Curapedi
I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.
Arianna Moses
Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.
Kirandeep Yoder
The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.
BretonFianderAMC
Chronos is an interesting movie, it doesn't have any conventional storyline, and no dialogue, it's just really gorgeous imagery and music, which surprisingly was a one long continuous track composed by Michael Stearns which ran throughout the entire movie. I really like how this film was shot, it's mostly Time-Lapse cinematography, which is just footage that is recorded for multiple hours at a time and then sped up to make it look ultra-cool, and the cinematography is just flat-out amazing, and with the locations that they capture, that makes it even better.As I said in the summary of this review, you might want to slow your brain down before watching this movie, this isn't your typical documentary, like I've stated earlier, there's no dialogue in this film, which might make it a bit boring, I'd actually recommend listening to the commentary on the DVD and Blu-ray releases for this movie so you won't be bored to death, but nevertheless, this is an amazing visual experience, and the only reason I'm giving this a 9 is because it is a bit boring at times, and it's only 42 minutes long, other than that, I'd highly recommend "Chronos".
Rodrigo Amaro
A impressed Ron Fricke with his work behind of the marvelous "Koyaanisqatsi" (1983, directed by Godfrey Reggio) decided to make his own effort in displaying magnificent panoramic shots filmed with a time lapse photography in "Chronos". This time he's the director but what's worth of being that if you don't have a concept behind all beautiful scenes? I won't say that everything is thrown in the wind because it's not. It's very impressive in its 45 minutes, in its aerial shots (the ones filmed in Paris being the greatest moment), slow motion and fast forward moments but it doesn't have an idea, a concept that makes us look to the screen and say: that's interesting" or "here's something to learn at".It is easy to get bored, to get distracted (and I was at few parts) and all. But the major problem is to hearing the music that seems to have a capacity of detonate or explode your earphones, sound systems and similars since the noises, created by a expensive and hard to handle machine, a innovation at the time, is incredibly unlistenable. If Fricke wanted to pick someone and something from Reggio's classic it should have been picking Philip Glass to make the music. I said the same thing about "Baraka", but since I watched this one after "Baraka" I couldn't help but being bothered with the score, while the scenes stuck in your memory, the music must be forgotten in dark sides of your mind.Gotta love the fact that this film was beautifully restored, and for a film made in 1985 it is really something great. The images on the screen are vivid, unforgettable, dazzling, and everything is so timeless (except for the strange people walking down the rolling stairs, just look at the clothes and their hairstyle) that a careless soul might think that this film was released just now.Worth a view, and my suggestion is that you look for the other films I mentioned, they're far better than this, but watch this too and if possible make a second view but with the audio off, listening to another soundtrack, choosing a film soundtrack, classic music or progressive rock, anything besides Michael Stearns tracks. 9/10
redwoods
OK I just watched this movie as an attempt to retrace Ron Fricke's filmography. As I find Baraka to be probably the best of all of my all time favorites, I started to watch Chronos with a somehow pervert feeling : "that cannot be better that Baraka" ... In my opinion it's not, BUT I must immediately add that it's a different approach to the reality he shows us, and in its way it's a masterpiece.-Clearly the "message" here is an attempt to make the spectator aware of the scale of time and its unstoppable pace, along with the fragility and futility of advanced societies if left ungoverned. It's a difficult challenge to make such a movie in terms of techniques it requires and storyline you may actually tell. On this level he has managed to weave it all perfectly well.-The technical achievement of making a movie of this level of quality with a low budget, on so many locations, with such a high level of consistency in the takes is just MAD technically speaking.-This was all made in 1985... It's JUST Unbelievable...-The work Ficke has accomplished with the dynamics of the light is closer to painting than mere filming. Almost all takes have a profound and aesthetic composition, dealing in it's way with the moment of the storyline. So contrary to what some say, it's not JUST filming locations... There is a second level of composition in these frames. Everything is extremely well demonstrated at the last frame of the movie...