Hope your 2012 is progressing nicely. Here at Climbing Higher Pictures we have a number of exciting things to discuss about the upcoming year, and some business to square away from good old 2011.

First up, I’m pleased to announce the web premiere of Going Down, a short that took its sweet time getting to completion, but is probably the project I’m most proud of directing. You can check out the Vimeo embed below, as well as the official poster. The film stars Michael Brusasco, Christopher Kauffmann, and Carol Robinson. Two hitmen and an elderly woman in an elevator… what could possibly go wrong?

Also of note is the fact that both the Upcoming Projects and Portfolio tabs have been updated with new content, including the pre-production updates of two new projects, Fortitude and The Final Illusion which you can see below.

The Final Illusion

Currently in Pre-Production, eyeing a late April/Early May shoot is the short film “The Final Illusion” following a famous magician on the night of his final performance. Cast and crew will be announced shortly. The film will be shot on anamorphic 35mm in keeping with a classic aesthetic.

Fortitude

Also in Pre-Production is the comedy short “Fortitude”, produced in conjunction with The Horse Thing. It’s the story of a man facing a unique problem, one which would define him if not for the aide of a thoughtful psychiatrist. It will premiere on THT in May. The film stars Spencer Young, Michael Brusasco, Katelyn Manfre, Danielle Gimbal, and Elena Glass.

2011 was quite the year for us, and 2012 looks to be even better. Stay tuned for the latest updates in the world of Climbing Higher Pictures and our partnership with The Horse Thing Films. Hope to have some exclusive set photos and other content to share with you soon.

All the best,

-Ryan

Wrath of the Titans Review

By Ryan Hamelin

Movie Grade: C+

Two years gone, and here we are again, back in the pre-summer swell of March would-be blockbusters. The big difference between March 2012 and March 2010 is the insane success of The Hunger Games, a film which will easily surpass the success of the last big March phenomenon 300. Two years ago we also had the misfortune of seeing Louis Letterier’s attempt to revitalize Greek mythology with Clash of the Titans, one of the most disappointing movies of the last few years. With an excellent cast, some really creative art direction, and a rich mythology, the filmmakers failed to impress on any level, and in the months that followed, reports leaked out about an original cut of Clash, a cut that solved almost every problem the critical community had with the film. Though the original scripted version was never to see the light of day, the first film did well enough at the worldwide box office to warrant the Hollywood inevitability, a rushed and half-baked sequel, and so now here we are. Is Wrath of the Titans an improvement over its predecessor, or does it strive towards mediocrity with the same enthusiasm as before?

In a word, “Yes.” Wrath is certainly an improvement, but again, that’s really not saying much. In just about every way it makes good on upping the ante from the last film, there’s another element that suffers an equal amount, leaving a movie-going experience that’s practically a wash. Sam Worthington looks more convincingly like a demigod with long hair, and within minutes we learn that Io, Gemma Arterton’s useless character from the first film, has been killed off in the intervening 10 years, leaving a son named Helius to eventually get into mortal danger of some kind. When Zeus (the still perfectly cast Liam Neeson) stops by to pay his boy a visit, we learn that the gods are growing weak from lack of prayer, and that the prison they built to hold their father, Kronos, is falling apart. He asks for help, but Perseus brushes him off, preferring to continue the fantasy of living a peaceful fishing life with his son. Betrayal, revenge, and various forms of madness ensue, and our hero has to jump back into action again, to save his father, and the whole of mankind. If only he could remember where he stashed his sword all those years ago…

One day, somebody will figure out that post-converted 3D isn’t worth the effort. In the meantime though, here we go again. It’s not so much that the conversion is bad in principle; it’s just that it’s unnecessary for 95% of the film. However, there are an amazing handful of shots thrown in, and one of my favorites involves rushing through the earth down to the Underworld and Tartarus. Another has a monster’s face pushing out from the screen, even breaking the boundaries of the black matte at the top and bottom in the process. Though the film may not have been shot on IMAX cameras, it has been mastered at an IMAX aspect ratio, filling the huge screen with every ounce of visual effects splendor the budget could muster. No word as to whether they cropped the sides for the IMAX version, or cropped the top and bottom for the theatrical release, but either way, it was refreshing to see an IMAX presentation that didn’t bounce in and out of filling the screen. If you do have a desire to see the film, this is really the only way to go. You do have to hand it to the VFX department, of the direction they were given, they certainly made the most of it.

