JJ79 Blog

Under discussion:

Six Reasons Why  (2008)

"Six Reasons Why" is labeled a post-modern Western by its directors (they actually play several production roles, judging by the credits), Matt and Jeff Campagna. It turns out to be more than that, though, by the end of the 89 minute production. There are futuristic elements, a touch of the supernatural and a large dose of the western. The story, borne out of necessity, is quite simple: four men pointing guns at one another in an unforgiving desert. The question: who are they and how did they come to meet at this one place?

Those characters, four men all on their own agendas, have no proper names. Rather, they are referred to by personality. The Nomad, the Sherpa, the Entrepreneur, the Criminal. Told from varying time periods and perspectives, the outcome of the four way standoff is obvious in a movie like this. That's not the point. Rather, it is to set up each of these men for, perhaps, a spin-off story. Our characters are involved with one another in different ways, some they know about and some they don't. To clearly delineate those relationships would be to destroy what makes "Six Reasons Why" the experience it is. They're not revolutionary or groundbreaking connections; clean, clear and devious would be better words.

As each of these men is introduced in the present as well as through their flashback, another piece of the story falls into place. And therein lies the freshness of the script. There are no long scenes of exposition, giving the audience the information they require. The story drops in on the Nomad (Dan Wooster, the prototypical cowboy with a modern edge), deciding to fill in the rest as it goes along. Though the brothers don't mention it, framing their story in this way is dangerous. String the audience along too much and they'll lose all interest. Blow their (script) wad too soon, and the end of the film becomes an exercise in boredom.

It's a blessing and curse for the brothers. So much time is taken by the flashbacks and moving the characters to their standoff, the most riveting relationship is never explored. I speak of the Sherpa (Danish actor Mads Koudal) and the Nomad. Near the end, with the last connections made, a broader story is begging to be told, featuring Colm Feore's Preacher. The mysticism and supernatural elements come to the foreground here when they were merely hinted at beforehand, fleshing out the familiar, yet new universe inhabited by these men. So as to not spoil the final reveal, I will only say this: it is imperative to understand the relationships between the players in the film. Without those building blocks, the utterly absorbing last ten minutes would turn into a hot mess.

These characters and plot lines have the potential to be caricatures, stereotypes. In many ways, they are. Nomad is a rough and tumble man with a sensitive side. Entrepreneur (Christopher Harrison) isn't versed in the ways of the world. Preacher barks his orders, expecting everyone to follow them. With the spin put on each, though, they come alive as something other than the norm. That's the point, I think, in a lot of ways. Yes, the story was borne out of the budget; the Campagna's, though, want to show they can work in a genre they utterly revere and bring something new to it. The script, the directing, the acting...there is a calm steadiness behind all of it, whether or not anyone felt confident on set.

I am deliberately trying to stay away from particulars of the plot in order to avoid spoiling it. In other, more conventional westerns, we know the eventual outcome before the first frame comes on screen. Shoot out. People die. End of story. The same happens here, of course. The difference happens to be the way in which it happens. The slight clues as to the real prize, the larger mystery surrounding the action and a complete world outside the microcosm we are able to see. I can't call it a wondrous world; certain shots are gorgeous (thanks to the wonders of compositing) and they are coupled with a gritty "take no prisoners" feeling to create someplace that might exist at some point. Westerns, aside from Joss Whedon's "Firefly" and "Serenity," haven't melded the future with the past to form something different. They have, historically speaking, recreated a verifiable world. This is not one of those pictures.

A sly, 2008 sense of humor permeates the screenplay. I'm not sure if it hurts or helps the completed picture, though. Looking at a horse, a question is asked: "Do you ride bareback?" In and of itself, it is a legitimate query to the rider. But when coupled with ideas such as liking the breeze when your fly is down and "drink up, ladies" (among others), the personality of the writers begins to come through. In a standard western, this simply wouldn't fly. However, in the post-"Firefly" world, filmmakers have carte blanche to do what they want, to twist the formula to their liking. (These seeming laugh lines are delivered with such dead seriousness you can't help but wonder how many times the cast and crew started laughing halfway through a take.

