Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaVeteran LAPD detective Henry Cardenas faces off against his toughest murder suspect yet, Vince Marins, who claims to be something other than human. Over the course of 24 hours, truths, both ... Leggi tuttoVeteran LAPD detective Henry Cardenas faces off against his toughest murder suspect yet, Vince Marins, who claims to be something other than human. Over the course of 24 hours, truths, both new and long-buried, will be revealed.Veteran LAPD detective Henry Cardenas faces off against his toughest murder suspect yet, Vince Marins, who claims to be something other than human. Over the course of 24 hours, truths, both new and long-buried, will be revealed.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 2 vittorie e 1 candidatura in totale
David Castañeda
- Louis Medina
- (as David Castaneda)
Karine Martin
- Stephanie Galliard
- (voce)
- (as Lindsay Ingrid Mussard)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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.
Tom Murtagh's directorial debut is an excellent and intriguing supernatural-noir film, that keeps you guessing all the way to the end. The story is expertly crafted, and the performances by Miguel Perez and Stephen Buchanan are captivating. If you love Following (1998) and Primer (2004), you'll love The Ascent.
I don't know if the rumors that this movie had a $20,000 budget are correct or not, but I did just today see an indiegogo campaign page that had raised something like $2,500, suggesting that in fact it was made on a shoestring budget. I know that the digital video revolution and streaming home entertainment have changed everything in terms of accessibility for indie film makers, but this movie really drove that point home for me in a way that no other ever has. I have watched many, many movies that literally cost a thousand times as much and enjoyed them a thousand times less. I wish Roger Ebert had lived to see it.
Also, I wanted to politely take issue with mitchellchristopherlong's quibble about the music playing while the detectives investigate the "Olivia" crime scene. I would argue that the music here serves an important dramatic function, specifically to make us see this scene (which we have seen so many times before in so many different crime shows and movies, inevitably via detectives who are jaded and cynical) with fresh eyes, as the authentic human tragedy that it really is. What the score here says is, "This is a different kind of movie. These are real cops who really see the victim. It's an awful thing to see and it hurts them every time, and they care." In fact, the dialogue literally tells us as much before they go in. "It's not like in the movies," Cardenas says to the reporter. So they're making an effort here to establish a more realistic emotional tone, which is one of the reasons why the left turn into supernatural horror that comes later is so effective.
Also, I wanted to politely take issue with mitchellchristopherlong's quibble about the music playing while the detectives investigate the "Olivia" crime scene. I would argue that the music here serves an important dramatic function, specifically to make us see this scene (which we have seen so many times before in so many different crime shows and movies, inevitably via detectives who are jaded and cynical) with fresh eyes, as the authentic human tragedy that it really is. What the score here says is, "This is a different kind of movie. These are real cops who really see the victim. It's an awful thing to see and it hurts them every time, and they care." In fact, the dialogue literally tells us as much before they go in. "It's not like in the movies," Cardenas says to the reporter. So they're making an effort here to establish a more realistic emotional tone, which is one of the reasons why the left turn into supernatural horror that comes later is so effective.
Was not expecting this to be a very good movie, as the description was very vague and the fact that most movies I have seen lately were absolutely horrible. This movie was a little corny (cheesy acting) at times, but the story line was amazing. I was not expecting it to be as good of a movie as it turned out to be. Very impressed.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizScreened at the Nevermore Film Festival in February 2018.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 15.000 USD (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 38min(98 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti