CHRONICLE discussion

Knowles liked it (since they put on a screening especially for him apparently)

 

take from that what you will.

Wallace is in this movie. We are obligated to see it.

Dare I ask who Wallace is?

 

And this does look rather interesting. The camera and footage quality looks leagues above many other "found footage" movies.

Dammit Chris. We need to put together an assigned viewing list for you, don't we?

I'm really excited for this one. 

 

At this point.... maybe. I thought you were talking Wallace Wells at first, but sadly, there is no Kieran Culkin in this.

 

It looked like a generic X-MEN / PUSH rip-off to me but it seems to be getting good reviews. Totalfilm mag gave it 5 stars:

http://m.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/chronicle-1

As a high-schooler tests his fresh superpowers on an unfortunate arachnid, is Josh Trank’s $15m feature debut issuing a sly challenge to 2012’s squillion-dollar spandex crew? Spidey and co better look sharp if so, because this found-footage flyweight matches advance heat with the clout to satisfy and subvert genre expectation.
Co-opted from horror for sci-fi usage, the first-person format is energised to max emotion, immersion, invention and action. But a clever shift of genre focus adds what a superhero-stuffed market needs: the element of surprise.
Humour and the human touch of characterisation cut through origin-tale cliché to start, as three dudes at a rave explore a freaky underground hole that grants them telekinetic powers. Steve (Michael B Jordan) is a sporty politico, Matt (Alex Russell) a brainy but emotionally stunted hunk. Matt’s cousin Andrew (Dane DeHaan) is our eyes, an outsider whose grim home set-up – sick mom, dipso dad, no money - has alienated him from life.
Andrew’s disconnection drives his habit of viewing life through a camera, a point fully explored and exploited in Max ‘son of John’ Landis’s script. We understand his voyeurism and why others think it’s “weird”. We’re ecstatic that his prowess transcends shaky-cam cliché.
That attention to persuasive detail continues as the trio test their powers in teen-dork style: heroism’s on hold while they goof about, blowing gusts up girls’ skirts and – hilariously - instilling fear of teddies in one moppet.
But Chronicle is no Superman-meets-Jackass spoof: it honours comic-book conventions by proving their adaptability to new contexts. Natural but vivid performances (from True Blood’s DiCaprio-ish DeHaan, notably), class rage and darkening philosophical notions plumb depths and reel us in.
Neither is it too lofty to excite. Some cheats with the first-person format occur: why Matt’s ex-girlfriend films her doorway is anyone’s guess. Yet they’re forgiven for the immediacy of the first flight scene and the thrillingly realised climax, a Carrie White-meets-Clark Kent cataclysm of money shots quick-cut from various recording devices (CCTV, iPhones) with no dilution of emotional focus.
The crux of that focus is Andrew, around whom the origin-tale plot parts coalesce. Yet this “nerd with a camera” is a more complex, contemporary cove than Peter Parker. Stewed in a very now fixation on self-documentation, his great power comes with great concern for him and his mates.
The summer’s incoming super-dudes should be feeling equally anxious: this bolt from the low-budget blue is going to take some beating.

The "honours comic book conventions" has me worried, because that sounds like code for "it does what they all do."

 

I've heard furiously good word about the film, though. One guy I spoke to compared it to Superman 2.

 

The movie may be awesome, but that review is nigh indecipherable.

 

I think this is getting "I can't actually believe this is good" good reviews, which is skewing the responses more towards the hyperbolic. For some reason five stars seems like a stretch to me, although TF does hand snowflakes out like Tony Montana.

Quote:

 

No, not who.  Where.

 

I thought this looks kinda cool, despite the found footage fatigue going around.  I mean,  my expectations are placing it in the high school super power category, so they aren't high.  The main trailer seems like the plot of The Craft, only with aliens instead of witchcraft (and blokes as well of course and thankfully no sexy strut towards the camera anywhere to be seen).  But, y'know, looks better than Jumper.  Might do for a lightweight Akira substitute.

Devin liked it. That's all I've heard about it so far.

I stopped reading when I got to "dipso dad." Critic's far too impressed with his grasp of slang no one uses.

 

Jut saw this. It's really, really good. But think Akira more than anything else.

FWIW- Patton Oswalt says:

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/#!/pattonoswalt/status/164801422049808384

It's really really quite fucking good.

 

I'd somehow walked in having seen not a frame of footage and knowing nothing more than "found footage superheroes." Loved it.

How's Michael B. in it?

Hmmm... praise from those I respect.

 

Damn it, I may have to check this one now.

Yeah, I'm shocked by the positive buzz.  May have to see it.

 

Though I still wish Cloverfield had sparked more monster movies then found footage movies.

We'll see where Gareth Edward's Godzilla gets us on that front.

Amen.

Saw the trailer on Youtube without hearing anything about it.  What I saw definitely intrigued me.  Really glad to hear it's good.

Oh shit, I guess I might have to see this on the big screen then.

