because everyone needs a brilliant editor. Once he does, he will wish he could go back and remake this. Actually, I wish he would. It wouldn't be the first time the film industry had a do-over, and I'd love to see this film properly made.