The real problem seems to lie somewhere between the writing, the editing, and the directing… all components that could have been royally screwed with by the studio. Based on what happened with the last film, I don’t know who really deserves the blame here, but at 99 minutes, there’s simply not enough time to adequately develop the stakes or build up to the action. It feels half-assed, because we don’t care about a single thing that happens over the course of the film, and while those scenes may have existed at one point during the scripting or shooting stages, they’re long gone now. The beginning, in particular, is like a montage of partial scenes, leading me to believe that notes of “get to the fighting faster” had a lot to do with the current product. Some moments still work regardless of their trimmed context, and scenes between Zeus and Hades (the wonderful Ralph Fiennes) are still easily the highlight of the film.  Toby Kebbel’s Agenor is amusing if only because of how clearly self-aware he is, and often the film heartily embraces a tongue-in-cheek vibe, almost suggesting the filmmakers are in on the joke. Bill Nighy also makes a wonderful Hephaestus, injecting some much needed energy and humor into the middle of the movie.

If we had more than half a movie to judge, this could have been the pre-eminent Greek mythology adaptation, but instead we’ve got a lot of would’ve, could’ve, and might’ve beens. When the credits roll, the overwhelming sensation is one of sheer disappointment. At one point, Zeus and Hades embrace, with Zeus telling his brother that while they might not have much power left, at least they can go “put on a show” and “have some fun.” There was actually some applause in the theater at that line, and the orchestral swell that came with it. It’s too bad that what could’ve been the setup for the most jaw-droppingly impressive bit of god vs. titan action in the history of cinema results in a couple of lightning bolts and hurling some baddies. That’s it. I won’t spoil how Kronos is defeated, but when I tell you that it’s literally a one hit fight, I hope you understand how pathetic it seems. So much for the father of the gods. In a way, that sums up the whole franchise… good intentions, some cool ideas, and ultimately the crushing weight of a shallow product. Is it worth seeing? Meh. And that could’ve easily been a one word review.

The Hunger Games Review

By Ryan Hamelin

Movie Grade: A-

Believe the hype. The Hunger Games is destined to become the next blockbuster young adult franchise, and if the first film is any indication, will put Twilight to shame. Gary Ross has done the near impossible, crafting an adaptation that is equal parts faithful and fresh, providing the kind of scope and broad perspective that the book chose to ignore in favor of its single minded focus inside the head of its protagonist. Having read the book, I could probably just write an entire review comparing the pros and cons of the differences between the materials, but fortunately for you and me, the movie stands confidently on its own two feet.

For those of you who’ve been turned off by the marketing efforts thus far, you have nothing to fear. The entire second and third acts remain almost completely unexplored by any trailer or clip released so far. As fans can tell you, once the games begin, you’ve only scratched the surface, and at 2 and a half hours, this isn’t a light adaptation. If anything, the film feels short, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a substantially longer cut waiting for a home video release. Where the book is plodding and expositionally heavy, the movie is finely tuned and calibrated for the best moments in each scene. There’s always going to be parts of any adaptation that rub readers the wrong way, but on the whole the filmmakers never compromise Suzanne Collins’s original vision, particularly as she has a co-writing credit on the screenplay and personally approved all of the additional material that was created for the film. The sourest note comes very early on, with a restructuring of the backstory behind the Mockingjay pin that adorns the posters for the movie. The real origin of the pin would’ve involved several more scenes that they clearly didn’t have time for, but it still comes a bit out of left field if you haven’t read the book.

From a cinematography standpoint, the movie could have been the basis for a film criticism essay entitled “The Power of the Closeup.” The vast majority of the film plays out with a tight handheld aesthetic reminiscent of a documentary, and is the major reason why I would not recommend going to see The Hunger Games in IMAX. After the backlash that came from the “shaky-cam” in J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie and its nauseating effects on the IMAX experience, I’d say that The Hunger Games goes several steps beyond that in terms of maintaining its organic shooting style. Though it takes a little while to get used to, it allows for a lot more subtle acting, putting the emphasis on the characters and their emotions, rather than sweeping helicopter shots and CG laden camera moves. This may be the first time I’ve really bought into the energy and the intenseness of the handheld look, and with a movie of this scale, it’s a huge gamble. However, based on the emotional reaction of the crowd, and the number of times that the film seemed to be hitting all the right notes, I’m going to go ahead and label it a success. Whether they keep it up for the sequels, we’ll have to see, but it’s certainly one of the many pleasant surprises.

Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson both hit it out of the park as Katniss and Peeta respectively. Between the two of them, you’d have more than enough of a foundation for a great ensemble, even without the wonderful work of Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and Donald Sutherland waiting in the wings. Across the board, this is basically a perfect cast, and the ease with which they all inhabit their characters helps ground the world and engender our good will. Every time you think they can’t get better, they surprise you, and all the big twists and reveals are handled with aplomb. Make no mistake, The Hunger Games is one of the most competently produced book adaptations in recent memory, and the whole cast and crew deserve every bit of the credit they’ve received in translating the book to the screen. Run, don’t walk, and expect a line out the door of your local theater for the midnight showing. You don’t want to be the one who didn’t see The Hunger Games come Friday morning.