Despite the nearly non-existent budget, the world of "Six Reasons Why" is a full, real place for the characters to inhabit. As we're told in the pre-production featurette (and is visually evident), the minor details of the film are accounted for, from sun worn clothing to the technology, like a monorail system and a mini disc player. Yes, there is technology and advanced tech at that. Despite for the most part looking like a Clint Eatwood flick, the Campagna's interject small things into the background, allowing the astute viewer to question when in time the events take place. They are blink-and-you-miss-them mentions, to be sure, but they are there. Incredible, really, when the events surrounding the making of the film are taken into account.

VIDEO:
One of the Campagna brothers, in the special features, mentions having to pay fees for the use of actors totaling around $1,400. He then goes on to say this amount represents about one-tenth of the film's budget (approximately $11,400, using these numbers). The only reason I bring the budget up in the technical discussion is to commend the actual look of the finished production. For such an ultra low budget movie, "Six Reasons Why" should look far, far worse than the product on the disc. Yes, nearly every scene shows noticeable grain. And yes, certain indoor scenes seem to double what is already there, creating a video tape-like look. None of that discounts the fact when all the elements come together, the picture absolutely shines. The transfer is able to recreate the contrast between a purple desert sky and the orange-tan hue of the surrounding sand, turning it into a wonder to behold. Blacks are relatively deep and dark enough, rarely delving into the dark gray or muted category. And the dirt inherent in the story-worn coats, wooden buildings and a jail cell-all come through crystal clear. This isn't a perfect transfer by any means; I'm more than willing to go easy on the video (2.35:1, anamorphically enhanced) due to the circumstances surrounding its production.

AUDIO:
To be completely honest, there isn´t much difference between the two audio options included. English 5.1 and 2.0 mixes are available. Both tend to come off better than the video presentation without any discernible problems. Considering the equipment the brothers used (some rented speakers balanced precariously on old schoolbooks and wooden planks), its something of a miracle the audio works as well as it does. Ambient sounds are rendered as well as they can be expected while the ADR´ed dialogue (looping after the fact) never sounds dubbed in. The score and music by Laurence Correa and Nick Name, occasionally overpowers the rest of the production, but due to the quality of both, we somehow don´t mind. The rears don´t get a lot to do outside of some background noises; again, not a problem all things considered. English and Spanish subtitles are included.

EXTRAS:
The scene specific commentary featuring both Campagna brothers and Nick Name strikes a balance between the technical and anecdotal. Considering the number of hats the brothers wear in the production, it´s no wonder there isn´t a moment of dead space in the track. A lot of the talk revolves around the budget as well as the implications of it, naturally. There´s an easy conversational nature between the three which is easy to listen to and one of the more pleasant commentary tracks in recent memory.

Three extensive, though very cheap, featurettes are up next, all under the "Behind the Scenes Featurettes" label. "Pre-Production" (21:13), "Production" (17:43) and "Post-Production" (19:38) predictably run through the challenges in making a small film, from the costumes (bought at thrift stores) selling items on eBay to raise money (a laptop and camera) and the day Colm Feore was confirmed for the shoot. The brothers get the lions share of the screen time, though various actors and crew pop up every once in a while. Shot completely with consumer grade cameras, I only have one quibble with the finished product: a lack of names for any of the participants. Realistically, there should be labels, informing for the audience as to who is speaking. They are absent here, making us guess which brother is which, not to mention reminding us this is a no budget production.

A series of interviews based on a topic (Experience, Characters, Idea, Filmmaking) are up next, running a total of 7:36. There is repeated information with the featurettes and the commentary, yet because of the enthusiasm of the participants, hearing the same story over and over doesn't become repetitive. A couple storyboards and rehearsal animatics (three, to be precise) are included, running between 45 and 90 seconds. Lastly, a group of trailers for the film are attached: Indie Western (:39), Spaghetti Western (2:21, the most amateur looking of the bunch), International Version (1:38) and Domestic Version (1:05). The disc starts off with trailers for "Autumn Hearts: A New Beginning" (1:47) and "The Tracey Fragments" (1:32).

PARTING THOUGHTS:
If this is the end product on a shoestring budget, a handful of actors and two men handling nearly every aspect of production, I want to see what they can do with a bit more money, some more time and another labor of love. While not perfect, "Six Reasons Why" is a rare entertaining, visually compelling and engrossing freshman fictional feature. Similar to westerns before it, the Campagna's show they are up and coming filmmakers.

