Chronic (2016)

Sadly Over-hyped

Excellent but underrated film

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

What I write could be viewed as a spoiler, so be warned.Yes, this movie has very little action; in fact, it moves at a snail's pace. And yet, the story is a profoundly moving account of the work nurses do for the terminally ill.David is a male nurse who feels deeply for those who struggle with end-of-life issues. Out of his own sense of love, he does what he does, not some deep seated confusion. It is how he has learned to deal with last stage perplexities.How many of us would even venture into that world, for even a week, much less an entire career? Cleaning patients, dealing with their daily needs, and servicing them in whatever capacity they desire is comparable to the Make A Wish foundation.As more and more baby boomers advance in age, these realities will gain greater exposure and discussion regarding what options a terminally ill sufferer has will widen. This is the point of Tim Roth's marvelous portrayal, that, in the end, compassion must reach beyond the norm, to assist in an effort to end suffering.This compares greatly to Mother Teresa's focus on the needs of the dying. Her way, which may be a more godly way, is to be a servant and friend to those at death's door, remain with them until the last breath. Maybe sentiment will one day reach farther watching them slowly die.

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.

Given that the subject matter was not easy, I still think Chronic could have been better. The fact that it was about people being terminally ill, and going through the indignities of chemo and dying, did not justify having a style that also felt deathlike. There were several instances in which the camera lingered on Tim Roth as David simply sitting or standing and thinking. The finale of the film, when he was jogging along, seemed absurd: I didn't time it, but the camera was on him as he jogged from one block to the next and cars rode around him for what seemed way too long. In several instances the film bordered on boring, and it shouldn't have. The subject matter in itself was troubling enough without feeling depressed by the way the movie was made.

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.