Chromophobia Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Don't live your life in black and white.
Every family has its secrets and tries to hold them hidden within domestic walls. However, those of the family of Marcus Aylesbury are in order to become public because of the family's long date friend Trent, a journalist faithful to his ideals who, put under pressure by his editor, is looking for a "sexy-scoop"...
| Ben Chaplin | Trent |
| Ralph Fiennes | Stephen Tulloch |
| Ian Holm | Edward Aylesbury |
| Rhys Ifans | Colin |
| Damian Lewis | Marcus Aylesbury |
| Anthony Higgins | Geoffrey Wharton |
| Clem Tibber | Orlando Aylesbury |
| Christopher Simpson | Derek |
| Bronson Webb | Hendrix |
| Billy Seymour | Tony |
| Charles Mnene | Demetrios |
| Michael Fitzgerald | Cosmetic Surgeon |
| Phil Cornwell | Murray |
| Liam McKenna | Gavin McTeer |
| David Cann | Policeman |
6.00 out of 10 (423 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Chilling and warming.
posted on 18 Jan 2009I had the unique chance of watching this movie at it's midnight premiere at Cannes, and this engaging story made the evening even more complete. Chromophobia is a depiction of how several upper-class Brits have become so obsessed with material things and their careers that they have become completely detached from the bare necessities: love, professional integrity, friendship and even their own children. Each of the characters will betray one of those ideals, and they will see their lives and relationships come crashing down. But while most of the movie is alienating, depressing and leaves you almost begging for some relief (it is there, you will laugh occasionally), in the end there is redemption: not in a glorious comeback or victory, but in the simple dignity of picking up the pieces and carrying on with a brave face. The train station scene is especially impressive, showing the sudden determination and loyalty in the main characters when faced with the ruin of their lives. Both chilling and warming: this is one solid piece of British drama.
Amazing story telling of seemingly disconnected individuals
posted on 17 Dec 2008This film is about the lives of several individuals who seem unconnected to each other, but in the end everyone is in fact connected to each other and play a part in the final catastrophe.This film is stylishly made. The way that the story is told reminds me of Babel which I watched several days ago. The story telling is effective and gripping. As the film goes along, every individual's connection with each other becomes clear. Everything falls into place with time. Despite the slow pace, it does not seem boring at all. In fact, it gives us time to digest all the information that is given.Acting by the cast is excellent, particularly Kristin Scott Thomas and Penelope Cruz. Kristin Scott Thomas is a frustrated mother who destresses herself by being a shopaholic. The minimalistic house she resides in also adds to the atmosphere that she is trapped in a bare castle. Penelope Cruz is a single mother who is battling with cancer. Her performance is also excellent.I am also amazed by how the filmmakers actually got footage of a female breast being cut open for breast augmentation surgery. It looks too realistic to be fake!
Disjointed and ultimately unrevealing film
posted on 13 Aug 2008This is a stellar cast movie and should have been fantastic but was not...was it the directing, the storyline, the script...we'll never know but this film misses something right at the heart of it and leaves the viewer with a sense of under achievement. There are excellent performances in the film and one that is probably not mentioned as much as the others is that of Rhys Jones (?) hope that is his right name, the social worker - his performance was understated but very effective. I could not connect to the prostitute character played by Penelope Cruz - she came across almost as a parody of her character, looking and acting like a fairground doll with her over painted face and over acted scenes. It was all very unreal. The Englishness comes across very well in the stilted relationships of upper middle England and Scott Thomas and Lewis play their respective parts to perfection but never really connect on screen. Their son in all his dysfunctional behaviour is very well conveyed but nothing is really 'done with it'. The friendship between the central character and the journalist is confusing - did they meet at school? How did they become friends...their social class is obviously miles away from each other. The character played by Fiennes is never suitably developed to give depth and the wish to have empathy in any respect. Coming to the end of the film which certainly does not give any sense of satisfaction there is a glimmer of hope and it is in the relationship between father and son - the phone call between them conveys all that was never spoken and takes so long to realise through the film - the son of a very wealthy and successful man who has led a charmed but meaningless existence who has never had to suffer and thus is an empty and shallow man. In one moment of his small life he is swept into a hole that 'Daddy' cannot save him from...that brings us to relief, that finally these characters will develop real human emotions and become better people, away from the lukewarm lies of their everyday pampered existence. The final scene when the older man is walking away from his gardening wife in the lap of middle Britain, bored, empty and with a life of emotional regret is effective because the child running through the garden (his daughter with the prostitute) was obviously a figment of his imagination...life that could be if he had ever dared to live truthfully what was in his heart, away from reputation and the roles people play within cultural values and class system. The child represents something the film loses throughout- the freedom of expression and the idea that there is meaning to life...maybe that is what the director wanted to convey but missed it in the long run of the film's impact.
