Chronic

This film tells the story of a male nurse who takes care of terminally ill patients in their home. He is hard-working, diligent and competent in performing his duties, however his motives are questioned by the characters and by the viewers.

"Chronic" is slow and uneventful, to echo the theme of sadness and helplessness of the sufferers. In many instances he does what he thinks is best for the patients, sometimes leaning towards the unorthodox and sometimes even outright inappropriate. In addition, I at times dislike him because of the frequent white lies he tells, which brings doubts on whether he lies about other things as well.

Overall, "Chronic" is a slow drama, and it's not for everyone.

Chronic. Tim Roth loses himself in his role - as does the character he plays - a palliative care nurse. The antithesis of the usual Hollywoodisation of terminal illness. Almost unbearable to watch yet, at times, strangely uplifting and beautiful and human. A career best performance by Roth. A film that I think will and indeed should stay with you. 9 out of ten

Writer-director Michel Franco's 'End Of Life porno' doesn't shy away from showing us the human body in all its sweating, vomiting, defecating ugliness during the final gasps of people who have been ravaged by illness.

Tim Roth is quite excellent as the quietly spoken, polite, diligent nurse who abuses with loving, suffocating care

Right from the get go David showers a dying patient with an uncomfortable thoroughness that borders on the obscene.

Not wanting to let his viewers off easily, the camera lingers on this awkward moment, instantly pricking our eyes up about this strange and devoted man's behaviour and motivations.

Character driven masterpiece (Tim Roth as David, being an exceptionally detached, efficient and yet sensitive nurse) composed of different "episodes" cleverly puzzled together. The focus - as the title hints - is on chronic (and terminal) sickness but don't expect anything pointlessly dramatic or tear-jerking. Instead every story line seems an attempt to explore a broader (and ocean deep) set of topics:

What are really worth our typical human bonds and their cultural boundaries?

Do we really acknowledge our frailty before getting to "the point"?

Does our grown-ups busy daily life affect our ability to assess new scenarios?

How dangerous (and rewarding) can be thinking about (and adopting) a deeper perspective?

A very nice episode i.e. shows mercilessly how chronic illness is prone to destroying relationships. No matter how close you were to your beloved ones and how sorrowful they are; you are a different person with different priorities now: either they get it or they become less and less relevant for your existence. Someone who understands you and your needs becomes indeed a better companion than anyone else (ah love... oh family). And this is ofc hard to deal with for the previous "favourites".

Who can say he always gets what the authors meant to express? Or everything? Well, here we have many (but not too many) good examples of film sections where apparently nothing happens. What's the matter then? Within this "emptyness" there's David thinking, feeling and changing. Up to the dumb viewer to decide that this is irrelevant. We think we are better than that and we will use these sections to guess and feel ourselves what is happening.

But it's not all-in on the imagery: we have a solid script as well (best screenplay at Cannes); it's a pleasure noticing how lying is used (and it's annoying reading that a reviewer dislikes David because he is shady). Another review suggests that the film "Still life" (2013) is used as more than an inspiration while unaccredited but that is plainly wrong: "Still life" is Forrest-Gump-surreal and plot-driven while here we are on the opposite side; "Still life" deals with someone believing that dead people deserve care and love, while here David just feels like giving dignity to its fullest to the sick. Well, both films have workaholic main characters but the parallel solidity ends there in our opinion.

A possibly weak point is the color palette which is strangely overexposed and bland (not necessarily in a annoying sense): if this is not meant to be so as an expressive tool (which may well be for reasons I don't get) I'd note a lack of proper post-processing.

Not a happy movie but neither a sad one and most definitely not a "pornographic" one just because you see a penis, excrements and death (didn't people notice we don't see any blood? fortuitous or thought provoking?)... Anyways be ready to switch the brain on for this great work. It's a 9 but I'll go for a 10 given how clueless low-vote reviewers sound.

I went to see this movie because of the Cannes Film Festival best screenplay award that the film had won. It was indeed a good film, with good acting by Tim Roth.

The screenplay is good but it has liberally borrowed ideas, without acknowledging it, from Uberto Pasolini's 2013 film,"Still Life," a winner at theVenice film festival. All the director/screenplay writerhas done is that he transformed a bachelor bureaucrat to a divorced male nurse and passed it off as "original" writing.

And to think this plagiarism leads to a Cannes top award! Shame on the director! It also brings down the prestige of Cannes' awards. Recently another Cannes Jury conferred the Golden Palm to Haneke's "Amour,"which in turn had copied chunks of sequences/ideas from Runnarson's 2011 Icelandic film "Volcano."

Obviously, the Cannes jury had never seen "Still Life." The jury could instead have conferred the best actor award to Tim Roth-who would have deserved it. It underscores the lack of knowledge of current cinema by juries at Cannes in recent years.

For those who have not viewed either, please view "Still Life" first.