ealloc I loved it.To those reviewer's who didn't 'get it', here's how I suggest taking it in: It's Shakespeare's Tempest narrated with images, using Greenaways "Moving Baroque Paintings" technique which he uses in most of his movies.It works best if you follow along with a copy of the Tempest, or with a plot summary - Greenaway goes through it linearly act by act while Gielgud reads it out loud. Each scene is illustrated as a moving painting in the Baroque style, in which the many elements and characters of the painting are posed in a symbolic and geometric way. Take a look for example at Rembrandt's painting "The Night Watch", which Peter Greenaway is obsessed with and has made two whole movies about. Prospero's Books is a series of paintings in that style, in motion.Other elements of Baroque paintings which are evident in the imagery: Lots of nudity, extreme anatomical details, darkness and shadows with dramatic lighting, mirrors, symmetric architectural perspectives, funny baroque costumes, ancient mythological figures, and a good dose of gore, incest and the like.If you like Baroque painting (I do), Shakespeare (I do), idiosyncratic directors (I do) you should check it out. I really liked Gielgud's interpretation of Shakespeare, the movie is worth it for that alone.

dbborroughs Some rambling thoughts on a fondly remembered film...I saw this at the New York Film festival years ago and the film has stayed with me ever since. The film, a retelling of Shakespeares's The Tempest done in a way that only Peter Greenaway could do. We do get a retelling of the story that we all know but the film also concerns itself to a large degree with the inner life of Prospero (he's the only one you hear for most of the film), and so focus's on his collection of books that he was stranded with on his island, which are the things that give him comfort. The books which are explained to us in intriguing asides, take life in mind bending overlays of images and sounds that create pictures and worlds with in pictures, something the also bleeds out of the books and into the story itself. The layering effect is staggering and seeing this on the big screen with a good sound system is akin to being dropped into a sensory overload tank with too much information pouring into the viewer. I remember wanting to stop the film some fifteen minutes in simple because I was unable to continue to process what I was seeing. The numerous repeat viewing, an absolute must for this film because of all the film contains, have always been done in small controlled amounts of however much I can stand before my head fills up. This is a pushing of the boundaries of film and cinematic expression that will bore many, overwhelm others and enthrall still others. Love it or hate it this is a technical achievement of the highest order, its also an intellectual one as well. Does it achieve what it sets out to do? I'm not always sure but its nice to know that there is at least one filmmaker who doesn't think that his audience is too stupid to have its mind stretched.A must for anyone who wants to have their mind stretched or see what can be done with film, just be prepared to simply too much information...

skallisjr The film is an adaptation of The Tempest, to be sure, but taken to imaginative heights. The photographic imagery is complex and rich, and slowly the story unfolds. Unfortunately, more slowly than necessary.Within many of the scenes is a staggering number of naked people who are no more contributory to the story than any building or fountain. There are numerous glimpses of pages of some of the books, with rapid changes of images, each so quick that they border on the subliminal. Interestingly, some of the arcane images were executed after the time the story was supposed to be taking place.The story of the Prospero-induced storm, and the interactions with the survivors and both Prospero and his daughter are familiar to most, but the plot advances slowly, probably too slowly for many viewers.There is a tradition in some magical philosophies that a magician derives his or her powers directly from whatever magical books he or she possesses, and this was presented in the film, from the play.(Spoiler) At the close of the film, Prospero's books are all destroyed save one. That one was one of Shakespeare's plays -- and the one the film is based on! That was a jarring touch.

Stephen "Jules" Rubin (julesotis13) I thought this a cinemagraphic joy to watch. Also Sir John magnificent. I brought it to a gentleman who lives in a residence-assisted living also. He is a master sculptor-nudes and erotic art for 60+ yrs. He showed it to two friends for an evening movie. I am accused by his 'guardian' of bringing a "pornographic movie" into the establishment. I would appreciate comments to vindicate my action and question the obvious uneducated application of such description. Also, the gentlemen who viewed it, although surprised at the nudity, are Shakespeare scholars which is one reason I brought this film to them. Thank you. [email protected]