Chronicle

Starring Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, and Michael B. Jordan
Directed by Josh Trank
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times.

I watched this almost a week ago and, though a good movie, it left me conflicted. Was this movie as good as I believed it was? Did it have a sleeper effect on me where I discovered something more while I dwelt on it? Was it really a good science-fiction effort or was I duped by a lot of flash?

Rarely, will I admit to being duped, and I’m not going to do it here. This film is a solid effort about three Seattle teens who find a mysterious object buried in the woods near a rave and they begin to develop telekinetic powers that grow as they learn how to control them. However, like with most stories that involve power that is bestowed upon a common person, the conflict comes in the balance between good and evil. The same holds here as the plot develops and climaxes in the classical way.

The thing that compelled me was how this generation would look at this conflict and how would it play out. There was little talk about responsibility, only about having fun. There wasn’t much discussion about consequences, only about what they could get for themselves. Looking at the generation portrayed in this film, I have a hard time believing that these three weren’t going out and using it to attract girls and get money. For that, I find it unrealistic.

However, what I did like was how the plot unrolled itself in a very organic way and how these characters were deeply flawed and vulnerable. When a film like this takes the time to weave the intricacies of parental abuse, humiliation, and the ongoing struggle that is being a teenager in America, it allows the genre to take some strange detours that make it a more realistic and more fulfilling experience.

One of the things I find to be disappointing is the whole “found footage” perspective as it wears really thin as the film progresses. I found it hard to suspend belief that a camera would be present in some of these situation and the perspectives were unrealistic. The filmmakers tried to explain it away by allowing Alex (DeHaan) to show how he can make his own camera and every other camera float in a jib-type way to gain more perspective than a simple first-person perspective shot. In theory, it would have worked, but then there’s the entire movie ending that would be pretty much impossible to explain away using this thinking. It detracted from the satisfying (but predictable) ending, but not enough to let it lose flavor.

Most Valuable Actor: To take on the central character of Alex, Dane DeHaan had to go to some dark places that rarely get spotlighted in major Hollywood releases, but ring very true on many levels. The internal conflict between what he knows to be right and his want to rectify the troubles in his life create for a complex character that is probably better than this movie deserved.

Trailer:

Any Given Sunday

Starring Al Pacino, Cameron Diaz, and Jaime Foxx
Directed by Oliver Stone
Year: 1999
IMDB / Wikipedia

Oh, the doctoral thesis I could write about his movie. Even before I popped the disc in the player I had about 15 different angles I wanted to attack and address about this movie and its commentary on professional football. But that’s what director Oliver Stone does with each and every one of his films; he never offers fluff and always delivers a film that can be dissected and explored in numerous ways for years to come. Here I am, more than a decade since I first saw it, and there are still many new things that I’m noticing and learning from this film. I won’t bore you with all of them, but I will highlight a few.

The first is that, unless you do not pay attention to professional sports or are hopelessly deluded about what you see on TV every Thursday, Sunday, and Monday, professional football is no longer a sport or a game: it’s a business. It’s a product that is packaged in regional colors and sold to every fan and it has been going on for years. In the film, this side is explored with the Miami Sharks’ cutthroat owner, played by Cameron Diaz at a point in her career where this was an enormous risk. She works to blackmail the city of Miami into building a new stadium, control her aging head coach (Pacino), and help bring everyone into the modern game as a winner. The chip on her shoulder is being the only woman in the boys’ club of football ownership and she is trying to ensure that her father’s legacy is preserved while forging one of her own. Her struggle with the business side of the game is something that is as true today as it was 20 years ago in that she is looking to expand the team brand and make a profit in any way she can. The focus is off the field, even though that’s the product everyone buys, and she becomes obsessed with the status of ownership that she begins to lose her grip on everything. I would love to explore the parallels with this and this current NFL season, but to do so would be taxing and off-topic for this blog. Rest assured, people who know football who watch this movie can find their own parallels quite easily.

Secondly, there’s the connection between the past and the future. In professional sports, like every business, you are either growing and evolving or you are dying. However, there are those who still feel that professional sports should be true to their roots in that respect for the past should equate to building for the future. (the adage, “learn history or be doomed to repeat it” seems apt). However, where the past and future meet in all other aspects of life is supposed to be the present, but not in a professional world. Either you are the innovator or you are the dinosaur. In this film we see the dependable, aging quarterback Cap Rooney (masterfully played by Dennis Quaid) get hurt and replaced by the cock-sure and arrogant Willie Beamen (Foxx) much to the chagrin of the coach. The transition between the old, yet dependable and revered player and the exciting, new (yet untested) player is a rocky one as the generational gap shows newer generations always have a disdain for the past to begin with. To know where you are going you must understand where everyone else has been but you cannot dwell on that past or it will decimate the future. Therein that balance lies respect and trust which is hard to earn, easy to break, and nearly impossible to replace. In the film, most of the trials between the past and the future hinge on the need for respect from one another.

