hyped garbage

Don't Believe the Hype

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This is my first time watching a movie like this. Some of the shots are quite pretty, mesmerizing, whatever word you want to use; but it's obvious to me why this is the most obscure in its tiny genre of "look at the world" movies. Images like those of the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, the Pyramids of Egypt, etc., aren't just bland and familiar, they're plain boring, when they're trying so hard to feel awestriking. Shots like the people coming down the escalator or the slow-mo time lapses (oxymoron?) from inside buildings are worse then boring; they're bad, slowing the flow of the movie to a sticky crawl, and demanding you contemplate THEMES and BIG IDEAS and THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION ITSELF... instead of showing you beautiful images and having their brilliance, thematic or otherwise hit you naturally. Structurally, it's weak as well. The movie repeatedly juxtaposes approx. ten minutes of plodding, slower images of nature, monuments, sculptures, etc., with three to four-minute long epileptic fits of humanity and the hustle-bustle of life, meant to exhilarate (whereas they really only fail to bore) only to end in something that sounds like an explosion and lapse back into neutral position. The movie doesn't really end, either, in the sense that it "concludes;" it finishes, it dones, it overs. Ultimately I know that this is a style of film I could enjoy if done very well. In that way, I feel much more excited at the prospect of watching Koyaanisqatsi or Samsara than I do at rewatching this movie.

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

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.

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.