Shuffling multiple storyline Blair-era bourgeois critique
posted on 17 Apr 2008It's entirely likely that you may have been tempted to watch this film by the extraordinary line-up of acting talent. Well Ralph Fiennes is excellent as a very Anglican, contained gay art historian matching Ian Holm's suffer-no-fools High Court Judge. I was also impressed by Ben Chaplin's two-faced tabloid journo. The quality slips however with the central couple, Kristin Scott Thomas ideally cast as a sad, self-absorbed mother - but not acting too far beyond that - and Damian Lewis as her equally distracted husband, a sort of posh version of Egg from This Life. The heart of the ensemble is supposed to beat with Rhys Ifans, who I cannot bear unless he's playing some sort of monster (Hannibal Rising, Not Only But Always) opposite a neurotic and excessive Penelope Cruz.The film they have to inhabit though is rather pale. It's dynamic is the culture, bureaucratic firewalls and general failures of the Blair administration. Go and see Notes On A Scandal instead for this subject matter. Here we have a lack of tension, be it dramatic or simply zippy dialogue to help us through. Presumably the title Chromophobia refers to the fear of a diverse cultural palette that is instigated by the litigiously minded administration targeted. It's a pity that the story is told with such a tourniquet as well. It also has the least well thought out soundtrack I've heard in a long time. 4/10
excellent film
posted on 22 Sep 2007So far only seen at Cambridge /Oxford special showings. A visually distinctive, intelligent, beautifully scripted, classy contemporary drama.Marcus, a successful lawyer (Damian Lewis) is the son of a High Court Judge (Ian Holm) now married to a dog-&-garden-obsessed - though emotionally repressed wife, (Harriet Walter). Gloria - an immigrant, single mum and Hep C suffering sex worker is played by Penelope Cruz - who finds herself aggressively resisting the tentative aid of a fragile social services worker, (Rhys Ifans). Marcus's wife, Iona (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a privileged, sexually frustrated, shoppaholic mother who becomes perturbed by her young son's relationship with his godfather, (Ralph Fiennes). At work, Marcus unwittingly discovers a momentous secret - ripe for exploitation by his old friend Trent (Ben Chaplin), a struggling investigative journalist, desperately in need of a break.The stories interweave with others and the film explores the psychology, dynamics and value systems of modern city life. Each character is forced to confront their lives and their disengaged flawed lives they inhabit.A brilliant cast all acting their socks off, the movie is a thought provoking visual feast. This is a thinking, feeling emotional/ psychological film. Gripping and sumptuous. It is a contemporary and challenging.
