The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Lust...Murder...Dessert. Bon Appetit!
The wife of a barbaric crime boss engages in a secretive romance with a gentle bookseller between meals at her husband's restaurant. Food, colour coding, sex, murder, torture and cannibalism are the exotic fare in this beautifully filmed but brutally uncompromising modern fable which has been interpreted as an allegory for Thatcherism.
| Richard Bohringer | Richard Borst |
| Michael Gambon | Albert Spica |
| Helen Mirren | Georgina Spica |
| Alan Howard | Michael |
| Tim Roth | Mitchel |
| Ciarán Hinds | Cory |
| Gary Olsen | Spangler |
| Ewan Stewart | Harris |
| Roger Ashton-Griffiths | Turpin |
| Ron Cook | Mews |
| Liz Smith | Grace |
| Emer Gillespie | Patricia |
| Janet Henfrey | Alice |
| Arnie Breeveld | Eden |
| Tony Alleff | Troy |
| Peter Greenaway |
7.00 out of 10 (8092 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Recipe for Revenge.
posted on 07 Jun 2009Peter Greenaway brought to the screen this visually striking tale of revenge centered on its four characters and in its 124 minutes he pulls out all the stops to make sure he not only dances over the edge of the cliff, but jumps right over and shows us the belly of the beast.At a symbolic level, this may very well be the "thinly veiled parable against Thatcherism" that many critics have pointed at, and it's not hard to see. Taking place at a restaurant in which Albert and Georgina Spica (expertly played by Michael Gambon and Helen Mirren) dine day in, day out, always accompanied by Spica's entourage of yes-men (among them a young Tim Roth), Albert indulges in the excesses of food and berates everyone around him, including his mutely suffering wife.The first scene -- as a matter of fact -- establishes the entire mood of the film. Albert Spica is seen outrageously humiliating a naked man outside the restaurant as the overwhelming stench of decay and the presence of wild dogs linger on. Employees from the restaurant shortly come and hose the man from the excrement he has been slathered in. What it is saying is, we are entering a world of moral and spiritual decay in which Those In Power abuse their positions to the extreme, as the observers only stand by and go on with their business.These bystanders are the people who work at the restaurant. Among them is the Cook, played by Richard Bohringer, who faithfully serves Spica and his yes-men meal after meal and makes no opinion as they loudly banter about the difference between this dish and that dish -- essentially saying nothing worthwhile --, while all the time Georgina silently eats on, almost like a non-entity. That is, until she notices a quiet, intellectual-looking man, reading a book. This man is Michael, the Lover, played by Alan Howard, a man who does not talk but oozes intelligence. And it's this element which attracts Georgina's eye... and then more.It's clear where Peter Greenaway is going to take us, the viewer. The scenes involving the urgent, dangerous lovemaking between Michael and Georgina are unspeakably intense, even in later scenes when they meet in the kitchen among the ever-present cooks and are getting more comfortable with themselves. Greenway's Spica becomes so completely menacing his presence overflows the screen. He commits acts of intolerable cruelty against anyone who stands in his way -- he is the Terror during the French Revolution, the Dictator from every country who has had one who will torture those who give of even a slight resistance. And once Georgina's and Michael's clandestine affair is brought to light, needless to say, all hell breaks loose and Greenway sets the stage for his horrific, stomach-turning denouement.In Georgina, Helen Mirren has created a character that is deeply suffering, infinitely patient... and that makes her the more dangerous. That she has to go through so much pain and humiliation to make a 180 degree turn to cold, ruthless avenger makes her the ultimate heroine. Her foil to Albert -- an essentially one-note role -- also serves his undoing. Alan Howard communicates so much as well in his almost silent role, and in a revelatory note, I'll say this: their nude scene is one that is rife in sensuality and proves that one doesn't need Hollywood hard-bodies to make an erotic scene work.THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER is not a movie for all tastes -- pun intended. However, it's one of the most avant-garde, intelligent stories that demands to be seen numerous times. I admire the lavish scenery Greenaway created for each area of the restaurant because it gives this extremely modern film a Renaissance feel and elevates its inherent symbolism. Grotesque but beautiful at the same time, it has a powerful cinematic language that has a style all its own.