Under discussion:

The Dark Knight  (2008)

"The Dark Knight" is more than a sequel to "Batman Begins." It is an extension, a second chapter to the story, if you will. In the 2005 film, the groundwork is established for the characters, the relationships introduced and the world created. Here, aside from a very quick re-introduction to the players, the 152-minute running time is taken with briskly paced plot and rather little character development, as if writer/director Christopher Nolan is daring the audience to keep up with the action.

Gotham City is under siege. With the police and new district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) raiding banks for mob money, the underground leaders turn to a diabolical villain known as the Joker (Heath Ledger). He begins targeting Gotham for the express purpose of unmasking Batman (Christian Bale), the city´s protector. But are there enough good guys to capture the new terrorist…or have they, too, been corrupted?

What Nolan did with "Batman Begins" is make an explicit promise to the audience. Stick with me for the backstory and a slower comic book film than you expect and you´ll be rewarded in the second act with a grand and epic spectacle. And by god, he delivered. Whatever small deficiencies the first film had have been corrected, including more action, a more menacing antagonist and a confidence from everyone concerned about their individual role to play.

In essence, "The Dark Knight" is a continuation of its predecessor, more than "The Empire Strikes Back" or even "The Godfather part II," completing the Arkham Asylum escape storyline early on. And it´s done with panache. I half expected flashbacks to the Scarecrow´s plot to remind the audience what happened before. Not to be, as Nolan expects us to know the franchise´s history. He also doesn´t bother with long scenes of exposition designed to catch us up, so to speak. In their place, shortly after the opening action scene, the story drops in on the leads, just giving us enough information to see where they are now. Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Bruce Wayne (Bale). Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, taking the place of Katie Holmes) and Dent and Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman). It´s at this point the editing and pacing of the film becomes evident. It´s brisk and lively, never lumbering or belabored. Almost too fast, some may say.

Why too fast? Nolan never lets the story slow to a pace where the audience can catch its breath, regroup and come back again. He assaults our senses in every possible way at every possible moment. Small, character scenes are rapturous (a scene late in the film featuring Wayne and Fox under Wayne Enterprises, for instance), filled to the brim with information integral to the story. Nolan, his brother Jonathan (who also wrote the screenplay) and David S. Goyer (who shares story credit with Christopher) use dialogue and visuals to convey story information in a way most of Hollywood lacks the talent to replicate. Each frame is a small painting into the world of Gotham, even when the camera is simply flying by a building or two. The darkness, the scattered lights…they carry a sense of fear.

This film, rightly or wrongly, has been compared to the 1990´s franchise headed by Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher. In particular, how Batman was overshadowed by Catwoman and the Penguin in "Batman Returns." It´s an apt analogy, considering Ledger´s performance. He is second billed on the posters and in the credits, yet his is a magnetic personality we´re simply drawn to. Even at his most wickedly deadly, it´s impossible to turn away from the screen for fear we´d miss something. Ledger is ruthlessly maniacal in a way neither Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson could ever hope to be. The cackle is there, the make-up, the purple suit. This Joker, however, turns out to be more grounded in the real world. He´s never overplayed and never a mockery. From the lip curl Ledger brings to every scene (the only word for it is unsettling) to the playful terror aspect he brings to the part so very well, he would outshine any hero.

Which isn´t to say the rest of the cast sits on the sidelines, watching Ledger. This is, after all, a Batman movie. Whereas "Batman Begins" was about Bruce Wayne and becoming Batman, "Knight" focuses in on the hero himself, specifically the lengths he will go to in order to protect Gotham City. There is a fine line he must toe between becoming the Joker and being good. We catch glimpses of the battle within throughout the film, though it is brought forcefully onto the screen in the climax.

Any self-respecting comic book fan knows who Harvey Dent is and his alter-ego. For the purposes of this review, I won´t spoil the character. Suffice to say he is one of the lackluster aspect to the production. His alter-ego is brought onto screen, runs around a bit and then…nothing. An ignominious end to a potentially new character for the inevitable sequel. As Dent, though, Eckhart doesn´t disappoint. He is a fresh face (to the series) with a hope for the city not seen on anyone else´s face. The character is a charmer in the vein of Wayne, but without the vanity. And Eckhart plays it well.

