Saw Chronicle a few days ago

[shmokes]

Really good "Superhero" movie about three kids who stumble across some weird thing that imbues them all with very powerful telekinesis. It's a superhero film more along the Unbreakable vein, i.e., much more of a realistic take on it than spandex and diabolical, cackling villains.

Unfortunately the filmmakers went for the whole "found footage" docudrama gimmick. WTF? I hate that. It "worked" for Blair Witch because it hadn't ever been done before. It was a novelty. It's not anymore. We've all seen Blair Witch. We've seen Cloverfield. We've seen Paranormal Activity. It's retarded. There is absolutely nothing about Chronicle that makes it a good fit for the home-video style. It's utter nonsense and it makes for some incredibly idiotic scenes where you're like, "Um . . . why the ---fudgesicle--- doesn't this moron drop the camera so he/she can run faster and see where he/she is going and maybe not get killed by that incredibly dangerous thing chasing him/her?" Cloverfield had the exact same problem.

The film is so well written and acted, though, that it somehow manages to transcend all the camera idiocy. It's really good. If you like comic book movies, don't miss it.

[elkameleon]

Saw it in theaters, I enjoyed it, especially the flying parts.

[hypernova]

Sweet.  Forgot about that one, but it looked good.

Loved Cloverfield.  I thought the camera thing worked, because the guy who uses it through most of the movie passes himself off as someone stupid/crazy enough to keep doing it, regardless of the danger around him.

[SNAAKE]

great movie shaky cam didn't really bother me. they didn't OD here.

[Samstag]

I just watched it last weekend too.  I don't mind the documentary format.  The movie itself was just okay.

The only movie of that type I really enjoyed was Cloverfield, but I'm not sure I could give a good reason why.  It was just one of the ultra-rare movies I enjoyed so much I watched all the special features after the movie was over.  I don't normally watch them, ever.

[fallacy]

I am going to watch it. I am surprised you liked it, the acting looked really bad in the trailer.

[hypernova]

Just watched it.  Damn that was good.

[SNAAKE]

but I have faith in ridley scott

[shmokes]

Why? I mean, he's done some very good stuff. But he also did Black Hawk Down. Gladiator. G.I. Jane. He's not exactly a sure thing. What has me more excited for Prometheus than anything is the brilliant advertising they've done. That one with the Robot guy who played Magneto in the new X-Men . . . .where he has the tears run down his face . . . Jesus . . . that was amazing.

[Ginsu Victim]

Why? I mean, he's done some very good stuff. But he also did Black Hawk Down. Gladiator. G.I. Jane.

And Hannibal.....ugh....

Also, Blade Runner, while a great movie on the technical side, is boring as ---fudgesicle---! Every time I give it another chance, I still never change my mind about it.

[SNAAKE]

I liked BHD and hannibal.

and micheal fassbender is good in pretty much every movie he's in. so yeah...sold. unless reviews turn out to be horrible then I may have to wait for torrent uh..netflix!

[AtomSmasher]

I mean, he's done some very good stuff. But he also did Black Hawk Down. Gladiator. G.I. Jane. He's not exactly a sure thing.

If two of his three worst movies (or at least the three you seem to dislike the most) were nominated for a combined 16 oscars, won 7 of those including best picture, then I'd say he's as close to a sure thing as your going to get.  I thought BHD and Gladiator were both great movies, but I agree G.I. Jane was awful (and so was White Squal and A Good Year, which are the two movies you should of listed)

[shmokes]

I'm willing to concede that White Squall is maybe not great. I remember it being good, but I saw it long ago . . . maybe high school. I haven't seen A Good Year. Gladiator is not very good. It gets stupider with each repeated viewing. The production values are spectacular, but the story almost could not possibly be any stupider. The story is retarded to the point of constant distraction. It's easy to not notice this on the first viewing because the production values are so dazzling. Black Hawk Down is just unwatchably bad from beginning to end. I honestly don't understand what anybody sees in it aside from, like, battle-porn in the same way Mel Gibson's Jesus movie, I comically can't produce the name at the moment, was just two hours of torture-porn. Black Hawk Down had no story. You're just meant to come out of it shaken because it supposedly so realistically captured the essence of a real wartime battle. Stupid.

[Rando]

Black Hawk Down is just unwatchably bad from beginning to end. I honestly don't understand what anybody sees in it aside from, like, battle-porn in the same way Mel Gibson's Jesus movie, I comically can't produce the name at the moment, was just two hours of torture-porn. Black Hawk Down had no story. You're just meant to come out of it shaken because it supposedly so realistically captured the essence of a real wartime battle. Stupid.