"Bon apetit, Albert, that's French"...
posted on 02 May 2009Revenge has never been served that well - deliciously and artistically. The visuals, the costumes, the set decoration, the changing colors cinematography and the soundtrack in this black comedy are stunning - the grandmasters were working on the movie - Peter Greenaway, first and foremost a painter and a damn fine one, his brilliant cinematographer Sasha Verny, his astounding composer Michael Nyman who used for the movie the incredible "Memorial", and Jean-Paul Gaultier who designed the costumes. It also helped to have Helen Mirren (as the long suffering wife, Georgina who in the end will serve her husband very well cooked revenge) and Michael Gambon (Albert- the thief, the gangster, the embodiment of pure evil and the owner of the swank restaurant) as two stars. Alan Howard plays a regular guest to whom Georgina is attracted to and carries on an affair with in the restaurant's restrooms and later in the back rooms, with the help of the Artist-cook (Richard Bohringer). Every frame of each Greenaway's movie looks and feels like an exquisite painting. "A Zed and two Naughts" is Greenaway's homage and admiration for Vermeer; The Draughtsman's Contract quite openly refers to Caravaggio, Georges de la Tour and other French and Italian artists. "The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover" would bring to mind Rembrandt but I see Peter Greenaway as Hieronymus Bosch of the cinema - the creator of enormously beautiful, divine canvas depicting all horrors of hell that only humans can inflict on one another.
A Magnificent Festering
posted on 19 Feb 2009I do not deny that this is a superbly, beautifully, and imaginatively filmed movie. It is breath-taking.However, the plot is so monstrously horrible that all pleasure of the beautiful cinematography was destroyed for me.The audience is treated to such unnecessary scenes of horror and repugnance, that I could never reccomend this movie to another human being. It was ghastly.
Self-indulgence dressed up as art
posted on 13 Feb 2009It's too long since I've seen this to do a proper hatchet job, but I recall thinking that it was needlessly difficult to watch. Art films don't have to be jarringly stilted, but this one groans under the weight of Peter Greenaway's constant reminders that he is AVANT GARDE. It's the film equivalent of a dinner party guest who spends the evening spitting in your food to show that he is free from the constraints of social norms.There are elements - the class observations, long panning shots and colour changes from room to room, to name three - that show Greenaway's unusual talent, but they are overwhelmed by a tide of gratuitous overacting, overlong scenes and functionless dialogue. The film is an extended metaphor for Margaret Thatcher's thuggish reign as Prime Minister of Britain, and the subject seems to have thrown Greenaway into such a frothing rage that he was unable to concentate on anything but the metaphysical.Some people believe that the film succeeds because of its anarchic, freewheeling nature, but I think that is precisely its failure. Greenaway's reluctance to rein in the more self-indulgent parts of the film smacks of laziness and an inability to distinguish the benefits of experimentation from the dross it inevitably throws up.It is as if he is saying: "Who am I to intervene in art?" Well, Peter, you are the director. You are perfectly placed to do so, and we really wouldn't hold it against you.
There are three kinds of people in the world, those who can count and those who can't
posted on 10 Feb 2009This is one of those "lovem or hatem" movies. I didn't like it. It is shot like a play, everything shouts "look at the art", but I haven't seen much. To think that I had no space on my hard drive for a month because I kept this movie.Let me spell it out for you: if you are a normal movie goer, stay away from this. It does have grotesque imagery, but it isn't fun like the gore in really stupid horror movies and it isn't shocking as the ones in historical or socio-political ones. It is with gangsters, but all they do is speak loudly and annoyingly the whole movie, spilling out pretentious garbage. Have you seen movies like "Lock, Stock and Barrel"? You remember the gangsters always talking a lot and in metaphors before doing gangster stuff? Imagine two hours of this guy talking the same rubbish, with the same accent, but doing nothing really.Now if you , for some reason or another, want to see all the movies with a particular actor or directed by a particular director and you stumble upon actors in this movie or the director, then watch this. You will not like the movie anyway, but you will achieve your goal.I rarely give a mark of under 5, but this film deserves it.
Totally repulsive waste of time
posted on 10 Feb 2009This movie is a totally repulsive waste of time. If you are a brutish pig, then this movie has a good lesson for you to learn (I guess). Otherwise, if you are a normal human being, then don't waste your time on this repellent, repulsive, artsy schmartsy, very pretentious piece of trash.