 

From the first time I saw it advertised, not only was I not sure it was a found footage thing, but I just thought it was something akin to Jumper, meant for teenybopper types. That wasn't appealing to me despite the fact that Max Landis wrote the script, as you know how scripts can get fucked up by the time a movie gets made. But, that appears to not be as much of a factor as I figured.

 

Not that I know too much about John's son; it's just that a few months ago I heard an audio interview with him, and he was one of those out of control people as a kid before maturing as an adult. This is definitely the most high-profile thing he's written and from the interview I remember him saying that he's fine writing things that have downbeat endings and are a little twisted (I need to listen to it again but that stuck out for me); I certainly didn't expect him to write a teenybopper sort of crap Jumper movie.

Ok, just got back. Very good, though it's the litte flaws that are standing out for me right now. The floating camera thing is well done and a good idea. Blog lady and a few of the other camera tricks are more distracting. It's not really a 'found footage' film since they are quite explicit about what happened to the first camera.

 

I suppose I actually liked the first two acts most of all. Lots of nice visual tricks, comedy and character interaction.

 

The final stuff was impressive, especially for the budget. I thought the logical inconsistancies were worst in this phase. eg. I'm surprised the cops didn't start shooting to kill mmediately after the first chopper went down.

 

And the elephant in the room for me was Akira. It's obviously a big influence. Regardless of what people may think about that film, it goes huge with its psychic combat scenes (laser deflecting, tank crushing, orbital satellites). I felt this film was good but perhaps a bit tame in comparison.

 

So maybe an 8/10 for me. Definitely worth seeing.

I thought it was great. The format helped with the grounded nature of the film, but it didn't need it. As Tim mentions, it is not your traditional found footage film, but it is still cornered by it.

Yeah, this isn't superhero. This is AKIRA through and through. The moment with the helicopter looks like a direct visual quote, not to mention Alex and Tetsuo sport basically the same hospital duds.

 

Liked it a lot. Probably the most pleasant surprise I've had at the movies in the while. Dane DeHaan is so good in this. As someone who was kinda/sorta that breed of teen (even though I never went to high school), he really nails the sense of feral sensitivity. All three leads are great, though, and have terrific chemistry. Although DAMMIT THEY KILLED WALLACE. AGAIN.

 

But yeah, the found footage aspect is so half-assed. Can anyone tell me what camera is supposed to be filming when Alex is on the ground near the end? I really wish they'd just done it straight, or dropped the gimmick at will District 9-style.

Edited by Whiteboy Jones - 2/3/12 at 7:12pm

bastards, i had no interest in this then people started dropping "Akira"

 

I'm so over found footage movies, but you fuckers are making me think of forking out for it.

Really totally surprisingly great. Starts with a good script - a good story with good characters - and executes it well. The performances are good, the action is cool. Really good stuff. The found footage conceit serves certain sequences very well, but I do wish they'd gone the DISTRICT 9 route to avoid straining suspension of disbelief. In the grand scheme of things that's a minor issue though. Overalls. Really satisfying, refreshing take on superpowers. And yeah, strong echoes of AKIRA. This is as close to a live action remake as I need. 

Here's the other thing about the found footage aspect: it's sort of frustrating that they committed to doing the whole thing that way, but you can tell their hearts aren't in it cause they totally cheat it and give you smooth camera work and multiple angles. So if you're sick of FF aesthetically, don't let that hold you back from seeing this. 

I actually love how they integrated filmmaking into the neuroses of a character, and used the destruction of the standard def GL2 as a way for the film to transition and just sort of generally represent modern HD cameras of all types (camcorder, ipad, or otherwise) with normal motion-picture photography. I may have linked even more metatextual dots in my head than the filmmakers about how the photographic conceit of the film works out, but they at least did enough clever shifting and structuring to offer me the dots to do so.

Yeah, a real nice surprise, this movie. I've seen three new movies in 2012, and they've all been much better than expected. In fact, I'd call all three very good, which is kind of unprecedented for this time of year. Even Contraband and the Women in Black are supposed to be good. This is as strong a start to the year as I've seen, and considering the upcoming year's slate, I'm feeling pretty optimistic about 2012 (though I guess the Sundance releases didn't sound amazing).

 

The three leads in this were excellent for this type of film. It's almost a minor miracle how entertaining this was.

That's an analogy that makes me love Patton all the more, and makes me really, really want to see this film now.

OK, apologies for calling you bastards and fuckers, you are splendid fellows all.  I wouldn;t have bothered with this other than this thread and I was amazed at how much I enjoyed it.

 

I like how they worked the camera angles in, although the "grab ipads, pods and cameras to keep it going" was a bit of a stretch as I think Andrew was a bit beyond caring at that point (and as an "Apex predator" he wouldn't need to hide behind it).

 

But that's a nitpick.  Good script, good leads, didn't feel the need for exposition, didn't feel forced.

