this movie is incredibly overrated


I won't say it's all bad, because there were aspects of it I genuinely liked. I found it engaging and I really enjoyed Gambon's acting. The dialogue was also lively.

But the cinematography and narrative devices killed it for me. Greenaway simply tries too hard. "The Cook" was over the top and pretentious. I can't stand his visual style. He clearly ripped most of his ideas from Kubrick -- heavy use of symmetrical, frontal medium long shots, orchestral soundtrack, styilized sets.

But he lacks Kubrick's subtlety. His visual style is simply too conspicuous. I got so tired of the long tracking shots and the ridiculous sets. A good example of his heavy-handedness is the mise en scene in the dining room. Everything, down to the costumes is blood red: passion! murder! Talk about obvious. Then we transition to a stark, white bathroom: visual contrast!

The ending really irked me. It felt gimmicky, obvious and unconvincing.

The characters lacked depth.

Btw, I've seen many of Greenaway's films, including his shorts (which are godawful) and these flaws occur in most of them. The only one I genuinely liked was "The Draughtman's Contract."

If the man would just show some self-restraint he might make something more interesting.

From the interviews I've read, he also appears to be a pompous, narcissistic ass. Unfortunately that personality comes through all too clearly in his films.

reply

[deleted]

I can't believe this film got made

reply

[deleted]

I'm kind of inclined to agree. There is little depth to anything and the whole work feels contrived. The film is rather Kubrikian in the lots of style with little soul fashion. This is the first Greenaway I've seen, and as it stands I don't really feel the need to explore further.

reply

The contrivance was the whole point! if you knew anything of his cinematic aesthetic, you'd understand that he's not interested in making a plot-driven slice of life--"a window on the world." Every camera move, every color, every prop,every lighting cue, every actor's movement, the music--it was all carefully orchestrated--contrived, if you will. And "little soul"..."little depth"? first off, were not you touched at all by the lovers--my god, Mirren's speech towards the end! and for Greenaway, that was letting in a lot of warmth. but again, Greenaway is not a filmmaker really interested in hooking you with a lot of emotion and sentimentality. The film is an intellectual and allegorical indictment of Thatcherism. Just because Greenaway doesn't want to hook you with emotion, that doesn't mean there's little depth to be found.

and yeah, he's maybe like Kubrick in that he --what? shoots from far away and doesn't use excessive closeups? other than that, there's not much comparison.

reply

Well, if the contrivance was the point, it was a poor one. If a movie is just going to be an intellectual exercise in light and shadow without any soul then I just don't need to see it. No, I was not touched by the lovers or Mirren's speech. Their relationship was hollow like the rest of the film. Emotion and sentimentality are not the same thing, with the latter being a crutch used by weak filmmakers, but the former aids connection to the subject matter. If Greenaway is not interested in providing it, that is fine, but his work will just consist of intellectual exploration that will fall short of a transcendent experience.

And I stated exactly how I meant the Kubrik comparison to be taken.

reply

"Kubrickian in the lots of style with little soul fashion"...? that's pretty vague. and as far whether it's just an intellectual exercise gets to be completely subjective anyway and you'll get a different answer from everyone. I personally found the film intellectually, visually, and emotionally exhilarating--a rollercoaster at times. Greenaway created a world that is unlike anything else seen in cinema. he shows us that there are ways of communicating ideas to an audience other than using the traditional, dependable emotional routes. it was indeed a "transcendent experience" i have never forgotten and love experiencing time and time again and I would take it any day over all the tried-and-true shi t that comes out these days. i'm curious to know a few films you like. Sounds like some of them would probably be directed by Mike Leigh.

reply

"He clearly ripped most of his ideas from Kubrick"

You are clearly an idiot. Try Resnais and Renaissance paintings.

reply

gee, y'think? action: people sitting;
dialogue: one guy talking and talking and talking;
plot twist: Helen Mirren getting laid (wow - left fuc'ing field!);
effect: guy gets murdered for screwing a murderer's wife (wow - LFF #2!);
climax: wife kills husband.
The End.
Thank god for Helen's boobs...the 2 best reasons to watch.

reply

Albert would describe diddymuck as being "vulgar".

reply

Are you kidding me?!?!? This and Fight Club are the only truly perfect movies I've ever seen and I've seen a LOT of movies of all generas.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

I agree with the OP. this is the most unsubtle film I can think of, and that includes its derivative approach to filmmaking. I love art films, have great respect for Helen Mirren, but would rather go to the dentist than have to watch this one again.

reply

Instead of the typical insults like "you don't get it", "stick to Disney movies", etc. I suggest that you DO watch it again. It's a cinematic masterpiece!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

You misread my post. I did not use insults, typical or otherwise. I pointed out it is unsubtle and derivative. It is.

reply

No I didn't misread. Actually you misread mine :) I know you were not insulting. What I was saying was when people don't like movies like this that could be interpreted as "deep" or "artsy", the elitist and/or pretentious are often times quite insulting, alluding to someone not liking it to a limited intellect or some other condition that makes them inferior.

I was suggesting that upon re-watching it, you might notice some the vast array of subtleties that I've picked up on over multiple viewings.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

Clearly this film is not to everybody's tastes. The truly hilarious thing is that some people whose tastes are not represented by this film assume that something is at fault because of that- and it could not POSSIBLY be them, so it must be the film.

I suspect there are quite a few people out there who saw this film, and now must carefully inspect all foods prepared by others placed before them. As the film implies, to enjoy any delicacy one must try to learn a little about it first, before simply shoving it into one's mouth.

reply

I was suggesting that upon re-watching it, you might notice some the vast array of subtleties that I've picked up on over multiple viewings.


Takes more than a vast array of subleties to make a movie a good film. This was a boring, pretentious, beautifully filmed waste of 2 hours.

It was worth watching once just to have experienced it, but neither my wife nor I saw anything to make it worth watching a second time. There was just nothing remotely interesting (let alone credible) about the story, and that's kind of an important aspect of filmmaking - the story; ya know?

reply

Takes more than a vast array of subleties to make a movie a good film.


Gotta disagree with you there. Subtleties oftentimes make or break a movie. For example:

Fight Club
Synecdoche, New York
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring
The Return
Happiness
Wristcutters: A Love Story
The Darjeeling Limited
American Beauty
The Big Fish
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind

Just to name a (very) few.

There was just nothing remotely interesting (let alone credible) about the story, and that's kind of an important aspect of filmmaking - the story; ya know?


I think it was a very interesting study into human nature among other things. The consequences of the choices we make and the self destructiveness of one that reaches a breaking point. Georgie at some point felt that being the constantly degraded plaything of a wealthy but crude, Neanderthal pig was worth the lifestyle that she would in turn enjoy just as the chef felt it acceptable to give part (or all?) ownership of his restaurant to the same pig to presumably be able to stay in business. Georgie (using the "reader" as the mechanism) reached critical mass in a much more violent manner than the chef whom, for the time being was content to be a passive conspirator to Georgie. Credible? Sure. What's not credible about that? We see stuff like this everyday. Obviously there were aspects that were quite over the top (like a lot of today's headlines) but it's definitely a surrealistic movie.

It (just like all movies) is not for everyone but to dismiss it as "a boring, pretentious, beautifully filmed waste of 2 hours." is in my opinion, not justified.



I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

bottom line... the movie is Two Thumbs Down. it's kind of dull overall as it's 7.5/10 average is way to high to say the least.

4/10 (failure)



----------
My IMDb Movie Lists etc = http://goo.gl/pZ8XG
----------

reply