Unforgettable and Beyond Brilliant.
posted on 02 Jan 2009'The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, & Her Lover' is a film about politics, cannibalism, vomit, love, death, betrayal, and torture. 'The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover' is part black comedy, part crime thriller, part horror, part film-noir. It is about about four twisted characters and a series of events that play out over an entire week. The owner of a French restaurant, Albert Spica(the thief), occupies it daily in order to stuff his face and beat on the innocent bystanders that surround him and cannot touch him. The owner of the restaurant(the cook) constantly watches in awe as Albert Spica humiliates everyone and talks and talks and talks, yet says nothing. The thief's wife, Georgina(his wife), is beaten, raped, and humiliated every day by the thief. She falls in love with another man at another table, Michael(her lover), and begins to have a rather passionate affair with him. What results is one of the most outrageous and bizarre films I've ever seen. Peter Greenaway has created a film that is unlike anything that has ever been made before. It is a film that is so disgusting and dark and tasteless, and yet so beautiful and intelligent and fresh that it must be seen to be believed. All of the performances are unforgettable, especially Helen Mirren as the wife, in a heart wrenching performance. Michael Gambon is absolutely terrifying as the thief. People can discuss the political implications that the film implies all they want. I really don't care about that stuff though. Even if that's what the film is about, it isn't why I love it. I love it because it challenges me and a way a challenging film should. The attention to detail in the set-pieces depict the one pertaining to the outrageous and decadent nature of our time and the times in which we live where the thief consumes everything and is wasteful. As a result, there is a genuine sense of true horror throughout the film. The graphic violence and sex only add the the dark nature of the depiction of a world, long destroyed by the greedy punks that have overrun the world. The punks in this film are much older than the ones that are usually depicted, and we the post-apocalyptic world outside for many brief glimpses in which there is a lot of fog, smoke, grime, and filth. We really get a sense that the world that is depicted in this film was once truly beautiful and open to possibility, and the fact that it is a world that is long gone makes the film far more tragic than we would usually expect, especially one with such grand texture and such a dark sense of humor.This is the kind of film that reminds me that people in the film industry can still make intelligent, smart, and brilliant films without having to pile on the excess. The film works because it is not only effective, but it is also original storytelling. The film's use of it's set design only amplifies the way it is presents and gives the film even more meaning with it's vibrant colors and the way that each set piece in the entire film represents a different color of the rainbow. The music by Michael Nyman is simply one of the most chilling and unforgettable scores I've heard in a film. It only enhances the beauty of the film though. While the film is certainly not for everyone, especially children(although it won't be easy for them to view it given it's NC-17 rating), this film is for the kind of adult audience who likes to think and not just be shown something that will waste their time. The content is really tame compared the garbage that is allowed to be played on public television these days anyway. For people who want to be challenged and shown a film that will make them think about the world in a different way than they normally do, It's a must see. This is one of my personal favorite films.
allegory of fascism
posted on 27 Jul 2008This film seemed to be an obvious meditation on fascism, with the surreal setting of the "restaurant" set up by the SS dogs prowling around outside.
The restaurant is completely insulated from any outside influence, ruled with totalitarian brutality by "the thief". The only thing that can stand up against such violent fear-mongering is passionate love that does not fear death, and ultimately makes all dictators choke on their own evil.
crap for crap's sake
posted on 24 Jun 2008I must agree with other opinions here that this was an utter waste of time on my part and money on the producer's part. Pretty sets and colorful cinematography does not Art make; much less art. I was tempted to walk out of this film when I realized 'Damn,I'm at home!'. Films that are bizarre are not the issue: this was one of those experiments to see how far the public can be fooled into thinking that the director actually has a vision or purpose other than putting something on the screen. The bizarre and ugly can many times be beautiful and thought-provoking, the pretentious can not. Even 'Happiness', which I found to be a morally bankrupt film, is far better than this look-at-me attempt at movie-making. Thank God it was half-price night at my local video store.