Safe Review

By Ryan Hamelin

Movie Grade: D

Oof. Having reviewed the last Jason Statham vehicle, The Mechanic, I was pretty sure I knew what I was in for with Safe, not to be confused with the Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington film Safe House. Safe, for its part, isn’t nearly as good a movie as its similarly titled brethren, and makes easy comparison to the Nicolas Cage film Bangkok Dangerous which you probably never saw because you heard how god-awful it was. Reduce the age of the Asian female protagonist to 10, remove the love interest component, amp up the cheese and you have something reasonably close to this film. Yes, it really is that bad.

So the follow up question… where did it go wrong? Well, for starters, this shouldn’t be a Jason Statham movie. He’s horribly miscast here, and every new piece of information we learned about his character, the less he made sense in the part. Also, he should know way better than to read scripts involving complicated rings of meaningless money laundering, particularly if all this backstory is in a foreign language. The first third of the movie is one of the most annoying flashback/flashforward sequences I’ve seen in a long time. Non-linear editing can’t hide the fact that the plot is contrived and completely without narrative weight or stakes. In fact, even at the end, we’re still not totally sure who owes whom money and where the funds/goods are positioned. It’s like playing a dumbed down version of chess, albeit blindfolded and told repeatedly how stupid you are for not being able to follow along.

The story, what of it exists, follows a young girl who’s indoctrinated into the Chinese criminal underground due to her photographic memory (no, I’m not kidding) and therefore her usefulness in memorizing complicated strings of numbers. Does she just memorize bank accounts? No. That would seem logical. Instead she memorizes streams of numbers and then is able to locate patterns in them that Statham deduces to be the combination to a safe he has no reason to know exists. Yes, that’s where the title’s from. Physical safes. Two of them. I’ll leave the rest to your imagination, or for you to discover if you have the misfortune of catching this one on cable someday.

Statham is, you guessed it… a retired UFC fighter? Not what you were expecting? Well if you believe that one I have a bridge to sell you. It’s almost more insulting that the movie spends the whole first act steadfastly trying to get you to buy that a secret-agent level trained assassin is just a cage-match punk, kind of like a friend who’s so caught up in their own fiction that they’re trying to lie their way out of it while you glare at them in disgust. Once that’s out of the way, the pace quickens up, a few good fistfights and car chases occur, and we’re off to the races. All this happens on the streets of genuine Manhattan, something that’s actually a rather impressive production feat. Nice to see the city portrayed realistically, even if this is exactly the kind of movie where you’d expect it wouldn’t be. I digress.

Your primary enjoyment of the film will depend on how absurdly overdeveloped your suspension of disbelief complex is, and how much of a fan you are of Statham and the kind of work he’s been getting since The Transporter made him the go-to tough guy action hero. Coming from a former fan, this might be the one to shatter your faith, so I’d advise steering clear. It’s not the worst action movie I’ve seen lately, but that’s more because of how desperate I was trying to wring enjoyment out of it than any particular merit on the part of the film. Go see Safe House, a surprisingly large amount of fun, and try to forget this one was ever made.

Detachment Review

By Ryan Hamelin

Movie Grade: A

First rule… don’t show Detachment to anyone considering becoming a teacher. We’ve got far too few teachers, even fewer good ones, and this is the kind of movie which rips open the festering wound which is public education in this country and puts the carcass on display. It’s provocative, it’s thought provoking, and it’s deeply unsettling. Second rule… don’t go into Detachment if you’re already in a bad mood, or feeling generally morose. As with many other powerful pieces of cinema, this is the kind of movie which can create storm clouds on a clear sunny day, push the buttons you never knew you had, and generate a response which may not be altogether to your liking. If you intend to fight the film, you’ll find plenty of holes and crevices where you can latch onto things to hate, corners you can grab and resolutely try to keep the movie from affecting you. For any movie to try and tackle something this big would feel overly ambitious, and in a lot of ways Detachment is a product of its own ambition. It spends as much of the time out of the classroom as it does in it, and while superficially that may seem like the film has lost its focus, every thread serves to tell the same story. The youth of this country is hurting, lost, and painfully unprepared for the real world, and the army that once kept the hopelessness in check, our educational system, has long since collapsed under the weight of unreasonable expectations and a fundamental lack of ammunition. We shouldn’t be in a war on terror, we should be in a war on ignorance. Of the two concepts, the second is a fair more deadly and dangerous opponent.

