Rating: 
Summary: Deliciously disturbing!
Review: The first time I saw this film, I was mesmerized because of shock. I wasn't supposed to be entertained by what I was seeing! That was several years ago on a VHS rental. I just watched it again on DVD and, I am proud to say, mature enough to absorb it all and get into the symbolism and humor. If you have only seen it on VHS, get the DVD because the color becomes a brilliant character. The performances are incredible. Helen Mirren is perfection. To the reviewer who said a cut-out could have been used in her place: Did we watch the same film? She oozed pain, innocence, sensuality, sexuality, freedom, insanity (that we all hoped was a glimmer of sanity) and finally strength. How brave she was to play this role while not being a size 2 twenty-something. Michael Gambon embodies every obnoxious human being we've ever met. One of the greatest villians in film. It is hard to watch in places, but ultimately fulfilling. My favorite movies are the ones that get such extreme reviews. I'm not hauty enough to say that the ones who hated it just didn't get it. I still don't fully "get" it, but I know I loved this film.
Rating: 
Summary: Once, in Paris...
Review: Once, in Paris, there was a dark little theater called the Grand Guignol. It presented, live and onstage, the type of horrifying, blood-drenched material we now associate with certain violent films. The plot of TCTTHW&HL could have been lifted straight from the Grand Guignol's playbook...it is said that the actors kept a scoreboard backstage of how many audience members they could make vomit in an evening. At the Guignol, however, the plays were, at most, 30 minutes long. The plot of this movie would have made a great Grand Guingnol one-act, --cumulating E.C. Comics tag line included--but O mama, TWO HOURS? Two hours of relentless brutality, SLOOOOW pans, and that SINGING? Here's a tip: If brevity is the soul of Wit, then it is also the saving grace of Horror. A reviewer above quotes a line from the bathroom scene: "Short, sharp, shock treatment." Pity the director didn't notice which word comes first. I'll pass on a second helping.
Rating: 
Summary: Simply Not That Good
Review: I am being generous giving this film 2 stars. And no, it has nothing to do with being squeamish, or because it isn't a mainstream Hollywood popcorn film. I love challenging films. This just happens to not be one of them.
Yes, the art direction is great. Yes the director of photography did a good job. But who cares? The overall effect is utterly pretentious. Why? Because the whole shooting concept overpowers an ultimately weak script. In order to pull-off the retro-concept of a taut drama unfolding amidst a minimum of sets, you have to have a very good story. Nudity, cannibalism and overly stylized dolley shots tracking endlessly from room to room just isn't enough to keep a person interested for a few hours. You need to be given a reason to give a damn.
Since I mentioned cannibalism, let's not forget that the big pay-off of this film (where the cast eats the bad guy)was already done by John Waters in Desperate Living, and years earlier.
Rating: 
Summary: This is worth seeing at least once.
Review: I bought this film several months ago without pre-viewing it, hearing it was a masterpiece. The first time I watched it, I was rather impressed, and assumed it would get better overtime (like films by Tarkovsky and Lynch, or any great film for that matter), but it seemed to decline in quality. The cinematography is great but I just can't stand the characters and messages portrayed. I wish I had only rented this.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible!
Review: To those before me who panned this film, ignore them.
After watching, you'll need a drink.
People who don't like this film are those who cannot understand the illusions and artistic value.
This is not a "Hollywood" film. It is not filled with pretty, scantily-clad actors to boost a mediocre storyline. This is vision. This is art. This is unique. This is incredible.
Rating:
Summary: Even Worse Than Gummo
Review: I cannot fathom how this horrendous onslaught of depravity masquerading as a film has received such good reviews. There is no plot so I'll sum up what "went on": a classy lady is inexplicably married to a grotesque, low-class criminal, and she goes with him and his gang of thugs nightly to this restaurant that, if I have deciphered the terse grunts serving as exposition correctly, he owns, where he wreaks havoc on the staff and other patrons. The wife endures this for awhile and then decides to have an affair with some guy who also goes there every single night. Throughout the entire film there are gratuitous disgusting images which never ever let up. The characters are like a child's set of Fisher Price dolls: "Nice Guy," "Nice Lady," "Innocent Little Boy," and we are expected to care what happens to them. The villain comes out looking the best because he is the only one who's not a doormat, and the lead actress (Helen Mirren) is completely unsympathetic. They could have stuck a cardboard cut-out in any of her scenes and achieved the same effect. Not only does the whole movie look like gangrene, but the actors are also purposely made unattractive, so the viewer doesn't even have that to chalk up as a redeeming quality. I know it's supposed to be challenging and contraversial and blabla...it fails. The two stars are for Gaultier's costumes. Go buy Un Chien Andalou.
Rating:
Summary: I thought I was having a nightmare.
Review: Rather, it was Peter Greenway's nightmare that he decided to share with the world. Wish he hadn't. Just dreadful! Helen Mirren, Michael Gambon! What were you thinking???
Rating: 
Summary: Theatre of the Absurd
Review: Not for everyone, Peter Greenaway's films are unique and original and strange. The Cook etc. is no exception. More like a filmed theatrical piece, the sets and vivid colors and lighting are exaggerated and sylized to the degree of relating the story in near-impressionist terms. This will work for you if you accept it on those terms and enjoy the artistry and design of the piece, like a prose opera, but will be a turnoff if you want a more direct and realistic narrative. Arch and wry and by turns graceful and brutal, this film is presented in stately tableaus, with the performances alternately theatrically ritualized and realistically brutal. There are gorgeous images counterposed with gross ones. There are Greenaway's typical non-sequiturs, i.e., characters and images presented without explanation and curiously belonging to the film without benefit of any logic or reason for being so. A brutal and cruel thug gets his comeuppance. But it is a long, strange trip getting there. Definitely a different sort of film, this can be very rewarding for those who enjoy the offbeat and enigmatic.
Rating:
Summary: Brute, Erotic, Compassionate, and Cold!
Review: Albert Spica (Michael Gambon), a brute and self-proclaimed wise man, is married to an abused, unhappy, and rational Georgina (Helen Mirren). Georgina discovers Michael over a rowdy supper at a restaurant where they engage in an intimate and secret affair with the help of the chef Richard Borst (Richard Bohringer). This is a very risky affair, since it is taking place right under Albert's nose. Color and sound as well as visual syntax are used to create strong contrasts between the lover and the husband as well as between the husband and the chef. These contrasts and the cinematography combined with a superb cast will provide a dazzling experience for those who require a little more than a popcorn film.
Rating:
Summary: pretty, but disgusting at the same time
Review: One thing i noticed about this movie and probably the only thing i appreciated was the colors of this movie. The way all colors change from one room to the next is visually dazzling, however, this feeling is quickly ruined by images that are a bit too hard to take. Now it is possible that i have just not seen the overall message of the film, or am simply the village idiot in the sort of crowd that sees these movies, but i did not find the movie enjoyable in any sense. I have never sonsidered myself squeamish, seeing some rather graphic movies as well as depressing ones but still enjoying them. However, this film seems to work on so many different levels of discomfort, as if teh sole purpose was to give the audience a sort of sick feeling, absent of a sense of "well at least i got something out of it". If you are a hardcore film buff, and have a strong stomach, well then you could probably sit through it. But if you are a person who sees movies as entertainment, STAY CLEAR
| 
