Genres

Visitors Review

ck-7 2012-05-20 10:22:18

it'a ride if you have a strong stomach!

I had people warned me about A Clockwork Orange, but no one ever warned meabout The Cook, the thief, his wife and her lover. I lost my appetite forthe entire evening after I finished the movie. However, if you have astomach strong enough to stay tune to the entire movie, it will be one ofthe best movie you will ever see. The story, the use of color, theperformance are all brilliant. The ending, in my opinion, is the best endingI have ever seen. If you are looking for something different, this is themovie you want to see, just don't watch it with a fullstomach!

2012-05-19 22:34:36

This is worth seeing at least once.

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.

Mark Hulme 2012-05-17 01:33:59

Work of Art!!

I heard this film was very unsettling and in the same vain as 'HenryPortrait of a Serial Killer' and because I am a fan of that film and otherfilms like it, I bought this film. I enjoyed the film alot but I did notfind it disturbing or unsettling at all, nonetheless I thought thetechniques used to film it were great i.e the camera panning from thekitchen to the dinig room and so on. The performances were good especiallythat of the great Tim Roth and the music added a great essence to the film.I suppose soem people may be disturbed by the film but those who are not andwho like different films, I recommend this.

dreed444 2012-05-16 13:04:42

crap for crap's sake

I must agree with other opinions here that this was an utter waste oftimeon my part and money on the producer's part. Pretty sets and colorfulcinematography does not Art make; much less art. I was tempted to walkoutof this film when I realized 'Damn,I'm at home!'. Films that are bizarreare not the issue: this was one of those experiments to see how far thepublic can be fooled into thinking that the director actually has avisionor purpose other than putting something on the screen. The bizarre anduglycan many times be beautiful and thought-provoking, the pretentious cannot.Even 'Happiness', which I found to be a morally bankrupt film, is farbetterthan this look-at-me attempt at movie-making. Thank God it was half-pricenight at my local video store.

jonathanpburke 2012-05-08 13:59:19

Waste of my time...

I watch a lot of films and this one was sad a waste. Basically the filmrevolves around a series of gross-out moments that really weren't thatgross. The ideas and concepts of the shocks are indeed disgusting butthe theatrical staging of the film, combined with the "artistic"lighting and unintelligible Cockney spoken by most of the cast causesthe viewer to feel so far removed from this film that when the shockingmoments happen you never really feel their sting.I think one reason a lot of Asian shock cinema has been so successfulis the physical intimacy the audience has with the characters - to thepoint where the character often stands as the only thing between thecamera and the horror. This allows the audience to get almost as closeto the monster as the characters can. In this film there is always atable, a car, a pretentious singing a$$hole or some such nonsense setbetween the camera and the characters. The director and his followerswill call this artistic staging but, to me, it just looks like set.When I watched this movie I felt like I was viewing it through a tunnellooking into a cold, damp warehouse - filled with over the top actorsbathed in green and red light.Michael Gambon, who I normally respect, is so over the top in thisflick that he, not his character, becomes clownish and almost seems tobe begging for an award. The rest of the cast was fine. I always likeTim Roth's presence, as well as Helen Mirren (who shines much brighterin films like "Gosford Park" and the "Mosquito Coast").Lastly, let me say that mumbled dialog in a film so reliant on it'switty script ought to at least have the option of closed captioning.The version I watched from Netflix didn't have subtitles or even C.C.for the hearing impaired. I might have found this film endlessly moreentertaining if I didn't have to have the volume blasting and sometimeshaving to skip back to segments of Gambon's rants.This film is pretentious and wasteful - especially when you consider itis supposed to be a metaphor for the reign of Margaret Thatcher. Iwould like to see the reaction of a real victim of Margaret Thatcher'spolicy and society to this film. I have a feeling he or she would rateboth the PM and the film equally - out of touch and sterile.BTW - Any comparison between this film and the works of either TerryGilliam or Jean-Pierre Jeunet should only be used in contrast. Thedetailed and smoothly executed works of TG and JPJ only shame a filmlike "The Cook, The Thief...." If you want to see a critique of 1980'sEngland, I personally feel "Brazil!" is a much better film on ALLlevels.

roemischer-kaiser 2012-05-07 19:29:12

stage diving

This is theatre on stage, but not a movie.The male protagonist is a great actor.but this is still theatre and no movie!actually the setting looks like a huge kitchen on stage.I don't wanna talk about what is going on in this film.but you can watch it in a theatre,ban it from the cinemas...the main male character is an anti protagonisttherefore this said to be film is kind of savedhis performance manages to help you through longmono passages in the picture artit pretends to be a art movie, but it'sfar awayit would be a great piece of theatrebut in film...well, go practice

