Look, this was a cool movie. Great special effects, interesting story and all that jazz. Acting was fine as well.
My biggest gripe of the film is that fact that I'm simply getting tired of all the 'found-footage' films out there today.
I'm sorry, but after watching PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 and 3, PROJECT X, CLOVERFIELD and THE LAST EXORCISM (which sucked the biggest balls of them all by the way), my suspension of disbelief for these movies is running a bit thin. I'm just not believing these people are going to carry around a video camera all the time recording everything that goes on.
It made 100% sense in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and the first PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. But those other films, not so much.
Which begs the point, why make CHRONICLE a 'found-footage' film in the first place. Throughout the movie they use multiple 'video' footage from various points of view to tell the story. Not simply from one camera from the main antagonist's point of view, which makes this move increasingly bizarre. So, was this a found footage film made with bits and pieces of everyone's videos - after the fact? Or a simple gimmick to get butts in theaters. I'm going with the latter.
So, my question is, 'Why do this at all?' I was discussing my frustration with this film with a co-worker today. He mentioned last year's summer hit SUPER 8 directed by JJ Abrams. "Should they have done it like that" he asked.
Perfect example and yes. A movie where video or film or YouTube (unarguably a main part of this younger generation's medium of choice) is weaved into a normal film narrative. Not the whole freaking movie.
Like I said, the movie was good. But it could have been a whole helluva lot better if first-time feature writer/director Josh Trank decided to approach the whole idea of this movie differently.