The one casting change from the first film is Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. As much as audiences liked to rip on Katie Holmes in the character, for as much as Rachel gets to do here, would it have really mattered who played the part? Don´t get me wrong: Gyllenhaal has a grace and elegance Holmes never could possess while being a more credible love interest for Wayne (Bale looks older than his age while Holmes considerably younger). The issues lies with the way the movie is plotted out, as I already mentioned. The relationships are already in place, leaving "The Dark Knight" to begin to pay them off. Gyllenhaal didn´t get to do any of the heavy lifting in the first film and here seems a just a bit lost in what to do perhaps because she wasn´t present before.

(That´s not to leave out the contributions from Oldman, Freeman and Caine, or the smaller parts played by Nestor Carbonell, Eric Roberts and Anthon Michael Hall, but there are other aspects of the film to talk about.)

When Bale and Ledger share the screen, as in an intense interrogation room scene, the film crackles with excitement and potential. And when they end up debating the merits of humanity at the end, we´re watching two people on the fringes of society ruminating on their futures. Oddly, everything the Joker predicts comes to pass at the end, providing this universe not with a hopeful outlook on the future, but one seemingly destined to be bleaker than it was before. (Not to mention leaving the audience clamoring for more.) There´s a new direction for the series set up in a handful of minutes, one hinted at through the entire production. In a sadistic way, the Joker is able to kill hope and Batman in one fell swoop despite not winning the day in conventional terms.

Chris Nolan has gone on record saying as many effects as possible were done practically on set instead of with the use of computers. To be frank, it shows. There is a weight and substance CGI simply hasn´t caught up with yet when it comes to action sequences. As good as the finale to "The Incredible Hulk" looked, it pales in comparison to any of the chases, fistfights, shoot outs or explosions here. We´re always mindful someone could be hurt at any given moment because of the reality of the situation. When a hospital blows up, it is an actual building and not a construct. It has all the details an actual location would have without any of the computer gloss.

A very minor nitpick takes place in an early courtroom scene, eventually coming off as too quick, too easy, too polished and too rushed. It flies in the face of the rest of the movie and I can´t help but wonder why. Is it deliberately structured like this for some reason? Did I simply become too used to the way the rest of the film was plotted? I´m not sure, but since the scene lasts less than five minutes, I´ll overlook it. (There is also a traitor subplot which never gets any traction in the film. It´s an important piece of the story and one glossed over too easily. Certain camera moves through the film do suggest something is happening, yet the story doesn´t delve into it.)

Is this film perfect? No. To make a perfect film, the filmmakers would need to be infallible. But this is a damn good-dare I even say great-film. A masterful performance from Ledger, fantastic supporting turns by a big enough A-list cast to populate three movies, fantastic visual splendor and an engrossing story. As legendary as "Batman Begins" and "X2: X-Men United" and "Spider-Man 2" and even "Superman: The Movie" all turned out to be, this production takes the crown as best comic book movie to date. Not to mention possibly one of the five best movies so far this year and the best of the summer. Mr. Nolan, we are ready for the encore. An enthusiastic 9 out of 10, if only because a 10 out of 10 demands perfection.

Under discussion:

Hellboy II: The Golden Army  (2008)

In the grand pantheon of comic book heroes, Hellboy isn´t exactly at the top of the list. The name itself isn´t the most marketable out there and neither is the character himself: a red hulking creature with filed off horns chomping on a cigar and spawned from another dimension. That´s probably why the first film based on the character, 2004´s "Hellboy," spent a good 15 to 20 minutes detailing where Red came from before launching into the story proper. But with the same creative team together for "Hellboy II: The Golden Army," the pleasantries have been dispensed with, allowing director Guillermo del Toro to focus on developing the characters as well as launching into a brand new story that doesn´t need to set up all the pieces for the audience.

Once upon a time, only a truce between a mystical underground civilization and humans prevented a ferocious army of indestructible gold warriors from destroying humanity. To protect the world from that fate in the future, the crown of leadership was split into different parts, some residing in the underworld and others with the humans. Now, in the present day, Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) takes it upon himself to correct this supposed travesty, killing his father and claiming part of the crown. It is up to Hellboy and his group from the Bureau of Paranormal Research & Defense are called in to stop the big bad. But only if they can put their own melodrama on the back burner long enough to work together.

