Bad, bad, really bad. Which is a major surprise, because I’ve greatly enjoyed and admired every other film by Peter Greenawat film I’ve seen. But this is, no joke, a turd. It is shot beautifully, but must be seen on a big screen as everything is in extreme wide shots. I felt like I had to keep “translating” in my head — “well, this shot, if seen on something larger than my TV, would actually look like THIS.” I still think, though, this would still be a turd on the big screen. You need a story (and non-awful acting) to go with your gorgeous photography. Stick with any other Greenaway film.
2 Comments
Welcome
Jordan Hoffman is a New York-based writer and film critic working for The Guardian, Vanity Fair, Thrillist, Times of Israel, NY Daily News and elsewhere.
He is the host of ENGAGE: The Official Star Trek Podcast, a member of the New York Film Critics Circle and challenges you to a game of backgammon.
Well, except “Prospero’s Books.” In fact, I haven’t seen any of them in so long that I am beginning to suspect they might *all* be pretentious balderdash.
I saw “A Zed and Two Noughts” within the last few years and think that is absolutely fantastic. I also think “The Pillow Book” is very good, though has patches. It has been at least 10 years since “The Cook, The Theif. . .” or “Drowning by Numbers” but I remember being impressed.