DGDax 2012-05-05 17:21:59

A Visual Feast

When I first saw this film just after its release in London, the cinema waspacked at the start of the film, but from about 30 seconds into theprojection, people started leaving, apparently shocked by what they saw onthe screen. At the end of the seance, only about half of the seats werestill occupied.I cannot understand this reaction at all: this film is one of the mostfantastic visual feasts available. OK, it's not your mainstream Hollywoodproduction where the whole thing is dished up on a plate for you, but foranyone who is prepared to engage two or three neurones to enjoy something alittle deeper, this film is caviar.The film does contain some (many?) shocking content - but it is onlyshocking if taken out of context. In the film itself, you are (if you arepaying attention) always skillfully prepared for what you will see or hear,so that the image itself should provide little more than a confirmation ofyour expectations.In any case, this is a Greenaway film, and we would be disappointed iftherewas no challenge to its appreciation... and like all Greenaway films, itbears watching numerous times - each time revealing new subtleties, newmeanings, and more pleasure. Be it the sumptuous (Jean-Paul Gaultier)costumes, all colour-coordinated with the magnificent sets. Or the bitingdialogue from the boorish Spica (Michael Gambon). Or Michael Nyman'sfabulous music, without which no Greenaway film would becomplete.Greenaway has presented us with a generous tableau of gourmet cinema, to besavoured 'sans moderation'.Enjoy!

2012-05-05 08:19:38

Incredible!

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.

bluenotejazz 2012-04-29 09:58:01

The Idiocy, The Stupidity, The Nonsense & The Bad Movie

Good God. Stay away...stay far far away for fear some of this dripping wet dung mayactually splash up and stain you. One couldn't possibly dream up a moreoverwrought, pretentious, heaping pile of maggot ridden garbage(fittingly,one of the actual scenes, by the way) if they were paidtoo.If the constant mind-numbing screeching of the choir boy throughout themovie's soundtrack doesn't get you and make you want to slap him, thedroning on of the orchestra's string section will. Lest we forget thein-you-face symbolism used as a thinly veiled attempt at looking clever. Allof the deaths are related to eating....yes, I get it now, thanks. Please.Art? You must be kidding. As though Jean-Paul Gaultier's trashy, over thetop decorations could somehow elevate this dreck to couture like status - ifanything all they did was enhance it's absurdities and put them on displaylike so much shock art.The movie aspires to be a Renoir, but ends up like a Joe Blatch.Who? Exactly.

2012-04-29 00:56:47

Twisted!

I saw this movie in the theater when it was first released in the US. Talk about serendipity - my father had just passed away and my sister, neice, her husband, nephew, and I were looking for something to do the night before the memorial. Since this was showing, and my niece and her husband are in the movie business (she is an actor, he is a director and screen writer), we all went to see it together. All I can say is, none of us will ever forget that night!That said, this movie isn't for everyone, but it is brilliantly scripted, filmed, and edited. Definitely one for the archives.

2012-04-27 02:42:26

Definitely not for the faint of heart

If you are a fan of films as art, then you will probably appreciate this film. Whether you will enjoy it or not, however, is another matter. I was enthralled and haunted by the story, while being dazzled by the glorious imagery. The costumes (by Jean-Paul Gauthier) are magnificently done, and I agree with the other reviews about the cinematography. The combination of food and eroticism works well, even when the story turns bad. The story would not leave me for days, and the final image of the lover is one that I wish I could forget. If you're a fan of the art of cinema, by all means see it. You might want to skip lunch, though.

lcurtis-00 2012-04-26 10:03:40

A+ all the way!

I'm a little late with this as there are already 26 pages of comments. Isawthis too in the theater, I was sure it would win an oscar. This movie wassnubbed by the Academy. I made sure to tell all the people I meet to rentorbuy this movie. You don't see the quality of this level much thesedays.

rdconger 2012-04-26 15:30:17

Why this is a Great Film

It took me a long time to see this film. I remember Siskal and Ebert'sreview of it, and it has been on my list since 1989. For some reason, ittook me a while, but I just watched it on DVD this month. It is a greatfilm, and I can tell you why. First, let me address the tenor of most of the objections others havevoiced. They are "disgusted," the film is "sick," and so on. Thesejudgments are, essentially, unrelated to the merit if the film and morerelated to the squeamishness of the reviewers. It is not a film that sparesthe viewer any unpleasantness, but it is a film that rewards the viewer witha cogent, essentially moral, fable of good and evil. Here is what makes the film great, in simple terms we can all readily grasp:the sets; the performances; the music; the cinematography; the costuming;and the emotionally gratifying and timely catharsis at the end.The sets are brilliant. This is not a naturalistic film, but a symbolicone. What happens in the film is fantastic, and not likely actually tohappen (another similarity to opera). Therefore the fantastic, operaticsets, freed from any close correspondence to reality, create an environmentin which the exaggerated venality of Albert and his gang can be believed. In a naturalistic setting, no one would believe Albert's hyperbolicbehavior. While some have compared this film to a low-budget horror film, it isunlikely that one will find the equal of Helen Mirren or Michael Gambon inone of those. Their performances are simply brilliant. Mirren's andGambon's performances both rise to the level of a tour de force. HelenMirren's fine, chiseled voice and her excellent timing absolutely stand out. For example, the line, at the end, when she holds the gun on Albert andsays, "You vowed you'd kill him, and you did. You vowed you'd eat him. Soeat him," The perfect length of the pause before the last sentence is sheerartistry. It is, in part, subtle details like this that stand out beforethe sweep of the film that make it a great film. The music -- especially the main theme -- contributes significant authorityto the film. The main theme is introduced with strings alone; as the climaxof the film approaches, the strings are augmented with a raucous, rippingchorus of saxophones. At the penultimate moment in the film, when a roastedhuman being is presented to the hapless villain, the strings and saxophonestogether reach a pitch of distress that matches perfectly the grisly outcomeof the plot. The costuming, the symbolism of the colors, but above all the sheer villainyexpressed in Gambon's performance as well as the lovely, determined longingof Helen Mirren's character, Georgina, place this film far and above theusual. There is limited space here to explain why this film is truly great. Theastute viewer, who perhaps disliked the film because of the shock value,should consider that the shock value is not Greenaway's intent. The shockis there to help throw into sharp relief the noble human qualities of love,loyalty, and kindness. The tragedy is that these qualities were able tooppose the villain's cynicism only by resorting to rough justice. One of the greatest films, ever.

