DaOmega_1's review of "Chronicle"

How is it that it is only February, and it's already a better year for film than 2011 was?

Something should be noted here, you may feel differently about this, and end up coming to this thread and telling me how wrong I am... It's okay. You are more than welcome to do so (and you probably will). But, I can't not love this movie. It was practically made for ME. So, I'm not gonna under-rate it just to make some of you guys happy.

Chronicle feels like a film that should've been made ages ago. It's such a simple yet brilliant idea, I'm shocked that nobody has thought of this idea before. And, they deliver on it in a big way. Because, what we have here is alternately fun, thrilling, funny, tragic, heart-breaking, intense, and best of all, SMART. All the pitfalls many found-footage films fall into, this film COMPLETELY avoids. All the pitfalls a superhero film falls into, this film COMPLETELY avoids. It mashes up two genres, and pulls from recognizable influences to craft something that is familiar, yet at the same time COMPLETELY original and new.

I don't feel like there is anything fundamentally wrong with the film. I think the movie is, in my eyes, absolutely Holy-Sh*t awesome. For me, I loved that it was a deconstruction of what creates superheroes and supervillains. It does something that I never see superhero movies do... EVER... It left me with a sense of awe.

For me, everything is tight on this. The character development is there, the script is tight, the pacing is perfect, the acting is solid, and the concept of it all is strong. And, it is EXACTLY the right length to avoid the story lagging or getting slow. For me, I felt as though that the found footage angle of it worked because it felt like the camera Andrew owns is a character in the film. How the camera moves, how he makes it move almost becomes a part of the character development of Andrew.

Speaking of Andrew, this kid is an AMAZING actor. His performance pulls the entire film together. If he was bad, the whole film would've been uneven. But, he totally brings something to this role that more-than-likely wasn't on the page. All of these characters, for me, had a lot more layers than I would've originally thought, and are well-acted. They develop Steve to the point in which he has a lot of layers, and there is infinitely more to him than what we see in the trailers. The same goes for Matt. In fact, their friendship anchors the entire movie emotionally. It is the moments that they're having fun that builds up to the heartbreaking climax of it all. I felt it, and I felt like I was with them through it, and it gave the movie more resonance as a result.

The scene in which Steve dies was necessary, and set up the emotional hook of the 3rd act. It gave the movie more of a real factor. If it would've remained fun & light throughout, the whole thing would've deflated itself, and it would feel unfinished. I feel as though it shows these characters that they are not "invincible", and adds a sense of reality that makes the film infinitely more interesting.

I also felt that Andrew's character was relatable... I guess to me, because I've been where Andrew was when I was in middle school, so I can relate, and I could feel him. I feel like his shift makes sense, because he was already on the edge, and already in that place where it could take one thing to push him over the edge, and make him lash out the way he did. It was a natural progression, and it needed to happen.

Unlike the umpteen amount of found-footage or cinéma vérité films that have popped up recently, this one is clever and inventive with how its filmed. This genre, and the other filmmakers who populate it has just been put on notice. During the 3rd act stand-off, we see pure undiluted filmmaking creativity when we get points of view from news cameras, CCTV cameras, police cameras, people with the iPhones, etc... This is all[..]embled and pulled together in such a clever and thoughtful way, that it leaves your jaw dropped... Like, why hasn't ANYONE else thought of doing something like this?

And also unlike those other found footage films, this one actually has an ending. It resolves, and its resolution makes sense. AND, the character interactions read as true and accurate.

This is also an introduction to several new talents. Josh Trank and Max Landis, the director and the screenwriter respectively, have crafted a story that not only works as a fun sci-fi film. It also works as a character study, and a deconstruction of superhero and supervillain mythology... Sort of like "Unbreakable" was (even though Unbreakable is better... if not by much). On that level, the film spoke DIRECTLY to me.

The only problems for me was that there was a female character in the film that was unnecessary, and was only there to serve as a 2nd camera in certain scenes. It didn't drag the movie down to me, but it was something that took me out of the film for a little bit. And, there were some scenes of slightly dodgy CG (specifically during the "talent show" scene).