Wow, are tastes are soooo different Shmokes, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that Black Hawk Down wasn't a good or powerful film.  Hard to watch at times, yes, as is the Jesus movie I've heard, but that doesn't make it bad.  It's more like watching a series of events unfold than a traditional movie I guess, kind of like the opening to Saving Private Ryan, but that doesn't make it BAD does it?  Just different and gripping, I thought.

I'd love to watch it again but the wife refuses to see it.

Chronicle is on my long list of movies to see at some point.

[shmokes]

kind of like the opening to Saving Private Ryan,

Lol . . . that's actually a pretty good analogy. Black Hawk Down is like if the opening of Saving Private Ryan lasted two hours and then the credits rolled. Except that Black Hawk Down would still find itself at a disadvantage to this reimagined Saving Private Ryan in that it stars the generally terrible Josh Harnett rather than Tom Hanks and Good Will Hunting.

[dre-w]

BHD had just about as much a storyline as Chronicle.. BHD = war, something goes wrong, story becomes get the F out alive.  Chronicle = kids find some powers (not explained) and don't know wtf to do with it.  Which I had no problems with either, enjoyed both very much actually. 

This may be going way off topic here but oh well, unfortunately the PS1 game Shadow of Colossus is confirmed for a movie by the same --cream-filled twinkie-- who penned SF Legend of ChunLi.. (Justin Marks?) But yeh I see what you mean about BHD just being "series of events unfolding" but I think that would fit perfect for SOC movie.  Doesn't need to follow a epic storyline, supporting characters, or even any dialogue if any.. (ie Cast Away). But I have very little faith in whatevr Hollywood does with this adaptation, wish they would just leave it alone

[shmokes]

Except that Chronicle had a little thing called character development, of which Black Hawk Down was entirely devoid. Frankly, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. Chronicle is full of narrative. Every movie is a series of events unfolding. I don't think Rando meant for anyone to run quite so far with that comment.

[dre-w]

Point is.. You said you didn't like BHD bc it "had no story"..  Which it did. The story was to go in there (for whatever reason) but it all went to hell when the BHD'd.. Which at that point just turned into a war-horror/survival movie.  If you wana see a movie with absolutely no story, try to sit through Eraserhead.. so bizarre

[wp34]

Really good "Superhero" movie about three kids who stumble across some weird thing that imbues them all with very powerful telekinesis. It's a superhero film more along the Unbreakable vein, i.e., much more of a realistic take on it than spandex and diabolical, cackling villains.

Unfortunately the filmmakers went for the whole "found footage" docudrama gimmick. WTF? I hate that. It "worked" for Blair Witch because it hadn't ever been done before. It was a novelty. It's not anymore. We've all seen Blair Witch. We've seen Cloverfield. We've seen Paranormal Activity. It's retarded. There is absolutely nothing about Chronicle that makes it a good fit for the home-video style. It's utter nonsense and it makes for some incredibly idiotic scenes where you're like, "Um . . . why the ---fudgesicle--- doesn't this moron drop the camera so he/she can run faster and see where he/she is going and maybe not get killed by that incredibly dangerous thing chasing him/her?" Cloverfield had the exact same problem.

The film is so well written and acted, though, that it somehow manages to transcend all the camera idiocy. It's really good. If you like comic book movies, don't miss it.

I just saw this last night and have to agree.  Great movie and great acting.  The found footage was a little odd and seemed there as a gimmick.  It also seemed like a way to keep the budget down as some things happened while the camera was off.   

I did like how the characters were able to levitate the camera so that everyone could be in a scene.  It was a little convenient that two of the main characters coincidentally carried cameras around with them at all times. 

[saint]

We've all seen Blair Witch. We've seen Cloverfield. We've seen Paranormal Activity. It's retarded. There is absolutely nothing about Chronicle that makes it a good fit for the home-video style.

Not true - I saw 5 seconds, literally about 5 seconds of Blair Witch, and almost threw up. Can't watch movies with that kind of camera work (see my rant elsewhere about some other movie recently) as I get nastily motion sick for hours. Didn't see Cloverfield because I was warned, or Paranormal Activity, and now Chronicle goes in that pile. Sucks.

[saint]

Why? I mean, he's done some very good stuff. But he also did Black Hawk Down. Gladiator. G.I. Jane. He's not exactly a sure thing. What has me more excited for Prometheus than anything is the brilliant advertising they've done. That one with the Robot guy who played Magneto in the new X-Men . . . .where he has the tears run down his face . . . Jesus . . . that was amazing.

(Gladiator was good)

[wp34]

We've all seen Blair Witch. We've seen Cloverfield. We've seen Paranormal Activity. It's retarded. There is absolutely nothing about Chronicle that makes it a good fit for the home-video style.