Tallulah-9 2012-04-26 07:37:25

the epitome of avant-garde

I won't say much. I thought it was very beautiful and thoughtprovoking. It is a bit gory in parts, but for anyone that has seenPeter Greenaway's other stuff, you know the violence is unique initself. It is a bit artsy, so if you don't like strange or confusingfilms, you might not like this one. I recommend to anyone who findsthis movie interesting upon first viewing to, please, watch it a secondtime. I have found that I like his work even more after seeing ittwice. Plus, at least for me, I catch things I missed the first timethrough. In fact, I watched it, rewound the tape and watched it againto get the full affect. I, also, highly recommend "The Pillow Book"which came out after this one. I think that "The Pillow Bokk" is a bitbetter, but I think both of these movies are quite good.

pietvana 2012-04-20 00:58:15

I have to admit, we left...

The woman I went with had to leave before she got sick (of the film). Icould've stood it, I guess, just 'cause I overpaid for the tickets,(that now seems to be my one reason to try to stomach the grossness),but I don't think I'll ever try to see the rest, even for free.I guess I mean Rated P, for Paregoric.Gee, they want ten lines before they'll post. The sets were prettycool, I did like the lack of a relation to a real place - rooms weresort of disembodied? But I had to look away from the screen too often.I usually don't need to do this, even Pink Flamingos. Even the dragqueen went to the hospital after that scene.

2012-04-19 15:34:35

Excellent

While much of Peter Greenaway's work is difficult to access...even if you happen to be watching it, his films never fail to challenge, titilate and, above all, impact audiences. Many of those qualities are measured in both negative and positive scales simultaneously. However, this film stands out among Greenaway's work in that it is particularly fine tuned toward the emotional end of the spectrum. Helen Mirren's performance is easily the best that Greenaway has captured on film, and one of Mirren's most subdued yet communicative performances. Aside from all else Mirren's performance is heartrending and cuts to the quick of the film's plot. Excellent overall.

2012-04-17 13:28:02

A work spanning and defying all genres

This movie is of Skakespearian proportions. It examines innocence, corruption, greed, and, of course, revenge. From the bizarre beginning to the absolutely shocking conclusion, "Cook" is Medieval, Jacobin, Dickensian. . .it defies classification. One tip: listen carefully!

Thomas Westhead 2012-04-17 03:30:50

The Great Michael Gambon!!!!!!!

A few months ago I was just clearing out my loft of some old junk and Icame across a box of old video cassette's. Most of them were old familyvideos but among the pile was a cassette in which the title caught myeye The Cook The Thief His Wife And Her Lover. When I saw it at first Iwas shocked at the amount of detail in the violence and nudity but Ilooked past all of that and I learnt to appreciate the great actingfrom Michael Gambon! I had recognised his face from something else thatI cant remember but when I saw him in this I instantly recognised himas one of the greatest actors ever.The films plot is unforgettable, it is about a local gangster who ownsa restaurant and he eats there every night with his wife and hisunderdogs talking about stories of murder. One night though his wifeGeorgina spots a bookkeeper and in the forthcoming days she starts anaffair with him. Albert (her husband) soon finds out and has him killedby stuffing him with his favourite book. Georgina then who is aided byRichard the head chef of the restaurant plans out the most horriblerevenge you could ever think of.I just cant help thinking that I was just meant to see this film. I amhoping to pursue an acting career in the years to come and MichaelGambon is the sort of Actor that I can really learn from. Also watchout for great performances from Richard Bohringer, Tim Roth and HelenMirren whom I also saw in Caligula! Also listen to the filmsunforgettable soundtrack!!!!!!!!

G Funk 2012-04-16 16:44:57

An incredibly rich piece.

This British film is done in such eloquent style, that it had me wondering if I was watching a classical piece on stage. The film is shot almost entirely on one set, making the theatrical aspect even more impressive. The director's use of color and music combine to form an all together enthrallingly artistic piece. One should also of course note that certain parts of the film become fairly explicit, and should therefore not be viewed by anyone who is underage or unprepared.

2012-04-16 02:22:06

Theatre of the Absurd

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.