Chronic

Chronic stars Tim Roth and its the story of a nurse that takes care of multiple patients. I really liked this film. The cinematography in this film is one of the best I have ever seen. The way the camera moves and the long and eerie takes throughout the film really gave this film more realism. The color grading is perfect as well. The performances are great and the characters are magnificent. The storytelling in this film is phenomenal. You can tell what will happen (sometimes) and it can be predictable, but its the way its executed that really makes this film special. The direction is top notch and there are a lot of ballsy decisions made in the ending that literally made my jaw drop. There are some problems though. The pacing is really slow and there are a lot of unnecessary scenes. I understand that the director is trying to set up a mood, but it really makes this film really long, even though its only 1 hour and 30 minutes. The structure is also troubling since the first part is a completely different movie than the second and third part. Overall, this is a depressing, bleak, gloomy, great film that really makes you feel weak when the credits roll. 8.5/10

Could I be Franco with you? Writer-Director Michel Franco has probably developed one of the most melancholy films I have ever seen in "Chronic"; and I don't mean in a "bring your hankie" kind of way, I am referring to an environment where there is a colossal field of hopelessness. "Chronic" stars Tim Roth as David, a hospice nurse who cares for dying cancer patients. The film centers around David's interactions with his "near death" patients, but also on a dark secret of his own past. Franco nurses "Chronic" with an immensely slow burn; which at times emphasizes the narrative, but at times it's too much of a torturous viewing. Not to say that there is not authenticity within the film of dying cancer patients, but its just a tough pill to swallow; especially if one of your loved ones has or has had fallen to the same health horror. Franco's screenplay is underplayed here as the actual images have more of a striking impact to the picture. Tim Roth does marvel in an understated but gripping performance as David. "Chronic" is the epitome of a "bad feel" movie, but there is no denying its chronic hard truth about the devastation of cancer. Cancer sucks! *** Average

This film has a European feel to it, taking a slow and methodical approach to unveiling both the story-line as well as the main character, David. At first I, too, was thinking "why are some parts so drawn out and slow" but then it dawned on me that these characteristics perfectly denote the life of the terminally ill, and ironically, David's life as he struggles with past issues.

Don't expect a happy, Hollywood ending - how can that be when dealing with end of life issues? No, this film is gritty and real and as close to reality as one can get. Having filmed movies myself - especially filming difficult, emotional scenes, I stand in awe of the cinematographer's stamina and excellent positioning. Unlike most movies these days, where the camera has to be right on top of each and every scene, in a voyeuristic way, instead what we have is demonstrated decency to give privacy to that which should be private (no spoiler here; you will understand my words when you come to that particular scene).

The portrayal of David, the main character, is spot on the mark. Throughout the film I wanted to jump into the frame and give him a long, loving hug. He stole my heart with his compassion while life showed precious little to him.

Truly one of my all time favorites now. The kind of film that one can pull new meaning from each time they watch it. Deep and significant: my heart is still aching, woke up several times during the night to reflect on the scenes. Wish I could personally thank the writer, the director and cast. Bravo!

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.

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.