Not true - I saw 5 seconds, literally about 5 seconds of Blair Witch, and almost threw up. Can't watch movies with that kind of camera work (see my rant elsewhere about some other movie recently) as I get nastily motion sick for hours. Didn't see Cloverfield because I was warned, or Paranormal Activity, and now Chronicle goes in that pile. Sucks.

They actually do a pretty decent job of minimizing the "shaky camera" effect in Chronical. It is there at times but nowhere near as bad as Cloverfield.  I've not seen Blair Witch or Paranormal to compare.

[shmokes]

(Gladiator was good)

The Roman emperor personally goes into the arena to fight a slave in one-on-one hand-to-hand combat in front of thousands of his subjects. You can't win this one, Saint.   

[shmokes]

I saw 5 seconds, literally about 5 seconds of Blair Witch, and almost threw up. Can't watch movies with that kind of camera work (see my rant elsewhere about some other movie recently) as I get nastily motion sick for hours. Didn't see Cloverfield because I was warned, or Paranormal Activity, and now Chronicle goes in that pile. Sucks.

This is such a shame. The film gains absolutely nothing from the found-footage gimmick. As lame as Blair Witch was, the gimmick worked for it. It was part of the story. The whole point was to present this thing to the audience as though it were a real thing that really happened. Here it's just, a movie. It's not like when you watch a normal movie you're thinking the whole time, "WTF? Why is all of this being caught on camera? Why are these people's lives set to music?" Doing found-footage just for the sake of it, as though it is a technique on equal footing with traditional cinematography . . . that's just crazy. And like I said, it's a shame. I'm sure you'd love this film. So much so that I almost recommend at least giving it a shot. It's probably not so shaky and amateurish as Blair Witch (though I haven't seen Blair Witch since it was in theaters so I have no idea what I'm basing that statement on). Maybe swallow a Dramamine before watching it.

[saint]

(Gladiator was good)

The Roman emperor personally goes into the arena to fight a slave in one-on-one hand-to-hand combat in front of thousands of his subjects. You can't win this one, Saint.   

78%/85% on Rotten Tomatoes, 8.4 on IMDB, $187 mill at the box office, 5 Oscars -- I didn't say it was intellectually stimulating, I said it was good as in entertaining.

[saint]

I saw 5 seconds, literally about 5 seconds of Blair Witch, and almost threw up. Can't watch movies with that kind of camera work (see my rant elsewhere about some other movie recently) as I get nastily motion sick for hours. Didn't see Cloverfield because I was warned, or Paranormal Activity, and now Chronicle goes in that pile. Sucks.

This is such a shame. The film gains absolutely nothing from the found-footage gimmick. As lame as Blair Witch was, the gimmick worked for it. It was part of the story. The whole point was to present this thing to the audience as though it were a real thing that really happened. Here it's just, a movie. It's not like when you watch a normal movie you're thinking the whole time, "WTF? Why is all of this being caught on camera? Why are these people's lives set to music?" Doing found-footage just for the sake of it, as though it is a technique on equal footing with traditional cinematography . . . that's just crazy. And like I said, it's a shame. I'm sure you'd love this film. So much so that I almost recommend at least giving it a shot. It's probably not so shaky and amateurish as Blair Witch (though I haven't seen Blair Witch since it was in theaters so I have no idea what I'm basing that statement on). Maybe swallow a Dramamine before watching it.

Yeah, it sucks because I do want to see it. Did you see Hunger Games? Was it better or worse than the camera angles there? I gritted my teeth through Hunger Games (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=119078.msg1261788#msg1261788) but felt icky for the rest of the evening. Anything worse than that I can't watch. Can't play FPS games either. I can play driving games but can't watch other people play them.

[SNAAKE]

(Gladiator was good)

The Roman emperor personally goes into the arena to fight a slave in one-on-one hand-to-hand combat in front of thousands of his subjects. You can't win this one, Saint.  

yeah thats why it was a bad movie

[shmokes]

78%/85% on Rotten Tomatoes, 8.4 on IMDB, $187 mill at the box office, 5 Oscars -- I didn't say it was intellectually stimulating, I said it was good as in entertaining.

Never mind that 78% is not a high tomato rating. And don't make me start quoting Jusin Beiber sales figures at you. Or McDonald's sales figures. Or Grim Fandango/Psychonauts sales figures. Commercial success and quality are often not directly correlated. In fact, they're often inversely correlated.

As for the awards, I have one word for you: Titanic. Also Avatar if we're including nominations. Anyway, of the Oscars Gladiator received I'd say it was probably perfectly deserving of at least three, maybe even four of them. I mean, that piece of garbage Phantom Menace was nominated for three Oscars, and in a year where The Matrix wasn't released probably would have won (and deserved to win) all of them. There are plenty of Oscars that can be legitimately awarded to a film that is overall a piece of crap.

