JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Armand a pure show. a meeting. firework of imagination. a travel in Greenaway universe. a memorable occasion to rediscover Sir John Gielgud art. Shakespeare. and little more. it is strange to write a revue because it is not question of science, precision, ability of scriptwriter or director, performance of actors but only taste. it can be a spectacular film, full of gorgeous ideas, images and suggestions. it can be boring or fake or strange or out of expectations. but it is a film by Peter Greenway. so, the easy confusion is OK. it is a jewel in hands of an amazing figure of British theater. so, must see it. but, more important, it is precious game between viewer and himself. this is its essence. and new way to discover The Tempest.

Andres Salama Once upon a time, Peter Greenaway was considered a serious artist. 1991's Prospero's Books ended that. To understand this, let's remember that in the 1960s and 1970s, Greenaway became known for some witty, short films playing with several of his obsessions, like counting, classification, sexuality, etc. He graduated to feature length films in the 1980s: after the (unwatchable) The Falls, he made a series of fine, intelligent, cerebral (if sometimes hard to take) art movies: The Draughtsman's Contract, A Zed and Two Noughts, The Belly of an Architect, Drowning by Numbers. These four movies, made back to back, are his best in a 40-plus year career. Then, in 1989, came The Cook, The Thief, his Wife and Her Lover, his most successful film so far, and a truly success de scandal, with his brilliant but often shocking images. After The Cook, everyone called him a genius, and he might have believed those accolades, since right after that he made one of the most self-indulgent (and unwatchable) films ever made: Prospero's Books. An adaptation (for lack of a better word) of Shakespeare's The Tempest, made at the request of its star, the octogenarian John Gielgud (who have played the part of Prospero on stage, and had unsuccessfully asked a number of prominent directors to bring the play with him to the screen), this film is truly terrible: shot entirely on a sound stage, is a parade of naked people, awful use of digital imagery (which has rapidly look obsolete with the passage of time), and poor old Gielgud speaking all the parts (!). The movie looks as the filming of a Shakespeare play as made by an idiot savant, except that this idiot doesn't even look here to be very savant. Not surprisingly, few people liked Prospero's Books. After this fiasco, Greenaway has continued making movies, as well as exhibitions for museums, but with the exception of The Pillow Book, almost no one has watched them, or care for them.

dbborroughs Some rambling thoughts on a fondly remembered film...I saw this at the New York Film festival years ago and the film has stayed with me ever since. The film, a retelling of Shakespeares's The Tempest done in a way that only Peter Greenaway could do. We do get a retelling of the story that we all know but the film also concerns itself to a large degree with the inner life of Prospero (he's the only one you hear for most of the film), and so focus's on his collection of books that he was stranded with on his island, which are the things that give him comfort. The books which are explained to us in intriguing asides, take life in mind bending overlays of images and sounds that create pictures and worlds with in pictures, something the also bleeds out of the books and into the story itself. The layering effect is staggering and seeing this on the big screen with a good sound system is akin to being dropped into a sensory overload tank with too much information pouring into the viewer. I remember wanting to stop the film some fifteen minutes in simple because I was unable to continue to process what I was seeing. The numerous repeat viewing, an absolute must for this film because of all the film contains, have always been done in small controlled amounts of however much I can stand before my head fills up. This is a pushing of the boundaries of film and cinematic expression that will bore many, overwhelm others and enthrall still others. Love it or hate it this is a technical achievement of the highest order, its also an intellectual one as well. Does it achieve what it sets out to do? I'm not always sure but its nice to know that there is at least one filmmaker who doesn't think that his audience is too stupid to have its mind stretched.A must for anyone who wants to have their mind stretched or see what can be done with film, just be prepared to simply too much information...

Stephen "Jules" Rubin (julesotis13) I thought this a cinemagraphic joy to watch. Also Sir John magnificent. I brought it to a gentleman who lives in a residence-assisted living also. He is a master sculptor-nudes and erotic art for 60+ yrs. He showed it to two friends for an evening movie. I am accused by his 'guardian' of bringing a "pornographic movie" into the establishment. I would appreciate comments to vindicate my action and question the obvious uneducated application of such description. Also, the gentlemen who viewed it, although surprised at the nudity, are Shakespeare scholars which is one reason I brought this film to them. Thank you. lindalyncarfango@hotmail.com