The Adolescent, the Adolescent, His Adolescent, Her Adolescent
posted on 15 Jun 2008It's interesting to note that if a dozen monkeys typed randomly on a dozen typewriters for a few weeks, you could put it all together as a screenplay that reviewers would give four stars to - and then each of those reviewers would say it means something entirely different.This movie is the peak of the "urine in a glass is art" movement.All you have to do as a filmmaker is to hire good actors, an excellent costume designer, an innovative cinematographer (even if he only has one innovative idea), and a musical score composer who is instantly identifiable because any 10 seconds of his score is identical to any other 10 seconds, and then people will think - "there must be some profound idea here". It just has to look "artsy".Well, I'm sorry, but as someone who has seen a majority of the more well known "art films" (and some of which are excellent), I haven't the slightest doubt that there is nothing going on here, except an adolescent being allowed to make films.The small skeleton of a plot is stolen from "Born Yesterday (1950)", except that here the gangster's wife is not uplifted by her association with her lover - in fact, there is no evidence that any of the characters, or the filmmaker himself for that matter, has a clue what "uplifted" means.For a more substantive review that I agree entirely with, see below the review that starts:" Jim Nygaard Saint Paul, MN Date: 6 September 2000 Summary: Simply vile"
One of the most beautifully photographed movies I've ever seen!
posted on 31 May 2008It seemed the me that everything meshed wonderfully in this film. The cinematography and the score worked together like ARIA or DREAMS. I can understand that some may comment that it disturbed them, but I've found that any truly great film has "disturbed" me on one level or another. Besides (without giving anything away) if the portion of this film that disturbs most people were in a teen-slasher flick, I might be more likely to be more offended. This is the type of film that IFC should show more often (although I'm not sure they ever have). When I think of an "art" film, this one always comes to mind. I have not watched it in a few years, so I am now planning on ordering a copy online so I can spread the word to my friends. A real treat if only for the score!
Is Greenaway a truly great artist or he merely seems so?
posted on 28 May 2008I saw this in 1990, shortly after it came out. I was eighteen back then, and the movie impressed me so much, I saw it three times in a week. When I watch it now, I realize how pretentious the movie is. It has some very strong visual works, but the dialogue and the situations are ridiculous, not to mention the gratuitous shocks Greenaway imposes on the audience. To the uninitiated, Greenaway seems to be a masterful artist, but the more you watch great movies by great directors (Tarkovsky, Kiarostami, Hou, Imamura, Godard), you realize he is more of an impostor than a real artist. And Greenaway's misanthropy means his films has no real insight on human nature, the characters in his movies are constructions not flesh-and-blood people. Yet, there is not denying the strength of his vision.
Tim Roth is a brilliant actor!
posted on 19 May 2008The movie is art. Maybe some people just don't get it because they're too stuck up in the cookie cutter world. If you're one of the fortunate people that can live outside the pre-drawn box, than good for you, i'm sure you are one of the people who saw what the movie was really about and looked past some of the gruesomeness to the story. I think the acting was great especially that of Tim Roth. He should be in more films! Any way Quentin Tarantino has probably seen this film and liked it, so all you people who keep using Quentin in your reviews maybe need to contact him and ask his opinion before putting words in the guys mouth. I would actually like to make a wager that Quentin saw and liked this film and maybe was even slightly inspired by it. Well i only saw it for Tim Roth and i wasn't disappointed and neither will you...so enjoy the film! i give it a 10! although i would have liked to see Tim Roth more...just cause i love him!
not your standard fare
posted on 10 May 2008there's one thing certain about this film - it's not your standard fare. not only is the subject matter a bit out of the ordinary, but the style, too, is decidedly different. not better, or worse, or over-stylized, really, but different. half of it is shot like a filmed play...lots of scrolling dolly shots in front of three sets that are linked side by side. in the first half there isn't much three-dimensional camera movement like there is in most films and, with the exception of the bathroom scenes, the action takes place in the aforementioned group of three sets (outside, the kitchen, and the dining room). there's a definite concerted effort to use color, though i'm not entirely sure about the reasons. lots of red which i suppose could speak to two of the dominate themes - love and rage. at the half way point the film shifts a bit. in the first half horizontal movement was dominant (that scrolling i talked about) and in the second we see a lot more movement into the scenes (and into different scenery as well). the tone, too, has changed. the second half is decidedly serious whereas the first half, at least for me, was more comic because the excesses of the thief were directed towards less sympathetic characters. once we see his sadistic rage touch his wife in more than a passing way we can't go back to laughing about his tirades. it's a good looking movie that has plenty to like, but didn't resonate with me so much as to consider it great. i like what it offered me while i was watching it and i will remember its style and the some of the subject matter (i don't want to give it away, but it's not easily forgettable), but it didn't have that special something that would have made it great. oh, and i think this was the first film i've seen that was scored by michael nyman (piano - which i still haven't seen) and i liked his stuff...he's a minimalist like philip glass. B.