I think you're wrong. A movie does have to be intellectually stimulating to be good. It doesn't have to be educational, mind you. But it has to make sense. It has to pull you into its world and keep you there until the credits roll. And in order to do that, its story has to follow rules. Events and behavior have to be true, in the sense they they must conform to what reasonably could happen in a given situation. They don't have to follow real-world rules (obviously . . . this thread was created by me to promote an excellent movie about supernatural powers), but the movie has to establish its world and then work within its own logical confines. Otherwise the audience is repeatedly yanked out of the movie and back into their seats to roll their eyes at some event or behavior that makes no sense. This is where Gladiator fails.

[saint]

For a movie to be good, it simply has to be enjoyable, even if there are flaws. I very much enjoyed Avatar for instance, and it was a horrible plot. Probably one of the only movies I enjoyed for eye candy alone. I'll never watch it again, but I was satisfied that I'd gotten my money's worth. There are plenty of movies I've walked out of unhappy I wasted my time and money on. Gladiator wasn't one of those, and the pertinent # on Rotten Tomatoes is the 85% happy fan rating. That's a successful movie even if it wasn't one you liked

[shmokes]

Oh, wouldn't begin to argue that Gladiator wasn't successful. No more than I'd level that criticism against Justin Beiber. I go no further than saying that they suck. 

[saint]

Oh, wouldn't begin to argue that Gladiator wasn't successful. No more than I'd level that criticism against Justin Beiber. I go no further than saying that they suck. 

*You* think they suck, which is your prerogative of course. You can't validly translate that to a quantitative assessment of their popularity in general. The raw numbers show that collectively, people disagree with you and thought that they were good. I can't stand Justin Beiber.

[shponglefan]

(Gladiator was good)

The Roman emperor personally goes into the arena to fight a slave in one-on-one hand-to-hand combat in front of thousands of his subjects. You can't win this one, Saint.   

All movies take place in fictional universes.  Therefore, complaints like this are irrelevant.

[shmokes]

I can't stand Justin Beiber.

Tell that to the raw numbers.

[shmokes]

All movies take place in fictional universes. 

No they don't.

[shponglefan]

All movies take place in fictional universes.  

No they don't.

Yes they do.  Fictional films are a creative work; the result of writers, screenwriters, directors, actors, etc.  These give rise to a work of fiction: including the universe in which its set.

To elaborate: Saving Private Ryan allegedly took place in WW2.  But unless you really think that Tom Hanks was storming the beaches of Normandy, you have to accept it is a fictional depiction.  Gladitor allegedly took place in ancient Rome.  But agian, unless you really think Russel Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix duked it out in a colosseum, again fictional.

The funny thing is we seem to willing to accept that actors are playing fictional roles; we can largely suspend disbelief for them.  But we seem unwilling to similarily suspend disbelief for the setting; which is, even if based on our reality, ultimately fiction.

Personally I've found the moment I accepted that all ficitonal films take place in fictional universes, yes, including films "based on true stories", history, etc, it makes them much more enjoyable.  Suddenly nitpicking things like how C Company of the 2nd Rangers didn't actually land in Dog Green Sector or how roman emperors didn't actually duke it out with slaves become irrelevant.  It's just how things worked in those fictional universes.

[shmokes]

Yeah, no, I understood what you meant. You're just wrong.





Edit: For example, it would be problematic if Tom Hanks pulled an iPhone out of his pocket and responded to an email from his wife in Saving Private Ryan. You see that. This is a silly discussion.

[shponglefan]

Yeah, no, I understood what you meant. You're just wrong.

Oh okay, I guess that settles things then.  Have fun watching your movies.  

Edit: For example, it would be problematic if Tom Hanks pulled an iPhone out of his pocket and responded to an email from his wife in Saving Private Ryan. You see that. This is a silly discussion.

No it wouldn't.  Not any more than watching the German army using modified T-34s to fight the Americans.  It's all fiction.

Tell ya what.  You watch movies the way you watch them, I'll watch them the way I watch them, and we'll see who enjoys more in the end. Deal?  

[shmokes]

Tell ya what.  You watch movies the way you watch them, I'll watch them the way I watch them.

Is this a change from how we were doing things before? I'm not sure I understand the proposition.

[shponglefan]

Is this a change from how we were doing things before? I'm not sure I understand the proposition.

There are many different ways to watch movies.  Mainly to do with the mindset one adopts going in. 

[saint]

I can't stand Justin Beiber.

Tell that to the raw numbers.

See, I didn't say he wasn't good, I said *I* didn't like him. I wasn't trying to convey that my personal opinion was the definitive authoritative opinion on the matter. It *should* be, but in this case isn't.