Rating: 
Summary: Great film ruined by a costly and average DVD.
Review: Unlike many Americans I am very fond of Peter Greenaway's films. The man has an impressive and exhaustive list of films to his credit but you'd never guess that from seeing what is available in the US. I had hoped this DVD release would mark the start of a Peter Greenaway Series similar to Anchor Bay's impressive Werner Herzog Series. Sadly, Anchor Bay did not hear my pleas. I have read positive reviews concerning the quality of this DVD but I have to disagree. The Cook...DVD transfer is better than the old Image laserdisc but it isn't "great". The film's bright colorful scenes are reproduced quite nicely but the same cannot be said for the darker scenes which look grainy and murky. The disc only comes with two trailers. I've said this before and I'll say it again, why does a DVD with so few supplements cost as much if not more than a DVD that comes with 6 hours worth of features? I love Anchor Bay, they're a great company but this release is not one of their best. For better quality Greenaway DVD's I recommend 8 1/2 Women and The Pillow Book. Both disc's look great but lack bonus features. Sigh!!
Rating: 
Summary: Oh dear
Review: What a dark reproduction compared to the VHS version. It was almost impossible to see the opening scene on this DVD . It was as if this was done to reduce some viewers reaction to some of the scenes. This is one of my favourite movies and would normally rate a 5 star rating but I downgraded it because some of the scenes were much too dark.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen.
Review: I'm not easily disgusted, but this movie totally turned my stomach. I found it cruel, ugly and sadistic. There were some interesting parts, but some of the real physical and emotional cruelty and torture was just too much for me. I wish I'd never watched this. Not my cup of tea.
Rating: 
Summary: I liked it a lot, but I can see why some people don't
Review: I'm finding that the more I see Greenaway movies the more I dislike them, I very much respect him though, I think he's a great director. But I really like this one (enough to buy it). It's very disgusting, I know, but that's the point (contrast). I never got bored watching it and it's just a beautiful movie to just watch (camerawork and cinematography). Give it a chance, it might be a little hard to follow at the begining but after about 20 minutes it'll get better. I don't want to give away the movie so I won't say much more about it, and I want to encourage you not to read reviews that give it away.I recommend the Draughtsman's Contract as another excellent Greenaway movie that's not disgusting and more intellectual.
Rating:
Summary: A VISUAL DELIGHT!
Review: Despite the obvious sleaze and scat, the kitchen scenes alone are worth the price of admission. And I won't give that away! Also, that Italian actor (I don't know their godamn names) who plays the gangster, does so with an alacrity unbenevolent. I mean, WHAT A PIG OF A MAN! Then, ofcourse, theres the token rich American who is pursued by the girl. Weird cannabilistic ending must be common to all cinema Italia.
Rating:
Summary: Work of a maestro
Review: I watched this film recently after not seeing it for a while, and as always it never fails to delight me. A few key images here crop up in some of Greenaway's other films, like the wild dogs in the introduction (which are echoed in Prospero's Books) and the pyramid, which shows up in almost all of his other films but most especially The Belly Of An Architect, which I believe is his most highly underrated work. Every scene of this film is glorious; art for art's sake, not some banal thrown together nonesense that is an insult to our senses like so many other movies out there in Hollywoodland. I for one thank my lucky stars for Peter Greenaway--he never fails to amaze and educate whoever has the sense to look and listen, and he does it with the precision of a truly great artist.
Rating:
Summary: Get it, or not - updated.
