Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

jzappa This is not a film I could or would ever see again, but I am not about to criticize it as much as I am going to praise it on a technical and aesthetic level. At the core of the movie is the sad and enormously disconcerting theme of humans using animals to enrich their lives, which are lived in a high-tech, hyperstylized human world in which nature is losing its place. I am not a stickler when it comes to disturbing images. Indeed, Salo and Lake of Fire are favorite films of mine. It is animals whose suffering offends me; they are not consciously cruel and do not betray one another. Even when they are cruel, it is the way of survival in the natural world.Nonetheless, this richly developed film about decay by Peter Greenaway truly sees and says something profound and disturbing about humanity. It is a purely metaphysical experience. For example, there is a scene where two character talk about the relevance of the film they're watching. We see fascinating elaborate showcases of making films of carcass decay. Even brief establishing shots and any one of the few cutaways Greenaway allows are layered with nuance and mathematical precision.Purely a sensory approach, Greenaway's struck me as very thematically similar to David Cronenberg's: The focus is on the physiological effects of experience and environment. But where Cronenberg works ambiently inward, Greenaway radiates smolderingly outward, his standard being pale mise-en-scenes with intensely emboldened focal colors. And whereas the dark and ethereal nature of Cronenberg's work is accentuated by Howard Shore's brooding orchestral score, Greenaway betrays the psychosis of his wide, still, panoramic, painterly set-ups with Michael Nyman's infectiously eccentric and complex soundtrack.I am not good at preparing myself for the human effect on animals, but I admire and appreciate ZOO's audacious and brandishingly external style. It is the sort of work that could be deemed style over substance, and maybe it is to some degree, but it is the style that informs function of the narrative. It is form over function that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal world, and yet the form here is a smolderingly animalistic one. We cannot escape our nature.

rooprect The lowest possible rating is a 1, but I reserve dispensing that to films that feature live animal killings like Cannibal Holocaust, Men Behind the Sun ...and all those lovely Korean films. This movie treads the line dangerously, showing gross-out images of decaying animals ad nauseum, but no animals were killed on screen. Still, excluding animal snuff films, this is about the WORST thing I've ever seen on a screen. Peter Greenaway may have an eye for symmetry, colours, contrast and shadows. Fine. But that's where his talents stop. He has no ability to write dialogue, to tell a story, to delve into philosophy or to inspire our emotions (other than disgust). It takes no talent to shock an audience. My 3 year old nephew can shock an audience by holding a dog turd. But how many directors can play on our more elevated emotions? Not Greenaway. He knows this. So he hides behind sarcasm, kind of like the dweeb at work who has no charm whatsoever, so he attempts to compensate by being "the sarcastic guy". Peter Greenaway is that guy. Imagine standing next to "the sarcastic guy" at work for two hours at the water cooler whilst he babbles about nonsensical, gross, vulgar things. That's the only way he can have a memorable impact. But all the while you're just standing there saying, "I wish he would shut up." Btw, if you don't know what I'm talking about, chances are "the sarcastic guy" is YOU. I tried so very, very, very, very hard to like this movie. I ignored the inane musical score (the same 4 chords plucked over & over, like some sort of Philip Glass nightmare). I put aside my revulsion for the fat naked women and hairy men with little weenies (Greenaway's trademark). And I accepted the histrionic acting as a deliberate satire. OK, fine. But an hour into it I realized that movies are not supposed to be a chore. They're not supposed to be some sort of endurance test whereby the audience learns the virtue of patience. Cripes, movies are supposed to be enjoyable or--at the very least--interesting. If you browse the discussion boards you'll see that the majority of Greenaway fans like him simply because "HE'S THE MOST SHOCKING DIRECTOR EVER!" or because "HIS FILMS ARE SO DISTURBING! AND WEIRD!" If these phrases appeal to you, then have a nice time. But if you're sitting there wondering, "yeah? what else?" Then you, like me, would profit by spending your time elsewhere.

NateManD Two twin zoologist brothers, both loose their wives in a car accident. The car hits a swan while on Swan lane. The driver Alba Buick looses her leg. Both brothers have an affair with Alba, all while they are researching the decay of animals.Then there's Venus De Milo, a prostitute obsessed with zebras and dirty bestiality stories. "A Zed and Two Noughts" is another complex mind puzzle from Avant-Garde director Peter Greenaway. The film deals with decomposition of animals and Symmetry. Even on the screen the composition is symmetrical. And since the film is about symmetry, Alba decides to give up her other leg to a crazed doctor obsessed with amputation. It sounds disturbing, but really the film is beautiful to look at. It has stunning cinematography by Sacha Vierney, and a hypnotic musical score done by composer Micheal Nyman. Greenaway is a visionary in mind-games, and the film is very complex even after repeated viewings.

rlcsljo After two brothers lose their wives in a car crash, realize that death is the most fascinating part of life. They constantly photograph animals in a state of decomposition. This celebrates the fact that for every unique life there is a unique death and it should be glorified as is life in all its forms.Greenaway seems the exact opposite of Lynch. Lynch takes the ordinary and makes it extraordinary. Greenaway takes the extraordinary and attempts to make it appear ordinary.