-I do not agree that there is no political meaning in this film. It is in my opinion on a parallel with Baraka. There's quite a large amount of Christianity in it, but I am sure that Ron would have put other religions in the film, if he had had the budget in these ancient times (1985 remember)... He did so in Baraka BTW...On the downside I must admit that on some aspects the film is difficult.-First the music. It is certainly composed and played with utmost dedication and all the hard work it requires, but after a first watch, I must admit that I had a bit of a rough time with it. It's still quite detailed and interesting, but it sounds outdated and too heavy in its attempts to bring along the viewer with the pace of the movie... It can be perceived as lacking the delicacy and master-mastering of a soundtrack such as Baraka. My main concern is that some tracks sound too much like some early Jean-Michel Jarre compositions and this is quite painful for a fan like me... Certainly that Jean-Michel Jarre would have been a fine composer for a movie like this, but he may not have been aware of it, or not interested in such projects at that time. Overall the music brings you a bit out of the center but it's quite serious music in itself, I must also say.-The "technicality" of the movie may at some moments take over the viewer. In a sense it can be perceived as boring if you don't read the light behind the scenes. And it's all quite amazing... I think this film is worth a detailed analysis. Certainly that watching it a second time with commentaries must be a real joy...Overall this a very interesting Ron Frick movie as it is in a sense a preparatory work of Baraka, but there is so much sense in all the frames, that it is also a marvelous and specific experience. To be watched again....
EThompsonUMD
Comparisons between "Chronos" (1985) and "Koyanisqaatsi "(1982) are rather inevitable. Both films were written and shot by Ron Fricke, who also directed "Chronos." (Godfrey Reggio directed "Koyanisqaatsi"). Both films are filled with richly poetic images of pristine natural settings counterpointed with man's intrusion into those settings and the evolution of his civilization. As a great admirer of "Koyanisqaatsi," these commonalities are what drew me recently to watching "Chronos" on HD home video. Unfortunately, the comparisons pretty much end there."Chronos" is a much less satisfying undertaking. Not only is it merely half the length of its cult-classic predecessor, but it's less than half the film in terms of ambition and coherent vision as well. Whereas "Koyanisqaatsi" had a strong (some would say heavy-handed) political and philosophical message concerning man's corrupting - even diabolical - impact on the globe, "Chronos" doesn't seem to have much point at all behind its slide show alternation of natural and man-made imagery.To be fair, the film does clearly communicate the notion that the relatively short history of human civilization has bequeathed many majestically beautiful works of art and other grand artifacts, from awe-inspiring pyramids and cathedrals to the great sprawling cities of the world like New York and Paris. Yet, if the point of the film was in part to redress the extremely negative view of man's "progress" delivered by "Koyanisqaatsi," it just doesn't come across very strongly. And, if re-balancing was the point, then what is the audience supposed to make of the frequent used of accelerated motion that suggests to me not only the passage of time alluded to in the film's title but also that man's course has been too rapid and perhaps reckless? It just doesn't add up.Like "Koyanisqaatsi," "Chronos" relies entirely on image and music to structure its minimal narrative. Neither film offers plot or character in a conventional sense, but "Koyanisqaatsi" manages nevertheless to forge drama by progressively intensifying the conflict of its man versus nature imagery. "Koyanisqaatsi" also benefits from a much more powerful score and from its Native American titular keyword, chanted repeatedly as a choral expression of the film's simple but abstract theme that indeed "life is out of balance." "Chronos" could definitely have benefited from similar devices to give its imagery thrust and significance.Instead, "Chronos" is essentially a glorified image music piece. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Many of its images are arresting and some - like the city nightscapes - are breathtaking. Though I think not part of its intent, "Chronos" also offers parlor-game amusement for anyone trying to identify the cornucopia of natural, artistic, and architectural wonders that pour past one's eyes. All in all, the film is a pleasurable but forgettable viewing experience.
