A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

An imaginative telling of Shakespeare's "The Tempest". However, that's one of the few good things I can say about it: it is inane, gratuitous and pretentious. Very little makes sense, even at the most basic of levels. Most scenes just seem to be excuses to have hordes of people, men and women, run around naked. Critics will call that bold, I call it gratuitous and meaningless.Performances are hard to judge, as it is difficult to look past the meaningless, random plot. John Gielgud provides gravitas in the lead role, but his voice seems to drone on after a while and get quite irritating. Nobody else is worth a mention.If you're looking for a good version of The Tempest, this is not it.

I'm sorry, I have to agree with the bottom feeders on this one. This film is just utter visual crap on a pile of fertilizer. I mean the opening shot is pretty insulting, and not for the feint of heart. Good to know cherubs can perform bodily functions on a swing. And right at the camera no less.I'm reminded of "Hollywood Shuffle", and Robert Townsend's take off the then famous Siske-n-Ebert duo. In Townsend's vignette the two "brothers" rate movies with thumbs up and thumbs down just like Siskel and Ebert. They even give one movie they like the "serious high-five"! Ah, but for the one movie they didn't like? "We give dis movie, the FINGER!"Ayup, and that's kind of how I feel about this scatter brained, ill- conceived, slop-artist hack effort.Oh man, I don't know, this thing reminds me of some of Rob Nilsson's investigative films, only I have no idea what real world crime is being put to the audience, other than the travesty that is this movie.Shakespeare it ain't. Avoid like a pack rabid zombie dogs!

This movie was so astonishingly brilliant I had a hard time watching it the first time. I was literally shocked. It is not for the kids and I wouldn't necessarily let the teenagers watch it either, but for adults it is the best adaptation of a Shakespearean work I have ever seen. If you are offended by nudity and human biologic functions, I would skip this one.Others may mess with the Bard but this one elevates him. I do not generally approve of adaptations of classic literature, but this one goes off on a tangent based on the Tempest and you are glad that you went along for this incredibly strange trip.I heartily recommend this movie to adults as it is visually stunning and an art film experience you don't want to miss.

Prospero's Books is nothing less than an almost overwhelming feast of images, stuffed with charms, magic and metaphors. It is Peter Greenaway's vision of what The Tempest might have been had Prospero used those 24 books of great knowledge and magic he took with him when he was sent into exile by his brother. Prospero had been the Duke of Milan when he was overthrown. Twelve years later he inhabits an island with his daughter, Miranda, who was three when they were sent away. There is Caliban, of course, a "freckled whelp, hag- born," but all the other inhabitants are sprites and spirits. And now Prospero, delving into his books and writing his story, imagines his revenge. The first of his books is The Book of Water, a tome of parchment pages that bring rain and mist and dripping tears. As Prospero lies in a pool and writes, his captured sprite, the child Ariel, urinates spell-like into the calm water, and we see Prospero's tale of a vast tempest that brings to the shore of his island his enemies, and the son of one of them. As Prospero writes we see the books and the images from them...The Book of Mirrors, The Book of Colours, The Atlas Belonging to Orpheus, A Primer of Small Stars, The Book of Utopias, The Book of Love..."drawings of a naked man and a naked woman. Everything else is conjecture." From these books we flow into Prospero's magic world of revenge, as he takes the knowledge of his books to add layers to his plans and his story. Yet when Miranda spies young Ferdinand she falls immediately in love. Having only known her father and the scabrous Caliban, Ferdinand is the most beautiful creature she has ever seen. "O, wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world that has such people in't!" she cries. Prospero cannot deny his daughter, yet he knows this all is just a story that he is writing...or is it? Even as Ferdinand and his daughter pledge their love, he says... "Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits, and Are melted into air, into thin air: And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on; and our little life Is rounded with a sleep." But not quite. Eventually, with the prodding from the several Ariels (a child, an adolescent, a young man) to whom Prospero keeps promising freedom, Prospero forgives his enemies and destroys his books. He is no less wise for all this. For over two hours Greenaway gives us images that float and mix, that overlay page upon moving page. John Gielgud, at 86, plays Prospero and speaks the words Prospero writes for all the characters. Around him are magical creatures that dance and run, sing and fall, who serve him and follow his commands. These creatures, male and female, young and old, are nude. Shoulders, hips, breasts, arms become as much an ingredient in the movie as the settings and exaggerated costumes. There are many times when the screen moves with jiggling male and female parts, but there also is an almost pagan naturalness that is neither carnal nor innocent. Greenaway sets up endless detailed images that are part Renaissance paintings, part dream settings and part tableaux. The camera rarely rests, but constantly moves through rooms and forests. The effect is just about overwhelming. There is a reason that, in the middle of a fine, rich dinner a small scoop of sherbet is served. It lets us pause and ready our palate for the next course. We don't have that luxury with Prospero's Books, and in the middle of the movie I was longing for a rest. That's a small complaint for a movie which offers so much to the eye and the mind. The combination of Greenaway's vision and Gielgud's skill (and voice) is hard to overpraise. Although 86 when he filmed the movie, Gielgud projects that famous voice with subtlety, skill and, when needed, power. When he speaks the words Prospero has written for his daughter or for Ferdinand, he still sounds like Gielgud but he is so skilled he can differentiate between male and female, young and old. He gives a performance of real depth, and it's gratifying to see this great actor in such a rich and demanding part this late in his career. For those who like idiosyncratic works, I recommend Greenaway's The Draughtsman's Contract and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. As for Prospero's Books...it simply is what it is.