But the film doesn’t need to get preachy to get its point across. Sure, it is an art film about football made only in the way Oliver Stone would make it, but it keeps itself grounded while it looks at the perspectives of old players, young players, older coaches, younger coaches, and management all trying to work in harmony for the same outcome: to win games and produce a profitable product. Everyone has their own motivations and their own sense of worth and, to hold onto those while respecting others whose values may differ but whose goals align, is the key to any team success. Re-reading that last sentence makes me feel like Dr. Phil a little, but I stand by the statements.

My only problem with the film is it takes a concerted commitment to sit and watch it from beginning to end in one sitting. When I finished watching this inn the theater, I knew if I ever wanted to see it again (and I did because it is such a great movie) it would have to be on DVD, where I can pause, rewind, put on subtitles, and watch it so I can capture every deliberate moment in the film. To watch it on TV you lose a lot of the grittiness due to editing and this is the only option. However, the film is a hefty 2 hours and 30 minutes long and as dense as a gourmet cheesecake, so even on DVD some time must be devoted. I had to wait until I had a day off and nothing going on to feel like I could sit and watch this film because I knew that was the only way for me. I wanted to make this film part of my pre-football season film festival, but it’s not an easy watch like Rudy or The Longest Yard or The Waterboy. This is a film that requires a lot of focus and attention because it deserves it. This is not for a non-sports fan or even a passive one, but any love of football or sport will appreciate the timeless qualities of this film and its commentary on the game.

Most Valuable Actor: This is a very tough decision because, like most Oliver Stone movies, it’s wall-to-wall with A-list actors even in small roles. I feel for the risk she took in appearing in this movie in such a gritty and un-typecast role, Cameron Diaz took this role and really ran with it. She played the part with precision and class the way a real woman in her situation would have to. But, I guess being a female actor is still kind of an outsider occupation so she probably used a little method to fuel the madness that is Christina Pagniacci.

Trailer:

The Five-Year Engagement

Starring Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, and Chris Pratt
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times. 

I want to start off being very blunt: this movie is exactly what you think it will be. It’s formulaic, it’s trite, it borrows plot devices, dialogue, and entire scenes from other romantic comedies and uses them to cobble together a movie where you know the ending just as the opening credits are rolling. Of course, if you want to take a very Shakespearean look at it, there can be no comedy without an ending that promises a blissful future. Sorry for the mild spoiler but, seriously, if you couldn’t see the ending of this movie coming a mile off you have bigger issues to work through than being butthurt at me.

The story is about Tom (Segel) and Violet (Blunt), two people who seem very much in love with one another, and what happens after Tom proposes to Violet. Multiple events and situations test their relationship early and often and play out in very honest ways. The two end up resenting one another for multiple reasons, and conclude they are very different people who may not be right for one another after all. But however will this film find it’s satisfying resolution?

Though I kid a bit about how formulaic this film is, I have to admit that it is also very amusing and immensely entertaining. I guess just because something has been done before doesn’t mean it’s bad. The dialogue between the two lovers, though at times labored, is pretty spot-on, and tries to take some chances not often seen in a film like this. The casting is a tad unrealistic because it perpetuates the idea that an insanely beautiful woman would ever be interested in a schlubby-looking guy no matter how good his personality is, but the two make it work somehow and I tip my cap once again.

My wife enjoyed the film and that’s definitely a positive thing. The film was funny, warm, and almost too familiar in its delivery, but it still managed to satisfy and not make me regret the two hours spent watching. Anymore, that’s an achievement for a romantic comedy.

Most Valuable Actor: This is a tough one, but I think the nod has to go to Chris Pratt who plays Tom’s best friend Alex who meets and couples with Violet’s sister Suzie (played by Alison Brie and the worst British accent I’ve ever heard). He is the comic relief but also the voice of simple reason throughout the film. His message is one that’s sound and true: relationships are only as hard as you make them and you need to be true to yourself. Add some swear words in there and it could almost be direct dialogue from the film.

Trailer: