Phillim . . . it's a pity the aesthetic choice was made to *not* tell the story.That's my take-away from last night's viewing, my first since the film's theatrical release some 25 years ago. If you know Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' you'll fill in the narrative; if not, you'll have a splendid two-hour hallucination.But 'Prospero's Books' is the 800-pound gorilla of art films. Nothing like it before or since. F'ing glorious pile of exquisity.After Peter Greenaway's stunning vision, Michael Clark's Caliban is the star, along with the naked human body in all sizes, shapes and ages -- by the army-full, non-eroticized -- marginalia etchings come to life, caryatids, collossi, etc. Gielgud's celebrated voice murmurs most of the lines, but only somebody who didn't see it to the end (or parroting somebody who didn't) will make the false claim that no actor but Gielgud speaks. The sound is beautifully engineered, vocals and music.

grantss 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.

gavin6942 An exiled magician finds an opportunity for revenge against his enemies muted when his daughter and the son of his chief enemy fall in love in this uniquely structured retelling of "The Tempest".I am not sure how much this relies on or strays from "The Tempest", because frankly it is not a play I am terribly familiar with. That probably hinders my ability to critique this film. I suspect the original is not written with pervasive nudity in mind, which I found interesting (and not the least bit distracting).The version I watched was on DVD, but was clearly an awful transfer, possibly from a VHS tape. That is a shame, because the visuals seemed stunning, yet blurred. A better transfer might make me rethink the film ,and probably bump it up a notch or two.

Tom Harris Right, first off, don't watch this movie if you're not familiar with "The Tempest," you will be wasting your time and won't be able to follow anything, and you'll waste more time coming on here moaning that you didn't understand anything and how it really sucks!Actually, it probably isn't enough to be just familiar with The Tempest, but to know it well and love it well. Every character and every line! Because, to me, it seems that this is not really an adaptation of The Tempest at all, it's a film about the creation of it. John Gielgud isn't really playing the part of Prospero but he's playing the role of Shakespeare himself as he is writing the play. The film is kind of set in the mind of Shakespeare and is part opera, part theatre, part musical, part acid trip gone wrong, part... too many parts to describe!The Tempest is a very special play. It was Shakespeare's last, and he probably played the part of Prospero. And there are a lot of connections between the journey of Prospero and Shakespeare's own life, culminating in the beautiful Epilogue speech, which is both a valedictory of Prospero and of Shakespeare. And all this with one of the greatest Shakespearean actors of all time performing all the voices!In summary, if you love Shakespeare, you'll love this film, you'll get the urge to revisit it often. If you don't, then neither waste your time watching it or cast your vote upon it - it's a disgrace this film has such a low rating!