I 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.

Renting this DVD in 2010, the film encapsulated the decade of the noughties in all its extreme materialism, consumerism, and negation of personal relationships. To begin with, I thought the film was going to be too depressing and overly precious in style and content, but as the themes developed, the intricacies and subtleties of character and plot wove carefully into a seamless whole, and the result was a satisfying, if excruciatingly cynical, survey of London society at the beginning of the 21st century. As it is necessarily a work of fiction, and not a reality show, the characters were allowed their melodrama, such as Penelope Cruz playing a prostitute dying of cancer, inexpertly 'helped' in her distress by a wonderfully subtle performance by Rhys Ifans as a social worker. Some of the darkest scenes in this dark, dark story, depicted the state of the social work system and its inefficient, uncaring way of managing those in need of the service - a scathing critique worthy of Dickens. In many ways, this film worked like a novel - it had a beginning, middle, and end; the structure was deliberate and meticulous, the style perfected, and the whole brought together by a superb cast of actors.

Kristin Scott-Thomas is, to me, one of the best British actresses ever; she can play any part with subtlety and nuance and express the minutest detail of emotion with a change in her eye expression, or a slight movement of her mouth. She is painfully affecting as the ignored and bored wife, shopping expensively to no purpose, neglecting her son because she has neglected herself, feeling frustrated, and considering breast implants to restore her self-esteem (a knock at the prevalence of cosmetic surgery in present society). Her performance, understated, with more expression than dialogue, presages her Oscar-worthy acting in 'I Have Loved You So Long'.

Having just seen Damien Lewis in a bravura performance as Alceste on the London stage in 'The Misanthrope' - a brilliant re-working of Moliere's play by Martin Crimp - I could see the origins of what he brought to the character of Alceste in the way he played Marcus in this film. All Marcus really wanted was to play the guitar in a band, not waste his life in the corporate world of high legal protection of privileged and corrupt professionals.

Ben Chaplin, Ralph Fiennes (playing himself as usual, but effectively),Ian Holm, and Harriet Walter, were all equally good and as the disparate characters weave in and out of each others' lives, the ensemble piece comes together in a moving and impressive drama. I was not sure about the redemption ending, but maybe Martha Fiennes felt the film was just too deeply dark not to have some kind of cathartic closing. After all, Dickens does the same and we love him for that. So you will love this film. Stay with it: you will not be disappointed.

SPOILERS

After 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.