Tony Kaye has been relatively quiet since his debut feature, American History X, became a cult classic in 1998. It launched Edward Norton’s career into the stratosphere, and set the precedent for just about every school based drama to come after it. Why has he waited this long to make another movie? Probably because he’s been waiting for the right project, and this is certainly a doozy. It premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival last year but hasn’t really been heard from since. The subject matter isn’t very marketable, nor does it hide behind the usual Hollywood conventions. If the hoopla around the Weinstein’s Bully is any indication, education is coming back into the limelight, and it’s not a happy sight. As with Norton, Kaye builds the whole film on the back of one performer, in this case the very talented Adrien Brody, who hasn’t had a part this good in quite some time. The honesty and candor with which he approaches Henry Barthes is riveting, the kind of powerhouse bit of acting that you’d expect to see in the awards season crush of November and December. For his sake, I hope Detachment is able to stick in Academy voters minds until then, because if the awards were held today, last year’s films included, there’d be no contest.

The emotional involvement is maintained by one of the most awe-inspiring supporting casts to be assembled in quite some time. Between Christina Hendricks, Marcia Gay Harden, Lucy Liu, Blythe Danner, James Caan, William Peterson, Tim Blake Nelson, Bryan Cranston and the beautiful if unknown Sami Gayle, it would take a lot for the audience not to feel intimately involved. It’s a shame that the film wasn’t longer, or couldn’t have been the first chapter of a miniseries, just so that the audience would’ve spent an equal amount of time with each of the great characters. The director cast his own daughter, Betty Kayle, in a key role as well, and though that could’ve potentially proven disastrous, it’s actually a wonderful choice. I can’t think of a professional actor who could have done a better job, and it’s not in any way distracting like other past director/daughter cinematic pairings (cough Sophia Coppola in The Godfather Part III, cough).

Like I mentioned before, the film does get a little heavy from time to time. It’s not the kind of medicine that should be prescribed to everyone, and testing is still ongoing to determine the side effects. What I can tell you is that you won’t leave the theater feeling the same way you did walking in, nor will you look at the world in precisely the same way, particularly in regards to schooling and the effect our media has had on the development of our youth. At barely 100 minutes, it certainly doesn’t overstay its welcome, and probably avoids the pitfalls of sounding overly preachy by keeping itself contained. There’s some pretention to the screenplay, and the artistic merits of the work can occasionally cloud the message, but at this point if you weren’t planning on seeing the film, my concluding paragraph isn’t going to change your mind. For those that can stomach it, Detachment comes highly recommended. Maybe you won’t miss your next parent/teacher conference after this.

Man On A Ledge Review

By Ryan Hamelin

Movie Grade: A-

What an awesome start to the year. Well, I mean, at this point the year isn’t over yet, but by the time Man On A Ledge hits theaters, we’ll be in the doldrums of January and as the first film I’ve seen due for release in 2012, this is quite the auspicious start. The movie is even more impressive due to my dour expectations going in, and the fact that very little about action/thriller/dramas seems to surprise me anymore. In a lot of ways, Man On A Ledge is a throwback to the adrenaline pumping days of yore, when you’d begin a relatively humble and unassuming plot, only to find yourself thrust to the edge of your seat and held there for the duration of the movie.

Even after several major leading man roles, it seems like Sam Worthington doesn’t get a lot of credit as an actor. Sure Avatar and Clash of the Titans rely heavily on a big budget visual effects component, but finally here he has the chance to show his chops. The movie rests heavily on his shoulders, not completely, but enough where a weaker actor would undermine the tension and the emotions at stake. Having Jamie Bell, Elizabeth Banks, Edward Burns, Anthony Mackie, and Kyra Sedgwick supporting you certainly helps, and every frame of the film has somebody worth watching. No matter how large a part, they seem to be having a blast, and it makes the movie all the more fun to watch. Ed Harris as the real estate mogul billionaire baddie is the kind of perfect casting that you wish for when putting together a project like this, and he nails it in every conceivable way. He’s just as slimy and terrifying as you want him to be, and the power he wields is palpable in each and every scene. I love that you never end up seeing him in flashback form, as the characters describing the deeds he’s done is more than enough.

It’s hard to write anything about the plot in a review like this, as your enjoyment of the movie is going to depend 100% on how much you know going in. The twists are very well paced, and prior knowledge can really dampen the energy. However, this is one of the few thrillers I’d be willing to go back and watch again, speaking to the level of satisfaction I had when the credits rolled. The first ride will always be the most enjoyable and exciting, but there’s such a finely tuned understanding of the genre at work that you’ll be hard pressed not to want to jump right back into it all over again. This is one of those standalone movies that could actually make for a fun sequel, even though it’s unnecessary, just to give us more time to spend with these characters.

So you might be asking yourself, with all the praise above, why the A-? Well, pulpy entertainment like this revels in its B-movie ancestry, and Man On A Ledge is no different. There are some moments that require an extreme suspension of disbelief, and they push the envelope so far that it may undermine your enjoyment of the film. If you’re not fully engrossed in what’s happening, it could kick you out of the experience, and it goes a little bit overboard in the final act. I’d rather it go big than peter off though, and it certainly holds its own with most other thriller finales in recent memory.