Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotesOverview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsAwards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage boardPlot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotesDid You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQOther Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDeskPromotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo galleryExternal Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clipsReviews & Ratings for
Chronos More at IMDbPro »
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] ![[Next]](http://i.media-imdb.com/f86.gif){kind=small} |
| Index | 15 reviews in total |
24 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
the most beautiful use of time-lapse photography, 19 April 1999
Author:
Mike Rosenthal (criticalmass@earthlink.net) from Los Angeles
This film is one of the most exquisite films I have ever seen. It is comprised completely of time-lapse and aerial photography, and is a tremendous accomplishment. Highly recommended for anyone interested in time-lapse photography, cinematography, or film making in general.
18 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
The Faster The Better, 16 January 2007
Author:
ccthemovieman-1 from United States
This is a 42-minute different kind of travelogue, showing various
places around the world with no narration and, in some cases,
speeded-up photography. In other cases - mainly the beginning - it's
ultra-slow. To be honest, I like that fast-forward technique far more,
such as where you see clouds and shadows moving by quickly. They move
by landscapes, famous monuments and other building and even over art
work. Other scenes area also run by quickly; usually when people are in
the picture.
Later, the speed is accelerated even more. Now people are just a blur.
Still later, it's done differently with stop-action-type motion.
Filming locations mainly are in the Southwest United States, New York
City, Egypt, France and Italy.
A few segments, such as those early ones in Egypt are way too slow but
others are beautiful and fascinating. Some of these shots almost look
computer-made, but they are real. The movie reminded me of
"Koyaanisqati," but this is far better, in my opinion.
There is no dialog in this short film. I've seen this three times and
enjoyed it each time, although by now I am bored by the slow scenes. My
favorites are ultra-speedy traffic parts. If you are looking something
different, check it out.
15 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Baraka "lite" (shorter, perhaps a good intro to this sort of film), 20 August 2006
Author:
juubei-2 from Canada
In Greek mythology, Chronos is said to be the personification of time.
Taking that into consideration, you might assume that this would be the
longest of the films that Ron Fricke was involved with but actually the
opposite is true. Chronos comes in at just under 45 minutes making it a
short but sweet trip around some of the world's most beautiful man-made
and geological structures.
For those looking for a longer trip as well as more to think about when
the film is over, I highly recommend Powaqqatsi at 99 mins, Baraka at
96 mins, and Koyaanisqatsi at 87 mins - but you should probably skip
Naqoyqatsi at 89 mins because its the weakest of the Qatsi trilogy.
Whereas Naqoyqatsi's seizure inducing mechanical/digital messages
drench the experience, Chronos is the exact opposite.
Chronos is sort of a Baraka "lite". This does not have the music of
Philip Glass or the socio-political messages, but the beauty on display
should make up for it. Additionally Fricke experiments with different
exposures and filters (not seen in the other films) to create some
striking effects. If you get the chance to see it, definitely take this
one for a spin.
Fricke has a new film coming out soon (should be sometime this year)
called Samsara which is a sequel to Baraka, and if that doesn't fill
the gap you can check out Anima Mundi (by Reggio about animals),
Microcosmos (about insects) and Atlantis (by Luc Besson) which is like
a scuba dive.
13 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Listen to the commentary..., 13 March 2006
Author:
ntscuser from United Kingdom
You have to listen to the commentary track on the special edition DVD
to understand this movie. Many scenes were shot not only in time lapse
but also with multiple exposures and multiple frame printing. Because
of this we are able to view scenes which are not ordinarily recordable
on film in places where artificial lighting is not permitted. This is
as close as we will ever get to seeing these places without actually
being there.
A supplementary featurette also explains the origins of the music and
unique instruments which were used to record it.
Critics should bear in mind that this movie was shot in 1985 on a
shoestring budget with a home made camera at a time when IMAX was in
its infancy. As such it is a staggering achievement and a landmark
movie in the history of cinematography.
9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
One of the most aesthetic movies ever, 30 January 2005
Author:
SkyCAM from Cologne, Germany
I was fortunate to see the movie in HD on cable recently. The movie is a bit like Koyaanisqatsi but concentrates more on a aesthetic look and does not transmit a political message. The images are astonishingly beautiful. The use of quick-motion and time lapse is great and give the film a very nice artistic touch. The electronic score composed by Michael Stearns accompanies the corresponding footage very smooth and nicely and adds to the overall atmosphere. If you like movies like Baraka or Koyaanisqatsi this movie is a absolute must-see. The photography and composition of this movie is just mesmerizing and brilliant.