Review: People love or hate this film, so it has to have something worthy in it, right? Right. So, the deal is: Peter Greenaway is a film maker, not an entertainer. His plots are rudimentary - on purpose. He still packs more story in than most mainstream directors. If you like dense, talky films, however, you'll hate this film. His characters are sharply drawn - you'll know the characters for what and who they are immediately. This clears the way for the visuals, which when combined with the soundtrack produce a sort of film-fugue that I found wonderfully effective in moving from scene to scene. There is a compelling, accessible plot, but plot and style hang together as equals in Greenaway films. This makes for "arty" looking films, which is an annoyance to some and a Very Good Thing to others. The "fugue effect" can be distracting to a "mainstream" filmgoer. Another common complaint - the "gross out" factor. Truth is - it's far less gross than pretty much any action film, and much less violent. However, when there is something disgusting or violent onscreen, Greenaway hits so viscerally that the film can seem more disturbing than it is. As far as the cannibalism, well, it ain't what you think - I'll leave it at that. One of the best things about this film - it stands up well to repeat viewings, and you will always see new things in it. There is also an underlying aesthetic and moral statement in this film, which is nice for a change. You may not agree with me that it is a great film, but it is great for aspiring filmmakers and photographers. For me, it is my single favorite film period. It is, I admit, an acquired taste. It is also the most mainstream-accesible of the Peter Greenaway films I've seen so far, which is rather scary. Bottom line - if you like your mac and cheese out of a box; if 'Independence Day' is your idea of a great film; if the word "art" is irrevocably wedded to the word "fart" in your mind; if my use of the word "aesthetic" totally turned you off this review, you'll hate it and should buy "Gladiator" instead.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Black Comedy & Everyone Knows An Albert
Review: This is a great black comedy because everyone knows someone who is, to some observable extent, just like Albert Spica: Rude, crude, coarse, common, pretentious, overbearing, bossy and know-it-all. Michael Gambon dominates his every scene with an uninhibited gusto that imbues the viewer with open-mouthed, what-is-he-going-to-do-next, awe. I gave this film to a friend who is, within legal constraints but completely unfettered by any sort of societal propriety, just like Albert Spica. The guy phoned next day, absolutely appalled that I would suggest he behaves in a similar fashion. Next day, though, he called back and confessed somewhat meekly, yes, "I guess I do get like that, sometimes when I'm drinking." It's worth having this movie just to pay homage to any Albert Spicas in your life. And it certainly wouldn't hurt to show it to them, to show them how they come across to the rest of the civilized world.
Rating:
Summary: disgusting
Review: A disgusting and nil display of cannibalism
Rating:
Summary: Who's conning whom?
Review: This gross (not grotesque) art-house Aktion of a film has garnered a large and fairly vocal set of supporters. They claim that "CTWL" (as it might be abbreviated) is an allegory for Thatcher's England, that it contains a great many subtexts about class conflicts in modern society, etc., etc. The plot is simplicity itself. A crass gangster spends his evenings stuffing himself at an upper-class restaurant in the company of his trophy wife. She makes eye contact with a taciturn intellectual type who reads at his table in the corner. The two of them eventually get up enough nerve to sneak into the restroom and make love. Eventually the lover is caught by the gangster, and is punished by having a book stuffed down his throat one page at a time. There's more, but I'll spare you the description (and avoid any spoilers, pardon the pun). Now about this being an allegory, here's how the logic plays out, according to the critics: Cook = Civil servants, dutiful citizens. Thief = Thatcher's arrogance and support of the greedy. Wife = Britannia Lover = Ineffectual opposition by leftists and intellectuals. Well, yeah, I guess. If we sit there in the dark and count on our fingers and add up all the movie's footling about with color schemes, costume changes, and buried and not-so-buried subtexts, we could probably come up with something like this. But what's the point with a movie like this? What are we supposed to do, leap up out of our seats and devote our lives to ending injustice everywhere? Or just sit back and have a jolly cruel snicker at the absurdity of it all? "CTWL" makes both choices seem like a grim joke at our expense. Bottom line: the movie is preaching to the choir. The audience that can best "decode" the message in this film is not the sort of audience that benefits from having it told to them anyway. They knew all this stuff going in. Why they need to have it told back to them is anyone's guess, save possibly a kind of intellectual/cinematic masochism. "CTWL" is the kind of movie that makes you feel unclean to watch, unclean to think about, and unclean to discuss. Perhaps that was the idea. If so, there are better ways to use two hours, better ways to engage my intellect and idealism -- and, let's face it, better ways to be conned.
|