Vacuous pretentious nonsense
posted on 08 Jun 2007The other reviews here leave me and 76 friends I watched this with dumbstruck.I have never witnessed such a self important film in my life, truly mind numbing and empty. I was surprised about 45 minutes in after the vast array of credible actors in the film and couldn't for the life of me figure out why they had agreed to perform after reading such a terrible script, devoid of narrative, substance and style. Then it became obvious when you see Ralph Fiennes' sister wrote and directed it then you realise she woke up one day and wanted to be a film maker, tomorrow she probably wants to open a boutique in Upper Street, the next day raise cattle to sell organic meat. I expect she has the money and free time to take anything up on a whim, hence the stars are her family and friends, it is the only explanation as to why they appeared in this film.It is a pompous work of utter self indulgence. The attempt to weave characters together was so flawed, if you want to see this when it works, see Robert Altman's Short Cuts. if you want to see a film with the cream of British talent, see anything by Mike Leigh.There is no redeeming aspect of this film
Don't Understand All the Negative Reviews
posted on 12 Feb 2007SPOILERSAfter seeing many negative reviews of the film, I was not expecting it to be that great, but I'm a fan of some of the actors in the film, so I figured I'd give it a go. I was pleasantly surprised, but I don't feel my opinion was heightened by lower expectations. I think it was a truly good film, overall. There were a few slow areas and scenes which were heavy handed (either by director or actor) but the main storyline was engaging and easy for most people who have any shred of introspection to relate to.Damian Lewis and Kristin Scott Thomas were excellent, as usual. Both stayed admirably true to both of their characters, both of whom are a mass of complexities and contradictions under the surface, and also appear at the outset to be fairly one sided. I felt that there was a good representation of when you meet someone in real life and know only surface and appearance related info about that person....slowly, the story builds as you get to know them and all the facets start to show. and really were perfectly true to their characters.Ben Chaplin plays an old friend with altrustic intentions on a general level, but sinister ones where actual lives are concerned. His sudden appearance in a friend's life, deception and betrayal are excellently plotted and echo of the very best of Shakespeare. This storyline and performance is a strong-point.Penelope Cruz as a dying call girl basically recycled her performance from every tragic young woman role she's been in. I didn't really care for her acting, save for certain scenes, notably the end of her love scene with Sir Ian Holm (excellent, restrained and poignant as usual in his role as pinched, ineffective patriarch.) Rhys Ifans was also quite good, but I felt the attachment he formed was quite quick and seemed somewhat forced.There was a surprising amount of humor in this film. In particular, I found myself laughing out loud at the furtive, awkward sex scene between Lewis and Scott Thomas as well as their verbal fumblings as they try to steer their way through a terse, bitter marriage.Not surprising, but appreciated (by me anyway) was some of the subtle undertones of the film, which is basically about a whole bunch of interconnected people who really have no REAL connections to each other (including those who can cast away real connections for the sake of convenience or personal gain.) Early on, a character who will end up in jail plays the Clash's "I Fought the Law" and that song is played again in a crucial dramatic scene in the background. Also, a cast off hardly worn red dress floats through London from the home of a wealthy, seemingly privileged through a charity shop to a woman who wears the dress on her dying night. There's something to be said for the literal visual impact of the red dress being passed between strangers, but it also speaks eloquently of the larger issue of fashion and consumerism as a defining factor for some very unhappy people, which is a theme in the film as well.All told, a well crafted film that only suffered minorly from vague heavy handedness. The acting was excellent and it was most definitely an enjoyable watch. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to connect, relate and enjoy.
Boring slow paced wannabe psychological mess
posted on 16 Dec 2006That many reputable actors cannot have fallen for a bad script. Well... I'm not sure what it proves about those actor's judgment. They did attract the financiers and the distributors. I'm not sure what this proves about these people either. The result is quite mesmerizing: a lousy star-studded student film. A new sub-genre of its own. The director tried very hard to be profound and disturbing etc. achieving absolutely nothing except boredom (the film's not even pompous, it does not have enough style), a sad and depressing absence of inspiration which you eventually find revolting because of all the talented film makers out there who do not have access to A list cast and funding. Nepotism rules in the movie industry. Chromophobia is another proof.
beautifully shot film with interesting storyline
posted on 19 Feb 2006I totally disagree with the negative comments I have read about the film Chromophobia. I went to see the film with no preconceptions at all and I came away feeling I had had a thoroughly entertaining evening. The film was fairly bleak in parts but I came away feeling positive and uplifted.The characters were complex and the script kept them totally believable. There was contrast in the subject matter and storyline as well as in way it was filmed. I think there were some highly ambitious ideas explored in the movie. The pace was perfectly pitched and hit the emotional level it was trying to achieve. The cinematography was superb and the music pulled the whole movie together. I felt the film was not a showcase for famous actors but rather a way to use their talent in a very modest way. The casting was spot on and created the opportunity to give the actors some challenging work.
