IMDb > Chronos (1985) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Chronos (1985) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 11 comments in total 

23 out of 26 people found the following comment 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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

17 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
The Faster The Better, 16 January 2007
8/10
Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, 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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

13 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Baraka "lite" (shorter, perhaps a good intro to this sort of film), 20 August 2006
7/10
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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 11 people found the following comment 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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the most aesthetic movies ever, 30 January 2005
10/10
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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Koyanisqaatsi without the politics (or the point), 25 July 2009
6/10
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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

12 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Seen it before....., 9 February 2006
6/10
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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Chronos vs Time, 15 May 2008
8/10
Author: Credo_Quia_Absurdum from Canada

Space, time and matter. While the first might have started at the birth of the universe and the later is created and destroyed everyday, time stands alone. It cannot be undone and if there is anything that can resist time, it is time itself. In this sense time is the most mysterious. Is it even real? Is it only a creation of mankind to explain the beginnings and the ends? In Greek Mythology, Chronos is known to be the god of time. In this sense, Ron Fricke is trying to unite both conceptions of time through vast, open spaces and closed, personal areas. In his film, he tried to put the matter and space in perspective, showing that time had a greater influence.

When it came out, Chronos was considered as a very advanced, an "ahead of its time" kind of movie. The ground breaking Koyaanisqatsi was nearly 5 years old. The technical attributes of the movie were far greater than what could be found in popular, conventional cinema. The synthesized music was relatively new to the world and Michael Stearns was already establishing himself as both a leader and a pioneer in the ambient music department, even creating a particular instrument for the film. And of course, when Chronos came out back then, similar movies were hard to find.

Needless to say: Chronos relied heavily on the overall technology of 80's.

Nowadays, the technical attributes found in Chronos have been beaten by other movies. Music can now be created with complex, yet easy to use programs by using extremely effective computers which can produce an almost infinite number of sounds, effects, etc.. And finally, there are many similar movies nowadays, and we can find time lapse captures everywhere from typical Hollywood movies to televised advertisements.

This now leads people to believe that this movie is unoriginal, lacking depth and that the music is not good. As ironic as it sounds, Chronos is slowly being killed by time itself, whether it be real or not. But that does not mean that the movie is now bad today. Of course, there are obstacles that the viewer must surpass in order to view the movie and to think " Let's compare it to other movies in the 80's ".

When criticizing this movie, many people will compare it to Baraka ( which was made many years later, must I add ) and automatically point out the obvious: It's always the same areas, the music is always the same, the overall "message" is lacking.

Fricke didn't have the budget he had for Baraka. Stearn's music was innovative and fresh at the moment and yes, there is a "message" in Chronos, you just didn't take the "time" to see it.

In Baraka, the message concerning spirituality and humanity is easier to understand for a simple reason: Ron Fricke did it on purpose. The most important religions and areas of the world are shown. The whole movie is made in a way to connect with the entire world. In this sense, Baraka is a movie about the Earth and its inhabitants and what is around and beyond it. You will notice that in Baraka there are things you can easily understand and point out while there are others more obscure themes that you might not even notice.

Chronos is far more complicated for the viewer. While Baraka is still an experimental film, it is not an abstract film. Chronos is both an experimental and abstract film. In this sense, it is way harder for the viewer to acknowledge Chronos to actually have a meaning and to make something out of it.

This shows how Ron Fricke truly is a mastermind when it comes to giving other people the opportunity to come out with their own interpretations of his movies. A short comparison with Geoffrey Reggio ( Fricke's partner ) can be made. While Reggio builds his movies on a specific message which make the viewer think after watching the films, Fricke chooses to make the viewer think while he his still watching. Most viewers will often try to find a meaning to Chronos after watching it or they will try to associate a specific series of scenes.

Of course, Chronos is not as good as Baraka. I believe everyone can agree on this. But everyone should all agree that Chronos was some sort of cinematic homework for Fricke. Not only was it his first own film, but he was also stepping on a different kind of path than Reggio's. He actually found his own path, his own style, a cinematic trademark. And for this originality and advance in film, Chronos deserves to be considered as a good movie. Not the best, but one of the good.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Stunningly beautiful, questionable music, no pacing - try Baraka., 2 November 2001
Author: Ralf Leeb from California, USA

`Chronos' is a documentary about time. Ron Fricke attempts to give us a different perspective on time by the use of time-lapse and slow-motion film, hence the passage of time and in particular, the consequent impact on earth, our geography, our nature, our culture. We're shown stunningly beautiful time-lapse footage of impressive deserts, stones full of character, steep mountains, restless cities, people hurrying like ants in all sorts of public and individual transportation, timeless Greek architecture, public places of well-known cities in the western world, Mont St. Michel in the Bretagne at low tide, being engulfed with water during the rise to high tide, the old Bazaar in Istanbul flocking with byers and sellers, the Pyramids of Cheops, the Akropolis in Athens, Istanbul's Hagya Sophia, contrasted by baroque churches. It's stunningly beautiful, but where, oh where is the story behind this? It's also difficult to understand how how the visual information relates to the 1980s Jean Michel Jarre style synthesizer music. Once every while there is a crescendo, the pitch of the music rises, the volume rises, oh my gosh, what is about to happen? Nothing. We are lead into these expectations several times of the documentary, and after the third disappointing crescendo the level suspense and anticipation drops to zero. I can't recommend this movie, however check out Baraka, also by Ron Fricke, where he got everything right that is wrong in Chronos.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Horrible!, 9 February 2008
3/10
Author: shervinv from Canada

I purchased this movie on blu-ray because it promised great visuals and music. I was also a great fan of a similar movie... Baraka. The movie is very much styled after Baraka, wide angles, very similar shots with cameras set to capture long time passage in each shot. Even some of the scenes were identical (the street with traffic). Whereas Baraka told a great story, juxtaposing nature, man-made environments, spirituality, and horrors of the world in an engrossing fashion and great music, this movie just jumped from shot to shot with no encompassing story, mediocre musical score, and then.... POOF, it's finished! I thought there must be some sort of mistake! History of the world? Half the movie is Egypt and landscape (looks like Arizona, but I didn't bother to check). Seriously folks, this is horrible, rent it if you must, but do not buy it. The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for putting this out.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Amazon.com summary Ratings External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history