I first saw this film when it came to British cinemas in 1985. Now, in 2010, I've just seen it again. 25 years ago, as an impressionable film school student, I was both baffled and fascinated by its multi-layered imagery and anarchic themes. Greenaway was my hero then for he had mastery over cinematic form and a unique style that I had never seen before. Added to Michael Nyman's powerful, pulsating music, this film gave me the shivers and also left me breathless. Looking at the film today, it seems barren of emotion (intentional) and laboured. I struggled to sit through the film, and luckily, as I was watching it at home, I could get up at intervals to make tea, have a cigarette, and look out the window. I made the effort to watch Greenaway's patronising director's commentary and 'introduction' to the film, but it still left me with the feeling that I had largely wasted two hours. I may have learnt something about sumptuous photography and resonating soundtracks, but A ZED AND TWO NOUGHTS left me cold, sickened and bored. In 1985 this film may have caused a stir, being made in the negativity and economic/cultural stagnation of Thatcher's Conservative Britain. I remember that was not a good period to live through. A film like this might have caused a sensation among cinema-goers, as it is certainly original. But that is its saving grace.

How does one define oddness? I'd suggest by starting with two words: Peter Greenaway. You can also use those two words to define "Unique cinema visions," "total control," "beautiful views" and "don't mess with me." Greenaway is his own world, and you're either eager for a visit or you'll insist on staying off the space ship. I'd suggest you prepare for your visit by packing away any compulsion you might have to explain things...such as his meaning, his importance...all those categories, lists and twos of things...and your own squeamishness. "I don't make pictures that have a sell-by date," Greenaway once said. That's especially true of A Zed and Two Noughts, where a good many of the things we'll see have long passed their sell-by date. We start the movie with a double death in a car crash by a zoo...death by swan on a lane called Swan's Way. The wives of our two zoologists may be gone, but their husbands, twins and formerly joined twins Oswald and Oliver Deuce, will lead us on an exploration of grief and decay, illustrated by their stop motion movies. We will meet a beautiful amputee, soon to have her remaining leg off by a mad surgeon, probably for issues of symmetry. In addition to wet decay, we'll enjoy vomiting, frontal nudity, Vermeer, Greenaway's magnificent color palette, black and white animals, a white mare named Hortense, several interesting fetishes, plus the movie's unique chapter headings: Mercury, Apple, Prawn, Fish, Crocodile, Swan, Dog, Zebra and Escargot. Black comedy, indeed. I'll admit I don't think I understood a thing about A Zed and Two Noughts. I started to read what some critics and fans have offered by way of analysis and found much of what they had to say, from my point of view, largely incomprehensible, too detailed or too dull. Greenaway is chilly, controlling and all about style layered heavily on top of substance. He can make Stanley Kubrick look loosey-goosey. I found a Zed and Two Noughts, in a perverse kind of way, enjoyable. I suspect that's because Greenaway comes up with such odd, intriguing and often disturbing visions. They can almost make you forget what the devil he's getting at. For me, Prospero's Books is a perfect blend of style and story; The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is an almost perfect match of style and story; The Draughtsman's Contract is an amusing overlay of manners, murder, style and story. But A Zed and Two Noughts? Well, I found it chilly, sometimes uninvolving and often amusing. I enjoyed it, more or less, most of the time. (I occasionally used the fast-forward button). If ten people can tell me what the movie means, beyond the old standbys of death, grief and snails, I'll bet I'll read ten wildly different opinions. That's no particular criticism of either Greenaway or the film.

I am normally a very open-minded film connoisseur as I see film as potentially the greatest art form since the 'invention' of music. Films like Russian Ark, Au hasard Balthazar, anything by Bergman, Irreversible, Fitzcarrldo, Izo, The Mirror, Naked, Hana-Bi, Fallen Angels, What Time is it There?, Weekend, Tokyo Drifter, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, etc to name a few, are all films that can express & transcend the very medium of film to convey emotions, thoughts, moods, & ideas that cannot be expressed by any other means in art. Most importantly the works breathe in essence because behind every one of them is a director/artist that is creating the film. A real creator using the creative process to form something that is at heart, only a reel of film.Now, with all that said, I must say that cinematic projection (I will not grace the words film with it) was by & large the absolute WORST thing i've ever had the misfortune to see in my life thus far. Nothing about this in any way is constructive/deconstructive to any end since it's so busying wanking off in order to make itself as worthless as possible. In all serious regards, i've never seen anything in my life that was as absolutely pretentious & just plain worthless as this. Nothing. This was so far abstracted that anything it bothered to try & 'say' is completely laughable. Nothing i've ever seen comes close to perfectly surmising the word pretentious as this.Nothing in element of shot composition (haha), dialog, music, etc can rise this above being the most vacant excuse for pretentious ejaculation on screen. To compare, I for one enjoy Matthew Barney's Crewmaster works which many find completely pretentious/inaccessible. As inaccessible as Barney seems, one can see an artist creating something. Even with all his Vaseline melting, hardcore band dueling, naked women swimming, at heart is a creator who while oblique, creates something that can in the very least creating with regard. Here all we have is pure wankery that attempts simultaneously to pretend to say something, while meaning absolutely nothing at the same time. Anything, any 'scene' from this garbage is just completely utterly worthless; watching paint dry would be a more worthy use of 110 minutes since paint doesn't babble at you and at least lends itself to altering the reason why you are watching it in the first place.In all seriously, use your 110 minutes elsewhere & thus benefit/impact your life in some way other than by simply wasting minutes and minutes of your life by watching this.Absolute pretentious excrement.

A rewarding post modern film about life and decay and the effects of a single moment on a person's life. Great sets and photography by the legendary cinematographer Sacha Vierny, this film makes you ultra aware that you are watching a film, or a sort of theatrical filmed piece. Greenaway is an aquired but very rewarding taste, and no other director makes films as he does. A disturbing somber film for serious fans of modern cinema. Greenaway is a must in your education of film.