I heard about this movie while listening to an interview with the writer/director on a podcast called 'The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.'


The description given on IMDB: A police officer looks to talk down a young man lured by his lover's husband to the ledge of a high rise, where he has one hour to contemplate a fateful decision. 


I don't want to say too much about it and give anything away, it's really something you just need to watch unfold. And for the love of little turtles, don't watch the trailer first, it gives far too much away.


It's mainly the clash of an atheist and a Christian, with some spectacular debates between them that don't pander to stereotypes. And despite the film being written by an atheist, the character is not idealized, he's a very flawed human being. The christian side is pretty fairly portrayed as well. It's one of the best atheistic films I've ever seen, with some thundering emotional moments.

Views: 221

Replies to This Discussion

the director has said his intention was to show that atheists can be good people. if there's anything this film did not portray, it was that. i liked it a lot, but it was way off the mark if that's what he was trying to convey.

The atheist was a much better person than the Christian--though his Machiavellian designs on the woman were initially despicable.

I thought the film was a bit heavy handed, but that may be because the atheist-Christian arguments between the characters covered familiar territory.  Both characters had sterotypically short tempers, so their discussions never got particularly deep.

I just finished viewing The Ledge (2011) and I really enjoyed (unfortunate wording as it may be) it. It does exemplify how ALL humans have flaws. One thing I often complain about in films is that when they have a pretence of trying to get deep into thought and emotions and realities and philosophical questionings, often directors get lazy and take the easy way out, all is fine and peachy. I would say this film took the opposite route, never did it take the easy way out, and both story lines, though the second much smaller, were interestingly presented.


It trumped up only 6.6/10 (oct.2011), only 11% on the tomatometer and Ebert didn't even bother reviewing it. Yet it was in the Sundance Festival's dramatic category competition. Dramatic it certainly was. Being that the world is 95% religious, I'm not too surprised that general audiences didn't like it much. Though it shows all three characters being heavily flawed, from the philosophical standpoint, the focus is certainly on the sheer silliness of religion, and this is not pleasing to the masses.


Mostly, I thought the acting was superb by all three leading characters, with my only annoyance being Liv's little girl voice used in the first half of the film.


This could do well as a play also. It's very much in the "one-room" style of cinematography, though the areal shots in the film are very well chosen, there is altogether not much interesting camera work, and there was an odd choice of placing debating protagonists in contrasting light. The Christian in white cold light from below and behind, whereas the atheist was generally portrayed with warm yellow light on the face. This reminds me of gimmicks in old Hollywood movies, where the ladies were shot in subdued fuzzy light, and the 'males' in harsher light, with finer resolution.


Overall though a very satisfactory movie.
My rating: 8.0/10


oh and I forgot... the sex was if not pretty steamy, certainly nicely steamy :)

Though Liv was directed to overdo the child voice, I found her character interesting, as though she'd been removed from the living by being with her domineering husband, then was awakened and found a new freedom through her affair. Watching her eyes as she rediscovered her body's sensations was pretty well done.

At the same time, I felt the main character borrowed a lot from the character of Valmont, from  Dangerous Liaisons (1988), Valmont (1989)Cruel Intentions (1999); and borrowed well.

Writer/director Matthew Chapman certainly has an interesting pedigree :)


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . father
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cecil Chapman

Francis Cornford . . . . . . . Frances Cornford (née Darwin) . . . . . . . . Sydney Chapman
philosophy prof & author . . . . . . poet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .physicist and astronomer


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles Darwin


And his filmography, though not stellar, has been interesting to me... usually with strong undertones of intellectual sexuality, which always attracted me. Also his writing has attracted some of the USA's most interesting actors.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service