That was an excellent one.

One of the best films i have seen

An action-packed slog

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

This is a very difficult film to watch for those who don't have any acquaintance at all with death and what it's like to lose a loved one to a terminal disease - However, it could prove to be cathartic to such a person and a way to really acquaint yourself with ALL that the people who care long term for our loved ones have to go through themselves while just simply "doing their daily job". David is a person who has lost someone incredibly important to him (his child) on his own and therefore is extremely well-acquainted with what a dying person suffers while going through that process. He thinks and truly considers each patient's perspectives and provides as much as he can possibly can to make them continue to still feel human (which is so incredibly humanistic and kind) -- even going to the point of providing what I can only presume was very "light" pornography for viewing by an adult male dying patient, and joking about how absolutely unwilling he would be to provide a hooker for the same man. Whoever?! said that we don't think about things that brought us pleasure in our healthier days when we are daily inching closer to the end of our time here on the planet? To go so far as to investigate as much as he can the same man's former life work just proves to me how much his patients mean to him. There are very few people who provide this type of care for the dying in the same kind of empathetic manner as David is able to do. Most folks just aren't built that way. They may be very good and efficient at their work, but it takes someone truly special to be able to connect in an the exemplary manner the way Tim Roth's character manages to make look easy. This is a perfect place to say to those out there who may have a loved one going through the true mental pain of leaving this earth to be brave and not forget to touch and care for your soon-to-depart loved one. Put lotion on them. Brush their hair. Show all the physical love that you can because they won't be here much longer for you to give it to them and thus make their transition easier for them and for YOU! Fabulous fare - the only film I can think of wherein a nurse is shown giving precisely the same kind of loving care to his terminal patient was with Jason Robards playing the patient in "Magnolia" with Phillip Seymour-Hoffman playing the nurse. That was honestly one of the best movies I've ever seen!

What I write could be viewed as a spoiler, so be warned.Yes, this movie has very little action; in fact, it moves at a snail's pace. And yet, the story is a profoundly moving account of the work nurses do for the terminally ill.David is a male nurse who feels deeply for those who struggle with end-of-life issues. Out of his own sense of love, he does what he does, not some deep seated confusion. It is how he has learned to deal with last stage perplexities.How many of us would even venture into that world, for even a week, much less an entire career? Cleaning patients, dealing with their daily needs, and servicing them in whatever capacity they desire is comparable to the Make A Wish foundation.As more and more baby boomers advance in age, these realities will gain greater exposure and discussion regarding what options a terminally ill sufferer has will widen. This is the point of Tim Roth's marvelous portrayal, that, in the end, compassion must reach beyond the norm, to assist in an effort to end suffering.This compares greatly to Mother Teresa's focus on the needs of the dying. Her way, which may be a more godly way, is to be a servant and friend to those at death's door, remain with them until the last breath. Maybe sentiment will one day reach farther watching them slowly die.

Character driven masterpiece (Tim Roth as David, being an exceptionally detached, efficient and yet sensitive nurse) composed of different "episodes" cleverly puzzled together. The focus - as the title hints - is on chronic (and terminal) sickness but don't expect anything pointlessly dramatic or tear-jerking. Instead every story line seems an attempt to explore a broader (and ocean deep) set of topics:What are really worth our typical human bonds and their cultural boundaries?Do we really acknowledge our frailty before getting to "the point"?Does our grown-ups busy daily life affect our ability to assess new scenarios?How dangerous (and rewarding) can be thinking about (and adopting) a deeper perspective?A very nice episode i.e. shows mercilessly how chronic illness is prone to destroying relationships. No matter how close you were to your beloved ones and how sorrowful they are; you are a different person with different priorities now: either they get it or they become less and less relevant for your existence. Someone who understands you and your needs becomes indeed a better companion than anyone else (ah love... oh family). And this is ofc hard to deal with for the previous "favourites".Who can say he always gets what the authors meant to express? Or everything? Well, here we have many (but not too many) good examples of film sections where apparently nothing happens. What's the matter then? Within this "emptyness" there's David thinking, feeling and changing. Up to the dumb viewer to decide that this is irrelevant. We think we are better than that and we will use these sections to guess and feel ourselves what is happening.But it's not all-in on the imagery: we have a solid script as well (best screenplay at Cannes); it's a pleasure noticing how lying is used (and it's annoying reading that a reviewer dislikes David because he is shady). Another review suggests that the film "Still life" (2013) is used as more than an inspiration while unaccredited but that is plainly wrong: "Still life" is Forrest-Gump-surreal and plot-driven while here we are on the opposite side; "Still life" deals with someone believing that dead people deserve care and love, while here David just feels like giving dignity to its fullest to the sick. Well, both films have workaholic main characters but the parallel solidity ends there in our opinion.A possibly weak point is the color palette which is strangely overexposed and bland (not necessarily in a annoying sense): if this is not meant to be so as an expressive tool (which may well be for reasons I don't get) I'd note a lack of proper post-processing.Not a happy movie but neither a sad one and most definitely not a "pornographic" one just because you see a penis, excrements and death (didn't people notice we don't see any blood? fortuitous or thought provoking?)... Anyways be ready to switch the brain on for this great work. It's a 9 but I'll go for a 10 given how clueless low-vote reviewers sound.

I went to see this movie because of the Cannes Film Festival best screenplay award that the film had won. It was indeed a good film, with good acting by Tim Roth.The screenplay is good but it has liberally borrowed ideas, without acknowledging it, from Uberto Pasolini's 2013 film,"Still Life," a winner at theVenice film festival. All the director/screenplay writerhas done is that he transformed a bachelor bureaucrat to a divorced male nurse and passed it off as "original" writing. And to think this plagiarism leads to a Cannes top award! Shame on the director! It also brings down the prestige of Cannes' awards. Recently another Cannes Jury conferred the Golden Palm to Haneke's "Amour,"which in turn had copied chunks of sequences/ideas from Runnarson's 2011 Icelandic film "Volcano."Obviously, the Cannes jury had never seen "Still Life." The jury could instead have conferred the best actor award to Tim Roth-who would have deserved it. It underscores the lack of knowledge of current cinema by juries at Cannes in recent years.For those who have not viewed either, please view "Still Life" first.