BasicLogic
Don't bombarded me with how extraordinary, witty, intelligent....a masterpiece, or a must-see. This film actually is so pretentious, gave you an era of 17th century England, gave you a murder mystery, then in the end, another killing, gave you a naked guy in oily paint, urinating, mimic like a statue, sometimes on the roof, sometimes on a pedestal, or climbed on the gate. 12 paintings for 12 fornications with 6 each with the mother and the daughter. What were you trying to tell us? A screenplay mixed with ancient sex and murders? An early primitive porn movie in Shakespearean style? Or with Tudor touch? Yet this ridiculous movie has a magic power to make most reviewers wear an Emperor's Clothes, claiming how great, how deep, how intelligent this movie is. But I'd like to tell you, this film sucks big time! If you wanted to do a porn movie, show us some real flesh or meat, man. If you want to tell us a murder, show us some cunning moves how it was done. This film is like a fart, so stink, yet mucho reviewers told you it smelled so good and so lovely. No, it's NOT! It really stinks, man.
paul2001sw-1
Peter Greenaway's films have characteristic features: beautiful aesthetics, Michael Nyman scores, grotesquely humorous plots. His first film shows his gifts came fully formed: 'The Draughstman's Contract' is a bizarre costume drama that displays all of his talent, while, at the same time, being arguably about nothing. Greenaway's films really are pure cinema: his interest in what he can do with the form exceeds any external message, and there's no attempt to hide the the sense of artistic experiment. They're an acquired taste, but in an age of identikit blockbusters, his strange combination of imagery, originality and plain silliness weaves a magic all of its own.
Framescourer
This film should really be a 4 star triumph. Almost the entire film is constituted of still-framed shots on location, optimising and occasionally irrespective of the weather conditions. The acting is brilliant; stylised, sure, but always engaging and intriguing. The script is an object lesson in exposition and narrative through convincing dialogue. Crucially the whole thing is endlessly amusing, witty, startling, suggestive and naughty.There's a problem. Mindful of its aesthetic, it's static and relies on the highly wrought script too much. The vernacular (another seamlessly incorporated feature of the writing) intensifies its density... consequently I found it difficult to follow in the detail it probably deserved. Not as tense, nor as sexy a piece as The Cook etc. but funnier. 6/10
kenjha
An artist is hired by a rich woman to create a series of paintings while her husband is missing in action. The contract also includes some language about sexual favors. The settings are beautifully photographed but the movie is full of talking heads. They talk and talk and talk without saying anything interesting. Reflecting Greenaway's obsession with male nudity, there is an inexplicable running gag about a naked guy who turns up all over the estate posing as statues. Somewhere along the way, a dead body turns up. For those who manage to say awake until then, the ending will make no sense but who cares, as most of the film makes little sense.
AD