Wants to be a broad and somewhat epic character study but the result is an alright, realistic drama about some individuals we may connect with.
posted on 05 Feb 2006I feel as if I should've liked Chromophobia more than I did. It's funny; the things that should work in the film's favour actually contribute in it being of the ordinary and unspectacular kind rather than the broad, masterful and interesting. These things are the things like the cast, in which so many huge names are a part of the production that the film gets bogged down and lost concentrating on them all, as if they were all fighting for the limelight. Secondly, the multi strand narrative approach works against the film ever so slightly due to the overall concentration. There are times when certain scenes from certain strands are played out and you feel rather immersed in how they'll contribute to the overall piece but the mini-narratives will come to a sort of sudden ending and the film will focus on something else that isn't as interesting.The Chromophobia of the title refers to a definition of a piece of art within the film. It's a long and complicated definition that we do not get enough time to digest, a tactic director Martha Fiennes uses on purpose to get across the epic and broad feeling she wants the film to have. Chromophobia is the title of the film and the definition of the title reads something like: '.....an advanced piece of art that juxtaposes the genre whilst......blah blah blah.' This self recognition and deliberate attempt to tell the audience what they're watching through preachy visual aids is one of quite a few weak points in the film, but when the film is weak it comes across as either quite pompous or quite uninteresting.Within Chromophobia are three different strands of groups of people. The most interesting is probably the one involving Gloria (Cruz) and Colin, played by Rhys Ifans in one of his 'Once Upon a Time in the Midlands' roles rather than a 'The 51st State' or a 'Kevin and Perry Go Large' role; calmer and more aware. Colin is a social worker that visits call girl Gloria to check up on her and her young child; Colin is an ex-cop but he does not carry that rugged look an ex-cop might and I think he is completely miss-cast. This strand works because it is focused more on characters than actions and reactions; it carries a fair amount of antagonism and sexual tension between the two that works quite well on a dramatic level.The film also focuses on victim of the post-modern age housewife Iona Aylesbury (Scott-Thomas) and her post-modern home complete with metallic feel and transparent look whilst keeping with her relationship with husband Marcus (Lewis) and potentially disgruntled son Orlando (Tibber). In terms of character, she represents the more sensitive study of the film; a descent into potential madness with suspicion threatening to dominate her feelings to do with her husband and there is a level of ignorance surrounding her son, who clearly has some sort of problem, but she doesn't seem able enough to either deal with it or inquire into how to. She is more focused on a matching set of televisions displaying the same image in perfect tandem than the well being of her son's (and her own) health.I got the feeling that a part of this juxtaposition between whatever it was the quote said earlier on is evident in the early exchanges. The film flicks from the post-modern house mentioned complete with ambiguously diegetic piano music to a rough council estate in a few cuts that I presume was supposed to force us to sit up and take notice. Around this area is where Stephen Tulloch lives and he's played by Ralph, Martha Fiennes' brother. The role is perfect for Mr. Fiennes as the passive but eerie in a shifty way guy that doubles up as the villain, as seen in Red Dragon. As a contribution to the film, Stephen acts as one of the more chilling characters in the piece and makes sure he gets in some Apple Mac. product placement as well "Yes, it comes with a webcam(!)" but while the paedophilic narrative ideas are there, they are underdeveloped and consequently anti-climatic echoing what I said in the first paragraph about how individual situations are played out but come to a premature finish. Through one event or another, the scariest or evilest character in the film is placed in a hospital bed for the rest of the film.The other strand involves old buddies Trent (Chaplin) and Marcus Aylesbury again, in a weekend away for shooting and hunting and so forth but Trent being a journalist manages to screw the friendship up through a powerful event that will create ripples for weeks to come. I think in the end, there are just too many characters that all pile up and tussle for recognition on the screen. There is so much going on and so many different emotions to try and connect with so many different characters that it borders on overload. We cannot feel empathy or pity towards one person because we know what they're like when they interact with another in another strand and we cannot, as human beings, evoke various different reactions on demand as the finale rounds things up. The film's heart seems to be in the right place and certain things are pulled off to a decent degree but it remains underwhelming and, like I said, a missed effort.
A Shame
posted on 28 Jan 2009It is a shame that critics have buried alive this wonderful film when at the same time they praise so many repetitive, stereotypical productions. It is a brave, innovative movie with great acting, intelligent, witty plot set in a contemporary setting and fabulous stylish photography. It features controversial themes of today (juvenile crime, alienation, corruption) and realistic, multi-dimensional characters that evolve and grow as the film progresses. Moreover, despite its multiple thread storyline, the plot has an Aristotelian nearly perfect structure that so many contemporary films lack. It is puzzling that it took so long for this film to be released (and it is a very limited release), and even more puzzling that it has been welcomed with such animosity by the professional film critics. It just shows that one cannot trust them when choosing which film to go and see.