Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

fedor8 Probably the best Greenaway film. Ironically, the main reasons for this are the lacking of two of his trademarks; 1) monotonous music, and 2) the camera shooting a mile away from the action and actors (there was comparatively little of that this time around). This film alternates between captivating and boring, the latter being usually the case with sequences involving only music. Once again Greenaway includes extreme gore and brutality into his story. In fact, his films have more of that than 90% of "regular" horror films. In that sense, Greenaway is a horror-film director, but one who dresses his horror with style and elaborate sets. The scene towards the end where Julia Ormond gets raped by hundreds of men in a row is one of the most unforgettable scenes in movie history, through its sheer brutality.

artwk Is it possible that "Peter Greenaway" is really a pseudonym for two people? One of them directs entertaining, imaginative films that have remained in my memory, and that I have eagerly watched two or three times. I am thinking of examples such as "The Draughtsman's Contract", and "Prospero's Books". I have seen these movies in cinemas, and later on video, and enjoyed them immensely. The other person is a would-be shocker who fails to shock, and who clearly spends an enormous amount of time, energy and money on brightly-co loured, predictable and tiresome films such as "A Zed and Two Noughts", "The Cook, the Thief . . ." and "Drowning By Numbers". I have managed (only just) to watch these on video, where I was able to fast-forward through the most boring sections. "The Baby of Macon" was obviously the work of this second individual. Admittedly, he did achieve two remarkable things. First, he somehow persuaded competent, well-known actors to participate in this trash, and second, he presented a potentially appalling act, a mass rape, as long-winded, repetitive and tedious.To sum up: an utter waste of money, talent and film stock.

NateManD "The Baby of Macon" is a very bizarre film. Part play, part period piece and part religious satire. As usual director Peter Greenaway creates a stunning masterpiece, that looks like a painting come to life. Of course the film has disturbing elements and is probably Greenaway's most violent and brutal film. Julia Ormond plays the daughter, a beautiful young women. Her mother who's extremely ugly gives birth to the most beautiful baby. The daughter lies and says the baby is hers and that it was a virgin birth. She profits from the child and has him bless the whole town, even the cow. Both Ray Fiennes and Julia Ormand have very tough roles in this film; including a manger scene seduction. When the town finds out that the daughter is lying and the baby is not hers, they sentence her to be raped by over 100 men. Poor Julia Ormond. Avoid this film if religious or easily shocked. The film does have a dark sense of humor and makes a powerful statement about greed and religion. Although brutal, "The Baby of Macon" is a surreal masterpiece in which reality and stage performance collide. You'll wonder what parts a play and what events are actually happening in the story. This film also includes an amazing film score by Micheal Nyman. If only it would get a DVD release in the US?

demos99 This is one of (if not THE) most controversial films Peter Greenaway has ever made. Having become something of a media darling, first with "The Draughtsman's Contract", but mainly after "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" and "Prospero's Books" the British media turned against Greenaway when "The Baby of Macon" was released in 1993. This fact is all the more ironic since the central theme of the film is the danger of celebrity and the way in which people are built up so they can be knocked down at a later stage in their careers."The Baby of Macon" is not necessarily an easy film to watch and many viewers may not find it to their taste, due in part to the powerful imagery Greenaway utilises within the film. The infamous gang rape of Julia Ormand's character is what everyone comments on, although I think it's very well handled and for the majority of the time the camera focuses on the other characters around the stage (a similar process to the way the camera pans left to a corner of the warehouse when Michael Madsen slices the cop's ear off in Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs") rather than the rape itself.It seemed to me at the time (as it does now) that the majority of film critics who dismissed the film missed the point of it all. All too often so-called popular film critics merely discuss films in terms of whether they personally enjoy them or not, rather than examining a director's motives and aims in making a particular film and whether those objectives have been achieved. In my opinion, Greenaway does succeed in hitting his marks in "The Baby of Macon" and manages to make some very important points about society in a powerful and challenging film, which will not however leave the viewer with that 'feelgood' feeling that they get from a film like, say, "Titanic".