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Koyanisqaatsi without the politics (or the point), 25 July 2009
Author:
EThompsonUMD from Massachusetts
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.
13 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
Seen it before....., 9 February 2006
Author:
Celluloid_Rehab (lelnu@yahoo.com) from Hell's Kitchen, NYC
Ron Fricke's directorial debut, is a mixed bag. While visually stunning
and musically haughty, this is nothing new for this type of genre. The
genre being the silent-mentary (a film with no dialog that evokes a
story or meaning using only images, still and moving, and sounds).
One might remember Ron from his work on Koyaanisqatsi. He was the
cinematographer on that movie (also had some writing credits). If one
looks closely, you will find similarities in the looks of both movies.
There is a repetition of the Grand Canyon fly over and one cityscape
scene (done from mostly ground level, where there is a metal sculpture
in front of a lit office building at night, with two lit buildings on
each side, looking upwards). While there are similarities, there are
also major differences between the two.
The differences come from the directors. Koyaanisqatsi (and the other
two movies in the trilogy : Powaqqatsi and Naqoyqatsi) flowed from the
creative collaboration of Godfrey Reggio and Philip Glass. They imbued
their movie with meaning, by combining images and music. The two
elements intertwining to the point where you could not separate them.
Whatever the "meaning" was left up to the viewer. They could range from
"deep rooted messages" to "there was no message at all".
Unfortunately, Ron's directorial debut isn't as good. He definitely
does not have a Philip Glass to work with and it shows. One of the
weaker elements is the music. The score is symphonic and works well
generally, but is very generic sounding. There is very little about it
that makes one stir (unless you got a cold draft coming in through the
window and someone happens to scratch a blackboard at the same time).
The visuals suffer as well. There seems to be little connection between
the various places we are shown. Is there a reason we are shown this
place or that place in particular ? Hard to tell. It feels more like a
guided bus tour, than anything with substance behind it. Ron also seems
to overdo the time lapse portions. He uses it in almost every scene. He
also seems to have a fascination with the phases of the sun and the
movement of sunlight during the course of a day.
Don't misinterpret my critique as dislike. On the contrary, the movie
has its merits and its moments. My favorite being the rise of the moon
over a city at night, with the fly over and drive through ensuing at
blazing fast speeds. I would have probably been better served if I had
seen this movie before Reggio's trilogy. It is not as good, but its
short length and beautiful imagery is definitely worth a look.
Leaving yourself behind, 7 July 2011
Author:
Steve Skafte from Nova Scotia, Canada
This is somewhere between documentary and photography. It has neither a
script nor actors, and there is no narrator, no interview, and no still
images. This is a moving picture, in the purest sense. The major focus
is the time lapse cinematography of Ron Fricke, who also serves as
director. That, and the soundtrack by Michael Stearns, is the sum total
of "Chronos".
There are deeper meanings to some, intended and accidental, but I won't
cheapen things by speculating on what those are. The main drive is the
battle of slow versus fast, city versus nature. Much of the time lapse
goes by at what appears to be the same speed, but what moves
blisteringly fast in the city seems to go by without change or notice
in nature. Only the slow march of shadows is apparent across rocks and
old ruins. These passages are full and heavy with the weight of time.
They pull like the moon on the tides, dragging you back into long
forgotten history. It comes like a slow, shallow breath between trains
hurtling down tracks to uncertain destinations, and the bleeding blur
of strangers up escalators.
I've watched "Chronos" in many different contexts. It's been a relaxing
background to the end of a long, tired day, or the full focus of my
attention as I appreciate its depth of artistry. At forty-three
minutes, it's neither too long to drag or too short to feel cut off.
Each time after watching it, I find myself out of place with the speed
of things around me. I feel the need to step back and breathe, to run
faster, to walk slower. Somehow, some way, "Chronos" changed the way I
see time.
Strange, I've seen that experience before..., 23 March 2011
Author:
Rodrigo Amaro (rodrigo882008@hotmail.com) from São Paulo, Brazil
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
Very sharp movie that may leave some in doubt. But that would be sad..., 8 April 2010
Author:
redwoods from France
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....
| Page 1 of 2: | [1] [2] |
Related Links
| Amazon.com summary | Ratings | External reviews |
| Official site | Plot keywords | Main details |
| Your user reviews | Your vote history |
Copyright © 1990-2012
IMDb.com, Inc.
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
An 
company.