 

It kind of telegraphed when things would change a bit too much ("this is the best day of my life", "your hubris") but again, nitpick.

 

I don't want a "standard" sequel.  Or any sequel to be honest.

 

I do however want a Nostromo t-shirt.

 

Finally, and this may be a stretch, but keeping with the Akira nods Andrew means "manly" which isn't too far from Tetsuo "iron man".  I agree with Dan, this is as close to a live action Akira as I actually want.

Glad I wasn't the only one who noticed shades of Akira.  This flick was a nice little surprise.  While I hate the found footage gimmick, I got a kick out of some of the cleverer angles, and justifications for why things are being filmed, and I particularly appreciated that the film drew a thread between the camera and Andrew's aloofness.

 

Smart and solid.  And the climax?  It's about time we have our superheroes being tossed through skyscrapers.  

 

With a $15 million budget on this, I just don't get where all the money goes on big budget flicks like Green Lantern.  How has Hollywood not figured out how to get more bang for their buck?

Well, to be fair, a lot of the CG looked like junk, but the acting and script were so good it didn't matter.

Yeah, the effects definitely showed the budget at times (a lot of times) but that really didn't bother me. 

 

I think saying the filmmakers' hearts weren't in the found footage conceit was off, because I do see the thematic value of it and appreciate some of the clever things they did with it. The feeling comes from the fact that they found a lot of excuses to make the found footage not look like found footage. I would absolutely not change anything about certain key sequences, but at other times it was like okay the conceit isn't really adding anything when you're basically doing everything you can to make us forget about it. I guess that mostly comes into play towards the end. 

 

Does anyone else wish they had both died? 

 

I saw it with a friend and he was desperate for a sequel but that's the last thing this needs.

 

I found the epilogue in Tibet a bit off. The film felt fresh but Matt promising to "find what it was that made them" just sounds so obvious.

I thought they'd both die, but I liked Matt so much that I was pleasantly surprised.

Start with a Sandler Budget of 80 mill then add the logistics of shooting for heavy effects, rushed FX schedules and actually shooting more than one take. Everyone gets a big payday on tentpole films - everyone's taking a risk/scale on these small ones in order to build their careers up to the level where Sandler money kicks in.

 

I guess I'm wondering, without being privy to the underlying numbers (i.e. the fees taken off the top, baseline expectations for television/streaming rights over the life of a property, quantitative measurements for a given actor's draw, etc.), is it the best way of doing things?  Conceivably, could a studio ask for greater talent participation in order to spread the risk, and focus more of those resources into creating a better product?

Nobody is worth that amount of money.

 

Nobody.

 

In a world that wasn't fucked right the fuck up, that wouldn't even be a possibility.

 

 

I know right? I was so ready to happily write this off and forget it ever existed...

It shows, most of all, what judiciously-placed cheap FX can do, as opposed to bank-breaking CGI that just sort of jizzes around indiscriminately and you don't give a shit. That security-camera shot of the hospital room blowing the fuck out will stay with me for a while.

 

I also liked how more is done in 83 minutes to make us believe Andrew's turn to the dark side than Lucas managed with Anakin Skywalker in three movies. And yet Andrew isn't evil, he just fuckin' loses his shit; he's in a real suck situation. Even his dad isn't the complete bastard we think he's going to be; yeah, he hits Andrew, but he too has lost his shit due to a suck situation. (I think the exact moment I softened towards him was when we overhear him on the phone trying to get meds for his wife.) The movie uncomfortably suggests that some people just melt under too much heat and that's that.

Yeah, I was pleased they gave the Dad a moment of not being a total fucker so you could actually see where his shit was coming from.  With one 5 second bit.  A lot of filmmakers could learn from that.

 

I liked that they gave Andrew moments where he actually seemed to be the most together (talking about Tibet etc) before it all came crashing down and his personal neuroses got "vindicated " (in his mind anyway) and took him back to where he was emotionally.

Loved it, although the CG was shit, especially the Legos.  Andrew looks like a young DiCaprio, the deaths are brutal (Steve's death was a real shock, pun totally intended), and I was completely and utterly on Andrew's side.  I wanted to see him wreck the whole fucking city. 

 

People in my audience were so stupid that they couldn't figure out that it was Tibet at the end.  The two dumbasses in front of me were all "Where is he?"  "I dunno!"

I was certain there'd be a post-credit scene showing the camera viewing the monastery being picked up and flown away, so I was pleased when there was nothing at all.

 

I think my favorite part was when we were getting the mix of security cameras and TV cameras and personal cameras telling the story of the big fight at the end.  I'd almost like to see an entire film done that way, sort of Marvels meets the big fight from Superman II.

I don't get this at all.  You wanted to see him kill a bunch of innocent people?  Why, exactly?  

Because I enjoy watching people get taken out.  What's not to get?

I liked how it's all Andrew's story and then the moment he turns, Matt becomes the protagonist.