Best movie of this year hands down!

Excellent, smart action film.

An absolute waste of money

A Disappointing Continuation

Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?

It seems that when Peter Greenaway lets his hair down, he automatically reverts back to adolescence. 8 1/2 WOMEN is visually striking and the dialogue has a rhythm and cadence to it that's a joy to listen. But the whole thing is simply infantile. I'm aware that the movie is not meant to be taken seriously and that the characters in the story are immature spoiled brats but that doesn't mean the movie itself has to feel like it was done by an immature, spoiled artist. The end product feels more like someone who's got too much time on his hands and creates movies from whatever pops in his head than something that comes from the heart or mind. Few of the characters are interesting, as people or as subjects for a movie. The dialogue was funny and caustic but the constant need to blurt out certain "shocking" words was really silly, and got only sillier by the end of the film. Only the brilliant visual and aural feast that usually typifies a Greenaway film made this worth watching.

I've heard and read much criticism about Greenaway's homage to Fellini, "8 1/2 Women", and have found it both predictable and amusing. Every Greenaway film evokes raw, often disturbing emotions in the viewer-- this is nothing new, yet is treated like a revelation with every new release. And some fans and critics of Greenaway seem to be keeping a running score of his visual/emotional offenses, even tending to get irate when he fails to shock or disturb on the level of his other films. But again, this is nothing new.So I'm humored at the reaction to "8 1/2 Women", for it is as visually stunning/arousing/disturbing as many of its predecessors while it is actually quite tame by Greenaway's standards (for one, the cannibalism/mutilation theme is missing). Yet we have those who are disappointed at the lack of shock or those who are too easily shocked, and Greenaway has long proven that you can't make everyone happy in filmmaking and, honestly, he really doesn't care what you think. You only have to watch.He is really very similar to Fellini in this way as he is in so many others. I'm no great fan of Fellini's, not as much as I am of his successors anyway, but the parallels are apparent. Fellini worked in absurdities the way Greenaway works in the dire or some artists work in oils. He made the most ridiculous scenarios seem beautiful, artful... even sexy. He imprinted upon film as art and future filmmakers that strange and disjointed often equals desirable, and Greenaway clearly took this to heart. But like Fellini, Greenaway films come with an automatic caveat: You will see things that we are taught to abhor and despise in our society, you will have to think about things from which humans naturally shrink away and you will bear witness to the possibility that great beauty can be found in the mire if you can manage to look long enough. Greenaway's "awfulness" and attempt to disgust you is his medium and his brilliance (and his great joke on you), and if this doesn't sit well with you then you shouldn't watch Greenaway. It's as simple as that.So, that being said - "8 1/2 Women". Not Greenaway's best, but certainly not his worst. Again we get to share in his great love of the human form in all its beauty and imperfection-- both of body and of character. But this is his most lighthearted attempt and is thoroughly enjoyable for that alone. The relationship between the widower Philip Emmenthal and his earthshakingly prattish son Storey is genuinely touching, as are their relationships with the various women they bring into their lives to replace their lost wife/lover/mother. Equally moving is the fact that these women become much more than mere objects or possessions in their house, but rather individual character studies on the strength of femininity and the power that women have over men. While Fellini's "8 1/2" may have been semi-autobiographical, here Greenaway seems to have tapped into the fantasies and realities of the relationships between men and women everywhere, focusing on the fact that neither are as simple as they seem. And that while mere sex will inevitably falter in the face of deeper love, such meaningful relationships are elusive and fleeting. He doesn't tap very far through, which is this film's only failing; the relationships and characters, some of whom are downright silly, are often taken at surface value and the themes, especially regarding sexual dynamics, are nothing new to cinema.Nevertheless, "8 1/2 Women" is a lovely, surprisingly sincere and often humorous account of men, women, family, self-identity and the rewards of living out your fantasies along with their tempering costs. Highly recommended for anyone who has been scared away by Greenaway's other films or for anyone else who truly enjoys the beauty found in strong women and faltering men.

When i saw this movie i had read and heard a bit about Peter Greenaway and his movies, that he was often compared to David Lynch and Fellini, he used "strong and controversial themes" and that he also worked with visual arts. So i was really interested when i finally got to see one of his movies on TV, which was this one.The movie opens with Greenaway's textual description of the scenes overlaid on top of several nicely shot but meaningless outdoor images, as pictures within pictures. While this got my attention up for about 20 seconds, as soon as the movie starts it is obviously just a gimmick-about as phooney as the reverse scrolling text in George Lucas "THX 1138".Then the movie starts. For the first few minutes i got interested, then depressed. Then i had to smile, and for the rest of the movie there was just one thing running through my head: how to best phrase "Peter Greenaway is a pure cinematic BLUFF MAKER!"8½ Women deals with the subjects of sexuality, the human body, death, prostitution and the relation to parents. These are topics that writers and directors have been centering on from the birth of cinema, yet Greenaway likes to think that he's the only one who dares to take it upon himself. He compares himself to Fellini, who this film is at least partly a tribute to.But in reality, Greenaway's strategy is the exact opposite of Fellini's, in each and every way. Fellini's movies deal with seemingly absurd situations and characters, but displays them in such a natural way that nobody even considers seeing them as "strange" or deviative. He makes us feel the events from the inside.Greenaway shows scenes which could have been perfectly natural and mundane, but he does everything he can to make us see them as absurd. The lighting, settings, style of dialogue and general isolation of the characters (no distracting "background elements" to make us feel like we're still in the real world) isn't there to convey any hidden truths or messages. It's all about confusing the audience!He might claim to be revealing mysteries of existence, showing aspects of humanity never shown before, but what he really doing is using "the magic of cinema" to make us believe that things are stranger than they really are! If successful, viewers of his movies feel like they have truly been revealed something important, but they can never gain any real knowledge from them because THEY DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING!Also, Fellini didn't like to show many explicit images of "sex, violence and such" because he felt that he could get his points across better by reflective events and commentary. While Greenaway throws all sorts of meaningless imagery at the screen, images and events which doesn't even have any point at all!I've also heard Greenaway compared to David Lynch. Which is somewhat relevant since they both obviously do settle to create "bizarre and disturbing" images. However Lynch is a much more commercially successful director, which can be attributed to him never hesitating to include more mundane and "normal life" sets in his movies.Lynch's movies take place in the "real world" (without any creative isolation) and he STILL makes them feel "weird". This in my opinion just shows that Lynch is an infinitely much better director than Greenaway, who i could never imagine starting to work on something like "Twin Peaks".Greenaway's constant use of nudity is nothing but an iconoclastic joke. It's a way of showing self awareness, cause he knows The Emperor Has No Clothes.