A modern symphony of colour and light. If you like that sort of thing...
posted on 25 Apr 2008The film is undeniably beautiful to see, dazzlingly lit and composed. The famous musical collaboration between director and composer ensures that every scene is given the correct emphasis, the themes of lust, gluttony and betrayal are big and important. There is a terrible monster.But the whole edifice is so inhuman. The characters have either good manners and correct diction, or appalling manners and regional accents. The images of decay and corruption are thrust at one. The violence is so calculated. The endless waiting for the obvious ending is like Ravel's bloody Bolero.After an hour and a half, I was surprised to suddenly find I hated it, and turned it off. I liked Greenaway's other films, but I revolted against this one.
Disgustingly attractive
posted on 19 Apr 2008The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover, is the kind of movie I never understood the purpose of, I guess I am too new to the world of movies. I probably don't appreciate certain aspect of movie making art. This movie had all kinds of disgusting things which normally will make you pull out your DVD from the player and insert something else, but I couldn't do that. The disgust in this movie keeps you engaged and you actually see the whole movie. In the end it kind of started making sense too. I perhaps don't know if I liked the movie, but I certainly didn't "didn't like it." If you are OK with the most disgusting and awe inspiring scenes like two fully naked human lovers transported alive in a truckload of rotting meat, people's tongue, belly button being cut and fed to them; go for it. This was really a movie that left me a very different person from the one I was like before watching it. A permanent change. The people who I watched this movie with were like hypocrites for the movies they rent, said, "well there were good colors in the movie!" Give me a break!, if you can't find anything good in a movie then you start appreciating those disturbing colors. Anyway! Beware its not the usual movie which you could watch for recreation. Its very disturbing. Watch it when you are not looking for relaxing stuff.
I don't think the world is ready for this kind of film
posted on 13 Apr 2008Its as though an alien made this movie. Its really disturbing. I loved it. Some great directing. Very great acting. This film is practically theatrical. A great script. A great plot. Lots of symbolism. Some really heavy humour. Very English and pompous and rude. This film is drenched in scarlet sin. After you watch it you feel as though your soul and has turned all murky but it was still very much worth watching. A good laugh for those "special" few who are open minded enough to enjoy this really true masterpiece. I would not know for sure which genre to place it. A cult classic maybe. This is basically the story of the owner of a French restaurant, he is English and far from being classy enough to fill this post, very far.
A Typical Greenaway Product
posted on 13 Feb 2008I've given this a seven, largely because it's visual impact is so stunning, almost pornographic.However, I can't help feeling that Peter Greenaway confuses the lavish use of money with being art. It looks great, but the story wouldn't fit an episode of "The Bill" or "Coronation Street".The lover also looks disturbingly like Ken Barlow.
Holds the distinction...
posted on 16 Jun 2009This film adds a new dimension to the phrase 'bad indie' film. We're talking over the top, like it was intentional, 'what else can we do' - 'bad indie'. From the first scene of excrement smearing, to the last scene of cannibalism, the movie appalls and makes you want to go rent 'You and me and Everyone we know' - it's that bad a film.The title is the plot, and the revolting mechanics are mostly brought about by Michael Gambon – an actor I like. His wife – Helen Mirren – is another actor I like. Tim Roth and Ciaran Hinds also play roles – I like them too. I'm halfway thinking it's me, it's me who is an idiot – these people all wouldn't have been that idle all at once to accept roles in this absolutely terrible endeavor; and then not be able to see what a worthless film it would be, would they? Then since I'm kinda thick and didn't realize it myself, I see that it's an 'an allegory for Thatcherism'…ahhh, that explains it. Hatred for the PM is what drove these Brit actors to this paycheck…OK, I would do pretty much the same thing for an actor's paycheck too.But no way is this film worth the time, nor the patience, nor the amount of churn your stomach will do over the course of its either 2 hour uncut version, or its 98 min US version. As far as it being called 'art' by many, it's art if you consider Serrano's crucifix in urine art; or all of Mapplethorpe's work art. I'm an old man, have seen many films, and this one holds the distinction of being the bad film to end all bad films.