Other than that, it had all the marks it needed to. I feel like this is one of the most imaginative films in both the superhero genre AND the found footage genre. It'd have to be an AMAZING year for film (which it looks like it will be) in order for this to somehow not make my year end top 10 list. It's that good.

I'd recommend that you FIRST know if this film is for you. And, if it is, definitely go pay full price to see it on the biggest screen possible at your earliest convenience.

SCORE: 9.5 (out of 10) = DOPENESS

*goes to reread Armond White's review to boost IQ back up*

[smiley]

Good for you!

Chronicle’s frustrating misuse of dazzling cinematic technique raises the question of the era: Do youth audiences know what cinematic form is for?

Do you?

9.5 out of 10????

i respectfully disagree.... 6/10

and steve's charcter has alot of layers?? so does matt??? there was a lack of charcter development in this film EXCEPT for andrew's charcter

we knew nothing about matt except he became popular ans stopped fukking with the unpopular kids and we didnt know !! about steve except he was the anti-andrew and had alot of trophies in his house lol


still a decent movie but far from great

edit:

and again it cant be compared to "found footage' type movies because it used multiple cameras not just andrews

Cinematic form in what sense? Because, it isn't one size fits all. You seem to be trying to somehow make Armond's logic make sense, because he changes his mind about 5 times during the review.

Yeah, I can see the problems you had with it, and I totally understand. For me, it totally spoke to me and spoke to things that I wish movies like this would do.

:hmm::hmm::hmm:

If your review is correct then it's the complete opposite of what I thought this film would be

It looked nice & entertaining from the trailer but the way you're raving about the script, the characters, the actors acting out the characters well, the pacing, the 9.5 score............makes me think cotdamn either Omega is caught up in the moment or this film is a pretty damn good movie.

I disagree. I feel like Steve was ostensibly set up to be a charming shallow guy. But, I felt those conversations he had with Andrew kinda revealed a more empathetic side. He seemed to genuinely care about Andrew, and it made him seem like more of a person as opposed to a type, to me. The same goes for Matt. He kinda goes through an arc. He's kinda standoffish towards Andrew, but grows into a more confident person as the film goes along.

Armond White hates anything popular, loves anything that's not.

Maybe I am in the moment... But, I'd like to think that I'm not alone in my opinion since its certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, and the main critics I read are all talking about how much they adore the movie.

I gave it 8 out of 10 but the guy that played Matt especially his ending scene

Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield and the Paranormal Activity movies have degraded cinematic form, but when the hand-held, real-time stunt isn’t trite, the matter of aesthetic purpose and artistic responsible must be pondered, as here. Do modern audiences know about (Godard’s theory on) editing as a political act or, having been raised on television and Internet excess, is cutting and camerawork just ignored in favor of dialog-based “content”?


at Unbreakable being just a little bit better.

thats the thing, at no point did i think steve was shallow, i knew he was popular but i never thought he was shallow, he seemed like a decent kid from start till end but like you said. from personal experiences you could relate to andrew's charcter

i can relate more with steve and i know just because your popular dont make you shallow or ungenuine

but to each his own, i can respect your likes for the film i just fell it felt short and was just average

hell yeah....that whole "this is for you bro" !! was corny and i didnt like that ending AT ALL

i like the ending TH35 posted

would have made the movie even better, not sure why they didnt go with this ending

Look no further to when Steve approached the queer crying outside to see he wasn't a shallow guy.

Its simply bad imagination and terrible cop out to go that route.

You're referring to the Cinéma vérité? Dude, you seem to be forgetting that this type of storytelling has existed LONG before The Blair Witch Project, one of the first being "The Battle of Algiers" which was made back in 1966...

1966.

You seem to think that this form of cinema is new when it is not. And, you also seem to be forgetting that "cinematic form" is subjective from genre to genre. And, it is NOT one size fits all, no matter how many Armond White review you can quote indicating otherwise.

Yeah, you're reasons for not liking it as much are not unfounded, and I can see the issues you have with it. I definitely respect where you're coming from with it. Like I said, this film was practically made for me.

After which he went to him because he had a camera, and wanted to use it so they can film something.

Hes saying these young cats are growing up to post-911 destruction of pop cinema and have been misguided to understand what real cinema is suppose to bring forth.