Man on a Ledge

First Hit:  Parts were fun and interesting others just poorly constructed.

At the end of this film, it is all supposed to come together and it does, but it was not satisfying nor did it feel complete.

Nick Cassidy (played by Sam Worthington) is a former cop and in prison because he’s been accused of stealing a $40M diamond from David Englander (played by Ed Harris). However he claims he is innocence and was set-up and wants to make his name right. He attends his father’s funeral and escapes from his guards.

After being in hiding for a few weeks, he checks into an expensive hotel, eats a fancy meal, leaves a note (claiming his innocence) and climbs out on the ledge 21 floors up. While the cops, news people, news people, and public are focused on him from the street below, his brother Joey (played by Jamie Bell) and his brother’s girlfriend Angie (played by Genesis Rodriguez) are breaking into the building across the street actually stealing the diamond. In this way Nick can prove his innocence.

Englander is characterized as someone having some of the arrogance and stupidity of Donald Trump and the controlled focus and untouchable qualities of a mobster. He uses cops as his dirty work guys whom will kill for him at a price.

This is the underlying scenario as the film unfolds as it includes Nick's working partner as one who was dirty as well.

Lastly, the film also has a focus on a police psychologist Lydia Mercer (played by Elizabeth Banks) who just recently lost one of her “jumpers” and is struggling with the pain. Nick specifically asks for her as a way to help her move through her past event.

The film has enough good shots in it to make it very interesting. The overhead, looking over the ledge and Worthington’s ability to make it seem he could have fallen at any moment, was very good. What didn’t work was that it was far too easy to see, and know, which cops were crooked - they even looked crooked. In other words, in some places the movie, had little too much telegraphing of characterizations and situations.

Worthington was strong and believable in his role although the film teetered as not being believable. Harris was a wonderful arrogant ass who felt entitled to his arrogance. Bell was very good as the brother who wanted to do right for his family. Rodriguez was strong, funny, and vulnerable in her role as accomplice and girlfriend. Banks was OK as the psychologist who is charged with talking down a jumper. Edward Burns, played another police person charged with talking down jumpers and I didn’t think this was of his better work. He seemed to not have a mind of his own and wasn’t convincing why he changed to support Banks role. Pablo F. Fenjves wrote a fairly interesting script. Asger Leth directed some of the ledge and robbery scenes with aplomb while other sections didn’t quite work as well.

Overall: It was interesting while watching it, but it has no legs because the very next day – it is forgotten.

Jane Eyre

First Hit: Beautifully shot, well-acted, but there was something dramatically missing.

This story has been done many times and this version was one of the most beautifully shot of all of them.

The feeling of the cold moist damp rain of England, the moors, the stone floors, the heavy drapes, the wavy glass windows, the candle and fire lit rooms were all visually arresting and felt true to the time. Here the director got it right.

The film begins with Jane (played by Mia Wasikowska) running away from the home of Mr. Rochester (played by Michael Fassbender) where she had been governess to his child ward. Her journey there began as an unwanted child (played by Amelia Clarkson) by her guardian Mrs. Reed (played by Sally Hawkins). Reed ships her off to a boarding school where she is treated poorly but becomes educated.

Unfortunately there is no resemblance between the actresses of the young and older Jane and this obvious mismatch was troublesome. Although there was a consistent feeling of Jane through these two actresses, and both were very good, the obvious physical discrepancies (mouth, lips, eyes and nose) were disconcerting to me and kept me from buying the story.

When the older Jane arrives at Mr. Rochester’s home she is greeted by Mrs. Fairfax (played by Judi Dench) who guides her into the role as governess. Mr. Rochester is intrigued by Jane and her direct fearless openness towards him and compels him to want to marry her.

In the rush to get the wedding done, a relative of his first wife barges in to object to the marriage. Jane is heartbroken and runs away (the opening scene). She makes her way to St. John Rivers (played by Jamie Bell) and his two sisters. They take her in and give her the opportunity to begin life again as a teacher in a small countryside school. But Jane’s heart yearns for Mr. Rochester and eventually she finds her way back.

Wasikowska is very good and endearing in this role, however I don’t know if it was something her acting, in the direction or in the lack of chemistry between her and Fassbender that left me unconvinced of this story. Fassbender was good as the troubled wealthy man looking for love and peace. But as previously stated something didn’t work in this film. Clarkson was wonderful as the young Jane and despite the obvious physical dissimilarities between her and the older Jane she did a wonderful job. Bell came off as fully untrustworthy from the get go. Whether his was supposed to come off this way or not, I don’t know. But the moment he picks up Jane from his front door, he felt creepy and it bothered me that Jane didn’t see it. Dench was strong as the house head housekeeper and guiding light for Jane. Moira Buffini wrote a good script from the Charlotte Bronte novel. Cary Fukunaga shot this film exquisitely, however there was something missing, a compelling chemistry, to make this version the best ever done.

Overall: I like this film, but left the theater wanting something more compelling.

Jumper

First Hit: Could have been a really fun and interesting film but it comes off as ill acted, diffused, lacking substance and a waste of time.

I didn’t think much of Hayden Christensen’s acting in his Star Wars films and thought that maybe it was just not the right film for him.

However, this film seals the deal, he can’t act. He doesn’t put much of himself on the celluloid and it is obvious. The only thing keeping this film alive is the concept of tele-transporting and the sequences of where he goes.

David (played by Hayden) is a lost young man in high school when an event, where he almost dies, prompts him to tap an unknown power to wish himself to somewhere else. While confused about what happened to him, he tests himself and learns that he can do this without being threatened with death. With this new found power he leaves home and goes to live on his own at age 15.

He robs banks by transporting (jumps) himself inside the safe, takes the money and jumps himself back out again. We spend time watching him jump from place to place with not much care in the world. At this point in the film I got really bored.

Then we discover there are people who “hate” people who can do this "jumping" and are out to kill jumpers. No there isn’t any history or buildup to these new characters and why there is this intense hatred. This jolting introduction also brings us the understanding that there are more jumpers.

So now we have jumpers and people who hate jumpers and we never know why. The leader of the we hate jumpers group is a man named Roland (played by Samuel L. Jackson). The little we learn is that this war (between the jumpers and the jumper haters) has been going on for thousands of years. Then we get the odd twist that David’s mother is one of these jumper haters and that is why she left him and his dad when he was 5 years old. She wanted to protect him.

There is one semi bright light in this confusing film and that is Jamie Bell (who plays Griffin), another jumper. He has enough intensity for both of them and seems to have some homework about jumpers and the jumper haters.

Overall: This is one mixed up travelogue that was basically a waste of time. What is sad about this is that this could have been a good film if some real thought, writing, direction, and acting would have gone into it.