What del Toro and the production team on "Hellboy II" get right-oh so right-is keeping the focus on the four lead characters (Red, Liz, Abe and newbie Johann Krauss) instead of becoming obsessed with the adversary of the week or the special magic thing-a-ma-bob everyone is trying to get their hands on. It is an evolution from the first film, building on the dysfunctional family foundation set forth previously. To his great credit, the writer/director is able to combine fantasy, humor, action and intimacy in a two hour flick without moralizing or turning into a mockery of itself. (All trait´s the first installment also shared, even if the Director´s Cut was unnecessarily long.)

First off, though, is the visual style del Toro brings to the production. The color palette is appropriately comic book-y, yet never jumps off the screen, bashing the audience over the head with vivid colors or flights of fancy. Instead, Hellboy exists in our world, with all the appropriate shadows, dinge and darkness. To be fair, recent comics-turned-movies embrace the gray areas of the world; they tend be splashier, though, with Spider-Man´s red suit standing out against the blue sky in broad daylight, for example. Operating mostly at night, Hellboy doesn´t run into that problem; his crimson skin is a perfect blend for the darkness. Even the flashy Golden Army never appears spit and polished. Reflective, yet doesn´t draw attention to itself.

Even clocking in at two hours, "The Golden Army" knows how to pace itself and keep the audience engaged. The action sequences-of which there are many-lean toward the inventive side (with the notable exception of the last, coming off as little more than an obligatory piece of the film rather than something del Toro wanted to do), continually capturing our attention. They´re punctuated by character moments advancing the overarching story. When Hellboy and Liz (Selma Blair) take center stage in their relationship, there is a tenderness we don´t see often enough from these types of films. Despite being under layers of makeup, Ron Perlman as Hellboy brings a warmth and compassion to an "ugly" being. To imagine anyone else under the latex is impossible.

Working to a lesser extent is a half baked romance between the aquatic Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) and Princess Nuala (Anna Walton). From the first moment he declares love for the woman, it feels forced, as if the relationship was a late idea to the script. Or, more likely, additional scenes were trimmed from the finished product. It´s a shame, really, since they run a parallel course to Hellboy/Liz through the second half of the movie and the ultimate resolution only works on an emotional level if we´re invested in the characters. (It should be noted other relationships pick up as if the participants are truly old friends and not fictional constructs.)

Movies like "Hellboy II" don´t necessarily try to reinvent storytelling or change the way movies are made. The basic story outline is obvious fro the get go; we know the major plot points and the expected climax before the story has a change to engage. About halfway through, I rattled off to myself the events we needed to see in order to bring the story to a conclusion. (I won´t repeat them here since they do contain spoilers.) They all ended up on screen in one way or another, much to my chagrin. del Toro creates those "obvious" moments with the hand of a sure director that it doesn´t really matter in the end.

If I have one complaint, it would be a holding pattern of sorts the script goes into 45 minutes in. It´s a mater of fact gathering, getting everyone involved "up to speed" on where the story is ultimately going to go. In a way, this is exposition. Not badly done exposition; just an implicit wish for the storytelling to go faster, for the main characters to catch up to the audience. The sequence in the Troll Market is a marvel to look at. We never know where to put our attention first, to be honest, because of the creatures filling the screen at all times. But it all comes up a bit dry and, dare I say, boring in the end.

The script contains far more subplots than it can reasonably service, including the aforementioned Abe/Nuala romance. Jeffrey Tambor´s Tom Manning, liaison to the group and man charged with keeping Hellboy a secret, continues as an extension from the previous installment rather than being developed in any meaningful way. A new addition to the team-no, not Krauss-bookends the story. Then there´s Hellboy´s issue with taking orders from Krauss, an idea which goes nowhere except a hysterically funny scene in a locker room. (A small scene featuring the people turning on Hellboy for no apparent reason fells horribly out of place and ultimately leads to nothing.) And, finally, the ending teases…something. An actual ending? Maybe a new direction for the franchise? I´d bet at least some of these storylines will be picked up in a third film, if it comes to pass.

The net effect of a returning production crew and cast, tighter script and splendid visuals with a faulty 10 minute sequence is still quite good. This is a production fully cognizant of the genre in which it is working. It aspires to be nothing more than it is: fun. No moralizing of any kind or "with great power comes great responsibility" schtick. Just old fashioned creatures beating up other creatures with a heart. A 6.5 out of 10.